Nolan is not immune from corporate influence and it's tentacles always squeeze the life out of art. Tenent just sucks. Period. The review didn't have to agonizingly go over some possibility of some small aspect that could salvage a crappy movie. Just because Nolan made a few movies that had some valuable cinematic substance doesn't make him a Fellini. Honestly, Nolan doesn't deserve a multi-video expose with your intellectual interpretations and valuable insights into themes and philosophies that can be extracted from his films. You can always find something good in everything that is bad...and if that is your point, than you have no value as a reviewer, but more as a promoter or salesman. There are hundreds of films and dozens of directors who you could focus on...which makes me question if your motivations are most likely based on click rate potential. You make assumptions that Nolan is some sort of guru and philanthropist whose principal motives are to use art to benefit humanity and provoke thought and consciousness. The truth is that he has the resources to actually make such films, but he opts for blockbuster mentality for financial gain with some dashes of artistic substance to give the giant empty hulk a soul. Dark Knight was an exception and what do you know? After that movie...it went downhill after cashing in and getting the graces of investors. Now it is a matter of if he can buy back from the devil he is sold to. I haven't heard your review, but I already know you will fawn all over Oppenheimer and completely gloss over the propaganda that it is. The narrative has always been that nukes were necessary to end WW2 and blah blah blah. This is a lie as well as annihilating the innocent civilians in two large Japanese cities in order to "save lives of American soldiers". I am sure you will promote the movie by finding some aspect of it that is supposedly valuable and disregard the facts of who is behind all of the wars and these horrible weapons they produce. That is shameful and I think you need to do some introspection since you are now an arm of influence and responsible for your viewers' oftentimes limited ability to discern between reality and fiction. The movie Idiocracy was made for a fraction of any of Nolan's films and it contains exponentially more insight into human existence and it's potential future...and there are no hidden meanings or themes. Nobody is going to watch Oppenheimer and say "Oh, wow, how did we as citizens allow our governments, schools and scientists to expand our plight and slavery?!"...but after Idiocracy the answer to that question is painfully obvious. We were entertained into it and we gobbled it up because it appealed to our senses....not for our nutrition. By promoting a opportunist like Nolan and his investors you are becoming a friend of the entertainment gatekeepers laying waste to the land. Stop eating their table scraps and sustain yourself on the goodness in your own forest. Maybe I am wrong about you and I do want you to succeed with millions of subscribers...but I think your core audience was originally attracted to your authenticity and a search for truth and meaning where it actually exists. As one of those subscribers, I am giving you a pass on this Nolan worship thing because we all need to pay our bills. Meanwhile, I challenge you to review movies that have tangible merit and contain no hidden meaning...like Sound of Freedom. I realize your wheelhouse is digging into cinematic abstracts but your talents would also be remarkable promoting documentaries and documentary-inspired films.

​@@blackberrydreamsznice word salad bro. Make your own channel if you've figured it all out to this extent. Also Idiocracy is one of the worst movies I ever watched

I loved this vid btw, it gave really insightful analysis and didn't worship Nolan at all, rather gave pros and cons for each film and idk why anyone would think otherwise unless they didn't watch it

@@blackberrydreamsz thx for this i was baffled to see his last 3 videos after watching oppenheimer, maybe it went south since there's no analysis of it yet here...

Nolan had an underlying problem of scale in Dunkirk which rendered the entire film too shallow for most people to maintain their immersion and suspense of disbelief. Dunkirk is a story of 300,000 men, which is told through what maybe 2,000 actual men on visually empty beaches. I always felt that Nolan had chosen to do this on purpose, but I cannot fathom what he was trying to accomplish with this deliberate reduction (not distillation) in bodies [brushes] used to tell the story.

When that organ hits?!? Cinema

Also when the spaceship is passing by saturn

@@wachox That shot on an IMAX screen knocked me out. Incredible.

Yup I was at he edge of my seat , sweating and breathless

That Zimmer music was making my heart pound

It's not a trick, but as LSOO describes an issue in his filmmaking process. I noticed the same problem independently while watching Oppenheimer in the theatre. The movie is a rollercoaster of information. Alot of things are passed onto us, but alot of information is omitted, including information we should be able to understand quickly in order to understand the progression of the story. Yet this information simply isn't there, and we are left to make up our own minds, yet the pace of the movie doesn't allow us to think about it. Instead, the movie has moved onto the next shot, with characters talking over our questions, providing new information, as if this small pause didn't matter at all. I also noticed this while watching Dunkirk in IMAX. Some of the boat shots aren't in IMAX. Nolan replied in an interview this is because the cameras didn't fit onto the boat, yet some shots are in IMAX, while others aren't. On the same boat. Seems like a lie on his part, trying to cover him forgetting to cover those shots in IMAX for whatever reason he doesn't want to share with us. Even then, there are many valid solutions to make these cameras fit onto a small boat. This is just a lame excuse for someone being too lazy to make it work and see the project through perfection, coming from a director who portrays to strife for perfection with every project. It becomes even clearer upon second and sometimes even third viewings that although Nolan knows how to create suspense and provide sensational stories, he somehow fails to meet the technical challenges that come with editing, instead focusing on sensation (eg the mayor dying in an explosion so we can have this cool scene of a football player outrunning the field sinking) over content (missing information, shots, wrongly paced cuts, etc.). His best movies are, uncoincidentally, movies that can jump from timeline to timeline because they influence each other, movies that use gratuitous violence to elevate suspense and that have dream logic instead of logic that adheres to the real world like Inception and Tenet. His real world movies have grown incredibly stale, sure Dunkirk has a great opening scene, but the rest of it is just trying to surpass Spielberg, which is still a superior moviemaker to Nolan. And at the end, I felt the same about Oppenheimer. It's Nolan's Lincoln, which is just a downright shame. There are brilliant scenes that show Nolan's greatness, yet he chooses to try and imitate someone else with some of his efforts. He should focus on making up for his own shortcomings, or keep turning them into his forte, and he would be an equally great filmmaker in his own right.

​​@@DarkAngelEUyou forgot the part where Frodo finds the ring

Agreed whats so bad about doubling down on the ecstasy of love

Earnestness is my favourite thing in any medium, but especially films. I love Interstellar with all my heart, it connected with me on so many levels. One of my favourite memories is watching it to my parents - my dad is a science geek and my mum loves stories about human connection, and seeing them both enjoy it so much was really special to me - it's rare they both love a film that much. It's been my favourite film for years now ❤

The problem that most people have with the movie isn't that the solution to the problem was love, that's actually a great message, it's just the way it was executed that leaves a lot to be desired.

They were horrible I hope Oppenheimer delivers

Yeah Dunkirk was not my cup of tea but I could fully appreciate the quality and thought that went into it. Tenet had some interesting elements and SO much potential but then ended up feeling like a 2.5 star marvel movie version of a Nolan film 😂

Sadly Oppenheimer is in the league of dunkirk and tenet too. Still waiting for the vintage interstellar inception nolanesque film magic. :(

@@sejwalvishu no it was incredible to me and I have been super critical of him

Yes, that! The mumble dialog in Tenet was a major disappointment. Well, seeing Oppenheimer tomorrow. With high expectations.

Agreed. LSofO is not afraid to be “deep”, which a lot of people make fun of.. and some of the time deservedly.. but LSofO achieves deep in a meaningful way that’s also practical and not self-important. Which I appreciate.

I hope it’s good. How was tenets reception in the beginning

@@Ali-fo4uv I didn’t see Tenet in the beginning. I saw it on the movie channels and found it way too convoluted. But deserving of praise for its visual effects.

I'm so glad that you said this. I feel the exact same. I watched TENET during its open weekend and I loved it even though I didn't understand everything after first viewing. As I watched it two more times, I came to realise how truly well done the film is. I regard it as being one of his very best works. An excellent spy sci-fi thriller. The score by Ludwig Göransson is world-class. Nolan is just next level. The film has developed a great cult following. As time passes, more people will acknowledge it as being a cinematic masterpiece. Dare I say, I believe that it might age as well as films like American Psycho, Fight Club and Eyes Wide Shut. Films which were massively underrated upon initial release, but grew to be renowned as masterpieces which will forever be relevant.

@@ofentsesebiloane475 Absolutely. I get the criticisms of it to a degree but to me the story, the actors, atmosphere, visuals, and the SCORE far outweigh whatever downsides there are. I think people expect perfection from Nolan for some weird reason. Neil and TP talk at the end was just the icing on the cake for me. Its perfect. Great comment by the way

There is no other movie that has grown on me like Tenet. Every issue I had with the movie became the strength of the movie as i kept watching it again and again. For example- the lack of character development was a big issue i had after my first viewing. But seeing the movie the 2nd time around, i understood why he chose to cut down on character. There are a lot of risky choices that he made in the film that no other filmmaker would have taken at least on a movie with a $200 million budget. If you look at Nolan movies before Dunkirk, he used to play it safe and didn't take as risky decisions as he takes now. Tenet might not be his best but i definitely enjoy watching tenet more than most of his other films. Also, Nolan could have made the film a bit simpler for the audience by compromising the plot but he didn't. And I really appreciate that. He just went for it. Made it as packed as he could. I have noticed that people who don't understand the movie call it nonsensical and convoluted while those who understand most of it call it complex/complicated.

This is exactly how I felt about the movie. As a creative, I just had great appreciation for Nolan TRYING something so different than any other film. People get so nit picky about realism that they lose that child like wonder to appreciate how interesting the premise is.

Maybe it's because I'm a photographer and interested in cinematography and editing, but the movie is one of his best imo. It was surprisingly good considering so many people thought it was a failure and told me to not even waste my time with it.

They are both crap with crap terrible dialogue and story telling

exactly. but i think oppenheimer takes dunkirk spot

I think you're right about the editing being intentional. The only time I've ever had a moment where the editing in a Nolan film felt off or jarring is the cut from the Joker hanging up side down near the end of The Dark Knight. I've always wondered if the abrupt cut was due to coverage (not wanting to suspend Ledger longer or the take was just to good not to use), was intentional to draw the audience away from the Joker and toward the pathos of the next scene with Dent; or, if it was purely for time (nipping the end off a scene or two to make studio runtime expectations). For me the deluge of visual information is actually a feature not a bug of Nolan's films. It places the viewer in an almost trance like transcendental state (greatly helped by Hans Zimmer's scores'). The visuals provide just enough to allow the audience to interpret what is happening, then move on, allowing the cumluative dramatic or emotional intention to be picked up. I also think his unusual 'punctuation' is a response and challenge to traditional editing styles. Like a poet using 'improper' grammer or punctuation to elevate writen language from mechanical 'rightness' to artistic beauty.

I think he is one of a kind. There have been no other directors that can make movies that are so artistic yet entertaining and make money.

@@ssssssstssssssss Yeah......that's not true, but it's good you've found a director you like. He is probably the best director with box office grosses of that size...at least since Cameron started making ridiculous Smurf movies. While it's technically true to call him unique, the films themselves aren't what most people would call overly "artistic", but he has high mastery of his craft. The concepts and characters are at the forefront of his pictures...not really the "artistic" methods and subtexts. He certainly has interesting narrative messages and explores them in original ways. Picking up Oppenheimer was a good strategic play, since there's definitely a "based on true events" demographic out there.

@@mastpg I wouldn't say Avatar is as bad as some people say, I liked The Way of the Water dspite what some people said, I think Nolan can be perfectly Cameron's successor, about movies that do the "art for the entertainment", I think on Steven Spielberg, with Oppenheimer, Nolan is doing it's "Schindler's List" (coincidentally, produced by Universal) a more mature and ambitious project that might demonstrate to some critics that he just dosen't do commercial blockbuster (that had many depht than what more people think, same with Spielberg), which he already tried to demonstrate with Dunkirk, I didn't hate, it's not a film that would attract world masses despite being a WW2 film, it's easy to roll eyes on it, I understood what Nolan was trying to do, it could've been much better if he focused on more details and extend the lenght, 1 hr and 47 might not do justice to the tragedy that was Dunkirk.

@@jesustovar2549 Nolan started much more seriously than Spielberg, though Empire of the Sun does hit more seriously for me as I get older...or more precisely, as my kids get older while not remotely approaching Memento...though Spielberg's debut, Duel, could I guess be on that level of seriousness for the time period and for being a TV movie. Anyway, there's no "doing justice" to Dunkirk. I honestly don't 100% believe that what Steven did with Saving Private Ryan's Omaha Beach was necessarily the right thing do to for a movie like that. Seems to me that all the emotional impact of Dunkirk was in the inflection point where it is realized by the British soldiers as they're coming back on the train that they are not being welcomed back with jeers and mocking but with open, defiant and optimistic arms. The movie shows you what was at stake and how and what could be accomplished. It gives you an understanding of the mindsets of those people

+1

Lol

I watched it with my son the other day. He's young but very intelligent. About 1/2 way through the movie he says "This is the best music I've heard in a movie". When the movie ended. He exhaled and said very softly "this is the best movie I've ever watched".

A failed attempt to reach the heights of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it has its moments.

​@@thesilvermotionI thought this was satire, and then I thought nah maybe it's real. And now I'm totally unsure

This is why the story between kat, the artist, feminine side of the brain, and the rich, powerful, male side of the brain. Since the stakes are so high, these archetypes must be almost caricatures. The solution to this over solidification of ego in each role? A nameless protagonist. The hero on his journey

Wow. I live I'm Ireland. 500 miles in any direction and I'm in the sea. Lol. About 60 miles for me to get to the one Imax screen here.

same

Im literally the destroyer of worlds

Me too. Now Ill just enjoy the narration. Love his voice and the way he presents these interesting topic!

I think he's saying that the film dranatically cuts from Cooper getting pushed down into the pit to the shot of his son getting his lungs checked.

I have always thought it was future humans from Dr. Brand's colony we see at the end of the film. The mission to ensue humanities' survival by sacrificing those left behind redeemed by those decended from the new humanity taking pity on those left behind.

@@melissaharris3389 within the constraints of the film, that is the most likely answer. I'm just saying that his arrival at that conclusion is pure speculation. It fits the story only inasmuch as the film presents no alternatives to compare to his theory.

Nolan has said that he had the capitalist morons at silicon valley in mind when making this. No doubt the fact that we're about to nuke each other over f*cking resources, also.