Nolan is objectively a bad director. That he has managed to trick so many people into thinking he's good is more impressive than his movies.
Nolan is souless. He takes a good concept and makes the most boring, unimaginative, anti-cinematic drivel you could ever make of it. Only nolan could make a movie about dreams sterile.
He's not a bad diector, but he is a bad artist. He's like worse Cameron but better Michael Bay. Nolan is competent at what he does: summer blockbusters and it's not a bad thing.
inception was fine, but dunkirk was terrible.
also inception ripped off the concept from Paprika and he has never admitted to it AFAIK
Fucking based
Inception was exposition heavy shitfest
He makes blockbusters. Pure and simple. The only difference is, his blockbusters are "serious", less colorful, and require minimum usage of the brain to get through it. So in that sense they are different than the rest of the blockbusters, which are full of forced humor, bright colors and you can watch them while using your phone without missing anything. And there is crowd that watches blockbusters exclusively, and they are the ones praising Nolan like the second coming.
I like him but his anti-CGI autism is annoying, as shown by Dunkirk. He really should have had CGI integrated with the practical stuff so the event felt as big as it actually was, the set was not so sterile, etc. Like they had one real Destroyer to use for the film. With CGI, he could have digitally imposed dozens of Destroyers into the film based off of the one real one they had when the actual evacuation begins in full, which also would have been more accurate as the civilian boats largely ferried the men from the beach to those warships that weren't able to get that close to the actual beach. Or use CGI to make Dunkirk, the town, the smouldering ruin it actually was at that time, or create the impression of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wideshots based off of the extras they actually did have so the beach felt packed and not an empty wasteland with like 500 guys loitering around. And then there is his wasted opportunities like the idea of "the enemy" drawing ever closer. Why not have the sounds of bombs, war, etc. over the horizon growing progressively louder throughout the film to emphasis that ze Germans really are getting closer and closer?
(you) for effort
I can just about understand this from my high-school level French. What's the relevance though?
Dunkirk is his only smart movie, and a pretty great pleb filter. The only problem with it is that it's not R rated.
Everything else he made has good concepts which are ruined by Dora The Explorer level exposition.
>Dunkirk is his only smart movie
>muh airplane gliding for 789129121902 hours without fuel
>Inception was exposition heavy shitfest
i think thats kinda a necessary evil, though. Normies wouldnt have understood it underwise. Each time you have things like time travel or dimensional travel theres a risk of just losing the audience if its not explained in a adequate manner.
>smoort means everything is extremely detailed
No, it's smart in it's core. Structuring a film like a classical music piece is a very interesting concept and Nelen pulled it off very well. This structure makes film feel very tense and bigger in scale than it technically is.
OP is critizizing Nolan's movies when in fact he's exposing his inability to derive any meaningful thought from watching them. The director is not there to spoonfeed you.
*criticizing
The airplane is in the air for like 15 min. I don‘t think you understood the movie.
>Inception was exposition heavy shitfest
Heavy exposition isn't itself bad.(even fincher has a lot of exposition). It's how it's handled. I didn't feel any of it was sloppily done.
It heist movie with sci-fi elements ffs. Since it's not even eric sci-fi and has its own specific rules, you need to establish that as well as go through with the very normal heist movie trope of planning and explaining the heist which is always exposition heavy.
Nolan spoonfeeds. He is the biggest spoonfeeder of all. His movies does not tell stories audio-visually.
That is my problem with him. He's a dumb director for dumb people to trick them into feeling smart. Like you.
My favorite directors are: Friedkin, Hitchcock, Tsukamoto, Herzog, Suzuki, Frankenheimer, Wilder, Ford, Ruiz, Bergman.
>>muh airplane gliding for 789129121902 hours without fuel
It was actually a few minutes and irl planes have lasted longer without fuel than shown in dunkirk. Expecting 100% realism in combat heavy war movies is retarded and it is unironically a lower tier of film criticism than plot holes. There aren't more realistic aircraft combat in movies than the ones shown in Dunkirk.
Nolan is one of the few Hollywood directors who still do passion projects he wants to do personally without anyone interfering whatsoever.
He has 100% artistic integrity and works only with absolute creative freedom. The only demands he obeys from the studio is being done before the deadline and under the budget, which he does every single time without exception and why is he so loved by Warner bros, they basically give him a blank check.
And every single film of his becomes both a financial and critical success no matter the subject with no additional "directors cuts" because his theatrical cut is always the definitive directors cut.
No matter what you think of the quality of his films, he makes every film out of passion/desire to make that film, not because some studio exec calculated what should be done.
He basically has full creative freedom and untouched artistic integrity at a big budget Hollywood blockbuster level.
He spoonfeeds the plot and the character's actions that's what make them intelligible to the average blockbuster viewer (what you are referring to as dumb people that feel smart). You clearly don't like this style and prefer directors that lure the viewer into understanding these things themselves through visuals and acting. That alone doesn't make his movies unimaginative or not worth watching.
>His movies does not tell stories audio-visually.
watch Dunkirk
I have. It's bad. Not as bad as his other movies but totally needless with nothing to say and there are no set pieces that justificates it's existence as spectacle. De palma can do tension, Nolan can't.
The lack of cinematic tension is a meaningful stylistic choice
Claustrophobia and drowning are two of my biggest fears so Dunkirk was straight up horror for me.
>Hitchcock
Lol
>Ford
Omegalul
Regardless Dunkirk was pretty tense and more importantly that user is moving goalposts. Regardless of whether he considers it good or bad it doesn't change the fact it doesn't have too much exposition (or even normal levels of exposition) and tells the story audio-visually.
Careful with those buzzwords, contrarion
I am not moving goalposts. Dunkirk is the EXCEPTION. So i am simply adressing that one exception and addresing why it still shit. Even when the exposition problem isn't there as much.
Nolan visuals, pacing, montage. It's all meandering, his images have no kinetic impact or soulfull rumination. That is why he is a bad director.
how much armond white cock have you sucked lmao
Dunkirk is indeed very tense in a, unironically, gritty and realistic way which comes naturally if you get immersed in the movie. It doesn't emphasize it