i thoroughly enjoyed it. it did not even seem to be three hours long because i was engaged with it.
having said that, i can see how others would not like it, or have a taste for it. i don't have a taste for country music, but i don't believe it is inherently bad. but it pains me that some are simply saying they don't like it because that is the cool thing to say about a movie that is expected to do well. unfortunately, because of christopher nolan's past body of work, which i like, he attracts a considerable amount of fashionable hate.
i don't envy the position he has put himself in.
but i admire his courage.
he is attempting to make great films.
just because they are not received well, or understood, does not mean he has failed. were that the case, then many 'great' directors would not be considered such. Ethan, you say he tried too hard to be '2001'. that is funny because if we are to judge his movie by it's 'reception' than he has succeeded, because '2001' was all but panned for a number of reasons including scientific inaccuracy, when it was first viewed. it was not understood or even acknowledged for it's greatness until many years later.
but for those who truly and honestly dislike it, i have only one question. why chose this particular film to publicly voice your displeasure? have you done so with every movie you disliked this year? or is there a 'reason' you chose to express your opinion about this particular one?
ok, that was three questions, i apologize...lol.
hope this does not become an out of control flame thread.