The directing of Speed Racer is also responsible for its horrendous pacing and stilted acted. The editing tricks and time passages were a nice touch but ultimately worked on a purely visual level.

In general editing tricks don't make a movie good, by that standard you must have loved Stay

The script and acting were perfect for what the movie was. A live action cartoon.

Im sure Speed Racer would have been better received if it was a Fratboy parody starring Vince Vaughn and one of the Wilson brothers, but as it is, its still one of the most genuine and sincere "blockbusters" to come out of hollywood in the last decade, not to mention one of the most creative.

Obviously have very different opinions on what a live action cartoon can and should be. It felt nothing at all like the original series it was based on and didn't stand on its own as an actual good movie.

I was supportive of the movie when it was initially released as I liked the chances the Wachowskis took with trying to make a live action cartoon, but it just didn't work well, at all. But to each their own.

Pretty much this. Nolan has never made a bad movie, Fincher has made several.

I think that Fincher has had some films in his career that are stronger than some of Nolan's work, but I find Nolan to be more consistent in his ability to make a very good film that requires his audience to think.

Labor are you really arguing that Speed Racer is better then The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception? I guess in a world in which directing, editing, writing, composition, story, and acting don't matter, you are right.

Before I saw Inception it would have been Nolan, with very little doubt. After seeing Inception that decision stands, albeit without the doubt.

I haven't seen The Prestige, yet. Someday, once the stench of Inception has worn off, I'll check it out.

How the Wachowski's got caught up in this? Easy. Nolan mimics their visual style, their action scenes, and their video-game aesthetic. He also mimics their tendency to pass off pseudo-cyber-philosophical gobbledeegook as dialogue.

And like they once were, he's the current emporer with no clothes. The Wachowski's, in an amusing turn of events, have become the emporers in women's clothes!

I agree that Nolan movies are generally a bit empty, but they're fun rides while they last.

I disagree that he is copying anything about the Wachowskis though, their visual styles share a similar coldness to them but everything Wachowski is a borderline fetish. The action scenes are entirely different (Nolan still doesn't entirely understand how to make them, The Wachowskis spend their entire time showing off). I can agree with them both being fairly Video Game-ish though. I'm actually not sure what psuedo-cyber-philosophical gobbleygook you're talking about though, Inception spent the entire time explaining simple rules, there wasn't really a whole lot of philosophy in it, compared to a majority of the Matrix franchise and its "real world" philosophy (which is ultimately squandered).

That said neither Memento nor Prestige came off that way at all to me, and his renditions of Batman are still my favorite of the bunch.

Curious... if Nolan is "empty", what mainstream, big budget, Western directors would you consider superior? Or, shall we say, "less empty"?

Whose to say there is one

Nolan movies tend to be more about the puzzle and plot than anything, usually doesn't leave a whole lot to chew on but at least they're usually memorable, fun movies. This isn't a bad thing. But they aren't movies that really make me think or move me in any way -- but again, we're in blockbuster territory and that's kind of Nolan's downfall, he works wonders with massive budgets but doesn't escape the nearly required downfalls of such a thing.

In otherwords, I'm not the biggest action movie guy, but still appreciate and enjoy what Nolan puts on screen.

^Exactly, I generally find the mechanics of Nolan's films to be the most interesting aspects. He is not one to really create a visceral or emotional experience beyond some "whizz, bang" type stuff (in is blockbuster type films, especially). Memento is obviously all about the structure. While the ideas of emotions are present in his stories, they are approached from a distance or in a logical manner. Nolan doesn't move me to tears, I don't feel for his characters like I do with other filmmakers, but I am always engaged.

The exception to all this for me is the Prestige, his best and most effective work.

For the sake of the thread here, I find that Fincher does illicit an emotional response from me... Zodiac and Seven are two notables. However, both directors do seem to keep their distance from their own characters moreso than say, Peter Jackson... who creates big budget movies with a degree of depth and an emotional core. Spielberg also comes to mind.

I don't consider a director who specializes in, say, "intellectual" or high concept movies, automatically inferior to one who focuses more on emotion or character. As long as the delivery works, I'm happy.

A creative, inventive director could still make an awesome movie with a tiny budget. This to me separates the Chris Nolans from the Michael Bays of the world.

In no way, shape or form do Nolan's films lack depth. Michael Bay and Paul W.S. Anderson are examples of style over substance, but not Nolan and Fincher.

Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and to a lesser extent Following all give the audience something to think about. Claims that Nolan's films are empty are ludicrous, just because a filmmaker has cinematic visuals and style does not automatically mean that there films lack substance.

Well that's the other thing, there is a core concept and narrative to all of Nolan's movies. I generally get the feeling that directors like Bay roll out of bed with the thought "It's time to blow something up today!", you can play Transformers 2 completely out of order and it doesn't effect the actual story so much. Kinda like his commercial from a few years back

Nolan uses his characters as game pieces rather than actual human beings -- they all have a sort of tunnel vision where nothing but this one goal matters -- and that doesn't bug me too horribly much, but it does prevent his movies from reaching true greatness. The Prestige was an exception, unfortunately I authentically hated the ending the first time I saw it -- barring that it's brilliantly crafted (and actually wasn't a problem on repeat viewings.)

I love Nolan's movies, but they certainly have their flaws that tend to get glossed over.

Mixed about your first point, but completely disagree with the latter. I'd argue Nolan's characters aren't any less "human" than Wes Anderson's or some of the Coen's. Besides, "Human" characters adon't make a movie great; neither does intricate plotting, for that matter. It's not what your game is; it's how you're about what your game is. Man I need cake.


I will agree, though, that there is a certain amount of "Nolan Fanboyism" that's disconcerting. I think he's a phenomenal filmmaker, and loved Inception, but I'd still only give it **** out of ***** for some noticeable flaws in the film.

or in the words of Ebert -- "It's not what a movie is about, it's how it's about." And I agree, but different things work at varying degrees for different people. It's a combination of things that cause something to be great.

Intricate plotting has sort of become Nolan's signature, imo, and it's actually one of the reasons I look forward to his flicks. That said, it's very possible to consider his movies as truly great, argue character building strengths/weakness, etc; but that's where the opinion factor comes in and things just get messy

I still think he's an excellent director, I'm just arguing against the "perfection!" acclaim his movies get from said fanboydom.

What's disconcerting about it? People are big fans of the guy's work and appreciate that he doesn't just slap some crap together and pawn it off. I wouldn't call that "fanboyism" but people that appreciate great,quality work in a time when there really isn't much of it.

If there was a "like them equally" option, I would've taken it.

These are the two current directors I look forward to the next film from the most. But I'll give a slight edge to Nolan over Fincher just based on their most recent work.

(However, If I was asked this same question about 3 years ago, I would've picked Fincher instead.)

Fincher. his payoffs at the end of his movies are far superior. he gets more out of his actors. brad pitt was never better than in seven and later fight club. norton's prime performance was and always will be fight club. morgan freeman and kevin spacey were magnificent. since then both have been mediocre. goes for douglas in the game. his best movie since then will be the upcoming wallstreet 2...maybe. bale's acting has gone downhill since nolan got a hold of him and it's not even up for debate. steven zahn of all people got the props over bale in rescue dawn. as for ledger...that had more to do with his medication or multiple forms of it that made his joker awesome. the tyler durden character himself owns all of nolan's work. were any of the supporting characters in inception memorable?...i thought so.

I'd pick American History X for Norton's best performance.

Good choice. 25th Hour is my favorite.

Also good. Can't forget Rounders as well. He was ona role there for a bit.

that's why people still reference tyler durden on a daily basis on message boards everywhere. that character is a pop culture phenomenon. you do also know that usual supsects came before seven...don't you? nice try though.
as for freeman......his performance in seven, unforgiven, and shawshank were better than million dollar baby that nobody watches anymore anyways. and again from the teacher to the student...while primal fear was very good....the majority know that ed norton and fight club is the shit. he was also better in american history x. what's next....nolan is better than michael mann. i'm sure the nolanholics will come out with that one too. fincher did the one thing that i couldn't have imagined....he actually made jake gyllenhaal interesting...and i hated jake gyllenhaal but zodiac changed that. fincher makes movies that are more remembered imo. even alien 3...because it was so bad it makes people remember it. lol. even though Fox could've had a hand in that also.