Rules: explain why
Ready player one.
That has to be one of the cringiest movies I’ve seen, is tries so hard, too hard with it’s “WE LOVE YOU NERD, YOU’RE SO COOL FOR PLAYING GAMES AND GETTING THIS 80S REFERENCE” message and the whole “corporation bad, the people good” narrative seems written for toddlers… The fan service feels cheap and adds nothing to the story.
Finally, they trying to make the people believe that very attractive girl with a barely visible red tint spot on her face is “ugly”… Like wtf?
Yet it received decent reviews plus being one of the most successful movies of that year.
Pretty much every Nolan film, with the disclosure that I stopped watching his movies after Inception. His films are always well-acted and well-produced, but the scripts are just… dumb? They take themselves way too seriously and carry this air of highbrow intellectualism while being riddled with plot holes and contrivances. Not to mention the crypto-fascist messaging.
He’s like Zack Snyder, but he pulls it off well enough that critics buy into it. It drives me crazy when I see his name mentioned alongside great auteur filmmakers like Kubrick and Scorsese.
I think Inception is the fluke because it was Nolan wanting to make the Neuromancer book into a film. But as anyone who has read it knows, explaining it is ultra hard. So the script writer probably had no idea what Nolan was talking about except for a few specific points and Inception was born out of it. The key clue is that in Neuromancer the throwing star is the main characters reminder of reality while in the film it was a toy.
Still fits with your theory.
Whoa whoa, fascist messaging? Dafuq?
Explained in a separate reply.
I see now. Kinda small argument for such a big claim
nolan is the most memeable director alive and that’s something
I agree. Inception is the standout that was actually good and is relatively free of plot holes, but then you get Interstellar which felt like I was giving myself an icepick lobotomy.
Nolan movies are like wine; you have expensive wine and you have cheap wine. The price of the wine doesn’t guarantee an enjoyable flavour, but the the expensive kind comes in a nice looking bottle and gives a certain air of class when you present it.
Nolan movies are the expensive wine. I still often enjoy Nolan movies (except for Tenet); even if the expensive wine tastes bad, the bottle looks nice on the shelf.
But… I’m not seeing the cryoto-fascist part. You’re going to have to explain that one.
Comes from the Dark Knight trilogy. The Patriot Act is used to catch the Joker, and Bane is a vilified Occupy Wall Street.
Wasn’t the entire message behind that arc “nobody should weild this power” and that’s why they destroyed it…?
That would seem to be the message we are intended to take away from the film, however this is contradicted by the fact that our protagonist uses this power and it works. Alternatively, the films message could be interpreted as: Nobody should weild this power, but sometimes it’s necessary to stop someone who “wants to watch the world burn”.
I do see your angle, and agree it can be interpreted this way, but I’m not sure I’m convinced this was intentional, or that a significant number of people had the same take away. If Cameron had the Patriot Act in mind (which he certainly could have), I feel it’s more likely that he made a weak attempt at showing us that it’s bad to use such power, rather than a veiled attempt to say “but sometimes it’s ok”.
To each their own though! Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Counterargument, Inception is one of the most pretentious Nolan movies. Every Nolan movie is essentially that scene with Keanu asking a chef “Do you have anything that plays with the concept of time?”
It’s supposed to be smart, that’s the annoying part. It’s just not that smart. And yes, I did see Dunkirk, and yes, I hated it despite it being visually gorgeous.