I feel like I have to write something about this for posterity. I simply don’t understand all the negative reviews of this movie/film. I’m no film scholar so perhaps there’s something I don’t understand, but I am a scholar or perhaps amateur enthusiast of art and art making. And I quite enjoyed this film or er movie. Christopher Nolan feels like an arteur director who is quite good and understanding the medium. To me film is a visual medium. I would venture to bet whatever genre Tarantino belongs to his followers would hate this film.

In any case I liken this movie to a visual ballet. I feel like Nolan was trying to see how tightly he could choreograph the various timelines and goings on forwards and backwards through time. How tightly can we edit. To further my thesis I feel like all of the “issues with sound” further support my theory that the exposition, dialogue are tangential pieces of the tapestry of a film the text of the script is not an integral part of the telling the story here.

UPDATE May 2 2023
Patrick Willems on Nebula and Youtube calls this a “VIBES” movie. This is the first super positive response I’ve seen to this movie published. For the most part I agree, I think Nolan is working a little harder than just the basics of the genre Willems is outlining but I can get on board with a VIBES explanation as a good way to go into a movie like this and how best to experience it.

see his video essay here (nebula) and here (youtube)