Anyone who calls this film visually impressive needs to study science.

Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. A dismal, dismal film, perhaps the WORST ever I've watched in my life. Hey? What are the images from the Hubble space telescope doing here? What's the Horse-head nebula, the Cat's eye nebula, the Pillars of Creation nebula doing HERE?

Hey Mallick, that's not even your art, not even your visual imagination. Its something real scientists worked on, sent up telescopes into space to photograph with great difficulty and cost. HOW DARE do you use those images to 'beautify' your ridiculous excuse of a movie, and use them as a make-up to increase your movie's rating? What did YOU do on your own? What the hell do those images even have to do with movie? Absolutely shameful. And ROTTEN rotten tomato critics. How DARE you praise this film based on its visuals? What meat is there in this film anyways? Anyone could just take images from the Hubble and make a movie about it, would be just as beautiful? Don't you guys ever watch Discovery? The History Channel? Have you no idea what you're looking at?

Anyone, Anyone here who DARES to call this film 'visually impressive' has to attend a science class, or watch a science documentary IMMEDIATELY! This film is almost like stolen work. I can name EVERY single visual scene in this movie and tell you where it came from.

1) Some interstellar clouds, a shape that looks like a horse -> Straight from the Hubble telescope gallery, image of the "Horse Head Nebula."
2) Some interstellar clouds, something looks like an eye -> Straight from the Hubble telescope gallery, image of the "Cat's Eye Nebula."
3) Some interstellar clouds, something looks like pillars -> Straight from the Hubble telescope gallery, image of the "The Pillars of Creation, in the Eagle Nebula"
4) Images of the surface of a sun/star. -> Straight from images from the SOHO Observatory gallery, images of the surface of the sun.
5) Images of jelly fish -> BBC Planet Earth, Deep Wonders.
6) Images of hammerhead shark -> BBC Planet Earth, Shallow Seas.
7) Images of microbes, microscopic life -> BBC Life / BBC Inside the Human Body.
8) Images of the sunrise over earth -> Images from the International Space Station as it orbits the earth.
9) Images of a galaxy -> Hubble deep field, some random spiral galaxy image.

What else is there? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing else in this film. Some weird kids. Some rolling in the grass, ABSOLUTELY NO DIALOG. How dare you use images that deserve credit on their OWN merit, and came from others, in your film in order to garner credit for YOURSELF!? Unless there was some connection to it in the film? Or a need for it?

Its not fair! Anyone can just put in some bits of imagery from space, some bit of imagery from the BBC's Planet Earth, some bit of imagery from a microscopic biology textbook, some weirdo kids and call it a movie.

Absolutely pathetic, disgraceful, shameful!

PS*/FYI* Hey, Mallick, do you even know how those Nebula images are photographed? Hey? Do you even know which electromagnetic spectrum they're in? Do you even know what individual filters they used before they could color those nebula images? Bet you don't.

What's beautiful about this movie? The visuals? The interstellar space imagery? Where did those images come from to begin with? Is it Mallick's imagination and creativity you think? You think he came up with those visuals? Pathetic. They're just a bunch of images from NASA's Hubble, from the BBC's documentaries. Copied as-is and thrown there into his excuse of a film just to make it look 'awe'. And they have NOTHING to do with the story of the film themselves. Just a wastage of reel and minutes.

I could make a movie about weirdos, some kids running around in the grass, and oh yea, include images from Hubble, WISE, SOHO, Spitzer, Chandra, Kepler and whatever space telescopes I can get my hands on. That's it. Done. Movie finished. Goodbye.

THANK GOD THIS MOVIE MADE A LOSS AT THE BOX OFFICE. THANK GOD! JUSTICE SERVED.