Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie. Discuss.

"He has never made art ."
-Armond White

>>87303528
My penis has vitiligo on it. I don't have vitiligo on any other part of my body. Do I man up and see a dermatologist and show him my penis, or do I just suck it up since I don't get laid anyway?

>>87303570
don't even worry about it, I have it on just my cock and under my eyes, unless you're super darked skinned already nobody will care

>>87303594
This was my thinking as well. I really don't want to have to go to someone and show him my dick.

>>87303528
Villeneuve also.

>>87303554
Neither has that meme nigger

>>87303528
Interstellar was garbage. Don't pretend that it's some masterpiece. That's your delusion talking.

t. an actual Nolan fan

>>87303975
>Interstellar was garbage.

You can not like it, but you can't call it a bad movie. All that accomplishes is reveal how uneducated you are.

>>87303975
It's not a masterpiece, but it's not an outright bad movie.
A few clunky lines of dialogue and a badly written third act alone doesn't make an entire film "bad"

>>87303528
Never made bad one, but never made great one neither. He's a great craftsman, makes decent, good, enjoyable blockbusters.

I'd say he'll never top Prestige and Inception though.

>>87303975
wow big guy talking big mess

>>87303623
Why not?

>>87303528
>Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie
more like a good movie. he made some okay ones like following and dunkirk, but thats it, the rest is shit

>>87303594
>>87303623
im white and pale as fuck but my pennis basically looks arabic for cock reason, lmao
is it normal for my cock skin to be darker than any other part of my body?

>>87303528
Best director of all time. This is not even up for debate.

Following - 6/10
Memento - 8/10
Insomnia - 7/10
Batman Begins - 8/10
The Prestige - 9/10
The Dark Knight - 9/10
Inception - 9/10
The Dark Knight Rises - 8/10
Interstellar - 9/10
Dunkirk - 8/10

>>87303528
the dark knight rises is a bad movie.

>>87304760

Are you like 14 years old?

>>87303528
every batman movie he made was shit

>>87304810
Poor writing and poor close quarter choreography alone does not make it a "bad" movie
Yes Nolan didn't make the third sequel he wanted because of the death of Heath Ledger, but the set pieces are still impressive, the production design also, cinematography, soundtrack, costume design, sound design all pretty decent.
6/10 realistically

File: apu.png (13KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 657x527px

>>87304825
25

Just the fact that Nolan described Inception as "a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind” proves how big a hack he is. It's a film about dreams for fuck's sake. Stop trying to make everything seem more complex and sophisticated than it is, you fucking wannabe Kubrick fag.

The Prestige, DKR, hell, even BB

>>87304780
Memento - 9/10
The Prestige - 8/10
Inception - 7/10
TDKR Plane Scene - 10/10

That's all I've seen

>>87303528
2000s Nolan is probably my favourite director but now he's just making capshit and critic bait garbage by banking on his reputation

>>87303528
>man of steel

was a pretty meh movie.

>>87304780
Seen them all. Only ones I liked were Insomnia and the Prestige. I really want to like them, but there's something offputting about most of them to me. Might be the pacing, might be the use of filters, might be the music. But I'm pretty consistent in disliking his work. There's an element there which I just don't like. The fact that I haven't been able to put my finger on it, makes him an even bigger cunt. To me.

>>87303657
Except for Arrival

>>87307879
Arrival is his best, though.

>>87307879
Tell me a single buzzword-free argument against the film.

>>87303528
What about inception?

>>87307223

his lats capeshit was released 5 y ago

>>87308547
What about it?
Yes it's not a masterpiece, but it's certainly not a bad movie either.

File: 1499428343301.gif (469KB, 512x807px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 512x807px

>>87304780
How the FUCK did you stay awake watching Interstellar, and then give it a 9?

>>87304036
kek please. don't pretend like this "love transcends dimensions" bullshit was based on science.

>>87303528
he has never made a good movie either, hes simply a mediocre/autistic director

>>87308799
Because I don't have ADHD.

>>87303528
He is good at filming, i'll give you that. But the stories he choses to film are very often pretty shitty and don't lead anywhere. He uses tricks to create fake drama and self-important scenes, even though nothing meaningful happens.
He is a well trained hack, but still a hack.

He's overrated that's for sure yet but I still appreciate what he does since he's one of the few big budget filmmakers that doesn't suck nowdays

File: dunkirk-extra-harry-styles-news.jpg (23KB, 438x359px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 438x359px

Someone PLEASE tell me what makes Dunderkirk a good film.

Rylance's character was literally nothing but smart ass lines and Cillian was the same just without the smart ass lines. Tom Hardy had no development or character except for shooting at planes. I think so many people like it simply for the fact that the timelines align in the end.

I'm not trolling. I genuinely think that it's a 5/10 at best.

>>87309203
>big budget filmmaker that doesn't suck
Your standards are so high, anon. Next, you'll be looking at romantic comedies like they're the new arthouse movies.

>>87308075
The whole flick is a marketing trick to "prove" Villenoob is capable of directing a sci-fi film, in order to get the general dumb audiences excited for the blade runner sequel
But in fact, this supposed sci-fi film is more of a shitty drama with bad acting and bad music, that presents the most dull, safe and cliched ideas about love and time.It just uses it's sci-fi groundwork to badly explore these things

Oh and also it's badly edited, it's full of overzealous ott direction of "epic" scenes(the best example of this is the scene where the helicopter with amy adams first goes to the location of the space aircraft) and shockingly terrible, TERRIBLE effects.

>>87309107

this.

>>87309227
That's pure Nolan, anon. No character development to look for, each character behaves like something terrible and important is about to happen. But when it does, you still feel like nothing has really happened yet. It's like watching the trailer of a trailer.

>>87309292
Don't really see where you were going for but you know what I meant.

Sure people say he brings intelligence back to the multiplex but I think it's anything but that. Yes his movies are cold and shallow yet I still prefer them to the other flavour of the month capeshit that's being rolled out of the conveyor belt

>>87309227
The unrelenting tension. The psychological fear and horror from the bombing/drowning scenes. The amazing sound design. The dogfights. The Stuka sirens. The perfect framing and composition. All the big set pieces. The claustrophobic boat sequences. The entire opening sequence. No usual Nolan flaws like constant exposition and poor close quarter choreography. The focus on visual storytelling. Rylance's performance. Big guy in a mask in a plane.
And your "character development" is pretty ignorant. What about Rylance's son coming to understand what stoicism is? Styles coming to understand that there is something to praise in a succesful retreat? Hardy coming to understand personal sacrifice for a greater good?

In short, kino.

>>87309227
well he dropped his exposition and character "development" to well zero.

I mostly just liked it because it reminded me of simplier times of war films with many extras and big spectacle all around. But I do think this is his first big budgeted release that's sort of filtering the normie crowd that usually dickrides his films.

It just gave me hope summer films could be so much more as opposed to what we get.

>>87309495
In short, music video. He just made a feature length trailer.

>>87303528

*puts Tom Hardy in a mask on a plane*

>>87303975
>Interstellar was garbage. Don't pretend that it's some masterpiece. That's your delusion talking.

It was ok until Matt Damon shows up

>>87303528

NOLANS ONLY GOOD FILM WAS FOLLOWING

/THREAD

>>87303528
lol
>>87303657
lol also

>>87309495

There was no fucking tension. Just a bunch of extras, in fear of being killed. So what?

>>87309306
>The whole flick is a marketing trick to "prove" Villenoob is capable of directing a sci-fi film, in order to get the general dumb audiences excited for the blade runner sequel
He started working on Arrival before he was even picked out for the Blade Runner project.

>bad acting
Everyone had a great performance besides Whitaker.

>bad music
One of the best soundtracks of 2016 and certainly the best sound design of 2016

>it's badly edited
Please explain why, Joe Walker is one of the best current working film editors in the industry and served the narrative well in Arrival with his work.

>it's full of overzealous ott direction of "epic" scenes(the best example of this is the scene where the helicopter with amy adams first goes to the location of the space aircraft)
Well executed tension building scene followed by one of the best first contact scenes in cinema history

>shockingly terrible, TERRIBLE effects.
Only the weightless hair of Amy looked a bit jarring, everything else was superb from a technical standpoint.

>>87309714
thanks for correcting the record contrarian

>>87309789

Tension? But you knew how it would end, before it began. It's a historic event, with no tension when you know that nothing bad happens in the end.

>>87309664
t. plot driven surface-level manbaby casual

A "story" isn't just told by actors reciting lines, you can (and should) tell it mainly visually. What did you want, a scene around a campfire where they all talk about their sweethearts waiting at home? Tom Hardy sipping tea and jerking off to dear Ol' Marge in the airbase? A scene of some old generals in a boardroom arguing while staring at a map?

>>87309957
This is a completely braindead retarded argument.
So Das Boot has no tension then? Lawrence of Arabia? Titanic? Saving Private Ryan also?

What a turbobrainlet.

>>87309934

You're welcome Reddit

>>87310195
All those movies you mentioned has characters in them. That is why they have tension and Dunkirk does not.

>>87309957
>nothing bad happens
I don't know about you, but I find being bombed/torpedoed/drowned/crushed between boats/burned alive pretty bad.

>>87310233
>praises Following
>calls others reddit
top pleb

>>87310081

No, you can develop character though a million ways with the cinematic language. But dunkirk did not do that. There is no character, no depth. Alas, a music video.

>>87310406
I say again then, what about Rylance's son coming to understand what stoicism is? Styles coming to understand that there is something to praise in a succesful retreat? Hardy coming to understand personal sacrifice for a greater good? Rylance's character in general?

Also 2001 is also not heavily character centred film, is that a music video also then?

>>87307223
Critic bait? You mean people might like it?

>>87310534
All those things you mentioned are very thin and does not make a film good. It's the film equivalent of a motivational poster.

And why do you keep comparing completely unrelated films to each other. 2001 is a film of contrasts to create a deep and genius message from that. Like the contrast between dave, a very inhuman human and Hal, a very human robot. But back to the topic.

>>87303528
Basically. His movies suffer from a lot of flaws, but none of them are bad.

If you want to enjoy a Nolan film you will. If you're a douche that likes to pick things apart art while making nothing yourself, there's room in his movies for that too.

>>87310697
Lol please tell us what makes a film good. We can all be rich.

>>87310881
well developed themes and characters with depth. it's pretty simple.

>>87303570
Why would you suck your own penis because there's some skin condition on it?

>>87303528
>Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie.
this is true because he only makes flicks. His flicks are pretty enjoyable if you're hammered otherwise they don't make any sense and are filled with horrible characters/acting

>>87310697
I'm just pointing out your terrible "arguments".
I already listed numerous points about what makes Dunkirk a great movie, the character arc post is just one single of them. Then you said that a film with no characters is like a music video, so I mentioned 2001 to point out how utterly stupid your argument forming is.

Nothing you said indicates why would Dunkirk be a "bad" film.

>>87304780
Following - 6/10
Memento - 7/10
Insomnia - 6/10
Batman Begins - 6/10
The Prestige - 3/10
The Dark Knight - 4/10
Inception - 3/10
The Dark Knight Rises - 0/10
Interstellar - 0/10
Dunkirk - 5/10
He's okay as far as contemporary hollywood goes I guess.

>>87310945
Then do it

>>87311089
>The Dark Knight Rises - 0/10
>Interstellar - 0/10

What's it like to be retarded?

>>87305072
>production values make a movie good
anon you dumb retard.

yes the man makes his movies well. His movies are piles shit however.

>>87310945
But anon we are talking about a visual medium here, not books.
And in books also there has to be some level of an intriguing prose, not just a well thought out plot.

>>87311019
"character ark" really?
Sure the characters learn something, but it's so underdeveloped and the characters are not well written. They are one dimentional at best.

>>87311147
>actually pick those two shit flicks as the hill you will die upon
rip anon. He died a virgin, and he should've posted on reddit

>>87311157
Cinematography, film editing, sound design, staging, blocking, all of those are not "production values"

could you imagine being so retarded as to think this man has ever made a piece of art?

>>87309859
>He started working on Arrival before he was even picked out for the Blade Runner project.
still doesnt mean that this wasnt used as marketing for the blade runner sequel
>Please explain why
the scene where are "characters" first see the spaceship is the best example of bad frame-to-frame editing
we are shown ten different shots that tells us the same thing over and over again, that this is a weird-looking alien spacehship, which could have been done in one shot
and to make this scene even worse, through its course, the shitty soudtrack is just pounding and pounding in your fucking head
a scene badly edited and badly directed as this one can not be tense, or anything else for that matter, it can only be bad (just like the rest of the movie)
>everything else was superb from a technical standpoint
bullshit
it was b-movie tier effects in a big a hollywood blockbuster
it was embarassing
the best examples are the scenes where they first go up to the ship and the cliched montage of hell breaking looose in different parts of the world
it also had this awful vomit-inducing aesthetic, that i saw in b sci fi flicks such as the machine and i origins that just made even the more passable effects look shitty
>Everyone had a great performance besides Whitaker.
no
>One of the best soundtracks of 2016 and certainly the best sound design of 2016
no
you have no idea whats good acting, you have no idea what's good use of music in a film, and last but not least, you have no idea what makes a good film(since you enjoy villepleb films)

in conclusion kys

>>87311255
A method, material, or stagecraft skill used in the production of a motion picture or artistic performance; the technical quality of such a method, material, or skill.

sounds like you're wrong

>>87311264
All of it is art ya big dummy. We're discussing the quality of the art.

>>87311276
>implying anyone would read this
we nolan fans are too busy consuming kino to read lmao

>>87311338
>modern hollywood
>art
>inb4 n-nolan isn't hollywood!
yes goy jack and jill was an artistic masterpiece

>>87309495
All of that could have easily fit into a 30 minute film. Nolan stretches it with 'lol timelines' and showing one event happen multiple times.
The dogfights were boring after the first time.
All that pathos at the end was outright insulting and I felt that it went against the whole 'unrelenting tension, fear of combat and war' that the movie was trying to portray. I get why he put that in, but as a non-british person it felt too much 'on the nose'. The part with Hardy shooting down that last plane while having no fuel was almost comical.

>>87303528
Is there a more underrated director? People should literally sacrifice their children to this man.

>>87311418
It is art... I don't like it but it is art deal with it.

>>87311556
art implies it was created for more than money. Anything is art no matter how shit provided it wasn't made for the sole purpose of making money

Nolan doesn't make art. He makes money. He is the nickleback of film

>>87311276
>still doesnt mean that this wasnt used as marketing for the blade runner sequel
That's an argument against the studio, has nothing to do with the work of Villeneuve

>we are shown ten different shots that tells us the same thing over and over again, that this is a weird-looking alien spacehship, which could have been done in one shot
No it could not because the spaceship is not regularly shaped and the extreme close ups of it were necessary so we see the texture and material what was made out of, not to mention that the whole film is shown from Amy Adams perspective and we experience everything from her point of view. Also showing a single establishing shot of an alien paceship and cutting right to when they are entering it sounds pretty fucking retarded to me anon.

The rest of your points are just "it's bad because it's bad", work on your argument forming because saying things like "kys" is just embarassing.

File: 1502384596001.png (31KB, 155x166px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 155x166px

>>87304780
>there are people ITT who unironically agree with the content of this post

>>87311633
No. Art can be made for money sorry. Its disappointing to see but art is art whether you like it or not.

>>87311715
no you dense retard. Read READ. SOLE PURPOSE. SOLE PURPOSE of making money.

b2r now please you fat nigger.

>>87304760
mine is like that too
we were blessed with ownership of big brown cock
cheers fellow demigod

>>87311806
Art is not a compliment it is a classification. Please don't use ad hominem it diminishes your credibility.

>>87311446
>Nolan stretches it with 'lol timelines' and showing one event happen multiple times.
The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week, how else would you do it? A linear representation of that whole week?
Then you would have Tom Hardy sitting in an airbase somewhere sipping tea and wanking off to pictures of dear old Marge, and Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.
And by seeing those moments again you get a bigger picture of the situation which is told extremely subjectively from every perspective and to form a coherent interconnected story with those moments, also even more tension bulilding (that Spitfire pilot crash landing on water, looks like he's giving a thumbs up that he's okay to Hardy - cut later - he's actually struggling to get out of the Spitfire so he doesn't drown and the cockpit is stuck because of the hard impact on water)

>>87311868
here's an ad hominem for you. KILL YOURSELF YOU NOLAN LOVING NIGGER. HE IS GARBAGE I WILL BE THE ONE TO SLAY HIM AND ALL HIS FANS WILL DIE YOU INCLUDED.

Anyone else feels like Nolan is politically retarded?

And I'm especially reffering to Dark Knight Rises in particular where the images are constantly cancelling each other out.
We get the occupy wall street scenario and the revolution where people take control yet the hero who saves this decadent nest is the lone billionare. Early in the film we see the message lie to them to make them believe which is repeated in the end of the film.

I know most of these were not Nolan's intent yet there's too many coincidences. And then there's quoting of the Tale of two cities near the end too and the Dark Knight's """"statement""""" regarding mass surveillance

>>87311932
That's ad hominem.

>>87303528
HE'S MADE ONE OF THE BIGGEST ONE SINCE THE SILENT ERA

What did everyone think of Dunkirk?

Who was shooting at the boat when the group was trying to plug the bullet holes. Germans on land near the mole? I don't think the angle would work though the way the boat was faced. Confunsed. [/spolier]

>>87312561
honestly it felt like Nolan's made an actual film.

for me the confusing part was why was the soldier screaming when climbing abord the boat?

>>87311894
>how else would you do it? A linear representation of that whole week?
Maybe. Maybe I would cut the Tom Hardy's character completely and just focus on the soldiers wanting to get out of the beach and the civilian boats having the opposite goal.
If you have to rely on clunky non-linear timelines to portray a story about war and peoples experiences of it, then maybe you shouldn't make that film at all.

I've got no satisfaction from realizing that I'm seeing the same events from another perspective. It just reminded me of Nolan's hard-on for time manipulation. It also made the war look smaller than I first thought, as you go from thinking about 2 or 3 individual ships getting sunk to just 1.

>>87312646

I don't remember that scene

>>87312786
The scene happens when the first ship sinks and they rescue harry styles's character. Once they climb back on to the mole they start walking and board the next boat which takes them to the ship. But one of the soldiers starts sceaming when he's climbing on the rope to the ship.

I hope I described it vividly enough, hopefully someone remembers the scene in question. It was just weird why was he screaming. Was he trying to sneak to the ship and was pulled off or what?

>>87312646
>
He was getting crushed between the two boats.

>>87312961
no that's not the scene I was describing the crushing scene I remember and it happens much more clearly

>>87303528
TDKR has only one memorable scene and is therefore shit

>>87311658
>the spaceship is not regularly shaped and the extreme close ups of it were necessary
one wide shot is enough to establish that the ship is "weirdly shaped" and theres no need for us to see the material in the first close-up look at the ship since that is going to happen numerous times later in the film

and since, you believe that i havent elaborated on things i will now
the acting is bad because its overemphasizing the positions of these characters who are just tropes
Forest Whitaker is a stuffy army type
Michael Stuhlbarg is a stuffy goverment type
Amy Adams is a shitty "heroine" with zero complexity and "problems"
when the writing is shitty(like it is) the acting turns into OVERacting

the soundtrack sounds like a bad imitation of a james horner soundtrack as if james horner soundtracks arent bad enough
its sickly sweet "inspiring" music that instead of elevating scenes ruins them, and just makes you ill

when we are shown the chaos in some middleeastern country during the montage the colors are all of, making it look like the spaceship was sticked onto the news footage
the scene where they are suppose to climb upo to the ship vertically just looks like they're walking down a dark hallway
it's amateuristic editing, directing and use of effects

work on you film knowledge instead of just saying things like "The rest of your points are just "it's bad because it's bad""

>>87307879
LETS GO MAKE A BABY

>>87304250
This.

Although i think Dunkirk might be the best one so far. More artsyness to it.

>>87313022
I was thinking of this>>87312956
scene and I'm pretty sure that's what I saw. He is climbing the rope ladder and falls down a few steps, then immediately starts screaming.

>>87304250
this.

people compare him to Kubrick but if he had a historical equivalent it would be someone like John huston desu (who is still a superior filmmaker by all counts)

>>87304780
>momento
8/10
>Begins
7/10
>TDK
7.5 /10
>TDKR
6/10
>inception
6.5/10
>Prestige
7/10
>Dunkirk
8/10

>>87313348
yeah I'm the same anon.

well now that you've mentioned it and I checked the cam clip of this scene that might be it. He just went about it in the wrong or more precisely an awkward way

>>87303528
>Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie. Discuss.
what is TDKR?

besides that he only made kinos, thats true.

>>87304036
You can like it, anon, but don't call it a good movie. Learn the difference between personally enjoying something and that thing have some sort of objective quality.

Back on topic, strip Nolan of his special FX and ridiculously edited action scenes and you'll find a director who is incapable of telling a digestible story. He uses an intense, breakneck pace to disguise the stupidity and confusion of his narrative.

Nolan's films are good on first viewing, but if you re-watch them or spend more than a minute dwelling on what you just watched you see right through to how dumb and nonsensical most of his films are.

>>87309495
People keep saying "It was soooooo tense" but I didn't really feel all that much tension or dread. I wasn't on the edge of my seat particularly

>>87312956
>>87313348
They are were all grabbing that rope in panic over each other, that guy slipped and fell a few of those "rope" steps and his leg got crushed between the two boats.

>>87313139
>theres no need for us to see the material in the first close-up look at the ship since that is going to happen numerous times later in the film
But this is the most important scene, the setup scene. Later you don't wonder about the spaceship and what is inside of it.

You can simplify any character in a film ever and try to use it as an argument (while I agree that Whitaker's character is pretty cliche and generic)

>its sickly sweet "inspiring" music that instead of elevating scenes ruins them, and just makes you ill
Not every soundtrack has the purpose of just sounding "beautiful". The first contact scene is supposed to make you "ill" and uncomfortable, just like Amy Adams character is also.

>the scene where they are suppose to climb upo to the ship vertically just looks like they're walking down a dark hallway
Because it is one? The gravity shift and disorientation was executed quite well and yeah from then on it's a dark hallway with a bright white light at the end, don't see what's wrong with that.

>it's amateuristic editing, directing and use of effects
You didn't give no arguments for editing and most of your points are about literally one or two scenes, we are talking about the whole film here.

>>87313721
I've seen Dunkirk three times now in theatres and loved it even more with each viewing.

>>87314602
>You didn't give no arguments for editing
the decription of that whole sequence is an argument againts shitty editing and directing
the characters are climbing up the ship vertically in one shot, and in the next they look like they are entering the spacehship horizontally
if there was no cut to the next and this was one continuos sequence of them entering horizontally it would have been kind of great, but since it's not then the next shot shouldnt break the continuity and should have been shot from a different angle instead of the one villenueve used

and this is evident throughout the film,the bad directing and editing that is, this scene is just the perfect example of this

but how would you realise this, you're someone who browses a certain website that starts with the letter "r" where you collect things that start with the letter "u"