I'm sorry - I won't be able to give you anything wholly specific. I know that seems like a copout and detrimental to the discussion but only seeing it once, I can't give a quote by quote analysis. All I have is a strong sense of dialogue that went against the nature of the character.
It's scenes like Cooper and dad sitting on a bench, where Cooper is straight up telling us how the world is lacking and what it needs - one of the major themes of the film. His dad tells him what Coop represents, what he wants and what he needs.
It's Matt Damon explaining the importance of humans being the astronauts because of will, purpose and need to survive, against all logic and probability. A fine theme that is unnaturally explained to us by Damon. He then proceeds to use Cooper's kids as an example of this, already obviously the primary dramatised example of this theme in play. It's jarring because they seem to be talking about this stuff just for the sake of talking about it. And for Damon to bring up his kids when he really has no understanding or care for that relationship whatsoever. What are Damon's wants right now? What does he get out of this philosophising? Considering he's planning on murdering the only humans he's had and will have contact with in years, you'd think he'd be content to just talk to Coop about the simple things in life like what is Earth like right now? Perhaps he could listen to Coop's iPod filled with nature sounds and break down. I dunno, I'm just spitballing, but I think to have him discuss the philosophical differences between man and machine at this point serves as exposition. There's really not a whole lot of subtext to it.
Likewise the scene where Anne Hathaway tells us her love conquers all speech, once more explicitly explaining the theme (rather than dramatically exploring it), is also pressing because there's no subtext to that moment at all. She tells us she loves a guy and that's why they should pick that planet. Coop thinks she's biased, then says she's biased, and as a result thinks they shouldn't pick that planet. Wouldn't it be better if she denied her true reasoning for the duration of the scene, attempting to argue rationally. And each time she does so, Coop picks her argument apart, finding logic holes. She panics and continues trying to back up her decision with waning logical argument until she eventually breaks down and admits her true intent - that she loves the guy and that's why she wants to go. A single succinct line in the realm of "I love him and that's all I've got left out here" may suffice.
I don't know. I'm not saying any of my stuff is good or even better than what was actually in the film, but the argument can certainly be made that there are numerous cases of clunky, expository dialogue that absolutely hamper both the drama and pace of the film that could have been worked on to tighten or enhance the drama.
A tightly dramatised moment that is in the film is the moment when Coop is driving away from the house, maybe seeing his daughter for the last time, and he pulls up the rug next to him, hoping desperately for a repeat of the other night. Note how much more charged with subtext this scene is. There's no dialogue. It's just the action of a man pulling up a rug. But loaded with the context and MCC's performance, we fully understand that Coop is a wreck - already desperately missing his daughter and really the only thing he desires is to see her again. This beautifully sets up his entire, long-term motivation - the driving force and backbone of the entire film. This single, excellent moment may be one of the reasons the family dynamic is one of the strongest elements of the film.
I'll concede that then. That makes sense. Is the rest of what I've said fair?
