Christopher Nolan is one the best directors working today, and his science fiction epic "Interstellar" is another significant technological achievement.

It is also his worst movie.

Nolan's worst is still better than what most directors can achieve on such a budget. Much has been written about the scientific accuracy of the film, and Nolan certainly deserves credit for taking complex ideas and building plausible drama around them.

Like all of his movies, "Interstellar" is constantly building momentum. The bombastic score and frenetic editing make the relatively action-free story seem like a James Bond movie.

When you boil down Nolan's core strengths as a filmmaker, his ability to escalate tension is his defining talent. His two masterpieces, "The Dark Knight" and "Inception," plow forward so effortlessly that any plot inconsistencies appear as inconsequential blips.

"The Dark Knight Rises" has the same relentless momentum, but that film's clumsy storytelling cracks through in the final act. Just when we should be on the edge of our seat, the logic of Bane's overcomplicated wickedness sours the experience.

"Interstellar" goes wrong in the first 40 minutes, and Nolan's early storytelling shortcuts hang a shadow over the entire film.

The problem arises from the film's two central characters - Matthew McCounaughey's space pilot-turned-farmer-turned-space pilot-again, Cooper, and precocious daughter Murph, played by Mackenzie Foy. While Nolan does a good job sprinkling details of a near-extinct future Earth without bloating the opening act with too much exposition, the character dynamics only exist to seed the complexities of a twisty third act.

Nolan wants the audience to care about Cooper's love for his children (his older son is barely a presence), but the movie fails to explore the conflict of Cooper leaving for a lengthy space mission. Scientist Michael Caine gives him a flimsy, one-line reason to go, and Cooper says goodbye to Murph less than five minutes later.

The rest of the movie hinges on Cooper's desire to get home, despite ever-increasing odds. McConaughey does his best with the material, notably in a scene midway through the film where Cooper watches an "update" video from his daughter (no spoilers here), but the film consistently plows over the conflict between the two characters.

In a movie with wormholes, giant tidal waves and black holes, the father-daughter dynamic may not seem like a big problem. The climax, however, hangs everything on this relationship, and "Interstellar" wants the viewer to connect the great mysteries of the universe to the power of love.

I couldn't get there because the movie establishes a stronger relationship between Cooper and his sarcastic robot instead of Cooper and his daughter.

Having lost faith in the storytelling so early, I wasn't able to let Nolan pound me with forward momentum. Once there's a crack, "Interstellar" keeps leaking. Anne Hathaway has a stirring speech about a character we never meet, Michael Caine recites the same poem too many times, and the corn on Cooper's farm gets more screen time than Cooper's son.

"Interstellar" climaxes with both interesting scientific conjecture and heavy-handed dramatics. Instead of being roused by Cooper's emotional journey, I was pondering the logic of the time and place. The twist is either really smart or really dumb, but on a storytelling level it isn't something you should be thinking about in the moment.

I have nothing but respect for Nolan and the ambition on display in "Interstellar." The visual journey is spectacular on the big screen. Viewers willing to take Nolan's emotional leaps at face value will probably have a profound experience, maybe like how some people felt watching "2001: A Space Odyssey" the first time.

That's not me, but there were people in the theater crying. I don't think those people are wrong. That's the Power of Nolan. I hope "Interstellar" is a personal roadblock and not a break in momentum.

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.