Christopher Nolan's Inception

[Sentinel X]

kudos to WB for bank rolling;
the matrix - a completely new property
inception - a completely new property
watchmen - although it turned out to be a PoS WB still took a risk on a R rated superhero movie

I wouldn't say Watchmen was a POS. I didn't like it at first but rewatching it I have a new appreciation for it. It still isn't as great as it could be but its lovable. However, Watchmen will always work better as a book. I don't know how much better a movie would've got.

Although its interesting how big budget films that studios to a risk on happen to be some of the most successful...Titanic, Avatar, Pirates, Lord of the Rings, etc
Conclusion: Studios need to take more risks. Less remakes and adaptations...more original!

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yea the Ultimate Cut was truly my favorite. The film had flaws for sure I ate crow about the new ending and I hated it lol. Squid should have been there.. But the Ultimate cut was actually pretty good.

haha, I actually liked the new ending more than the squid. I think the film had a lot of technical flaws despite all of Snyder's attempts to make it technically perfect. The makeup was terrible in a number of scenes. The slow-mo was annoying as hell. His music choices weren't very good other than Dylan and Hendrix. Akerman is not a very good actress or perhaps the part just wasn't written very well. And the film does have pacing issues.

 

[spider-neil]

I wouldn't say Watchmen was a POS. I didn't like it at first but rewatching it I have a new appreciation for it. It still isn't as great as it could be but its lovable. However, Watchmen will always work better as a book. I don't know how much better a movie would've got.

Although its interesting how big budget films that studios to a risk on happen to be some of the most successful...Titanic, Avatar, Pirates, Lord of the Rings, etc
Conclusion: Studios need to take more risks. Less remakes and adaptations...more original!

that's why we have to make inception a success so studios take the hint 'ENOUGH with the sequels (unless they are marvel movies ) reboots (except spider-man ) and remakes (unless its thundercats )
erm what was I saying again? t:

 

[Solidus]

I thought the bad points were:
- slow mo,
-the music (I loved the original score)
- the action that was just fake, the GN really made it appear realistic they were human and that was the point so tsk tsk for Snyder on that.
-the ending
-I thought Veidt was horribly miscast. Matthew Goode acted like a Bond villain from the get go, ruining the surprise and the tension to the end.
-Dan should never have seen Rorschach be killed.
-Just the last 10 minutes had a lot of flaws for me
-and Carla who played Sally I thought did a great (young) version but a horrible (old) version.

Other than that the film was actually good, way more pluses than minuses IMO.

But I agree to above, I'm glad that with Inception WB will maybe continue to take some risks.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Agreed about Goode. He kinda acted shady all along. From what I remember about reading the graphic novel the first time, I was genuinely surprised that he turned out to be the villain because Adrian seemed like a good dude even if he did have an ego.

 

[Poeman]

I hope people are still not pondering alot about the ending...It is reality folks!

Btw, I've been listening to 528491 non-stop...awesome track

 

[Solidus]

Agreed about Goode. He kinda acted shady all along. From what I remember about reading the graphic novel the first time, I was genuinely surprised that he turned out to be the villain because Adrian seemed like a good dude even if he did have an ego.

Agreed 100%

 

[spider-neil]

I thought the bad points were:
- slow mo,
-the music (I loved the original score)
- the action that was just fake, the GN really made it appear realistic they were human and that was the point so tsk tsk for Snyder on that.
-the ending
-I thought Veidt was horribly miscast. Matthew Goode acted like a Bond villain from the get go, ruining the surprise and the tension to the end.
-Dan should never have seen Rorschach be killed.
-Just the last 10 minutes had a lot of flaws for me
-and Carla who played Sally I thought did a great (young) version but a horrible (old) version.

Other than that the film was actually good, way more pluses than minuses IMO.

But I agree to above, I'm glad that with Inception WB will maybe continue to take some risks.

snyder should be strung up for the music in watchmen. I don't think I have ever in the history of watching movies been taken out of a movie as many times as I was as watching watchmen. when 'hallelujah' broke out in the sex scene I wanted to get up and leave the cinema.

 

[Poeman]

snyder should be strung up for the music in watchmen. I don't think I have ever in the history of watching movies been taken out of a movie as many times as I was as watching watchmen. when 'hallelujah' broke out in the sex scene I wanted to get up and leave the cinema.

I also despised the villian in that movie...He looked like a Ken barbie doll

 

[redfirebird2008]

snyder should be strung up for the music in watchmen. I don't think I have ever in the history of watching movies been taken out of a movie as many times as I was as watching watchmen. when 'hallelujah' broke out in the sex scene I wanted to get up and leave the cinema.

No kidding. And as much as I love KC & The Sunshine Band, WTF was he thinking using their music during the riot scene? The opening scene was bloody brilliant with the perfect Dylan song and then the rest of the songs were horrible choices until Hendrix's version of Watchtower, which was a complete no-brainer based on the Dylan lyrics in the graphic novel.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

One film saavy dude in another forum said something like "Christopher Nolan is an entertaining novelist posing as a filmmaker", and I am very much inclined to agree.

This is not a jab at Nolan by the way. Hollywood needs more "entertaining novelists posing as filmmakers" than "bad filmmakers posing as filmmakers".

It's not about "poor visuals". Michael Bay's films don't have "poor visuals". They have spectacular visuals. Even if the story's crap.

The point is anyone can compose a pretty picture. For $200 million, it's the least you'd expect. But it takes a true filmmaker to be a visual storyteller. Spielberg, for example, is a visual storyteller. Kubrick was a visual storyteller. Hitchcock was a visual storyteller (even though he, like Nolan, was also able to wind a heckuva dizzying narrative).

Chris Nolan, however, is not a visual storyteller. And being a good visual storyteller has nothing to do with your DP's ability to make a pretty picture.

He is improving, though. And my anticipation for his next movie couldn't be higher.

 

[Poeman]

Okay...If Nolan does not win again for at least Original Screenplay...then Imma kick some ass

 

[Solidus]

No kidding. And as much as I love KC & The Sunshine Band, WTF was he thinking using their music during the riot scene? The opening scene was bloody brilliant with the perfect Dylan song and then the rest of the songs were horrible choices until Hendrix's version of Watchtower, which was a complete no-brainer based on the Dylan lyrics in the graphic novel.

Yea I agree with Spider and you. It was bad. The first part was awesome the rest of the music felt like he was trying to create something that should not have been there.

One film saavy dude in another forum said something like "Christopher Nolan is an entertaining novelist posing as a filmmaker", and I am very much inclined to agree.

This is not a jab at Nolan by the way. Hollywood needs more "entertaining novelists posing as filmmakers" than "bad filmmakers posing as filmmakers".

It's not about "poor visuals". Michael Bay's films don't have "poor visuals". They have spectacular visuals. Even if the story's crap.

The point is anyone can compose a pretty picture. For $200 million, it's the least you'd expect. But it takes a true filmmaker to be a visual storyteller. Spielberg, for example, is a visual storyteller. Kubrick was a visual storyteller. Hitchcock was a visual storyteller (even though he, like Nolan, was also able to wind a heckuva dizzying narrative).

Chris Nolan, however, is not a visual storyteller. And being a good visual storyteller has nothing to do with your DP's ability to make a pretty picture.

He is improving, though. And my anticipation for his next movie couldn't be higher.

I think we are all pretty film savvy just different views.

Again I think your confusing visuals with "flashy-ness" Yea Nolan does not use much flashy visuals in his films. But he has some of the best visuals. Wally is a god and has deserved an oscar for everyone of Nolan's films. All of them are visually beautiful to look at. Yes there is not a lot of flash this I will agree with. But to me flash is overrated and it is what Bay uses all the time.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Chris Nolan, however, is not a visual storyteller.

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[spider-neil]

One film saavy dude in another forum said something like "Christopher Nolan is an entertaining novelist posing as a filmmaker", and I am very much inclined to agree.

This is not a jab at Nolan by the way. Hollywood needs more "entertaining novelists posing as filmmakers" than "bad filmmakers posing as filmmakers".

It's not about "poor visuals". Michael Bay's films don't have "poor visuals". They have spectacular visuals. Even if the story's crap.

The point is anyone can compose a pretty picture. For $200 million, it's the least you'd expect. But it takes a true filmmaker to be a visual storyteller. Spielberg, for example, is a visual storyteller. Kubrick was a visual storyteller. Hitchcock was a visual storyteller (even though he, like Nolan, was also able to wind a heckuva dizzying narrative).

Chris Nolan, however, is not a visual storyteller. And being a good visual storyteller has nothing to do with your DP's ability to make a pretty picture.

He is improving, though. And my anticipation for his next movie couldn't be higher.

for me a great director is;
a) one that can coax great performances out of actors, otherwise they just dial it in *cough* de niro *cough*
for example scorsese

b) has a great visual style - you can tell instantly who directed the movie
for example; spielberg, jackson

c) have a keen eye for action - they know exactly what to show, how to frame it, how to light it
for example cameron

d) they know what it takes to tell a good story, which is ultimately why we go to the movies

imho not many directors tick all the above boxes

 

[Crook]

If you ask me, no one ticks all those boxes.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If you ask me, no one ticks all those boxes.

This.

 

[spider-neil]

If you ask me, no one ticks all those boxes.

cameron used to but doesn't anymore.

 

[redfirebird2008]

cameron used to but doesn't anymore.

Never been great with actors IMHO.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I thought the bad points were:
- slow mo,
-the music (I loved the original score)
- the action that was just fake, the GN really made it appear realistic they were human and that was the point so tsk tsk for Snyder on that.
-the ending
-I thought Veidt was horribly miscast. Matthew Goode acted like a Bond villain from the get go, ruining the surprise and the tension to the end.
-Dan should never have seen Rorschach be killed.
-Just the last 10 minutes had a lot of flaws for me
-and Carla who played Sally I thought did a great (young) version but a horrible (old) version.

Other than that the film was actually good, way more pluses than minuses IMO.

But I agree to above, I'm glad that with Inception WB will maybe continue to take some risks.

I agree about the action being over the top but I could handle that. I just really didn't like the alleyway scene. In the GN they took them out, but the film made it way more violent than it originally was. The slo-mo was over the top at times. And yes, Veidt was miscast and older Sally acting was downright terrible. Carla sounded like an awkward combination of Adam West and William Shatner.

But I liked the last 10 minutes and the changed ending. I like that Dr. Manhattan was framed for the explosion, and that Dan saw Rorschach get killed and was concerned about the state of things instead of f**king Laurie and forgetting that New York is in shambles and his friend was dead.


And I definitely disagree about Nolan being a visual storyteller.

 

[spider-neil]

ridley scott used to
james cameron used to
spielberg used to

I agree not one single director now ticks all the above

 

[Heretic]

In watchmen, the casting for Ozymandias was definitely an issue...

I watched the movie with a friend of mine who has never been a comic reader, and had never even of heard of the Watchmen comic, and he turned to me after the second Ozy scene and said (he's the bad guy...he's tricking the blue guy into working with him). Once you figure that out, the ending scenes are majorly affected in a negative way.

 

[spider-neil]

Never been great with actors IMHO.

you mean failing to get great performances or because he treated them like ****?
the performances in aliens are fantastic.

 

[redfirebird2008]

you mean failing to get great performances or because he treated them like ****?
the performances in aliens are fantastic.

I mean performances. Him treating them like poop might play a part in it, but wasn't Kubrick a d-bag too? He got a lot of great performances out of his actors.

 

[redfirebird2008]

In watchmen, the casting for Ozymandias was definitely an issue...

I watched the movie with a friend of mine who has never been a comic reader, and had never even of heard of the Watchmen comic, and he turned to me after the second Ozy scene and said (he's the bad guy...he's tricking the blue guy into working with him). Once you figure that out, the ending scenes are majorly affected in a negative way.

Yeah, I noticed this as well. There was an aura about him that wasn't there in the graphic novel. This falls directly on Snyder's shoulders, not just for casting the wrong guy but also for giving bad direction. That includes the direction of the actor as well as the visual mood of the scene.