"Dunkirk is Christopher Nolan's biggest trick - not his best"

Inferno313 said:
What a lousy fucking critic, imo. You can't critique just individual components of a work. You engage with the work as a whole.
Click to expand...

This argument only applies if you like the movie in question. If you dislike it, each separate element may "ruin" an otherwise acceptable movie.

Scarjo as Major? Ruined.
Batfleck is more violent and conflicted than traditional Batman? Ruined.
Superman is imperfect? Ruined
Alien: Covenant tries to give a new, allegorical spin to the franchise? Ruined
Brock and Misty are replaced in the new Pokemon movie? Ruined.

It's the worst with anime or comic book culture.
 
I don't think he's a very good critic if he can't tell the difference between how Wally Pfister shoots a film and how Hoyte van Hoytema shoots a film. Like, there's really clear stylistic differences between to someone who's not very well versed in the finer details of cinematography.
 
I'm not Nolan's biggest fan, but boy is this article horseshit. First, as many people have pointed out, you can't break films down like that and ignore portions of it to suit your argument. Second, Nolan's not known for amazing performances, but to declare he "destroys" actors is asinine. Third, to phrase his use of score and visuals as "distractions" is insane in the way it completely misunderstand filmmaking and what makes the medium of film unique. Fourth, the claim that Nolan "can't grasp the subtleties of modern film" is some real A+ bullshit, especially because he backs it up with two examples from what are widely considered Nolan's worst films and ignores any of the counter examples (as well as just flatly declaring that subtle = good without really backing that up or bothering to explain why). Finally, the parting shot about "middling reviews" and lower box office is ridiculous when Dunkirk is reviewing extremely well and doing better than anyone could reasonably expect a specifically British war film to do.

Look, I don't think Nolan's particularly good at emotion, I think there's plenty of evidence of that, and I'd agree if this guy was arguing that he doesn't really write emotional scenes well. Hell, I'd even agree with a statement about how the fact that Nolan is a very good technical director often papers over some of his other deficiencies. Understanding how to nail the emotion of the story is a major difference between someone like Spielberg and Nolan, and that's fine to point out. This, however, is lazy criticism that reads like someone who had their mind made up long ago.
 
daxy said:
This argument only applies if you like the movie in question. If you dislike it, each separate element may "ruin" an otherwise acceptable movie.

Scarjo as Major? Ruined.
Batfleck is more violent and conflicted than traditional Batman? Ruined.
Superman is imperfect? Ruined
Alien: Covenant tries to give a new, allegorical spin to the franchise? Ruined
Brock and Misty are replaced in the new Pokemon movie? Ruined.

It's the worst with anime or comic book culture.
Click to expand...

Nah. That's how nerds on message boards talk about movies. Critics of merit don't do that shit.
 
What a bad critic. Some of his complaint don't even make sense to me but whatever Nolan has proven time after time that he is a phenomenal director.
Dunkrik is a great movie and it's score compliments it super well.
 
I mean I don't consider myself a Nolan "fan", but I love many of his films. And this article is ridiculous.
 
I'll say this much about this writer's piece, what he describes is one of the reasons I haven't bothered to watch Dunkirk. The trailers (and impressions) make it look like noise and alleged visual spectacle, but empty otherwise. Disliking his previous two movies doesn't help either. And in recent years I've realized that I now find Nolan's brand of big picture spectacle dull and boring to watch. Which is probably why The Prestige has grown to become my uncontested favorite of his.

This wasn't a review, it's just someone fed up of Nolan's filmmaking style and using his space to vent. :P

Inferno313 said:
Yeah, that bit about Hoyte reproducing Pfister's work is some absolute bullshit. Visually, Nolan's films took a leap forward once Hoyte came on board.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it bullshit. And even less I'd say his films took a leap forward visually. To me it looks like Pfister and Hoyte are both just following Nolan's direction. I haven't seen Dunkirk but Interstellar slides in just fine with the rest of his filmography from a visual perspective. It's not like when Spielberg started employing Kaminski and suddenly his movies started looking radically different.
 
"I ignored all the things that Nolan believes are integral to the cinema experience, and I found the aftermath to be lacking."

Dunkirk was an amazing experience. Part of the appeal was that it didn't try to shove a love story or redemption arc for anyone in there, it's just a "day in the life" story of a pivotal WW2 conflict, shot in such a way to immerse the audience as much as possible.
 
-Plasma Reus- said:
The Prestige is indeed his single best movie.

Every single other film he's done has been relatively shit.
Click to expand...

While I do agree The Prestige is his best, and would include it in a personal top 10, calling every other film he's done relative shit is going a bit far, don't you think?
 
Inferno313 said:
What a lousy fucking critic, imo. You can't critique just individual components of a work. You engage with the work as a whole.
Click to expand...

Lol the guy seems to want to trash Nolan and now he has to come up with reasons for why.

Terrible review. Also saying he can't do dialogue or work actors, while he bring up the prestige smh.
 
I think this guy missed the point of the movie. It tried to make you feel what those men on that beach were feeling: constant tension, uncertainty, and above all else, fear. It's about the unknown and the dreadful anticipation that it can bring. The score and the cinematography were very important to capturing those feelings. While stronger characters are never a bad thing, they weren't necessary to deliver the message Nolan wanted to with Dunkirk.
 
I read the whole article, giving the author the benefit of the doubt, and hoping I was going to leave with some good insight, but not really. It reminds me of how people write off video game stories because the dialog doesn't hold up to their standards while ignoring everything else.
 
The Prestige is my favourite Nolan film. Wonderful piece of work.

The revisionist history on TDK is laughable. The best Batman movie ever made.

Nolan is an amazing director. Not everything he makes is as outstanding as what he might have made before, but this reviewer obviously has a personal axe to grind and is all about some kind of weird attention.
 
Can't say I disagree. This movie wasn't the least bit interesting, and only managed to be somewhat captivating due to the music that built some faux suspense. Apart from that, the movie didn't seem to be saying much, the characters had no character, the plot was just about as basic as a war movie plot could get, and the dialogue was non existent. If all you wanted out of this film was some pretty good cinematography and good music, then this movie succeeds. If you wanted anything else out of this movie, then it fails spectacularly.
 
Nolan is amazing, Dunkirk for the most part wasn't.

On a technical level this movie is great, but that's about it. Most scenes started off tense, but the tension quickly evaporated because the scenes went on for too damn long.

Plus it didn't help that I kept referring to the characters as French guy, Harry Styles, and French guy's friend.
 
Inferno313 said:
What a lousy fucking critic, imo. You can't critique just individual components of a work. You engage with the work as a whole.
Click to expand...

yes you can. the entire piece is the sum of its parts and if a part is broken or not working then it harms the whole. a diseased liver will kill the body. a bad script can kill a film.
 
wenis said:
yes you can. the entire piece is the sum of its parts and if a part is broken or not working then it harms the whole. a diseased liver will kill the body. a bad script can kill a film.
Click to expand...

This writer is disregarding those pieces as if they were not supervised by Nolan though. As if because they've got someone else's name, not Nolan's, attached to them, it's fine to dismiss them.
 
wenis said:
yes you can. the entire piece is the sum of its parts and if a part is broken or not working then it harms the whole. a diseased liver will kill the body. a bad script can kill a film.
Click to expand...

Sure. It can. However, that's not what the critic in the OP is arguing. He's not saying: "All of the wonderful cinematography and scoring is let down by an empty script." Which, is a fair criticism. (Though not one I'd agree with on this film.)

He's saying: "I purposefully chose to ignore half of the things that make a film work, to find something to complain about." It's a bad approach. It's one step above a critic simply reading the screenplay, but using that to review the entire film.
 
Wally fucking Pfister DOESN'T shoot Chris Nolan movies. Chris Nolan shoots Chris Nolan movies. The director tells the cinematographer what to do and they go do it for them.

This is why Transcendence doesn't look at all like a Nolan movie nor does his DP work on Moneyball or his direct to video soft core sex movies like Animal Instincts, Mirror Images, or Secret Games. They are all lit well and professionally lensed but the director calls the shots.

From Cameron, to Kubrick, to Fincher, to Ridley Scott, to Spielberg, and on and on the director has the visual trademarks even though they often work with different DoPs on every film.
 
The article is kinda clickbaity trash, but it does reiterate things that have been pretty obvious for most of his films (mostly that he doesn't write dialogue well and has the subtlety of a hammer to the face).
 
jett said:
I'll say this much about this writer's piece, what he describes is one of the reasons I haven't bothered to watch Dunkirk. The trailers (and impressions) make it look like noise and alleged visual spectacle, but empty otherwise. Disliking his previous two movies doesn't help either. And in recent years I've realized that I now find Nolan's brand of big picture spectacle dull and boring to watch. Which is probably why The Prestige has grown to become my uncontested favorite of his.
Click to expand...

It has always been for me. The perfect middle ground before spectacle Nolan took over. Although The Dark Knight gave us one of the most memorable roles in film history. It'll always have that.
 
TheSkullPrince said:
Nolan is amazing, Dunkirk for the most part wasn't.

On a technical level this movie is great, but that's about it. Most scenes started off tense, but the tension quickly evaporated because the scenes went on for too damn long.

Plus it didn't help that I kept referring to the characters as French guy, Harry Styles, and French guy's friend.
Click to expand...

Seen it yesterday in 70mm and agree wholeheartedly with you. Technically it was very impressive and the score and sound effects almost make it worth the ticket price by themselves. But on the whole it didn't properly sustain much tension - which to me was the film's main selling point - after the opening few scenes.

If it were as long as Interstellar it would have been almost painful to finish. Thankfully it goes by at a decent clip.

I still dig Nolan and probably always will, but his last 2 films left me mostly unsatisfied, apart from some visual flair and great sound design.
 
I mean, he's not wrong.

Dunkirk is supposed to be a human drama, about resilience, perseverance, and survival, but Christopher Nolan is pretty lousy at directing those things. I found the film to be incredibly sterile.
 
Inferno313 said:
Yeah, that bit about Hoyte reproducing Pfister's work is some absolute bullshit. Visually, Nolan's films took a leap forward once Hoyte came on board.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'd disagree that they took a "leap forward". They're very different cinematographers. Hoyte is more of a handled, documentary style DP while Pfister loves dolly shots and deep contrast with his lighting.

Warm Machine said:
Wally fucking Pfister DOESN'T shoot Chris Nolan movies. Chris Nolan shoots Chris Nolan movies. The director tells the cinematographer what to do and they go do it for them.

This is why Transcendence doesn't look at all like a Nolan movie nor does his DP work on Moneyball or his direct to video soft core sex movies like Animal Instincts, Mirror Images, or Secret Games. They are all lit well and professionally lensed but the director calls the shots.

From Cameron, to Kubrick, to Fincher, to Ridley Scott, to Spielberg, and on and on the director has the visual trademarks even though they often work with different DoPs on every film.
Click to expand...

Cinematographers job is to interpret what the director wants and make it a reality. They're responsible for getting the right cameras, lenses, and lighting to get the kind of look they think the director wants through discussions, reading the script, doing tests, etc.

Cinematographers doing feature films all have their own style, to varying degrees, otherwise they wouldnt be getting work at that level. They're not all interchangeable like you're suggesting, they're very important to the process and DP's like Pfister, Lubezki, Hoyte, etc. all absolutely are "shooting" the film they're shooting. Nolan knows what shots he wants, whether he wants them to be wide shots or close ups, etc. but he's not shooting it himself. The precise composition of the shot, the lighting, etc. isn't just something anyone in the world can nail after a director says "I want a wide shot panning in over there".
 
"I noticed the set of tools a director uses, chose to ignore them, and now I am going to write a piece about how I have destroyed him!"

What a useless critique
 
Chumley said:
Uh, I'd disagree that they took a "leap forward". They're very different cinematographers. Hoyte is more of a handled, documentary style DP while Pfister loves dolly shots and deep contrast with his lighting.



Cinematographers job is to interpret what the director wants and make it a reality. They're responsible for getting the right cameras, lenses, and lighting to get the kind of look they think the director wants through discussions, reading the script, doing tests, etc.

Cinematographers doing feature films all have their own style, to varying degrees, otherwise they wouldnt be getting work at that level. They're not all interchangeable like you're suggesting, they're very important to the process and DP's like Pfister, Lubezki, Hoyte, etc. all absolutely are "shooting" the film they're shooting. Nolan knows what shots he wants, whether he wants them to be wide shots or close ups, etc. but he's not shooting it himself.
Click to expand...

Oh course they are but they are not directors and they don't place cameras for shots unless told to by the director and then the director has final say on the frame. Conrad Hall himself said that he would place the cameras and the director would always come by and adjust the frame and they would always be better.

Even the DP isn't shooting the film. Technically the camera operators are shooting the film but that isn't even important. Ridley Scott used to operate on his films and ads until he came to hollywood and he had to hire an operator. Nothing changed in his style because direction is chain of command. Twice David Fincher changed DoPs on films he worked on and you can't tell who shot what because Fincher knows his lights and lenses intimately like any visual director.

The skill of a DoP is in knowing their technical craft but usually DoPs who become directors inevitably fail and their movies often strangey look terrible.
 
The dark Knight (one of the best cop drama) and prestige I think are best Nolan pictures. I think Dunkirk is only above Batman 3 and interstellar.
 
Warm Machine said:
Oh course they are but they are not directors and they don't place cameras for shots unless told to by the director and then the director has final say on the frame. Conrad Hall himself said that he would place the cameras and the director would always come by and adjust the frame and they would always be better.

Even the DP isn't shooting the film. Technically the camera operators are shooting the film but that isn't even important. Ridley Scott used to operate on his films and ads until he came to hollywood and he had to hire an operator. Nothing changed in his style because direction is chain of command. Twice David Fincher changed DoPs on films he worked on and you can't tell who shot what because Fincher knows his lights and lenses intimately like any visual director.

The skill of a DoP is in knowing their technical craft but usually DoPs who become directors inevitably fail and their movies often strangey look terrible.
Click to expand...

Certain directors like Fincher are basically DP's, yeah, but most don't know shit about the craft and just adjust framing a little bit (source: I'm a DP).

As for DP's becoming directors, I never understood why they don't also shoot their own films like Soderbergh does. Wally Pfister's career over the last 5 years is absolutely depressing, he now directs commercials and doesn't seem to know how to communicate his own expertise to the DP's working under him.
 
Dunkirk definitely showed how even Nolan making a more streamlined film doesn't have him focus on strengthening the aspects he often overlooks.

I think the sound design was well done but definitely felt gimmicky as a way to create tension and build-up when the film narrative itself couldn't deliver. It often made some of the conflict feel a bit empty. It was also weird that as a movie with little dialog, he still couldn't refrain from two exposition dumps bookending the film. It's like he can't let the film speak for itself.
 
The Prestige is my favorite movie of his and one of my favorites of all time, but I totally agree with the use of the score on Dunkirk. Often times it escalated to such heights only for the actual scene to go nowhere. It also drown the dialogue so bad, I couldn't catch most of what we being said, and that's bad when the lines were already sparse.
 
y2dvd said:
The Prestige is my favorite movie of his and one of my favorites of all time, but I totally agree with the use of the score on Dunkirk. Often times it escalated to such heights only for the actual scene to go nowhere. It also drown the dialogue so bad, I couldn't catch most of what we being said, and that's bad when the lines were already sparse.
Click to expand...
Now this I can agree with. It's like he asked people what the worst aspect of Interstellar was, and cranked it up to 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Someone Uploaded Christopher Nolan's short film "Tarentella" On Youtube.
2
417
kremiso replied
Pixar is not what it used to be... Elio is on his way to another failure
2 3
149
2K
Jinzo Prime replied
Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ will be the first blockbuster shot ENTIRELY on IMAX cameras
25
666
jason10mm replied
Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey - July 2026
6 7 8 9 10
458
23K
thefool replied
Remember the Tik Tok Food Poisoner Guy?... His sentence is...
30
272
Nocty replied
Top Bottom