Why don't I like Christopher Nolan's movies?

Christopher Nolan is famous. Everyone knows him. There are many reasons for loving him, which may be the exact reasons you do not like him. In general, the rhythm in his film is too fast, characters too fake, emotions too empty, reasoning too convoluted, and the soundtrack too loud. If Nolan continues to tear the time plot into pieces and leave the audience to solve the puzzle, we will lose our patience. If we watch too many films like this, they will not interest us anymore.

There are three main reasons why I do not like them. You are welcome to discuss it with me, and I will expound my views first.

1. The soundtrack is too much

With the abuse of the soundtrack, I believe that many people who have watched Nolan's "Dunkirk" will agree with me with both hands and feet.

Some fans may jump up to help Nolan evade, saying that is the problem of the soundtrack artist. I went through Nolan's 11 feature films, and he only worked with two composers, David Julyan and Hans Zimmer. Both are big names in the industry. The general feelings provided by the two for Nolan's soundtrack are similar. If you don't believe me, please go to listen to "Interstellar" and "The Prestige". You will hardly tell that they have different styles. So don't blame the composers as they are loyal to the director.

I think Nolan's fatal obsession with the Shepard Tone is the culprit of the soundtrack indulgence. As for what the Shepard Tone is, it is a bit complicated. To put it simply, it is the notes of the three voices stacked together, creating an illusion of reciprocating and cyclical upwards, just like the red, white, and blue colored silk lights at the entrance of the barbershop. It seems that it will never stop and always be a climax. Isn’t it magical? That is the trick that Nolan's film plays on people who will then fantasize one climax after another. He often uses it to create endless suspenseful tension in a movie.

I don't know since when he has fallen in love with this type of soundtrack. In his debut feature "Following", he has already employed the Shepard Tone. The film cost only 6,000 US dollars, yet he still spent money on the soundtrack of the Shepard Tone. If this is not true love, what is it?! His fame and fortune grow as time passes by, and of course, his craze for such soundtrack shows no signs of abating

In the previous films, we didn't say anything. However, in "Dunkirk" he used the Shepard tone to a frenzied level. Hans Zimmer followed Nolan to represent the three storylines of sea, land, and air as the three ranges of low, middle, and high in the tone. In other words, he not only used Shepard Tone in every single storyline but also cross-used it as a whole. The whole movie is like an impenetrable net woven by the soundtrack of Shepard tone.

We all know that Shepard Tone gives people a never-ending sense of urgency. What’s more, Nolan uses it in combination! Is it the right way to increase the suspense? Nolan said he wanted to give the audience the feeling of a climax that lasts throughout the film. I did not know how many fans got his idea. I almost suffocated in this soundtrack. What I wanted to do was to escape from the movie theater as soon as possible.

In addition, I think Hans Zimmeris reprehensible as an accomplice. His soundtrack is too monotonous. As the top tycoon in the soundtrack industry, he overwhelms us with his soundtrack in many films, which will inevitably lead to aesthetic fatigue. It's always the same orchestral symphony, which we can guess with our toes. Can we change it next time?

2. The action scenes are clumsy

If you have noticed the action scenes in Nolan's movies, you will find out they are clumsy.

When it comes to "Batman", I have to sigh. Batman is a superhero. How can he be so capable of fighting? ! The ultimate battle between Batman and the villain turned out to be a fist-punch fight, just like two inflexible, reckless men fighting. Close-quarters boxing is fine, but I think Nolan can take better pictures. Some people say that "Batman" pursues a sense of muscle-to-muscle combat. It is a retro action movie. But I think it is poorly done. What is a good hand-to-hand combat? I think everyone can go to watch a boxing match to get a clue. Then you will know it is not two strong people rolling around in arms.

Also, Batman's ability to destroy the world turned out to be ninjutsu. There's no denying that ninjutsu is a great skill, but have you ever played Tenchu? Please have a little common sense, okay? The only thing a ninja can do against a samurai is to bleed. It's not normal to fight with ninjutsu.

I think the action scenes may be Nolan's shortcomings. It may be related to Nolan's lack of professional film training. We have to admit that such absence has brought him more freedom, but also makes him not good at action shooting, which requires a solid foundation. I don't mean to discriminate against academic qualifications. I just think film schools have their strengths.

3. Nolan is overwhelmed

Nolan fans venerate him as a film genius, who never produced a bad film. I think he is a good director, but not a film master.

Many fans will use Spielberg's Nolan evaluation to refute me, saying that he is the last "film author" in Hollywood. I think we have to divide this evaluation into two parts. What does "film author" mean? It means that the whole movie centers around characters, who can impress the audience with their style. That is to say, a movie is an art. What does "Hollywood" mean? It means that the film is highly industrialized, highly process-oriented, and highly standardized. It usually caters to the box office by adding popular elements, such as big stars. The director's creative freedom will be intruded upon in some way. In this situation, the producer becomes the absolute master, and the film becomes a business.

I have to say that Nolan is an excellent film compromiser between art and business.

However, in terms of the emotional core, he lacks something that can attach people directly. It is the reason why academics always disliked his films. Nolan made countless good films but never won the Oscar for Best Director or Best Picture. The technique of Nolan's films is sophisticated but the core is monotonous, a far cry from any significant thought or emotional resonance.

It’s hard to say whether Nolan will advance to the next level. However, a possible hint may be that when the boys in the movie theater no longer draw pictures to explain the plot to the girls after watching his films but stay on the chairs wiping their tears, then Nolan will step into the door of the film masters.