Christopher Nolan

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Message
Author
User avatar
essrog
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:24 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.

Re: Christopher Nolan

#26 Post by essrog » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:01 pm

Murdoch wrote:Something I never noticed before, but struck me the last time I watched the film, is how utterly depressing it is:
Agreed. I think most viewers are so wowed/confused by the plot mechanics the first (or maybe even second and third) times that it's easy to overlook the devastating emotional core of the film. The most arresting images for me are
SpoilerShow
the shots of Lenny with his wife and his "I did it" tattoo. It's pure fantasy -- his wife is alive, and he has tangible evidence of the revenge he has been seeking throughout the movie. The reality is that both are impossible -- Lenny actually killed his wife, which means he'll never have revenge, no matter how many people he kills.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#27 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:01 pm

I loved Insomnia too. It is kind of your average thriller, but with the caliber of the talent involved, it rises above that tag entirely throughout.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#28 Post by knives » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:36 pm

essrog wrote: The most arresting images for me are
SpoilerShow
the shots of Lenny with his wife and his "I did it" tattoo. It's pure fantasy -- his wife is alive, and he has tangible evidence of the revenge he has been seeking throughout the movie. The reality is that both are impossible -- Lenny actually killed his wife, which means he'll never have revenge, no matter how many people he kills.
I have to say that scene and
SpoilerShow
the burning scene really are what make the film and character for me. Everyone is played up as these terrible people. Even the hero manipulates himself to a lost personal satisfaction, but Lennard is allowed those two moments to really shine as person. Not completely lost of humanity in this noir nightmare. Without those two moments the film loses much of what makes it great. It goes beyond a gimmick to an emotionally complex idea.
Shoot, I can't tell if I like Following or Memento more now.

User avatar
Svevan
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re:

#29 Post by Svevan » Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:24 am

Matt wrote:
Svevan wrote:Re: The Prestige...the film reminds me of M. Night Shyamalan's worst indulgences in The Village, where the only reason there's a mystery at all is because the editing leaves out the pertinent plot details until the end, at which point the film must retread over old scenes only this time including "what we missed," (that is, what the director chose not to show us the first time around). It all feels cheap, even if there are some interesting moments and themes.
Well, that's kind of a joyless and superficial way to approach the film. The whole movie is constructed on the performance of a magic trick and about how much work goes into creating what appears to be, on the surface, very simple. So that's why the film reveals the secrets behind tricks from the simple (the vanishing birdcage) to the highly complex (Chung Ling Soo, the protagonists' ultimate tricks) and is structured along the very same performative rubric: the setup, the performance, the prestige, followed by the reveal.

The source novel is long and epistolary in structure, so if you have a problem with the film's non-linear narrative, you can't really blame Nolan (and his brother). If anything, you should thank them for condensing and streamlining the story so well. The proof of these sorts of movies that have a dramatic reveal at the end is if the movie is worth watching a second time. I've seen The Prestige 3 times and am looking forward to my next viewing.
I didn't know anything about the novel before reading your post, so my criticisms were based entirely on the film's similarity to Nolan's previous non-linear narratives. I don't feel I was being superficial in my criticism because, no matter how the source material guided him, Nolan's hide-the-bunny method of storytelling has felt the same whether his main theme is magic tricks, memory loss, or whatever (probably non-diegetic) excuse he has for Following's structure. I had a feeling of been-there, done-that, and magic hardly seemed to motivate the proceedings, at least to me.

I'm adding qualifiers to my statements because I haven't seen the film twice, and I'm going to re-watch it with your defense in mind.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#30 Post by Sloper » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:25 am

I would just add to Chris's fairly comprehensive summary above (of Memento):
SpoilerShow
Teddy (the cop) is not only taking out the drug dealers, but also taking their money - and of course endangering Leonard's life in the process. I don't think this makes him all that unsympathetic, but it accentuates the sense that Leonard is being manipulated. I also like the idea of Leonard's being able to make new, but false, memories, through repetition and routine. (Hence Sammy Jankis: 'great story, gets better every time you tell it'.) It's not only a convenient plot point, but also an unnerving comment on the human condition.
And I absolutely agree with Murdoch that this is a really chillling film. If you haven't tried it yet, use that extra feature on the DVD and watch it in the correct order. It really brings home the cold, awful reality of what happens in the film, whereas when the story is told backwards it ends on a sort of mindless 'up', showing us the way Leonard perceives himself and his journey, rather than the way it in fact is.

There's also so much humour in the film, which given the grim subject matter is essential I think. So many lines crack me up every time I watch it: 'You know, I've had more rewarding friendships than this' is probably my favourite, although the 'I'm chasing this guy/no, he's chasing me' scene is also beautifully done.
Tribe wrote:I was very much looking forward to Nolan's take on Insomnia, since I really love the original Norwegian version and at the time I was taken by Nolan's mastery at "confusing" a story line in a unique and original way. But Nolan's Insomnia disappointed me both as a re-make of the original and as a seeming failure to twist the plot creatively (which I thought could have been done with the theme of constant daylight and lack of sleep as effective distorters of reality).
Yes, I got the impression people were disappointed that Insomnia wasn't more 'inventive', but one of the things I like about Memento (and it's true of Mike Figgis' Timecode as well) is that it isn't just a gimmick film, or at least it isn't about the gimmick. It's just a really good psychological thriller in which the unusual narrative structure serves the plot. I'm glad that Nolan didn't fall into the Shyamalan trap of playing up to his own reputation, and thus becoming a one-joke director.

With Insomnia, he proved that he could make a good, conventionally plotted thriller, an unpretentious (though as I said before I do think it has its own things to say about all that 'human condition' stuff, as any good thriller should) genre movie that pushed all the right buttons. That's why it's my favourite - it's the film where you see what a great director he is, and what potential he has to do more great things. I think it will be re-evaluated in a few years' time. With The Prestige, too, there's a lot of trickery going on, but Nolan never forgets to grip and entertain his audience.

A bit of me hopes that Inception won't have any twists in it at all, but just be another efficient, intelligent thriller, although the tagline 'your mind is the scene of the crime' seems to promise otherwise...

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Christopher Nolan

#31 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:41 pm

I'm probably harsher on the Insomnia remake for two reasons. The first is that it was handled perfectly (and ambiguously) in the original, while the remake smoothed out all the rough edges that, if I'm being uncharitable, felt like a whitewash to get around the more morally tricky parts of the story. I particularly get stuck on finding a conveniently dead dog to shoot rather than the detective killing it himself just to save his own skin - was killing an animal in cold blood too much, or too unsympathetic, for a lead character in a major film?

And the second is that Following and Memento had both previously shown a beautifully ambiguous touch in Nolan's work with deep insights into his characters and the way they manufacture the motives that drive their actions (Nolan's first two films, and even the Batman ones to a certain extent, are about people creating their own obstacles to keep themselves occupied and entertained so that they don't have to face ugly truths of empty lives. Even Insomnia has this process of the main character both creating and then working through their situation, which is why I could imagine Nolan being drawn to the material, but strangely the original takes this idea and explores it to a fuller and more psychologically impactful extent). All the little touches and moments that turn a by the numbers plot into a perfect memorable film (the things that make Following and Memento stand up as great and moving films beyond their unorthodox structures, or that make Skjoldbjærg's Insomnia so powerful) felt carefully ironed out of the untroubling Insomnia remake.

I unfortunately found it a completely unsatisfying film coming at it from both angles of the earlier film or the director's previous work. It wasn't technically bad and I can even see why it was relatively successful - it was just that I expected more of him than simply a competent Hollywood remake that I could imagine being handled similarly by, say, Joel Schumacher or any number of directors for hire.

Perhaps it was just the problems that come with working with a major studio for the first time that led to this more cautious approach resulting in a blander end product, and of course it could be argued that it was a necessary learning experience to have before moving on to the Batman films that managed to combine mass audience entertainment and a greater moral complexity than usually expected from a Hollywood Summer blockbuster.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: Christopher Nolan

#32 Post by HarryLong » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: The Prestige...the film reminds me of M. Night Shyamalan's worst indulgences in The Village, where the only reason there's a mystery at all is because the editing leaves out the pertinent plot details until the end, at which point the film must retread over old scenes only this time including "what we missed," (that is, what the director chose not to show us the first time around). It all feels cheap, even if there are some interesting moments and themes.
I don't feel as though anything is left out in THE PRESTIGE. It's out in plain view; you just might not understand its significance.
SpoilerShow
The very first shot in the film - all those top hats littering the forest - are a clue toward the ultimate revelation (not to mention being a wonderful and provocative visual all on its own). Similarly there are clues to there being twin brothers when the wife comments on how the bullet wound seemed to have been healing so well but has gotten worse and her comment on her husband's love-making.
The film (like a good Agatha Christie mystery) plays fair & it warns you from the outset that it will try to distract you (like any good magician) to make the trick work.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Christopher Nolan

#33 Post by Jeff » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:32 pm


User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#34 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:54 pm

I can give Bordwell's piece some high praise: that it explained my own opinions to me. So that's why I dislike Insomnia and think The Prestige and Memento his best work. I love it when a writer takes something you were dimly aware of but couldn't articulate and explains it clearly.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#35 Post by knives » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:03 pm

Absolutely. I had a feeling I disliked it because of the original which makes no sense since I saw the original years after Nolan's film. It really does help put into perspective what one can accomplish in a commercial setting too. I've long been in favour in, for lack of a better phrase, developing innovations for a populace setting. Nobody should be pushed away from appreciating art (this also incidentally is my main criticism of most philosophical texts) and to expand on certain traits of formalism in structure as Bordwell ingeniously shows is being done in Nolan's cinema while maintaining that accessibility is something to applaud.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#36 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:31 pm

For me, it matters very little if the innovations are meant to be palatable to a popular audience or not. I agree with Bordwell that innovation doesn't have to be recondite or difficult (and shouldn't deserve condescension if it's not), but I'm not averse to difficulty, either. I actually rather like difficulty. Some movies (or other pieces of art) aim for a more limited selection of audience tastes than others. I have no problem if an artist wants to 'push away' certain patrons. Reminds me of something Umberto Eco said in his postscript to The Name of the Rose, to wit: that he included the loooong philosophical and theological description of the intricate carvings on the Church front as a way to weed out certain readers. If you were prepared to make it through the first hundred pages, you were prepared for the final 400 (although there is something of an irony there since even with the weeding process the book became an enormous bestseller). I'm not bothered by what Eco did at all; attract the audience you want. No one's obliged to be as demotic as possible.

So I like Bordwell's defense of Nolan's continual "apologies" for his formal devices as a defense, but I wouldn't be much in sympathy with Bordwell if he had used it as praise, ie. that this is superior to the alternatives when it comes to formal experimentation.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#37 Post by knives » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:44 pm

I'm not trying to say that Nolan's route is superior in any way to say Tarkovsky. You actually said my point better by pointing to how some writers/ filmmakers go for that obscurity as an act of condescension as if only the smartest people can enjoy this.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#38 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:08 pm

I didn't mean to indict any artists as condescending. That kind of thinking treads awfully close to anti-intellectualism (not saying this is what you're doing). I suppose I'm as against people dismissing formal experimentation for not being difficult as I am against people dismissing formal experimentation for being the opposite.

I can't think of any filmmakers at the moment that are deliberately obscurantist. So to pick up on your philosophy aside, there are some writers (Heidegger, Derrida) who are deliberately obscure and opaque prose writers. I don't think this is in itself a bad thing, and I don't think it is necessarily condescending. On the contrary, I think it is actually done to hide the faulty arguments in their works (especially with Derrida). Other writers, like Kant, are just as difficult and obscure, but are neither hiding things nor condescending; they just have really difficult things to say. Sometimes, only the really smart can understand something. This is true for subjects like quantum physics or, I don't know, some types of math, so it should be equally true of some types of philosophical investigation. There is no moral imperative to be popular or populist; you aren't looking down on people because you're doing something very difficult that demands a certain mental capacity to understand. When Eco was trying to warn certain kinds of readers away, he wasn't being condescending, he was acknowledging that he wanted this novel to be pitched at a certain level and therefore wanted readers who were willing to match it.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#39 Post by knives » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:25 pm

I actually ran into the same problem (vis directors with the Tarkovsky example reaching to say the least). I suppose my thinking here is that if you can tackle some sort of experimentation in a way that is not alienating (unless alienation is a part of the experimentation) than why take the extra effort only to rid yourself of potential audience (and if the argument is to ensure idiots don't absorb your art that's anti-intellectual in its own way as it suggests that there are those too inately stupid to properly enjoy the work)?

In a case like Kant I do think that he tried to make his arguments as accessible as possibly without as you say reducing his very complex points. To go back to Nolan what he is trying to do as outlined by the essay isn't the most complex thing in the world (certainly not Kantian level difficult) and doesn't need the additional obscurity that someone else might add to it that wouldn't improve upon the point in any way. It reduces the ability for discussion and tends to be just a prop for people with minor points to make them appear deeper than they are. There's a difference between Kant being impossible to read and Lyotard (though I do respect him a lot).

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#40 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:02 am

knives wrote:I suppose my thinking here is that if you can tackle some sort of experimentation in a way that is not alienating (unless alienation is a part of the experimentation) than why take the extra effort only to rid yourself of potential audience (and if the argument is to ensure idiots don't absorb your art that's anti-intellectual in its own way as it suggests that there are those too inately stupid to properly enjoy the work)?
My problem here would be the assumption that the base-line for filmmaking or any art is populism and anything that isn't populist or targeting as wide a field as possible is a deliberate deviation from the norm that needs special pleading. Firstly, in most cases it doesn't take "extra effort" to be difficult or recondite. Secondly, everyone rids themselves of a potential audience when they make choices. Why should it bother you that some make a choice to target a specific type of audience? Kubrick limited his audience to those who can handle a steady pace with few cuts; Tarkovsky limited his audience to the same. Barry Lyndon and Solaris could indeed have been made in a way that opened them to an even wider potential audience, but why should they have been? And don't you think there would also have been a loss if they were, maybe one greater than the gain? There are a lot of commercial reasons for being populist; are there an equal number of artistic reasons? Not to mention avant-garde filmmaking inhabits this space.

Any demand on your audience is a reduction in your potential audience. That is the nature of difficulty: some aren't willing to put in the effort. To weed out early on those who aren't willing to put in the effort necessary is a perfectly acceptable strategy on that assumption, and not one you would think those who are put off would mind.

Also, calling people too stupid to understand something isn't anti-intellectual. Assholeish, sure, but not against intellectualism. And I'm afraid your point that there is a suggestion that people are too "innately" stupid does not follow. The innateness of stupidity or whatever is neither here nor there. Not to mention calling people "too stupid" is not the same thing as pitching your work at a certain intellectual level and demanding the reader matches it. The one is being a jerk, the other is just doing what you want to do and asking people to follow or not.

And I say all of this as someone who is too stupid to understand a lot of things and would never be bothered if someone wrote a book or made a movie that was above my level (many have), let alone one that set the tone for what was to come very early on as a way to show me what I was in for and challenge me to either step up or not. As a matter of fact, I'll gut out just about anything, but that doesn't make me a good audience. Oh well.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#41 Post by knives » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:25 am

I'm probably just poorly communicating what I mean as I do agree with what you're saying. I'm not meaning that art should be exclusively populist, certainly my tastes would fly in the face of such a suggestion, but that obscuring platitudes to make them seem deep is an obnoxious thing that doesn't get kicked down often enough. For instance Everything is Illuminated is built under all of these smoke and mirrors for platitudes and the smoke and mirrors aren't even that interesting to begin with. I don't for instance think that Faulkner at his core was writing ideas of terribly more depth (though there is a lot to appreciate on just that front) but his structural points are utilized in such a fascinating manner to make up for the fact that the themes and story don't need them. Faulkner utilizes everything as best as he can to best exploit his goals which is fair and understandable. Foer though just doesn't appear to know how to use what he does and seems to only use it to make him appear smarter. He's not using because that is how he has to express himself, but because that will make him appear smarter than he actually is.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#42 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:10 am

Yeah, I think you and I completely agree. I haven't been sleeping properly for the past week really, so I'm willing to take a lot of the responsibility for starting this argument that isn't an argument. I'm seriously exhausted.

To move back to Nolan and the idea of his continuous "apologies" for his formal experimentation: one of the reasons I don't mind that Nolan goes out of his way to make things easier to apprehend and follow is because there remains a difficulty to be admired, and that is the difficulty of putting all of the narrative strands together so smoothly and clearly, and in a way that makes them easy to follow too. I admire the difficulty of the project and the level of its success. I like that Nolan wants to tell stories using unusual and complex formal methods that are nevertheless transparent and direct in the way you might expect from a less convoluted narrative. It's a very interesting dynamic, and I like it because film seems to lag behind literature in the area of complex plotting. You can zip all over the place in a book and people accept this, but somehow movie goers seem to demand special pleading for a movie that uses somewhat similar devices, and will often unfairly lable a movie with not strictly linear plotting as gimmicky or empty post-modern gamesmanship. Nolan has come in for a fair amount of that criticism, but as Bordwell points out, he's incessantly showing how integrated and unified his narrative methods are. I wish more films would do this kind of thing.

Nolan's not without his flaws (Bordwell points them out well), but he's a director I find enormously interesting and satisfying to watch. I'm anticipating what he'll do next.

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Awards Season 2012

#43 Post by dustybooks » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:36 am

Brad wrote:I'm not so sure people will be watching The Master in 50 years. Not many people watched it in 2012. I respected the film (particularly the 70mm), but film will not exist in 2062. And absent the FILM cinematography, it is a bore. In 2062 I will be watching the latest Batman reboot.
I predict that by 2062, all movies will be Batman movies.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Awards Season 2012

#44 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:40 am

I so look forward to the day when people can stop deluding themselves into thinking that these constant Batman movies are high art. Maybe now that the male teenage cinema goer's lord and savior isn't making them anymore, we can be free.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Awards Season 2012

#45 Post by willoneill » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:50 am

You're free until Interstellar comes out, then the fan-boys will go twice as nuts. (I'm predicting, obviously).

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Awards Season 2012

#46 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:12 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:the male teenage cinema goer's lord and savior
It's true, Nolan is the new Tarantino

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Awards Season 2012

#47 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:50 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:I so look forward to the day when people can stop deluding themselves into thinking that these constant Batman movies are high art. Maybe now that the male teenage cinema goer's lord and savior isn't making them anymore, we can be free.
I like Nolan a lot, having looked forward to each of his films since first seeing Memento and Following, but have to admit I agree with this, especially since the Batman films are his weakest ones... after Insomnia at least. I think I'm one of the few Nolan defenders here and I still think The Prestige is one of my favourites to come out of 00's. Yet it's hard to defend him when fanboys layer on the hyperbole that every one of his films is a masterpiece of some sort, only because they have this unexplainable love for what are, in the end, decent popcorn flicks at best. For me they're his least interesting films (even Insomnia is more interesting because it's fascinating to compare it to the Swedish original.)

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Awards Season 2012

#48 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:25 pm

cdnchris wrote:I like Nolan a lot, having looked forward to each of his films since first seeing Memento and Following, but have to admit I agree with this, especially since the Batman films are his weakest ones... after Insomnia at least. I think I'm one of the few Nolan defenders here and I still think The Prestige is one of my favourites to come out of 00's. Yet it's hard to defend him when fanboys layer on the hyperbole that every one of his films is a masterpiece of some sort, only because they have this unexplainable love for what are, in the end, decent popcorn flicks at best. For me they're his least interesting films (even Insomnia is more interesting because it's fascinating to compare it to the Swedish original.)
I dunno, I actively disliked Batman Begins when I first saw it (though I've warmed to it a bit since) and was somewhat underwhelmed by DKR, but The Dark Knight was really solid- consistently entertaining, nicely paced, great set pieces, and it pulled off the political obfuscation it was going for well enough that you can pull a plausibly anti-fascist narrative out of it.

Certainly, Nolan's Batman movies were more artistically ambitious than the Marvel ones generally have been- I enjoyed The Avengers, but as with everything Marvel's been putting out, there's a generic quality to it. Nolan's movies have a real hand behind them, and a willingness to take chances, and I think that's something worth appreciating. Sure, there's better stuff out there, but that didn't mean The Matrix wasn't pretty great in 1999, and it doesn't mean The Dark Knight isn't now.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Awards Season 2012

#49 Post by knives » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:29 pm

Though The Avengers has one element that none of the Bat films have had. Cinematography on the level of McGarvey's.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Awards Season 2012

#50 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:48 pm

I do like his Batman films (guess I should state that) and even liked the last one, moreso the second time I saw it, but as mfunk pointed out with his "high art" remark, there's many that seem to lavish an unusual amount of praise on them that I'm not sure is entirely deserved (if I recall correctly I think Entertainment Weekly's review of the Blu-ray set compared the trilogy to "The Odyssey" for example.) They're also not the first things I think of when I think of Nolan. But I do agree on the Marvel movies: though I liked The Avengers well enough (it was fun) I actually have no urge to ever watch it again when I think about it. I'll sit and watch Nolan's Batman films again on the other hand.

Post Reply