Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crocodile

The Official Christopher Nolan Church Thread

Recommended Posts

Next Christopher Nolan film to open in July 2020.

 

Quote

Warner Bros. announced Friday that Nolan's next film will open in Imax on July 17, 2020.

 

The project is described as an event film, but nothing else is known about Nolan’s latest venture. The writer-director has a propensity for secrecy, writing his scripts away from any prying eyes. Furthermore, he is of such a stature that he can attract the actors he wants, package his project with thespians and then present it to a studio with what amounts to a simple yes or no question: Are you in or are you out?

 

The filmmaker is coming off of the World War II film Dunkirk, which won three Academy Awards and earned the filmmaker his first best director Oscar nomination. The Warner Bros. film grossed $526.9 globally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John said:

I wonder what genre Nolan will tackle next. He seems to be going the Kubrick route, and experimenting within different genres.

 

Working different genres is experimental and like Kubrick?

 

Spielberg has done almost every single genre. So has Richard Donner. Were they trying to be like Kubrick?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Maybe he thought it was a pulpy genre.

 

Maybe. But than, so was science fiction when he rolled out A Space Odyssey...

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Spielberg has done almost every single genre. So has Richard Donner. Were they trying to be like Kubrick?

 

Yeah, that's true of many directors when you stack up their filmography, particularly if its quite voluminous. Especially since most films are of a composite genre of some sort or another.

 

It is, however, considerably more rare to see filmmakers dip into both the comedy and drama pools. Kubrick is noteworthy for doing so with Strangelove. I can't for the life of me picture Christopher Nolan doing a comedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

Working different genres is experimental and like Kubrick?

 

Spielberg has done almost every single genre. So has Richard Donner. Were they trying to be like Kubrick?

 

 

 

You know what I meant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Yes. If you think how different Interstellar is to Dunkirk. One takes place x years in the future. The other during WWII. One takes place in deep space. The other in Dunkerque.

 

Nolan knows only one genre - cross-cutting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says so on the top of the page itself:

 

Quote

[Update: We’ve been informed by a trusted source that the information provided by Production Weekly is not true. We apologize for any confusion. We’ve chosen to leave up the story rather than delete it in order to be up front with our readers.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Dunkirk, oddly, gets better with each viewing.

 

Karol

 

Funny. I always suspected it'd be the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KK said:

 

Funny. I always suspected it'd be the other way around.

I watched it first on the opening day and it didn't work for me that well. Then went to IMAX and realised "oh this is what they were going for". And then I watched it twice on the 4K Blu-ray. It does help the transfer is absolutely stunning and the film being shot "for real" really adds to this experience.

 

It is not my favourite Nolan film. Far from it. Think going for PG-13 was a cheat still. And there's something about the very ending that feels abrupt and at odds with the rest of it. But yeah, it does get better for me. I enjoy the dryness of it. A lot of historical films get on my nerves with their overt sentimentality or "on the nose" ideological backdrop. So this one was refreshing in this respect.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its a film whose quality depends on the size of the format.

 

Dunkirk On IMAX = great.

In a Theater = good

On TV = zzzz....

 

I find it perhaps the only film of his that doesn’t contain long stretches of boredom. It’s very much the “anti-Nolan”, in more ways than one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. It doesn't have the balooning running times of the rest of his spectacle films, nor his overly-talky scripts.

 

Still, if I need to fulfil certain prerequisites to enjoy a film (in this case, see it on a big screen) than something's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crocodile said:

I watched it first on the opening day and it didn't work for me that well. Then went to IMAX and realised "oh this is what they were going for". And then I watched it twice on the 4K Blu-ray. It does help the transfer is absolutely stunning.

 

It is not my favourite Nolan film. Far from it. Think going for PG-13 was a cheat still. And there's something about the very ending that feels abrupt and at odds with the rest of it. But yeah, it does get better for me. I enjoy the dryness of it. A lot of historical films get on my nerves with their overt sentimentality or "on the nose" ideological backdrop. So this one was refreshing in this respect.

 

Karol

 

For me, it sort of plays like Gravity. A roller-coaster that aims for the thrills of the moment, but doesn't present much reason to come back. It makes a fine 2 hour ride in the cinema, but I don't think there's much else underneath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KK said:

For me, it sort of plays like Gravity. A roller-coaster.

 

Another great example of a "big-screen and-big-screen-only" film.

 

They're the modern-day equivalents of "This is cinerama." I mean, I get that filmmakers want to draw audiences to the theaters, but this just isn't the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John said:

I find it perhaps the only film of his that doesn’t contains long stretches of boredom. It’s very much the “anti-Nolan”, in more ways than one. 

 

Nah. It might have been the best opportunity to break formula in his career (given the source material), but it ends up being his most Nolan-ized film yet. Nolan mechanics are written all over the work, almost to a fault, I might even argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, KK said:

 

Nah. When presented with the best opportunity to break formula (given the source material), he makes his most Nolan-ized film yet. Nolan mechanics are written all over the work, almost to a fault, I might even argue.

 

I disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed viewing something such as Interstellar, and was not completely gassed out by the runtime. I do understand that it was a bit long, but I feel there was enough happening to keep things moving along. And plus, Zimmer's score is such a pleasure and wonder, especially for an organ enthusiast. In my opinion, it's Zimmer's magnum opus thus far.

 

The film was good. I haven't rewatched it in a while, so I'm not going to be too bold with my comments. Inception is one that possibly could've been a little shorter too, but the adrenaline of it makes up for the time.

 

Dunkirk is a very different historical film. Like some have said, it's not over-sentimentalized or glorified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×