This is not an insightful response. Of the people I know who watched the movie, those who objected the most to the science were those with little scientific training. (Similar to a relative of mine who is certain that we will "never" have self-driving cars...) If you are knowledgeable, and have specific objections, those might be more insightful.
Nah. Someone should've realized Miller's world was a bad idea before they went down there and made the whole thing a screw up.
Oh, or what about the fact that they "solve" Gravity and decide to leave Earth. HELLO, YOU NOW HAVE INFINITE ENERGY! YOU CAN FIX ANY PROBLEM WITH BRUTE FORCE!
Well considering they were looting really old Indian Air Force drones for parts at the beginning, and they have giant self-sustaining luxury habitats at arbitrary points in the Solar system at the end, I'd say energy utilization has increased a bit.
I haven't read the book, but from what I gather[1], the explanations were not all good. Getting to and from Miller's world should have required absurd amounts of energy. But as extreme luck would have it, there were "intermediate-mass black holes" positioned ever-so-conveniently to make those trips possible (along with some other stuff). Cherry-picking the physics you like and papering over the rest with a series of extremely implausible coincidences isn't good science or good storytelling.
