Why is 
so invested in that new Nolan movie? I know our boy 
has said the film is supposed to be somewhat of a metaphor for Nolan "making the superhero film popular." But that shit sounds like some big-brained egotistical bullshit because it was always going to be popular no matter what. So is it some sort of modern white man's burden film and a justification for 
to use the bomb. I just want to know why people are so invested in a film?
Interstellar was carried by spectacle, which means that ending suddenly being very character driven just didn't work for me.
I haven't seen Dunkirk because the subject matter is the most boomer shit imaginable and I do not care.
Dunkirk is a fun experiment in storytelling and cinematography, because the whole gimmick is that there are 3 scales of time along the film around the same moment, and they all tell a cohesive story. Like a WW2 Pulp Fiction, only not as good. The story is whatever, but as with most Nolan films he just uses the story to try whatever weird concept he wants to try. Not a bad watch, imo, but not a great film.
yeah interstellar's ending isn't the greatest - but I do think sometimes all you need for a 'good' film (at least, a good Nolan film) is spectacle. I kinda want to defend the rest of the film by saying that the entire plot is character driven but I will spare us both. Interstellar and Tenet are both prime examples of why/how Nolan films are popular though - even outside of
Michael Bay and Nolan can probably be considered opposite ends of the same spectrum of filmography when you look at it that way. Nolan films are more popular than the newest Transformers though because even if 75% of his films rely on spectacle, they at least have some sort of engaging plot and characters.