I’ve seen every Nolan film and only really liked two of them. I’m glad he’s doing his thing and people like it but it’s not for me.
I feel the same. Nolan is really not my favorite filmmaker. Dunkirk was still pretty good though.
Why Boss Baby?
For what it’s worth, I’d say this film is one of those that really benefits from a massive screen and a booming sound system, for both the scenes that are large-scale but also those that are claustrophobic.
(Also, spare your home lounge armrests the damage from a solid two hours of gripping.)
Dunkirk is a movie I’d like to see and probably will but I’m not in the right headspace for it now.
The funny thing is that I have a lot of reservations about Nolan’s films. My main problem is the mix of quite fantastical elements and his incredibly serious approach never quite sits right. It’s most evident in the Batman films but in a lot of the others too.
So I’m excited by Dunkirk because it is a subject that should be taken deadly seriously.
Or the artist legged it.
I know you’re kidding, but I’ve seriously thought that there’s a strange dichotomy between how movies (and TV) are made and how people view them. Quality goes higher and higher, and viewing devices get smaller and smaller. Why is there such a push towards ever-higher definition when the percentage of stuff watched on a 6" phone screen is just going to get higher every year?
Cause I don’t want the movies I watch on my subway commute to be grainy either.
Bloody Renaissance kids with their modern art ideas, what was wrong with Late Mediaeval art, that’s what I want to know? In the 12th century, people really knew how to paint!
I just saw it yesterday, and I’d say judging from your comments here were sympatico about Nolan. It’s phenomenal, easily the best thing he’s done in pure filmmaking terms. There’s no war movie like it, and I hope it has a lasting effect on any future war movies (have they gone the way of the western already?)
You could turn that around and say that if they’re shooting and projecting everything digitally now, why attend movies in a venue invented for light projected through celluloid to an audience when I have a perfectly great digital setup at home?
I’ve only watched movies on an iPad while on an airplane but there is a greater need for high definition on a smaller device, I think. Although I now see the race for greater definition as an aesthetic dead end myself.
Is that actually how it works? Because intuitively it doesn’t seem like it ought to
Also, how well is Dolby 5.1 handled by your phone?
I’m not bothered by the wall of sound
You’ve obviously never met Phil Spector.
Obviously not, I’m still here ain’t I?
Dammit I was just typing the exact same joke
The same question has been asked at the places I work…
The best answers we can come up with are;
Some filmmakers won’t acknowledge how many people watch their movies on other devices.
Some filmmakers only regard cinema as the real thing, everything else is a side project at best (one they might work hard on, but it’s not their primary concern).
A lot of filmmakers do it because everyone else is doing it.
And as noted in the article posted recently; some people think it sells more tickets.
I think thought you would be an audiophile and be perfectly familiar with the better than Dolby answer…headphones.