Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie. Discuss

Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie. Discuss.

"He has never made art ."
-Armond White

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?

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

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

Villeneuve also.

Neither has that meme nigger

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

t. an actual Nolan fan

>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.

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"

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.

wow big guy talking big mess

Why not?

>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

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?

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

the dark knight rises is a bad movie.

Are you like 14 years old?

every batman movie he made was shit

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

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

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

That's all I've seen

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

>man of steel

was a pretty meh movie.

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.

Except for Arrival

Arrival is his best, though.

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

What about inception?

his lats capeshit was released 5 y ago

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

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

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

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

Because I don't have ADHD.

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

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.

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

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.

this.

That's pure Nolan, user. 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.

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

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.

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.

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

*puts Tom Hardy in a mask on a plane*

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

It was ok until Matt Damon shows up

NOLANS ONLY GOOD FILM WAS FOLLOWING

/THREAD

lol
lol also

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

>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.

thanks for correcting the record contrarian

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.

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?

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.

You're welcome Reddit

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

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

>praises Following
>calls others reddit
top pleb

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.

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?

Critic bait? You mean people might like it?

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.

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.

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

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

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

>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

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.

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.

Then do it

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

What's it like to be retarded?

>production values make a movie good
user you dumb retard.

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

But user 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.

"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.

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

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?

>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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

>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 user.

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.

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

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

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

b2r now please you fat nigger.

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

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

>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)

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