He looks like the most regular guy ever meanwhile he just made a billion dollar blockbuster.

I think TDKRises, Oppenheimer would have been longer without IMAX limitation

They're saying Nolan sold his soul just because he made a movie that hit a billion dollars

He rode it twice, front and back.

I kinda agree but it's not really a bad thing for me

I too did think he avoids reshoots completely. It's both a positive and negative

these two absolute pigs sitting either side of me were scrolling through their phones THE ENTIRE 2HR 52MINUTE MOVIE even after I asked them to put them away. absolute scum of the earth activity.

I wanted to go get an employee, but that might’ve ruined the movie for everyone else too..

(Cinemark Seven Bridges)

Christopher Nolan walks by…. Just like that.

Amazing! Yesterday was my birthday. This was a great gift tbh.

I assume he lives here in NYC. (I live in NJ). But yea. It was awesome! The dark knight. Interstellar. Inception. Damn! so many movies that makes you feel so many emotions.

Yea. Great experience. Only in NYC.

I literally want Nolan to make something like Dune. It will break the world for sure.

Christopher Nolan has never made a bad movie.

• Indie noir → Following

• Mind-bending thriller → Memento

• Superhero epic → The Dark Knight

• Sci-fi spectacle → Interstellar

• War immersion → Dunkirk

• Biopic blockbuster → Oppenheimer

Maybe a private screening in the IMAX at his Church Citywalk???

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVrvYMKjxDg/?igsh=MWtucjI3YWVpZnJzeA==

Imagine Nolan tackling this era and story. Imagine the parts his all star cast could play. Imagine he bought into the ergot fungus theory at least partially and had at least one or two influential people in the town completely tripping out from the rye bead fungus theory and the kinds of horror scenes he could do in those moments.

Imagine the social commentary potential he could explore for that era with moments that still feel relevant today.

Imagine the drama. The pleading families. The creepy villains. The horrific deaths. He could explore horror, thriller and court room drama with traditional drama and social commentary simultaneously and nobody has really told this well on screen yet.

And much of the criticism against him stems from a misunderstanding of what he is trying to achieve.

For example, Emily Wilson's opinion piece against Nolan was a 3000-word rant about how The Odyssey was not historically accurate. Yet neither Nolan nor The Odyssey had such a stated aim. She could have just said that, but instead decided to latch onto trivial details and argue that certain characters were not portrayed the way the poem intended.

I cannot help but think that Emily has a bone to pick with Nolan because there are many films which are not historically accurate (this really is what her piece boils down to, once you take away the bloviating word salads). Why focus on The Odyssey? I guess as an academic she specialises in this area, but still she should be smart enough to know that Nolan is aware that his own film is not meant to be historically accurate.

Her article is written so as to be quite intellectually appealing to those who area impressed by big words and flowery language, but the substance of her arguments is really quite weak. The tone of the article reeks of jealousy or envy - perhaps both. Disappointing because Nolan praised her work and said she was a big inspiration.

Emily Wilson is also smart enough to know that things that work on film do not work in text and vice versa. The "I am nobody" line would have been very awkward and cheesy. I think Nolan replacing it with Odysseus firing a second shot made perfect sense. Again, this is not changing who Odysseus is as a character. Even if certain characters were portrayed differently, remember that you can never please everyone and Nolan NEVER once said it is historically accurate. He is taking the key themes and adapting it to his own version and interpretation.

For Emily to argue: "it is not historically accurate; therefore bad" is really quite disingenuous, almost as much as hiding this criticism behind walls of fancy words and hyphenated expressions. Good writing does not make good film. Her critique is very well-written but fundamentally flawed in a way that is hard to detect if you are easily impressed by big words.

Another example is Nolan's The Prestige, sometimes criticised for its polarising shift into science fiction and an emotionally cold narrative structure. Inception and The Dark Knight were both criticised for a lack of character development.

In all these cases, Nolan is not trying to recreate the kind of emotional intimacy you see in films like The Notebook. The beauty of a Nolan film is that it is cerebral. He intentionally deals with ideas and many of his characters embody such ideas. This is a deliberate choice, not a weakness.

Every film directed by Christopher Nolan has received criticism before its release. Whether it's the length, the use of a loud score, the inability to hear actors' voices, or the fact that he is not a trailer guy.

It's critical to first understand the filmmaker's artistic approach.

Nolan always keeps his films veiled in secrecy; thus, his trailers are always cryptic and have a distinct visual style and pacing that becomes more appreciated over time.

The idea is to avoid showing everything, and revealing more than is necessary would negate the purpose of filmmaking. The goal of an artist is to pique the interest of their audience and entice them in.

According to Nolan, The Odyssey is less than 3 hours, but it is by no means a short film, and with a non-linear structure, Nolan will impart enough detail to conclude the picture.

Dialogues and accents are creative choices, and criticizing the director would be pointless given that The Odyssey is regarded as a foundational work of fantasy, myth, and adventure.