Sedai, Pyro Tramp and all the others who doubted Christopher Nolan

Tools    





I wouldn't say Scorsese has done much interesting work outside his recent documentaries in the past decade at least, but other than that yeah what you said.
Aw, I liked The Departed.

Yeah, it was familiar territory for him, but it was a lot of fun! And Nicholson was delicious, IMO.
__________________



No, Nicholson was hideous, but then, I expect nothing less from him. Like Hopkins, why bother actually acting when you can just mess about and be praised for it.

Also, how's Tarantino not stagnating?



No, Nicholson was hideous, but then, I expect nothing less from him. Like Hopkins, why bother actually acting when you can just mess about and be praised for it.
Oh, it wasn't anything we've not seen from him before, but I still loved it. So over-the-top and fun!

Also, how's Tarantino not stagnating?
Inglorious Basterds got him off the hook
This. Big time. I'm taking this next bit from a different forum I posted on about IB.

Tarantino is perhaps the biggest film fans working in Hollywood. His knowledge of film, both old and new, is legendary. He has screenings in his home all the time of films from all types of genre's and era's. That said, Inglourious Basterds is his love letter to cinema. It's a film about one of the most percieved evil persons in history being done in by, of all things, film.

In the end it is the old nitrate film that causes the raging fire, killing evil. Film, in the end, triumphs over evil.

Everything that makes a Taratino film great is present in Inglourious Basterds, from witty and entertaining dialog to over-the-top violence to memerable characters, all culminating in his love letter to film.

Hands down, Inglourious Basterds is not only his best film, but it's his most personal. I'd argue it's what his career as a filmmaker has been leading up to.



If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
Hands down, Inglourious Basterds is not only his best film, but it's his most personal. I'd argue it's what his career as a filmmaker has been leading up to.

OUCH...it may have been his most personal film, but IMO it wasn't his best. "Pulp Fiction" reigns supreme, I think.
__________________
"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."
- Christopher Nolan



So Nolan doesn't make personal films, even though they're personal to him, but Tarantino does the same thing and he makes masterpieces? You criticize Nolan for never working out of his comfort zone, while Tarantino pretty much makes the same film over and over in different genres but isn't stagnating? Nolan can't be truly great until he tries something different, maybe without crime you suggested? We can all, right now, have a very good idea of exacly what Tarantino's Django will be like. Let's face it, that's what's exciting those who're looking forward to it. It's not "Great! I wonder what he'll do with it?" It's "Great! I can't wait to see Tarantino's Django!"

*EDIT. Sorry, this is for BB. *



Inglourious Basterds is almost an amalgamation of cinematic history while rewriting history, using film as knowledge, power, and triumph. Personal or not, it's much more impressive than you give it credit for. I'm only arguing for that point alone not his other works. I will never understand people seeing Nolan as some grand intellectual other than the only blockbuster filmmaker with half a brain, so until he actually does something worthy of that title, he will always be bobbing between mediocre and above average.



So Nolan doesn't make personal films, even though they're personal to him, but Tarantino does the same thing and he makes masterpieces? You criticize Nolan for never working out of his comfort zone, while Tarantino pretty much makes the same film over and over in different genres but isn't stagnating? Nolan can't be truly great until he tries something different, maybe without crime you suggested? We can all, right now, have a very good idea of exacly what Tarantino's Django will be like. Let's face it, that's what's exciting those who're looking forward to it. It's not "Great! I wonder what he'll do with it?" It's "Great! I can't wait to see Tarantino's Django!"

*EDIT. Sorry, this is for BB. *
I'd say Taratino, despite also working in that crime-centric zone, shows far more proliferation than Nolan. Inglourious Basterds showed that, IMO. Yes, Tarantino is also in his comfort zone, but it's so much more interesting watching what he does because of his vast knowledge of film and how he plays that into his work, combined with dialog that's actually fun to listen to. I was aware of the lengthly exposition in Inception where as every scene of dialog in Inglourious Basterds completely absorbed me and I was never aware of how lengthly it was. Nolan tells stories, Tarantino puts me in them!

Am I really the only person that thinks the tone, score, editing, pacing, color pallette of all of Nolan's films since The Prestige are near identical? Especially the tone and pacing.



Am I really the only person that thinks the tone, score, editing, pacing, color pallette of all of Nolan's films since The Prestige are near identical? Especially the tone and pacing.
Well, he's only made two since then. But how does one measure "pacing" across multiple films?

As for tone; I guess it depends on what you mean. That could refer from everything to thematic content to color.



David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Wes Anderson was until he made Fantastic Mr. Fox, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, The Coen Brothers, David Cronenberg, Gus Van Sant, Sam Raimi, I'm sure there's more...

Hell, I barely even touched foriegn directors!
Fincher: The guy's best work is Zodiac imo, but his most critically acclaimed film was Se7en. Benjamin Button is regarded by most as a big miss and The Social Network was good, but nothing mind-blowing.

Boyle: 127 Hours was definitely a step back from Slumdog Millionaire. Trainspotting was his best, made well over a decade ago.

Wes Anderson: He fits the bill.

Tarantino: Hmm, I think he is stagnating. It's in essence always the same with Quentin: making movies about movies, accompanied by a simple plot, great dialogues and a slick style. Guy has been doing that since Pulp Fiction. I don't see the leap forward.

Soderbergh: You're right. He isn't stagnating, he's been going downhill since Traffic.

Coen brothers: Hmm, you're probably right here. In terms of quality, I would say no, but in terms of continuing to evolve and taking on new challenges and pulling them off, probably yes.

Cronenberg: Maybe you're right here too, as Eastern Promises is my favourite Cronenberg.

Van Sant: Not a fan of his, so I can't tell.

Scorsese: Nah, the guy hasn't made anything close to his best films.

Raimi: Spider-Man 3 was ***** and Drag Me To Hell was a return to a familiar genre for Raimi. That's major stagnation there, probably downhill.



Everything that makes a Taratino film great is present in Inglourious Basterds, from witty and entertaining dialog to over-the-top violence to memerable characters, all culminating in his love letter to film.
Yes, that is correct. But nothing more than that. All of that was already present in Pulp Fiction. I'm not knocking on Inglorious Basterds here, which is a great film, but it's more a return to form for Quentin rather than a leap forward.



I'd say Taratino, despite also working in that crime-centric zone, shows far more proliferation than Nolan. Inglourious Basterds showed that, IMO. Yes, Tarantino is also in his comfort zone, but it's so much more interesting watching what he does because of his vast knowledge of film and how he plays that into his work, combined with dialog that's actually fun to listen to. I was aware of the lengthly exposition in Inception where as every scene of dialog in Inglourious Basterds completely absorbed me and I was never aware of how lengthly it was. Nolan tells stories, Tarantino puts me in them!
So you're not disagreeing. You just prefer Tarantino and his style? That's fine, I do too. I'm not a Nolan fan or anything. I just thought your criticisms of him were unfair when you put Tarantino up as an example of someone who's not stagnating and, by inference, is a 'truly great' director.

Am I really the only person that thinks the tone, score, editing, pacing, color pallette of all of Nolan's films since The Prestige are near identical? Especially the tone and pacing.
I'm with Yoda on this one. He's made two films since then and I've not seen The Prestige. Also, wouldn't that be part of his authorship? Now, I'm not one for putting the auteur on a pedestal or anything (ask anyone here) but I'd assume you are. Of course, that's just an assumption on my part and I don't know you well enough to have any real conviction behind that decision. So it seems a bit odd that you'd knock him for it.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Contrary to popular opinion, his films are actually messy as hell in terms of editing and frequently ugly in terms of cinematography. The Dark Knight, to take an obvious example, has some nice shots from time to time, but most of the camera-work is just random and pointless. That doesn't mean it's total sh*t all the way through, but he doesn't show the care and attention to his work as many, many other true auteurs already listed in this thread.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



So you're not disagreeing. You just prefer Tarantino and his style? That's fine, I do too. I'm not a Nolan fan or anything. I just thought your criticisms of him were unfair when you put Tarantino up as an example of someone who's not stagnating and, by inference, is a 'truly great' director.
Look, my name is "bouncingbrick". I'm at least up front about my hypocrisy, ok?

It probably is preference, but I don't think Tarantino is sitting in familiar ground all the time. He's done heavy action, horror (Death Proof, which was lame, but whatever), the crime-drama thing, all while showing people a style of film that hadn't been around for decades. I just think he's all around a better filmmaker.


I'm with Yoda on this one. He's made two films since then and I've not seen The Prestige. Also, wouldn't that be part of his authorship? Now, I'm not one for putting the auteur on a pedestal or anything (ask anyone here) but I'd assume you are. Of course, that's just an assumption on my part and I don't know you well enough to have any real conviction behind that decision. So it seems a bit odd that you'd knock him for it.
First of all, for some reason I got it in my head that The Prestige came out before Batman Begins. I include Batman Begins in that group, so it's actually four films.

Second, I can't describe it other than calling it tone. The emotional feel of the films is the same. I feel exactly the same watching all of his movies. I'm sort of intrigued by the story, usually because there's a mystery of some sort or a problem that seems to have no solution. He has a very heavy use of score in his films and the music is always sort of melancholy and/or morose. It's like he's somehow tapped into this particular vein and it's all he does.

Watch these scenes:



&feature=related

&feature=related

&feature=related

They could all be from the same movie. The way he uses music. The editing. The pacing. Yes, the man is an autuer, but there's just not a lot of variety in the way he actually makes movies. It's not content alone, it's his style.

I guess I'm just getting tired of it. Maybe this whole thing is just me. Whatever. I never claimed to be sane!

EDIT: Actually, I felt the same way about Wes Anderson before I watched The Fantastic Mr. Fox, so maybe it is me!



So basically you just don't like his style? Fair enough, I can live that that. It's all subjective anyways. Although I don't think that ONE scene of each of his last four films really prove anything other than they are exciting, interesting and well executed sequences.

Oh and Dext, there's more man in me than you and Brock Lesnar put together.

EDIT - Taking literally, kinda gross :/



It's like debating with a christian
This may be the death nail in my movie forum coffin...



Well, has anyone actually suggested that there are no flaws? The discussion seems to be about some pretty significant potential flaws. Which makes sense, because it's usually not worthwhile to complain about small ones.



The Prestige turns every major flaw, mainly that Nolan hasn't done anything new filmmaking wise since Following (so Memento had some sun in it, big difference), into "you don't like his style" which is what I was referring to.

I do think Nolan has a way with conveying things, but he's keeping it at his own amateurish level seemingly so he can keep making blockbusters, which I feel isn't style but actively not progressing. When it comes to art the saying "if it aint broke don't fix it" needs to gtfo.