Wow, what a bunch of simpering, unadventurous, whining, unwilling-to-venture-outside-comfort-zone cranks we have here.
I actually have a wide ranging taste in movies and certainly don't have an issue with avant garde film, but just because Nolan throwis out the movie rule book doesn't put him him up there with the likes of Cocteau or Goddard.
There are elements of Interstellar which are appallingly judged by Nolan and I stand by my opinion that portions of the movie are mind-numbingly dull, a view clearly shared by the very restless audience I saw the film with last week. If not wanting to be bored senseless in a movie makes me an unadventurous crank, then so be it.
There are elements of Interstellar which are appallingly judged by Nolan and I stand by my opinion that portions of the movie are mind-numbingly dull, a view clearly shared by the very restless audience I saw the film with last week. If not wanting to be bored senseless in a movie makes me an unadventurous crank, then so be it.
So, given what you know about Nolan's films and how you feel about them, what did you expect going in?
So, given what you know about Nolan's films and how you feel about them, what did you expect going in?
I went in with an open mind actually as conceptioally it looked interesting. I always try and view a movie without any baggage even when it is a film by someone like Nolan who's body of work I find quite unremarkable.
I went in with an open mind actually as conceptioally it looked interesting. I always try and view a movie without any baggage even when it is a film by someone like Nolan who's body of work I find quite unremarkable.
Well, you wouldn't know it from your initial post, eh wot? Hence, my question.
The need of some directors to IMPRESS you is a liability. This usually comes with directors with real talent, like Kubrick, Nolan, David Lean, maybe Ridley Scott, sometimes Steven Spielberg.
