Why? Because of the cinematography? I am legitimately trying to understand. This is how the interstellar haters must feel like when they talk to me because all the things people like about the movie just go right over my head. It's an ok shot. I have seen better. the final soundtrack is ok, nothing compared to the tracks that play during the ending of Inception, TDKR and Inception.
1. Tons of dialogue is still unintelligible, particularly in a lot of the opening scenes, but throughout the movie as well.
2. For 400,000 people being on the beach it really does look quite empty.
3. For 900 civilian boats, the water really does look quite empty.
Still great tho. Obsessed with the score, which I noticed more this time around because I've been listening to it all day beforehand. The converging timelines thing is still rad, though the mole being one week long does throw things off a bit, as if Branagh had been standing there for seven whole days, lol.
Just saw it. Excellent film, I love how minimalist and silent it felt. Cinematography and Music is A+ and the performance were quite good. Absolutely love the use of IMAX footage in this one, definetly my favorite IMAX film by far. My only issues was length (maybe a tad too short, but I think it was fine) and the sound mixing (probably the theaters fault but the Bass was crazy high in this one).
Given the subject matter, some people would have expected Dunkirk to be released toward the end of the year. Did you always want to have a summer release date?
Always. Right out of the gate I said this material risks being misconstrued as a period drama, a self-serious war film, awards bait or whatever you might call it. You get into that end of the year and people can miss what the purpose of the film really is.
This is a popcorn movie. This is an entertainment. Its a weird word to use in relation to a real-life event and one with the seriousness and gravitas of this. But the reality is, we are using the vehicle of entertainment to tell this story. We are giving people a white-knuckle ride. And that was a very important message for the studio to convey early on with where they dated the film.
Dunkirk is much better entertainment than it is war film, and I think Nolan is right to classify it that way. Good for him.
Will probably kill its Oscar chances, but that's okay because the film isn't really up to that standard anyways. The Oscars suck and Nolan hasn't made an Oscar-worthy film yet.
Just saw it, thought it was ok. Lots of good to great stuff but the slow scenes just killed any semblance of pacing for me. The lack of blood was really off putting, not sure why it had to be PG-13. Also for there being 400,000 troops in Dunkirk the beach scenes looked like a typical fire drill at my high school. Not enough cardboard to go around i guess.
Just saw it, thought it was ok. Lots of good to great stuff but the slow scenes just killed any semblance of pacing for me. The lack of blood was really off putting, not sure why it had to be PG-13. Also for there being 400,000 troops in Dunkirk the beach scenes looked like a typical fire drill at my high school. Not enough cardboard to go around i guess.
Not really. Seeing bodies of poor British soldiers trapped on a beach being shot at like fish in a barrel was pretty haunting to me. Must have been absolutely terrifying. But you're right would have been much better if some guy had been looking for his arm on the beach.
Not really. Seeing bodies of poor British soldiers trapped on a beach being shot at like fish in a barrel was pretty haunting to me. Must have been absolutely terrifying. But you're right would have been much better if some guy had been looking for his arm on the beach.
Oh ok my so imagination was supposed to CG in the blood. Thank you Lord Nolan for simultaneously saving children from depictions of war and igniting my creative spirit at the same time. Bless.
Oh ok my so imagination was supposed to CG in the blood. Thank you Lord Nolan for simultaneously saving children from depictions of war and igniting my creative spirit at the same time. Bless.
Why do you need blood? It's clearly a fucked up situation where every time a plane passes over all the soldiers can do is hit the deck and hope they don't get blown up. I don't need to see them actually blown to bits to know how sure the situation is. Why do You?
Why do you need blood? It's clearly a fucked up situation where every time a plane passes over all the soldiers can do is hit the deck and hope they don't get blown up. I don't need to see them actually blown to bits to know how sure the situation is. Why do You?
Because there's blood when someone gets blown up by a bomb, or shot at, or hit by shrapnel, etc. You don't get to pick and choose what you see in war once you 'get the point.'
Why do you need blood? It's clearly a fucked up situation where every time a plane passes over all the soldiers can do is hit the deck and hope they don't get blown up. I don't need to see them actually blown to bits to know how sure the situation is. Why do You?
I go to the movies for a visual and auditory experience. I'm not there closing my eyes and putting myself into the shoes of a soldier on the beach in the middle of the viewing experience. If i wanted that I would read a book or watch it at home where I could pause the movie at my leisure to sit quietly contemplative about what just happened and how the guy next to the guy that got blown up must have felt at that exact moment. Anything that pulls me out of the movie experience is a negative for me and when realistically horrible war stuff happens I expect to see a realistically horrible war aftermath depicted to a degree at least. Feel free to disagree.
The blood for a lot of people I think just represents their desire to stay immersed in the experience the filmmaker is trying to engulf them in. There's no doubt Nolan is one of these filmmakers, given his insistence on using the IMAX format to a degree nobody else making features these days is.
So the lack of blood is something that jarrs viewing out of their state of immersion and reminds them that all they're witnessing is a bunch of extras being told to either stay down or stand back up. Given Nolan's labors to do everything he can to immerse his audience in the experience, it's a shame that it's the thought of box office performance that keeps him from being able to go all the way.
Given Nolan's labors to do everything he can to immerse his audience in the experience, it's a shame that it's the thought of box office performance that keeps him from being able to go all the way.
I actually kind of wonder if Nolan didn't make the movie R because he wanted it to be shown in British classrooms till the end of time.
That Atonement clip reminded me that the buildings in Nolan's Dunkirk along the beach didn't seem to have sustained any damage at all which was also strange to me visually for a city under siege. Also I feel like no one i know has actually watched Atonement even though I tried to hype it up a bit at the time lol.
It's impressive that my local 70mm IMAX will be playing this everyday for the entire month of August, concurrent with a couple of IMAX documentaries playing in between showtimes.
Props to the projector guys. I saw a video of them loading up the film reel for Interstellar and it was massive.
Just got back. Haven't read much of the thread but from the last page I get a sense there's a debate over the lack of blood in the movie.
I have to say it definitely made it feel like a lot of bark and no bite. I was mostly just scared of sudden loud noises. During Saving Private Ryan my list of fears ran much deeper than that.
Does it hold up/still enjoyable on a second viewing? I want to see it in IMAX again for a second time in particular. I think I missed some important details confusing the characters.
Does it hold up/still enjoyable on a second viewing? I want to see it in IMAX again for a second time in particular. I think I missed some important details confusing the characters.
It's impressive that my local 70mm IMAX will be playing this everyday for the entire month of August, concurrent with a couple of IMAX documentaries playing in between showtimes.
Props to the projector guys. I saw a video of them loading up the film reel for Interstellar and it was massive.
Really, everyday for the month? I do plan to watch again in a month. I wanted to watch in IMAX 70mm, but I'm not sure how long my theatre will play this in IMAX 70mm.
I would've like the characters to have more then one character vague trait, that would've been a nice start. The Dawsons are the only characters I had some interest in and I felt their journey was by far the most interesting part of the movie, despite
the ridiculous soap opera development of the kid falling down in the boat and going blind and dying
Does it hold up/still enjoyable on a second viewing? I want to see it in IMAX again for a second time in particular. I think I missed some important details confusing the characters.
I want to see it a third time in IMAX 70MM but that will mean trekking into NYC again and I'm really not feeling that. Maybe I'll check it out in 70MM film in Paramus instead.
Saw it in IMAX 70mm. Glorious. Such a beautifully melancholic film that is lean and restrained yet powerful in its depiction of warfare and how impersonal it all is. Maybe Nolan's best. A masterpiece.
Just got back from an imax showing. Man, nolan's 3 most recent movies are his worst
A big step up from tdkr and better than interstellar by default just for not having that ending though
Nolan rectified one of his biggest recent problems of having cold, distant characters you don't care about by having like 5 minutes of dialog in the entire movie! And what was there was horribly mixed so it was hard to hear even during peacetime.
Also the trailer didn't "spoil" it because it was a real historical event but the trailer also gave away almost all of the dialog and pretty much every single setpiece so it was weird watching it.
The time line also jumps around a bit and it was done kind of poorly honestly. That aspect combined with a lot of repeat stuff from the trailers made the 94 runtime seem very stretched out. The dogfighting scene was also done kind of poorly imo. Don't get me wrong, it felt real and all that, but it was hard to follow. The time skipping amplified it
That being said, sound design was good and some shots were really beautiful. In terms of recent critically acclaimed war movies though I definitely preferred Hacksaw Ridge.
Spoiler questions
did Tom Hardy not have a chute or was his window defective like his copilot? Also when the main guy's boat is getting shot up, how did it keep getting shot at from well in the water? Who the hell was shooting at them from that range? Or was it just weird editing and they plugged up the holes pretty early on and then later had to abandon ship
Edit: legitimately surprised to see this much praise for it.
My favorite drama/thriller of the year so far is still easily It Comes At Night.
And seeing the second blade runner 2049 trailer for the first time (in imax!) was almost as rewarding as Dunkirk. Villeneueve gonna put in work