Director Dissection with Seanc and Rauldc

There's brilliant popcorn entertainment, and average popcorn entertainment, but the two are regarded as the same, just popcorn films.

I don't think Back to the Future and Star Wars (and My Cousin Vinny ) should be compared on the same level with Nolan.

All of his films with the exception of Interstellar are just dark blues,browns, and greys, no usage of color. He never does anything particularly impressive with the camera like dolly zooms or long-takes. He cuts every second. Almost all of his films exist in this cold, clinical, sexless void. Nolan takes himself way too seriously lol, such an auteur.

I mean just look at this page that explains why he sucks as a director. All of those reasons are ones that were brought up in this thread.

http://whatculture.com/film/9-indisp...d-director.php

So lets define popcorn entertainment. To me if your characters mostly fall into tropes, action heavy set pieces, heroes feel invincible, heavy on story, and light on theme. To me that is a popcorn flick, something that can appeal to a 39 year old man who has seen thousands of movies just as easily as it appeals to his seven year old son who has seen 20.

I think all those films I mentioned qualify, they are just done extaordinarily well, and yes I put The Dark Knight in that category.

Give me some definitions, and what does or doesn't qualify.

I agree completely, especially about the cutting. I think compared to some other modern mainstream filmmakers Nolan is easily one of the least inventive.

I also think Sean is confusing visuals with production design, hence his praise for the set pieces.

I define popcorn entertainment as fun, easy to watch,non-serious entertainment whose purpose is to entertain and please the audience.

Nolan makes some nice looking setpieces and action sequences as BlueLion noted, but overall he is a very weak visual filmmaker.

I am not trying to pick a fight but what you are saying does equate to the grades you gave out. You are describing Bay and grading like he's , well, Nolan.

So do Raiders and Star Wars qualify for you?

Totally. I love those films and they are incredible pieces of entertainment.

Most of that article is silly, in my opinion. I doubt most of those points are ones you noticed when you watched his films, and they almost all talk about the Batman films too. I don't have too much of a problem with exposition and action sequences either, I just wish his stories were more lively mainly, as the seriousness begins to show on multiple viewings with lack of humour, sex, vivid imagery. I'm a sucker for mystery films, heist films, and enjoy most gritty suspense films, and most of his work delivers that.

__________________

What's up with all this need for sex in Nolan films?

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I have nothing but respect for you Daniel, but I think that article is 100% accurate. Every single one of those points are completely valid and apply towards pretty much all of his films. I think the majority of the people in this thread would agree.

I'd disagree here sorry, I think I'd like to be able to quickly distinguish a Nolan film most of the times.

Not literal, physical sex, I just mean more the acknowledgement that it exists. Like it's never mentioned or really hinted at, very little characters have sexual chemistry or real women in their lives, well constructed relationships etc.

I expected Catwoman and Batman in TDKR to do some action but Nolan is a total c*ck-blocker.

It really isn't hard to distinguish a Nolan film, agree there. If the colors are muted and bland, there's a dead wife, and the dialogue is awful then it can't be anyone else but Nolan.

Daniel can't wait for the release of In-her-stellar.

I would love to see someone defend this, one of the worst scenes ever.

you forgot My Cocaine

First of all the article starts like this

Most of the things seem to be common "you'll find them if you look for them problems". If you want to find faults with a director, it's easy to do so if you look hard enough, I don't think there things that many people consciously notice or care about that much, until they decide that they want to bash the director.

As I've repeatedly said I don't particularly love Nolan either, and I don't mind that people dislike him, but I'm not sure why he seems to be a bigger target than everybody else and people seem to get more enjoyment out of saying his films are bad, and love to rip them apart unlike other filmmakers.

I've never seen another mainstream director criticised and nitpicked as much as him I don't think, and then the same people could give you a list of 50 mainstream directors they think are worse, so what's the problem? As Sean mentioned I think there's a constant need to reiterate that you don't like his work, because other people do. It seems to be frowned on to become a 'cinephile' and still enjoy his works, and I feel a little sorry for the people who still do, why shouldn't they be allowed to sit back and enjoy his films without worrying about everything else.

This is an interesting article too, for those interested: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/20...olan-vs-nolan/

And why can't we all be like Robbie Collin, a British film critic who loves all sorts of films - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-Collin.html and is a massive fan of Christopher Nolan himself. These are his favourite films:



And I think he loves all of Nolan's work, I think.