(work with me here).
like there's super mainstream dudes, then somewhat mainstream, then mainstream but with a skoche of class (and at least a cursory ATTEMPT to flex ones intellect), then indie, underground, underrated and unheralded filmmakers etc etc.

anyway my point (and my beef) is that u can probably apply the same kinda criticisms to filmmakers on ALL those levels, to varying degrees. and then im wondering if its just a personal palette issue in the end? cos to a portion of film watchers "Inception" IS rather clever on its own, or clever for what it is.

so wherever Nolan lies in that spectrum, he's good at what he does and his work is as valid as anyone else's (Tommy Wiseu is a master at what he does/did, Michael Bay (despite all the hate) is still recognised on PTP as being pretty fucking good at the kinda films HE does and is known for). i dunno, because i'm with u on the criticisms. im fairly certain any and every piece of film is up for scrutiny, but that didnt change the massive geek boners i sustained for both of Nolan's Batflicks while i was watchin em on the imax screens. same with Inception.

maybe its a form over content thing? im usually first off sucked into the visuals in Nolan's films, which is why i dig Insomnia heaps as well. i think his visuals help dictate the mood and that's usually enough to sustain me. if he manages to tell an interesting enuf story in the process, that's even better.

hoping some or all of that made sense.

V.