Is Christopher Nolan, dare I say, the next Stanley Kubrick?

>>79362378
I unironically like Nolan but the Kubrick comparisons have always been retarded. Kubrick is his biggest influence but he has his own style. Plus Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist whereas Nolan is a "bigger picture" kinda filmmaker who doesn't sweat small mistakes.

Eyes wide shut => Inception
Full Metal Jacket => Dunkirk
2001 => Interstellar

All there's left for Nolan to copy is Barry Lyndon, a Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Lolita, and Dr. Strangelove

No, he's Terrence Malick with the imagination of Kubrick and Cameron

File: 1433196809523.jpg (14KB, 218x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 218x300px

>>79362612
>Eyes wide shut => Inception

>>79362378
I think Kubrick experimented a lot with aesthetics, most of his films are very different from each other. Nolan tends to stick to one style mostly.

That being said, I love Kubrick, but I think he was not that good at making characters, while Nolan does seem to be able to make the audience give a fuck about the people in his films.

The truth is Christopher Nolan is a mixture of Michael Mann and Stanley Kubrick with bits of Ridley Scott and Terrence Malick thrown in. I'm not saying he's as good as any of those directors, I'm describing his style.

>>79362378
Thought he was decent until I understood that Villeneuve literally does everything Nolan tries to do, but miles better.

>>79362716
when you get good actors you dont need to write good characters, you just let them improv. Look at the amazing performance of Peter sellers in Lolita or of R Lee in FMJ

>>79362716
>not good at making characters
Is this another "le Kubrick didn't understand humans" meme? Tom Cruise's character in EWS is quite relatable if you think about it. Also, if you're constituting a well written character with a one that the audience gives a shit for, you're severly mistaken, friendo. Nolan is far from writing his character well since most of 'em are written as mere plot devices meant to spoonfed his audience that he lacks trust for and to further the plot onwards. He lacks subtlety that Kubrick had and displayed through each of his films, even the weakest ones.

>>79362378
No. Kubrick was analytical but he wasn't dour. Nolan is always dour and always sterile.

>>79362775
Sicario is okay, Arrival not so much.

>>79363189
Sicario is good, though Enemy is better. Arrival was solid, but perhaps Ville's weakest work or should I say the closest to normies.

>>79363057
Plot, characters and aesthetics are all interconnected, but sometimes one is stronger than the rest... But there is nothing wrong with that. Nolan prefers character driven stories, and that's just his style.

EWS is an interesting choice as an example, as it was literally his last film and one made over 10 years after his previous one. He had heard criticism for different generations at that points, decades of people deconstructing his films. Clearly this and AI were probably intended to reinvent himself once more. Unfortunately, no one would ever put EWS among Kubrick's best.

And just so you know, I do believe that giving a shit for a character is universally something positive. If we can feel empathy even for someone shitty, then the story teller has fulfilled its goal. Just look at the Walking Dead and how many people have quit the show after being exhausted of the characters.

File: 1486542165950.png (231KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 430x430px

>>79362612
>He's a "post-strangelove only" kubrick fan

>>79363057
>>79362716
I'm so sick of that meme as well

>Lolita
>Dr. Strangelove
>A Clockwork Orange
>Barry Lyndon
>Full Metal Jacket
>Eyes Wide Shut

Kubrick had a better understanding of humans and human nature than most

File: 600c02d8d23cef59c0d670f652a02208.jpg (15KB, 191x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 191x300px

>>79363762
>Kubrick had a better understanding of humans and human nature than most
hmmm....

>>79362378

No, Nolan makes much better movies than Kubrick.