- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 92,014
Boring dude who makes movies for people who think they enjoy good movies when they're actually still wading the water of IMDB's Top 250.
He does do it very well admittedly.
He’s got it all figured out gang.
Boring dude who makes movies for people who think they enjoy good movies when they're actually still wading the water of IMDB's Top 250.
He does do it very well admittedly.
Incredibly pretentious and unnecessary. Kind of post that leads to this ridiculous schism between art house and popular cinema.Boring dude who makes movies for people who think they enjoy good movies when they're actually still wading the water of IMDB's Top 250.
He does do it very well admittedly.
What a load of shit.
He’s got it all figured out gang.
Incredibly pretentious and unnecessary. Kind of post that leads to this ridiculous schism between art house and popular cinema.
He's a very, very good director.
You would say this for any story of any kindImo there really is only one director who could do justice to the story of _________
![]()
It's a low bar but I'd put Watchmen up there. It doesn't touch the graphic novel obviously but at least it had the R rating.I'll admit that post did come across very badly. I was going for tongue-in-cheek - hence the last bit about him being good at what he does - but that first sentence sounds too incendiary looking back
His Batman movies are still the pinnacle of superhero movies
It's a low bar but I'd put Watchmen up there. It doesn't touch the graphic novel obviously but at least it had the R rating.
Oh it fails spectacularly in many ways but compared to the superhero movies that have come since it's a work of art.Yeah I liked Watchmen the one time I saw it. Seems like a lot of the people who read the graphic novel didn't rate it though
I got a bad feeling about this. A story like Oppenheimer's is bound to be dialogue-heavy and writing dialogues is Nolan's biggest weakness in my opinion.
I don't remember where I read it(I think it was The Tipping Point), but Oppenheimer was supposedly not the most qualified person for the job? It's not that he was unqualified either, but he largely landed the job because of his charm and eloquence. If there is one big-name director who is likely to kill this charm and eloquence through his writing, then it's Nolan. I hope he proves me wrong, though! I'll take Nolan over Marvel and Disney live action remakes any day of the week.
I saw a leaked trailer, very exposition heavy.
You would say this for any story of any kind(I'm assuming this is Paul verhoeven)
Has anyone figured out what the "Nolan juice" will be for this movie? The thing he has to add to make it "Nolanesque" because he can't make a normal movie.
An animated Matt Damon will occasionally pop up down in the right corner of the screen like Clippy and blast exposition in the same tone of voice as the NSA rant in Good Will Hunting.
One thing for sure - there will be Hans Zimmer-esque melodramatic music to imitate substance where there is none.
He didn't direct Man of steel.
Name a director who gets 10 out of 10. Even scorccese has his share of meh movies.
He's not the best director ever but he's a good if not great director. And we're only paying 8 dollars to see his movies. The same we paid to see Marvel dross
Name a director who gets 10 out of 10. Even scorccese has his share of meh movies.
He's not the best director ever but he's a good if not great director. And we're only paying 8 dollars to see his movies. The same we paid to see Marvel dross
You should be ashamed of yourself.I'll admit that post did come across very badly looking back. I was going for tongue-in-cheek - hence the last bit about him being good at what he does - but that first sentence sounds far too incendiary.
His Batman movies are still the pinnacle of superhero movies for me.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Pretty much. Can you imagine the sound system blasting out some b side Jerry Goldsmith with close up shots of Cillian Murphy looking like Skullface from MGSV, as he quotes Fox News anchors.
The audience would spend all movie waiting to see the nuclear “money shot” in glorious imax 70mm and Verhoeven would punish them with a 10 minute black screen shot full of nothing but human screams. Everyone would hate it, including critics and it would be one of the best films of all time.
Instead we are likely to get a god awful 3 hour long film about how Oppenheimer was just a family man caught in the middle between wanting to help the war effort and pushing forward the dangers of science. All while the audience creams themselves over the most realistic looking nuclear death recreations in cinema history. Oh and the soundtrack will give you a headache.
Exactly. There’s so much of that, not just films but any kind of art. It’s all there to enjoy in all its various forms.Kind of post that leads to this ridiculous schism between art house and popular cinema.
This is the most interesting I’ve been in a Nolan film as it will hopefully require him to say something political.
Too many of his films are devoid of any substance and are more like watching a experienced watchmaker, impressive but dull.
Located Gareth Southgate's Caf account.I know cinema is all about the vibes and it’s almost impossible to say why I like x film so much but can someone say why they like Nolan work ?
Is it the science stuff ? The plots ? Acting ?
I do enjoy listening to the guy talk about film and he clearly cares about film as a form of art but for me at least I’ve always found his films are basically instagram posts for middle age dads. Why isn’t this the case ?
I do find it hilarious that an internet board can write-off the director of Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception & Dunkirk as being average.
When Interstellar is one of your lesser films then your bar is ridiculously high.
Interstellar was a terrible film. Utter nonsense.
I thought it was exceptional, one of the best sci-fi films ever. Tennet was horrific mind.
This I would watchAn animated Matt Damon will occasionally pop up down in the right corner of the screen like Clippy and blast exposition in the same tone of voice as the NSA rant in Good Will Hunting.
[Scene: Exterior, New Mexico testing grounds. A bunker is filled with tense scientists and military leaders, a timers is running down.....Five.....Four.....Three... TWO...ONE [Blinding light streams through a small opening and a moment later a huge explosion is heard.
The dust settles...
A toilet flushes....
A British General acting as Military Liason emerges from the WC and looks at the scene of devastation.
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
It's an excellent sci-fi, shame you didn't enjoy it. Difficult to argue it's a "terrible film" though, it's bloody amazing filmmaking.Interstellar was a terrible film. Utter nonsense.
The whole Manhattan project was full of all heavyweights of the time such as Bohr, Fermi, Bethe, and the future rock star Feynman who all had objectively made bigger contributions to Physics than Openheimer. I think he was chosen for his administrative and organisational abilities , it's extremely hard to manage such a a group.I got a bad feeling about this. A story like Oppenheimer's is bound to be dialogue-heavy and writing dialogues is Nolan's biggest weakness in my opinion.
I don't remember where I read it(I think it was The Tipping Point), but Oppenheimer was supposedly not the most qualified person for the job? It's not that he was unqualified either, but he largely landed the job because of his charm and eloquence. If there is one big-name director who is likely to kill this charm and eloquence through his writing, then it's Nolan. I hope he proves me wrong, though! I'll take Nolan over Marvel and Disney live action remakes any day of the week.