That NYT review also brings up "Westworld," which is another (part-) Jonathon Nolan project.

So far we have watched Seasons 1, 2, and most of 3 of that ... although it has similar defects, along with concessions to pop culture ("gunplay and hot women," as the review puts it), wears considerably better than the movie projects (IMO). Probably because the length (serialization) allows the story to develop in some, half-coherent fashion. There's cleverness in the way the 'what is reality' trope folds in on itself over and over in terms of character self-awareness, and how the characters use this awareness to level up and on to the next boss fight.

Continuing in this vein, the other thing that struck me about Westworld is that the sets, environments and NPCs are modeled on video games I have played, at least on a generic level (some are eerily close) -- this anchors the premise in some sort of relatable scenario (at least to me).

Keep meaning to watch Westworld.

But, I mean, which Nolan do I blame for Interstellar?

Both.

S'pose so

Oh, hang on  you mean Chris & Jonah's projects? The original Westworld movie was a belter (IMO) even if it's a different prospect altogether from the cable series by JN and LJ.
 

Mr Crichton isn't exactly famed as a director, but Westworld was spot on. I suppose his main skill was crystallising ideas that were floating around into money-making stories. But, hey, good for him. Loads of people who are famous in their fields were skilled in picking the sexy out of what everyone was talking about. 

And Stillwater, not so good.

I liked the movie ok, but I like the series, at least the first two seasons, better.