I'm not Nolan's biggest fan, but boy is this article horseshit. First, as many people have pointed out, you can't break films down like that and ignore portions of it to suit your argument. Second, Nolan's not known for amazing performances, but to declare he "destroys" actors is asinine. Third, to phrase his use of score and visuals as "distractions" is insane in the way it completely misunderstand filmmaking and what makes the medium of film unique. Fourth, the claim that Nolan "can't grasp the subtleties of modern film" is some real A+ bullshit, especially because he backs it up with two examples from what are widely considered Nolan's worst films and ignores any of the counter examples (as well as just flatly declaring that subtle = good without really backing that up or bothering to explain why). Finally, the parting shot about "middling reviews" and lower box office is ridiculous when Dunkirk is reviewing extremely well and doing better than anyone could reasonably expect a specifically British war film to do.
Look, I don't think Nolan's particularly good at emotion, I think there's plenty of evidence of that, and I'd agree if this guy was arguing that he doesn't really write emotional scenes well. Hell, I'd even agree with a statement about how the fact that Nolan is a very good technical director often papers over some of his other deficiencies. Understanding how to nail the emotion of the story is a major difference between someone like Spielberg and Nolan, and that's fine to point out. This, however, is lazy criticism that reads like someone who had their mind made up long ago.
