Dunkirk.

Looking back over his work, I’ve realised that am not actually a fan of Christopher Nolan. Sure, Dark Knight was great, but we all liked that because of Heath Ledger, and he brought a huge amount to the film that simply wouldn’t have been there if another had been cast as The Joker. Proof of that comes simply from looking at Batman Begins and Dark Knight Rises. Dark Knight, as a movie, is uncomfortably bloated.
I’ve watched Inception right the way through once and have tried to do so again several times, failing on each attempt. What’s the point in sitting through all that nonsense only to be left with a question at the end which the preceding movie never even bothered to ASK let alone provide clues as to what its answer may be.
People said Sucker Punch was Inception for stupid people. If that’s the case: I’ll sit with the stupid people. I’d rather be in their company with dragons, samurai and tits on the screen than listen to a bunch of pretentious cretins praise the non-existent depth of Nolan’s vision.
Interstellar's glorious visuals and chilling narrative of humanity nearing its end were completely undermined by the plot twist of Matthew Mcconaughey using the power of love to talk to his daughter in the past via morse code through the hands of a watch…. which sounds dumb even without mentioning the space library, built by future humans….. inside a black hole.

Which brings me to Dunkirk.
I’m kind of irked that this film wasn’t what it could have been, because the evacuation of Dunkirk, while not just an important point in the Second World War, was a damn dramatic story. As with much history these days, there are quite a few people out there that wouldn’t otherwise know about it unless they see the movie (at least one person out there was surprised that the Titanic was a real ship), so quality storytelling is essential when dramatising historical events, otherwise studios will stop making them because not enough people are interested.
Unfortunately, as I’ve detailed, storytelling isn’t something Nolan is good at.
Memento was what brought the director to prominence, and is an unusual film in that it’s told back-to-front. A similar stunt is pulled with Dunkirk. Operation Dynamo (the evacuation of the Expeditionary Force trapped in France) took place over 8 days, and the movie jumps back and forth across that timeline, but it does so for absolutely no reason. Memento ran backwards because it builds to a revelation that took place at the end of the film, but the start of the story. There is no revelation in Dunkirk. Nolan just stitched the film together the way he did because he could. It does nothing but confuse.
My second gripe, which is utterly baffling given Nolan’s past movies, is the sense of scale. 800 civilian boats ran back and forth across the Channel as part of Operation Dynamo, dodging mines and the Luftwaffe. I thought that these visuals were what the film was building up to: a reveal of the armada. When Kenneth Branagh looks to the horizon with his binoculars and smiles, I was on the edge of my seat, waiting for it. The soldiers on the beach all let out a cheer….. as 4 boats pootle by. And that’s it. That’s the visual representation of the “Miracle of Dunkirk”. It looked absurd and I’m really quite embarrassed that people elsewhere in the world are going to see it and wonder what the big deal was.
I’m not suggesting that it should have been an action-heavy movie, but, jeezus, Nolan: give me a cut of the film and some cheap video-editing software and I’ll drop in a bunch of little, boat-shaped shadows on the horizon for you. Simply playing Elgar’s “Nimrod” really, really loudly does not cover up the dearth of much-needed visuals.