Nolan addressed the issue of the French ship bring used:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...urate-christopher-nolans-wwii-film/493068001/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dunkirk |OT| You can practically see it from here...home.
- Thread starter WadiumArcadium
- Start date
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...urate-christopher-nolans-wwii-film/493068001/
Souldriver
Member
Yeah, there were some city and aerial shots that left me puzzled about how modern everything looks.
Houses with velux windows in the roof and the modern street lanterns are what I can think of now, but all in all when the town/city got in view it all looked like a modern belgian/French coast town. Just too many foreign elements for a 1940s setting. Very jarring and cheap for such a big budget movie.
Houses with velux windows in the roof and the modern street lanterns are what I can think of now, but all in all when the town/city got in view it all looked like a modern belgian/French coast town. Just too many foreign elements for a 1940s setting. Very jarring and cheap for such a big budget movie.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
There is more time spent with infantry/land in Nolan's film. And I'm taking about visual depiction of Dunkirk as well.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Dunkirk, but it's interesting the amount of detail you expect from a Nolan film that was weirdly absent.
Reading that the movie evoked such an emotional reaction from you I got the suspicion that you might be British. I'm an American but I could see that if I were a Brit that this movie would make me feel similarly. I don't mean that as a criticism of the movie either. I thought it was patriotic without being jingoistic. Nolan nailed the tone
I watched Atonement recently because of your posts in this thread. The ending kind of pissed me off. Fuck Briony. I was very impressed with the scenes in Dunkirk though and the twist was like a gut punch.
Yeah, that makes sense. These kids were, like, 10 years younger than me. It's absolutely astonishing what they went through. It's very difficult to articulate how grateful I am and what it means to me. "Nolan nailed the tone" is spot on. And an understatement as far as I'm concerned.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Just to follow up on my own post, took my 9 year old son to see it and he was fine. YMMV. He jumped a couple times when a shot rang out, but was otherwise OK.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Hold my beer.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Did Nolan have 300 million dollars?Hold my beer.
Atonement is a superb book, probably my favourite novel. Still yet to watch the movie (although I have it) as I wanted my girlfriend to read it first before watching the movie, but I'm glad it has good impressions here. It's the first thing that brought about my interest in what happened at Dunkirk.
Elfforkusu
Member
Saw it this afternoon. Thought it was tremendous, although the payoff was
That's ultimately a nitpick though. The reveals on how the storylines were interleaved were incredible, and the messaging was tastefully done.
Other takes: jesus christ this movie was loud in IMAX. Although they may have just had it turned up to 11 for the olds.
maybe a bit disappointing -- for as much as the movie felt "like you were there", I think the general lack of boats and lack of spectacle for the big reveal means it could've gone better.
That's ultimately a nitpick though. The reveals on how the storylines were interleaved were incredible, and the messaging was tastefully done.
Other takes: jesus christ this movie was loud in IMAX. Although they may have just had it turned up to 11 for the olds.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
1. Titanic cost $200m, not $300m.
2. Nobody is asking Nolan to build the Titanic. Very different scale to the boat Nolan is taking about.
3. It was a joke.
Tarextherex
Banned
The movie is pretty bloodless
Though I wouldn't recommend 100 minutes of brits drowning to anyone, regardless of age or how much they like history. Really there is nothing to say about this movie other than the premise and the director. Like, why was this even made besides showing off 70mm, you wanted to show that the brits actually struggled and fought hard in the war contrary to general knowledge which implies they were basically safe in their island? Too bad the movie itself has basically zero emotion. The problem isn't even stuff like lack of French or no nazis on screen, it just puts no effort to make you remotely immersed in the setting. No tension, no drama, no characters, no details of aspects proper to that part of history... it's just brits taking a boat while dogfights happen. That's it. It can't even convey despair right because it is way too monotonous. A young child wouldn't enjoy this at all
Hold my beer.
Whenever I think of Titanic, I will always remember RMS Gigantic's post. Just amazing.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
lol!
I came back to this thread because I was curious why SCULLIBUNDO was the latest poster on it, even though he saw the film some time back and there isn't much to constantly talk about. Was kinda disappointed that it was mostly fucking nothing but then I saw this and it made my day.
LOL!!!!!
Psychoward
Banned
True Savior
Member
Cameron is a hack confirmed.
ZackieChan
Member
Gonna go with this. Occam's Razor and all that.
I haven't seen the film but the book certainly isn't 'your typical romance BS'. It's not a war story though. The war is only a chapter or two.
I'm not sure you understand what 'twist' means
Discotheque
Banned
was planning on seeing valerian but i think i'll just wait for it on VOD instead. I gotta see this in theaters again.
say what you will about Nolan's output but his montage endings are always captivating (even in his weakest movie TDKR its such a good ending scene). this one was no different with that Zimmer score as the kid read that Churchill speech and you saw Hardy get captured and the aftermath of the retreat.
say what you will about Nolan's output but his montage endings are always captivating (even in his weakest movie TDKR its such a good ending scene). this one was no different with that Zimmer score as the kid read that Churchill speech and you saw Hardy get captured and the aftermath of the retreat.
Basically my thoughts a week after viewing it. I find it ridiculous people claiming this is "Nolan's best". The movie is laughable given the expectations, to me it felt rushed & unfinished. But yeah the most dissapointing thing is the lack of an amazing ost.
ronaldthump
Member
there was someone ITT who posted and didnt even realise the french guy died. so much for characters.
as for casting. everyone was white, dark hair, covered in dirt. Not even a blond or ginger in there to break it up so not everyone looked the same. I watched a review that said they couldn't tell who is who in the movie and its so true.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Watched this again in 70mm and meh. The screen wasnt really that big and even though they said they had a 70mm print, i dont think it was wider than regular movie theaters. I feel ripped off. $15+$2 parking for that. probably couldve had a better experience at LieMAX.
Now some of the aerial shots still looked stunning. The intro (which i missed last time due to stepping out to have them fix the screen basically displaying in window mode) was incredible. i had no idea he was the only survivor. crazy to see them all fall one after another. one of the best scenes in the movie.
the scene where they grab the stretcher and walk through the mole is another highlight. fantastic music and i love how the tension builds up.... but then Nolan tries to do his nolan thing and cuts to an entirely different scene instead of just seeing that boat get bombed immediately.
I agree with all the complaints about the lack of CGi. I understand what Nolan was trying to do but sometimes i feel he's his own worst enemy. He's almost like Kojima where he's got full creative freedom and no one to keep him from making silly decisions.
While i love the final scene where the bomber sinks the destroyer, some of the shots just didnt make sense. i dont know what he was trying to achieve by placing the camera on a tilted ship but it felt odd. Titanic didnt do this first person shtick and was much more effective at conveying the sinking ship. 12 years after the shaky cam mess of Batman Begins Nolan is still struggling with capturing action and while I appreciate him trying to put his own spin on it, i dont know if it's effective. Wasnt a big fan of the first person sequences in Interstellar either. Needs to watch some more James Cameron movies.
But again, loved the last big setpiece a lot more seeing it from three different perspectives. the aerial shot of the destroyer slowly tilting was magnificent and i dont say that word lightly. the soundtrack is incredible and i love how all three timelines converge there. Nolan filmmaking at his best.
Hardy was amazing. I didnt care for Harry Styles surviving. I have no idea why the french kid had to die. I have no idea why we had to see Tom Hardy get captured. i have no clue why the last shot of the movie was that kid looking miserable. And finally im baffled by Nolan focusing on some random kid who randomly died in a boat instead of all the other acts of heroism on Dunkirk. i get it, it's not a war movie, it's a survival movie, but it still doesnt make any sense.
Now some of the aerial shots still looked stunning. The intro (which i missed last time due to stepping out to have them fix the screen basically displaying in window mode) was incredible. i had no idea he was the only survivor. crazy to see them all fall one after another. one of the best scenes in the movie.
the scene where they grab the stretcher and walk through the mole is another highlight. fantastic music and i love how the tension builds up.... but then Nolan tries to do his nolan thing and cuts to an entirely different scene instead of just seeing that boat get bombed immediately.
I agree with all the complaints about the lack of CGi. I understand what Nolan was trying to do but sometimes i feel he's his own worst enemy. He's almost like Kojima where he's got full creative freedom and no one to keep him from making silly decisions.
While i love the final scene where the bomber sinks the destroyer, some of the shots just didnt make sense. i dont know what he was trying to achieve by placing the camera on a tilted ship but it felt odd. Titanic didnt do this first person shtick and was much more effective at conveying the sinking ship. 12 years after the shaky cam mess of Batman Begins Nolan is still struggling with capturing action and while I appreciate him trying to put his own spin on it, i dont know if it's effective. Wasnt a big fan of the first person sequences in Interstellar either. Needs to watch some more James Cameron movies.
But again, loved the last big setpiece a lot more seeing it from three different perspectives. the aerial shot of the destroyer slowly tilting was magnificent and i dont say that word lightly. the soundtrack is incredible and i love how all three timelines converge there. Nolan filmmaking at his best.
Hardy was amazing. I didnt care for Harry Styles surviving. I have no idea why the french kid had to die. I have no idea why we had to see Tom Hardy get captured. i have no clue why the last shot of the movie was that kid looking miserable. And finally im baffled by Nolan focusing on some random kid who randomly died in a boat instead of all the other acts of heroism on Dunkirk. i get it, it's not a war movie, it's a survival movie, but it still doesnt make any sense.
Saw this movie yesterday at the local LieMAX screen.
Didn't care for it. In fact, I thought it was....kinda boring? Yeah. That's my take away from the movie. I mean, the audio & visuals are what you'd expect from a Nolan movie. I just didn't care for anything else about the movie.
I'm just glad I only paid for $12 matinee screening. But I blame myself for breaking my "Avoid Any Movie GAF Hypes Up That I'm Not Interested In" rule on this one. I thought Nolan's track record would prove me wrong, but eh, it was not the worst way to waste 2hrs on a lazy Sunday.
Didn't care for it. In fact, I thought it was....kinda boring? Yeah. That's my take away from the movie. I mean, the audio & visuals are what you'd expect from a Nolan movie. I just didn't care for anything else about the movie.
I'm just glad I only paid for $12 matinee screening. But I blame myself for breaking my "Avoid Any Movie GAF Hypes Up That I'm Not Interested In" rule on this one. I thought Nolan's track record would prove me wrong, but eh, it was not the worst way to waste 2hrs on a lazy Sunday.
The movie bored me to tears, every single time the slightest bit of suspense had built up it cut back to that fucking fisher boat or men standing on the beach. It was kind of jarring to be honest, the film tried everything in its power to make things seem thrilling (the music, the way it was cut) but I just wasn't invested. Kenneth Brannagh pissed me off every time he was on screen, a walking talking cliché. Everything resembling a story was tropey and predictable as hell. It's pretty much a demo reel for your hometheater.
Saw it yesterday in 70mm and thought it was really great. The three different timelines worked so well and was a really clever way of telling the story while keeping the intensity up at all times. I thought the practical effects were incredibly well shot and exciting. I can say it's one of the few blockbusters I've seen in years where I was on edge for most of the picture.
The sparse dialogue really bothered me at first, but grew on me as the film progressed and I wrapped my head around what was going on. It reminded me of Memento in a way that you really don't know the scope of what's happening for the first twenty minutes or so, and are just kind of along for the ride. Then, at some point, it clicks and you feel really part of the whole experience.
I can't say enough about the multiple timelines and the struggle it must have been to edit those together coherently. This could have been a much more of a bore of a film if handled in a linear way, but this just worked so well. I'm really not sure how they nailed it, but they did.
Hardy flying over Dunkirk in a stalled out plane while all the soldiers looked up at him, half happy, half sad was the highlight.
And the score. Good lord, the score. That was awesome.
The sparse dialogue really bothered me at first, but grew on me as the film progressed and I wrapped my head around what was going on. It reminded me of Memento in a way that you really don't know the scope of what's happening for the first twenty minutes or so, and are just kind of along for the ride. Then, at some point, it clicks and you feel really part of the whole experience.
I can't say enough about the multiple timelines and the struggle it must have been to edit those together coherently. This could have been a much more of a bore of a film if handled in a linear way, but this just worked so well. I'm really not sure how they nailed it, but they did.
Hardy flying over Dunkirk in a stalled out plane while all the soldiers looked up at him, half happy, half sad was the highlight.
And the score. Good lord, the score. That was awesome.
LucidMomentum
Member
I do. It was presented as such. I'm not being semantic about it either.
1. All the odds are against us.
2. What can a couple of little boats do? We need destroyers.
3. TWIST: All the boats in Britain came and it's going to work! Hooray.
No, a twist would be no mention of the little ships, not having one of the perspectives a little ship and then when there is seemingly no hope at all and everyone is certain to be a slaughtered - TWIST - the little ships arrive.
Only you can't do that because over the 11 days there were tons of vessels going back and forth. Showing the initial convoy of requisitioned ships wouldn't work at all. It's in no way a twist and it's in no way presented as one either. Knowing about the twist before it happens means it's not a twist.
So the twist at the end of Star Wars was that Luke was actually able to hit the exhaust port.
A twist would be the little ships turning out to be full of Nazis.
But then they're not actually Nazis, they're British troops disguised as Nazis. Let's keep the twists going.
But we knew from the start that all of the boats in Britain were heading for Dunkirk anyways? I mean one of the first scenes in the movie has British naval officers requisitioning people's ships for that very purpose.
JimiNutz
Banned
I've been thinking about this movie again recently and have decided that, since the Spitfire sequences were by far and away the best part of the movie, Nolan would have been better off making a Battle of Britain movie.
Would thoroughly enjoy an arieal battle movie that looked as good as Dunkirk.
Would thoroughly enjoy an arieal battle movie that looked as good as Dunkirk.
Ridley Scott is making a Battle of Britain film. Despite his recent output, I'm holding some hope for it.
Were you guys expecting like war setpiece battles the entirety of the film or something? I guess my expectations were completely in line with what I watched, and then exceeded.
I knew what was going to happen going in, I just didn't know who (or how many) were going to survive, and that's where the tension was.
Nolan's best film since The Prestige. A lean 2 hours, too. I think he's at his best when he's really focused on something.
I knew what was going to happen going in, I just didn't know who (or how many) were going to survive, and that's where the tension was.
Nolan's best film since The Prestige. A lean 2 hours, too. I think he's at his best when he's really focused on something.
Nolan's worst film by far. Just came from seeing it and the disappointment is real. It was... Boring? That's a first for Nolan for me. It made a huge mistake of jumping between the different characters. It killed the pacing for me. Now if it was just one continual journey of the soldier boy then it would have propably been an outstanding thriller.
I watched this in imax over the weekend and it was....eh.
I started disliking it from the beginning, with the over the top deep bass that was playing even when nothing was going on on the screen, just WUH WUH WUH WUH WUH over and over, made me feel sick.
I didn't realize the nonlinear time until I read the wikipedia article. Couldn't tell apart 50%+ of the cast until I read the wikipedia article (tho I did recognize harry styles lol). Couldn't understand a good portion of the dialogue thanks to me apparently not being able to decipher accents. As a result didn't really care when any characters lived or died. Also the end really bugged my bf, who didn't understand why the last pilot just kept drifting until he was out of the allied zone.
I started disliking it from the beginning, with the over the top deep bass that was playing even when nothing was going on on the screen, just WUH WUH WUH WUH WUH over and over, made me feel sick.
I didn't realize the nonlinear time until I read the wikipedia article. Couldn't tell apart 50%+ of the cast until I read the wikipedia article (tho I did recognize harry styles lol). Couldn't understand a good portion of the dialogue thanks to me apparently not being able to decipher accents. As a result didn't really care when any characters lived or died. Also the end really bugged my bf, who didn't understand why the last pilot just kept drifting until he was out of the allied zone.
Warm Machine
Member
Given his second to last movie was nominated for an academy award and so was he for the last war movie he made, I think it'll be fine.
The time jumps were not motivated by anything. The characters all looked the same in a mid shot. All the drama was diffused by lack of having anyone to care about. It's like a Terrence Malick movie except it isn't as well shot and it isn't cutting away to seagulls on the shore every 3 minutes.
Fuck Ridley Scott
Holy hell
Not sure how some people keep missing it... it's literally written on the screen at the beginning!
If he had been able to get the wheels down on the first try, he would've landed within safer territory. He kept drifting away because he had to keep pulling on the lever to get the wheels to deploy.
Whompa02
Member
lol I love reading posts like his/hers. Beyond silly.
So glad I read this post, you took the words right out of my mouth. Dunkirk is ultimately a film that falls flat because of how one-note it is.
Also I was sick of the soundtrack one third through the movie. Not because of the soundtrack itself (which I actually really like, some of Zimmer's most abstract work yet) but because of how it is constantly rumbling in the background, even in scenes that are pretty much crying out to be silent.
