top 59 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 65 points 3 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You touch upon something I've been struggling with - is this film intended for the "broad-strokes" introductory audience or more experienced filmheads?

    His interviews always seem to imply he wants it both ways. Praise his films on anything remotely artistic and profound and he'll readily take credit. Critique and it's "a technical film", that can only be enjoyed in IMAX.

    I want to love this film (I did find it entertaining and worth a watch) but felt nothing. Brother, this all could have been avoided if you just got someone else to write instead of your ego.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones

    The cut off is pretty much when he stopped collaborating with Jonathan Nolan on the script. Jonathan and Christopher split up after Interstellar where Jonathan went on to write for TV shows starting with Westworld.

    Don't get me wrong, Christopher Nolan is quite capable of making movies by himself, but there still was a quality loss in the writing after Interstellar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great.

    This is why I sometimes think that 'better' and 'great' are two distinct adjectives.

    Were there better bands than 'The Beatles' but they never reached the popularity? Maybe. But were there greater bands than 'The Beatles'? I don't think so. I can't even name most of their albums yet I'm aware of their impact on the popular culture.

    Any other band you name as counter is going to be a band that was massively popular (Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Queen) too.

    Another example I can give is of tremendously two Indian movies 'Sholay' and 'Deewar'. Both released in 1975, both have Amitabh Bacchan in leading role, both written by the duo Salim - Javed.

    In my opinion, 'Deewar' is a better movie by any metric yet it isn't anywhere close to 'Sholay' when it comes to popularity or influence. The latter was a juggernaut.

    Anyway, it's past midnight here and I'm wondering if I've made any good point in this rambling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah it's like saying "oh this musician is using smaller intervals in their chorus to make it easier to sing, LAME".

    "They added sugar to their tomato sauce because the restaurant is in a location where they have to use canned tomatoes, WEAK"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What's this about needing added sugar for canned tomatoes? I've never heard that before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I loathe the sort of discourse I see about movies these days. The same trite stuff is always repeated. And it feels like a large percentage of it flows from shitty online sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Yeh because everyone sees themselves as a 'brand' and with that comes internet points and possibly sponsorship. Its not passion driving what they do, its commercialization pushing them to be something special amongst a sea of mediocrity....So gotta to scream or complain louder.

    Its not unfair to have personal pet peeves esp about tropes, or to air them, but building a cult around it is a bit extreme.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    The only mechanism I can identify Christopher Nolan using is loud sound effects and very quiet dialogue 😅

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Plenty of terrible shows with equally terrible sound editing and you pick a good show with passable sound editing? Go on I guess...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    What sound setup did you use to watch it? This is an actual problem for me, because I want to watch it, but either can’t understand it or blow my eardrums out. I haven’t been able to find reliable versions with subtitles, which is my normal solution, so now I’m just super interested, but unable to understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    That’s why the subs are unreliable, lol. If I had it on dvd or bought it online, I hope they’d be included. But yeah, all of the options seem to either never load or have inaccurate/nonexistent subtitles. It’s actually to the point that I’m keeping an eye out in libraries for a copy, but I haven’t had any luck yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I see two sides to this argument.

    On one hand, he is right: deconstruction is not a critique, and more people need to learn the difference.

    On the other hand, when people present a deconstruction as critique, what they mean is that "your magic circle is too obvious, it no longer suspends my disbelief, I see what you are doing".

    Imagine if he was talking about stage magic: "Knowing how the illusion works does not detract from prestige" - that is obviously false.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    Film is always a lie by joyous definition, why are we so monomacially obsessed with trying to deny that with raw artificial fidelity employed as an instrument quantified in kilotons of spectacle?

    I love CGI but I love heartfelt community theater more.

    TL;DR bro have you even watched Hamnet?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I blame tech. The way it scales plays too well to the speculative nature of markets, and by infecting everything we do with itself, it turns these things into speculative commodities.

    Practical effects are a craft, - they are only to be made and admired. Digital doubles can be canned, preserved and reproduced at scale with no friction. It's the theme of 21st century: sacrificing everything we love for the sake of convenience, while telling ourselves that only this convenience is love-worthy.

    You see, you can't just "be" or "make" things anymore. Whatever you do, you can only do it in a way that makes money slide.

    Everything is smooth in the frictionless world, especially disappointment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    If someone tells you all the “plot holes” they found in a movie they are not helping you decide if you’ll enjoy the movie, but just trying to score internet points.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Part of my enjoyment of a movie is that the plot maintains a level of consistency throughout. This generally requires a level of writing that most producers/directors aren't willing to spend money for. While some might be more aggressive in what they label plot holes or whatever, it's a reasonable metric that lots of complaints about plot holes is a good sign I won't like the movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Most of the time, people don't even know what a plot hole is though. A lot of times, it just means that the movie didn't explain a unimportant detail. I saw it when Rouge One came out and people were excited to "finally have the plot hole about how the vent shaft could have been included in the design of the Death Star".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's more about the execution than the story itself. I'll readily suspend disbelief and ignore inconsistencies as long as the delivery is well made, like in Funny Games or Arrival

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I swear, YouTube editorial wannabes have just utterly devastated media literacy and appreciation. Maybe not to the extent that 'second monitor' mentality and committe storytelling have, but they're definitely part of the larger problem.

    People have really fallen into 'be told what to think, not how to think'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    The best thing thing about letterboxd is the shitposts. The "real" reviews feel kinda eh.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Amongst many other things, the way you can spot an imbecile is when they complain about “unlikeable” characters.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It’s a complaint that I really don’t understand. I would love for someone who hates movies with unlikable characters to explain it to me.

    I’ve noticed it’s a complaint usually given by people who mainly watch action movies, e.g. my James Bond-loving uncle who didn’t like Marty Supreme because the main characters were unlikable. You’re supposed to admire and root for the main characters in action movies, but who says you have to feel the same way in other kinds of movies?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If that’s what makes me an imbecile, so be it (unless it was a joke about the spelling). I don’t think it’s bad to make unlikable characters, but I also don’t want to be around them for a couple hours of my limited free time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Do you go around saying certain movies are bad because the characters are all unlikeable but can't explain how or why?

    Because that's the kind of person they're talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I wouldn’t say that, but I’ve probably complained about the likability of characters, which is what their initial comment criticized. I can’t get into It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example, because the main characters are all so awful, but I enjoy isolated clips.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Anyone else feel a bit offended by this in general?

    Is it a problem? or is it just feedback that he is feeling sensitive about?

    I really dislike it when groups/individuals who often court influence and dialogue to market but don't like it on the flip side. They have fed these ecosystems but bite back at the content that dismisses them. You want people to talk about your movie/music/show then simply accept you have no control over the direction and tone of the talk.

    I wonder if he takes offense to amateur film advocates...or in general viewers? as i feel like these kinda statements make me feel like I am not allowed to share my opinion on his movies i watched.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    He's clearly talking about people who broadcast opinions so uninformed that they don't know the difference between a problem and a trope.

    Opinions aren't precious gems that need to be valued and protected. Not all opinions are valuable. In fact, most aren't. This used to be common understanding, along with "don't share your name on the internet", "you can't trust politicians", and "don't believe everything you read". All of these have been flipped around, for worse and now people are so attached to their takes and opinions that any challenge is an affront. There's no reason to be offended about opinions cobbled together in a few seconds not being valuable unless there is an irrational amount of pride and attachment involved.

    So if your opinion is that pointing out a movie follows the Heroes Journey and that means it sucks, then Nolan is right. If it's not, then what is there to be offended about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    I don't know shit about this guy and haven't even seen the movie trailer...

    ...I just know for sure I hate the marketing and hype.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Do you not use an ad blocker? I don’t think I’ve seen a single ad. Apart from, like, movie posters. I actively avoid ads tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    TBF marketing is not just direct ads. The constant articles or media arguments are still marketing. I might have wanted to see it before but all the discussions online about it put me off. the more something is pushed the less I like it.

    All the discussions of iMax etc, I even got shown a music video made by the stars. I watched it to be polite but TBH i found it a bit cringe and i now have the feeling of go away already. I used to love cinema and movies. But marketing and hype just kills any passion i have now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments