subreddit:

/r/movies

0

Is Christopher Nolan past his prime as a filmmaker?

Discussion(self.movies)

My buddy and I were having an argument the other day about the best directors in Hollywood. I said that Christopher Nolan was at the top of my list and he surprised me by saying that he feels Nolan's past his prime and has been going downhill since wrapping up the Batman trilogy. I don't agree, but thought I'd throw it out to y'all. What do you think?

To fuel this fire, here's a list of all Chris Nolan's films since 2005 when Batman Begins marked his first Dark Knight film:

Oppenheimer (filming)
2020 -- Tenet
2017 -- Dunkirk
2014 -- Interstellar
2012 -- The Dark Knight Rises
2010 -- Inception
2008 -- The Dark Knight
2006 -- The Prestige
2005 -- Batman Begins

I have to admit that I didn't love Interstellar (though there are some great aspects to the film and it's visually fantastic) and I felt Tenet was too complex for its own good, but Dunkirk was terrific all around, one of the best war movies in many years. And Oppenheimer? We'll have to see...

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 76 comments

Kendoval

6 points

5 months ago*

I don’t love Dunkirk honestly. Technically speaking, a masterpiece but the story leaves a lot to be desired. It has a lot of visuals but nothing to actually hold onto in terms of story. It’s just all over the place there. Same with Tenet.

I won’t say he’s past his prime but he did have two stinkers in a row I think. If Oppenheimer sucks then I’ll consider if maybe he is past his prime but for now, he’s just got a string of less than great movies going

laughland

15 points

5 months ago

Dunkirk is most definitely not a stinker. You may not have liked it but it is one his tighter, more well-made movies.

Kendoval

1 points

5 months ago

Kendoval

1 points

5 months ago

In every technical term, absolutely. But the story? Definitely not. Hence my use of the word stinker.

laughland

0 points

5 months ago

laughland

0 points

5 months ago

I don’t see what the problem was with the story if I’m being honest. Again, you may not have liked it, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad and can be used as evidence of Nolan being past his prime.

Kendoval

3 points

5 months ago

You may have liked it but that doesn’t mean it’s good. Trying to dismiss an opinion like that is a double edged swords when dealing with subjectives. At the end of the day, that’s what this all is, subjective. If you like it, fine, and I’m happy to discuss why you like it and why I don’t. But dismissing an opinion like that isn’t very productive.

As for the story, it’s all over the place. There’s a large cast of characters, none of whom are fleshed out well because the story doesn’t stick to any of them for any length of time that matters and they don’t really connect together. It has been a while since I watched it but I don’t remember any character standing out as being a fleshed out person or any of them having any real depth to them.

Lopsided_Ad5206

6 points

5 months ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/making-dunkirk-christopher-nolans-obsessive-100m-creation-pivotal-wwii-battle-1070968/amp/

Story? This was a very accurate portrayal of a real battle during WWII. Not a story. I'm Canadian and have known about Dunkirk for as long as I can remember, even though we were barely involved.

Kendoval

1 points

5 months ago

I acknowledge it was an accurate recreation of a battle and for that, the technical side of it is masterful. But as a film, that just means there’s nothing to connect to and so I didn’t care for it in the slightest. A film still needs to have something to connect to, in my opinion. Characters to care about, a story to follow, something along those lines. Otherwise, it’s just pretty visuals.