• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Dunkirk |OT| You can practically see it from here...home.

IMO the shots that drop down to a scope type ratio were more narrative and their composition fit just fine.

I'm super curious how much of The Last Jedi was shot in full height IMAX.
 
DecoReturns said:
You can't really film dialogue scenes with IMAX cameras becuase there too loud according to Nolan.
Click to expand...
I can't remember... I guess all the other scenes were just soldiers shouting at each other? lol

-griffy- said:
Only about 85% of the movie was shot with actual IMAX film. The remainder was shot with 65mm film, which has a different aspect ratio than the IMAX film. Nolan is such a purist that he would want to retain the maximum amount of detail by preserving the native aspect ratio rather than cropping and zooming to fit it to the same ratio.
Click to expand...
I guess my question is why not shoot it all with IMAX cameras. But if it was just infeasible, I suppose that'll have to do.

Beer Monkey said:
IMO the shots that drop down to a scope type ratio were more narrative and their composition fit just fine.

I'm super curious how much of The Last Jedi was shot in full height IMAX.
Click to expand...
I suppose it won't matter when the film makes its home release, but it's one of those film language things that is distracting at the moment because it's something that only happens once in a while. It would be like a film switching from 24fps to 48/60fps/HFR between scenes (which I guess that Ang Lee movie did when it came out).
 
firehawk12 said:
I suppose it won't matter when the film makes its home release, but it's one of those film language things that is distracting at the moment because it's something that only happens once in a while. It would be like a film switching from 24fps to 48/60fps/HFR between scenes (which I guess that Ang Lee movie did when it came out).
Click to expand...

My Interstellar Blu Ray switches aspect ratios between 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 it's fine.
 
I saw this today and loved it. And yeah boy was it LOUD. Also found the criticisms against the movie having no emotion to be really wierd because there was at least 2 moments where i teared up a bit. I thought there was some really strong stuff there. Tom Hardy's character was a damn badass.
 
am i missing something or did the beached boat segment make no sense. the events felt very contrived.

the boat randomly gets shot up for target practice but then the tide comes in afterwards somehow without anyone ever going to the deck the boat is able to self navigate into deep waters, like some kind of auto pilot. then the boat gets shot up further when its in the water but all the shots are at the same height for some reason.

also i dont think a boat riddled with holes with that much water in the hull wouldn't even make it off the beach but when the storylines finally intersect they're far into the ocean.
 
HoodWinked said:
am i missing something or did the beached boat segment make no sense. the events felt very contrived.

the boat randomly gets shot up for target practice but then the tide comes in afterwards somehow without anyone ever going to the deck the boat is able to self navigate into deep waters, like some kind of auto pilot. then the boat gets shot up further when its in the water but all the shots are at the same height for some reason.

also i dont think a boat riddled with holes with that much water in the hull wouldn't even make it off the beach but when the storylines finally intersect they're far into the ocean.
Click to expand...
And the Dutch sailor just... disappears.

Also bad: the bloodless carnage on the beaches at Dunkirk. I actually had trouble telling which characters were dead and which were just sleeping.
 
restraining order said:
And, while I'm on the topic of the French.
I'm genuinely quite upset with what went down in this film. Ignoring the wider controversy over French efforts being downplayed by this film, what happened below deck in the third act left me livid. The jingoism was fine and more than appropriate for the setting, I would imagine. What really upset me was the lack of consequence for the jingoism and tribalism. There was no comeuppance for Harry Styles. The protagonist never asked any questions about what happened to his French friend. And 'Gibson', himself, was delivered a watery grave for his previous heroics.

As a British man having watched this in Paris in the midst of a French audience, I felt mortified from this point onward in the movie. I kept holding on to hope that there would be some form of catharsis, but it never came. Instead, the movie ends with a throwaway comment by Kenneth Branagh and riffs of Churchill rallying Britain and 'her' empire. The same empire that allowed millions to starve in India during this war. Harry Styles even gets a fresh beer and a hero's welcome, the wanker.

The greatest shame is that I was captivated by this film for most of its duration until I became thoroughly unsettled by its politics. What happened to the Dutch man for that matter?

In short - Christopher Nolan is Satan and probably voted for Brexit.
Click to expand...

There is no downplay of the effort of anything or anyone. There is no political context or war strategy forgotten. This is not about the evacuation of the beach, the civilian rescue boats or the air force. It's about three little stories that exist within those moments. It's an intimate survival journey through the eyes of Tommy, the two pilots and that civilian boat. Outside of Brannagh's character that helps us to understand what is happening in these three moments, the scale we are presented is not the scale of the battle of Dunkirk but the scale these characters are exposed too. There is no politics whatsoever in this story. It's as apolitical as it gets. Dunkirk is a suspenseful thriller hidden behind a war setting. The film ends when
the kid is safe.
The clock stops. The end.
 
a little bit of propaganda, not as much as the traditional American movie but still...

It's still a masterpiece in my opinion, I wish it was bigger in scale but with 100m budget, he probably couldn't...

HariKari said:
Agree and personally thought it wasn't a very good movie about the actual Dunkirk battle/evacuation, but was a good movie about desperation and despair. It didn't have a massive budget so of course the scale needs to be limited, but it still felt like more could have been shown of the key contributions the French made.
Click to expand...

I don't think the French were downplayed in this movie, sure Nolan should have show them more but it was well established that the French were holding the house while the British were running away, we can see more than one time that the British attitude toward the French was awful and fuck the dude who talks badly about eating frogs, if you never, ever, ever eat frogs in your life the proper way, you should be ashamed. ( XD )
 
I don't get something about Cillian Murphy his character
He ends up on the top of a boat ALONE. George, Peter and his father Rescues him from that. Then there is Cillian in a flashback on a rowing boat were he tells some other soldiers you can't come aboard and the water is calm. But here is my big BUT. They say he is the ONLY survivor of attack from a Uboat. But how is that possible? We only see him on top of the boat and in a flashback where he is on rowing boat with like 5-10 soldiers. So whats up with that? Sounds like a plot hole to me... And he supposedely is shell shocked because he didn't want to go back to Dunkirk but then what really happened?
 
WriterGK said:
I don't get something about Cillian Murphy his character
He ends up on the top of a boat ALONE. George, Peter and his father Rescues him from that. Then there is Cillian in a flashback on a rowing boat were he tells some other soldiers you can't come aboard and the water is calm. But here is my big BUT. They say he is the ONLY survivor of attack from a Uboat. But how is that possible? We only see him on top of the boat and in a flashback where he is on rowing boat with like 5-10 soldiers. So whats up with that? Sounds like a plot hole to me... And he supposedely is shell shocked because he didn't want to go back to Dunkirk but then what really happened?
Click to expand...

From the row boat he went to another ship which ended up being torpedoed. He was the sole survivor.
 
I saw it in Imax, both me and my friend left with a queasy feeling and headaches. Those plane scenes were absolute torture.

And wtf was that soundtrack? It was effective at raising tension, but fuck was that horrible sounds for 1h40 minutes.

The movie was ok though, even with the nonsensical bits.

Th worst part was
when the guy was reading the paper, and started realizing, they were heroes?!? *cling* comically timed beer bottles!! It was such a moment made to make idiots cheer. Loke the only main character to die was the special needs kid, trying to get cheap sympathy in a movie about 100,000 people being killed.

Basically a well shot movie about people not wanting to go to the lower decks, possibly my least favourite Nolan movie.
 
True Savior said:
There is no downplay of the effort of anything or anyone. There is no political context or war strategy forgotten. This is not about the evacuation of the beach, the civilian rescue boats or the air force. It's about three little stories that exist within those moments. It's an intimate survival journey through the eyes of Tommy, the two pilots and that civilian boat. Outside of Brannagh's character that helps us to understand what is happening in these three moments, the scale we are presented is not the scale of the battle of Dunkirk but the scale these characters are exposed too. There is no politics whatsoever in this story. It's as apolitical as it gets. Dunkirk is a suspenseful thriller hidden behind a war setting. The film ends when
the kid is safe.
The clock stops. The end.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think a lot of people, my friends included, are having trouble realizing this. Nolan wasn't trying to make a historically accurate recreation of the evacuation, he was simply making a movie that happened to be set in Dunkirk.

Would I have liked to see more of the French? Especially after seeing their badass mini fort at the beginning of the movie? Sure. But this movie wasn't about their battle against the Germans. It was simply telling 3 little stories in a grand event.
 
Albino_Yeti said:
Yep, I think a lot of people, my friends included, are having trouble realizing this. Nolan wasn't trying to make a historically accurate recreation of the evacuation, he was simply making a movie that happened to be set in Dunkirk.

Would I have liked to see more of the French? Especially after seeing their badass mini fort at the beginning of the movie? Sure. But this movie wasn't about their battle against the Germans. It was simply telling 3 little stories in a grand event.
Click to expand...

Yup. Worth noting the film is clearly angled to the UK perspective throughout. It's probably the most British film I've seen in a long time: in that it is unapologetic-ally about the British point of view in context of the period and makes no real concession to modern neutral perspective.

It's three vingettes chosen to represent in microsm the larger story and convey a sense of their individual experiences.

With one small exception as you note none of the mini-narratives extend beyond the logical end of the evacuation as you note and there is no sense of the characters having much history outside the narrow confines of their timeframe in the film.

Spoiler tagged for those who haven't seen the film (and don't be tempted is my advice until you have) the only small exception I noted was:

George, who dies on the Moonstone, where we get to see him noted in local papers and his death recognized specifically beyond the evacuation timeframe. Although crucially Nolan doesn't conclude on this but as you note jumps back to Tommy for the correct logical close.

Personally I found this approach perfect for what was essentially a purely visual/audio experience with minimal dialogue and no forced character narratives or arcs beyond the minor ones born of the moment within the time-frame of the film itself.
 
I didn't like it. Too loud,
clock
sound goes on for too long, the story was ok but at the same time I feel nothing happens.

Good pacing, and a good moment when towards the end
they discover the French man and argue about getting rid of him
.

2/5

Something I didn't understand about the end:
why did the pilot burn his plane and what happens to him?
 
Fewr said:
Something I didn't understand about the end:
why did the pilot burn his plane and what happens to him?
Click to expand...
He was out of fuel by time he got to Dunkirk, so no chance for him to fly back. He landed on the beach and was captured by the Germans.



Honestly what I don't understand is A how long he coasted without fuel, and B why didn't he ditch the plane and take a boat when everyone else was leaving.
 
Dubbedinenglish said:
He was out of fuel by time he got to Dunkirk, so no chance for him to fly back. He landed on the beach and was captured by the Germans.



Honestly what I don't understand is A how long he coasted without fuel, and B why didn't he ditch the plane and take a boat when everyone else was leaving.
Click to expand...

Ah. My assumption was correct. I was wondering the same about him.
It seems he took ages without fuel. I was reminded of that Simpsons episode when Moe goes on a trip around the world in a jetpack (I think it's the homer boxer episode)
 
Best Nolan movie by far. only one or two major complaints which are that if you know the history (everyone from the U.K. for starters) then the "twist" is completely ludicrous because that's what you've been filling in in the background for the entire movie - and the Hardy plot drags out too long and the nature of the final strafing attack feels diluted because that sort of thing had been going on for the whole film.

But the twist elicited a couple of "well fucking duurrr" from our row of brits.
 
TheChewyWaffles said:
What do you say, GAF? Is a 9 year old boy who loves history too young to see this movie?
Click to expand...
People die, but the violence is so sanitized that it's basically people just falling over or drowning. So I'm not sure.

Stinkles said:
Best Nolan movie by far. only one or two major complaints which are that if you know the history (everyone from the U.K. for starters) then the "twist" is completely ludicrous because that's what you've been filling in in the background for the entire movie - and the Hardy plot drags out too long and the nature of the final strafing attack feels diluted because that sort of thing had been going on for the whole film.

But the twist elicited a couple of "well fucking duurrr" from our row of brits.
Click to expand...
What's supposed to be the twist?
 
firehawk12 said:
People die, but the violence is so sanitized that it's basically people just falling over or drowning. So I'm not sure.


What's supposed to be the twist?
Click to expand...

That there were hundreds of boats. That it was going to work.

Complete with rousing swell of triumphant music.
 
Stinkles said:
That there were hundreds of boats. That it was going to work.

Complete with rousing swell of triumphant music.
Click to expand...
Oh... that's meant to be a twist? lol

It's funny, this is the second movie about Dunkirk that has come out this year, so even if someone didn't know history, I find it amazing that they wouldn't know that happens.
 
firehawk12 said:
Oh... that's meant to be a twist? lol

It's funny, this is the second movie about Dunkirk that has come out this year, so even if someone didn't know history, I find it amazing that they wouldn't know that happens.
Click to expand...

It's certainly presented like that and very deliberately.
 
Saw this yesterday, it was ok. I was expecting more due to all the hype, I definitely wouldn't call it Nolan's best film. That said my opinion will probably change after a rewatch. The 3
timelines
confused me so I'm sure I missed out on some details.
 
Just saw it, incredibly well shot boring movie.
Probably nolan worst next to B3. Death in the movie felt extremely cheap, movie needed to be R to be effective for me.
 
This is not a good movie imo.

The emotional "climaxes" were not earned and left me apathetic. The "music" was an insult to the rest of Nolan's and Zimmer's joint effort, especially after the incredible Interstellar OST.

I didn't care about any of these characters. Perhaps the French guy, but other than that, there was no good characterization in this movie.

God damnit Nolan, you wasted 3 years on this turd.
 
takriel said:
This is not a good movie imo.

The emotional "climaxes" were not earned and left me apathetic. The "music" was an insult to the rest of Nolan's and Zimmer's joint effort, especially after the incredible Interstellar OST.

I didn't care about any of these characters. Perhaps the French guy, but other than that, there was no good characterization in this movie.

God damnit Nolan, you wasted 3 years on this turd.
Click to expand...
He'll personally make about $100 million dollars for this movie.

It will make the studio a huge profit.

It's been critically acclaimed and most people really enjoy or love it.

You have an odd definition of wasted time.
 
takriel said:
The emotional "climaxes" were not earned and left me apathetic. The "music" was an insult to the rest of Nolan's and Zimmer's joint effort, especially after the incredible Interstellar OST.
Click to expand...
I thought the score was on par if not better than Interstellar's. Oh well. lol
 
Just come out the cinema.

I thought it was incredible.

I completely lost it as the credits rolled. That sense of relief was absolutely tangible and overwhelming.

I saw it in Imax, and can't imagine seeing it any other way. It's truly an experience.
 
Chopper said:
Just come out the cinema.

I thought it was incredible.

I completely lost it as the credits rolled. That sense of relief was absolutely tangible and overwhelming.

I saw it in Imax, and can't imagine seeing it any other way. It's truly an experience.
Click to expand...

Curious. Are you British?
 
Man, rewatched Atonement last night with my wife (her first time) and this film paints a much more harrowing and detailed painting of the stranded Dunkirk infantry in a much shorter amount of time.
 
Stinkles said:
That there were hundreds of boats. That it was going to work.

Complete with rousing swell of triumphant music.
Click to expand...
What? How is that a twist? That's the whole driving force of "The Sea" plot; civilians coming to the rescue. Can't be a twist when it's literally what happened in real life.
 
Just saw it. I've never liked war movies (even in LotR which is my favorite series I don't really like the war scenes), but I thought this was quite well done. I think having the movie focused on putting the audience into the experience rather than focusing on characters or plot development helped me to enjoy it more.
 
I enjoyed the movie. The part with the sinking boat and the Dutch guy made absolutely no sense though. It was the most illogical scene in a movie I've seen in a while.
 
I'm going to be this one but...

WTF Nolan... You didn't put ANY effort in historical accuracy ? I'm no history buff at all but... You didn't edit the GIANT SHIPPING CRANES in the back drop of the city ? We see them in a dozen shots. The huge ass plastic covered factory ? The opening shots, all the plastic covers and wires running on the houses ?

It's like... They just... Didn't care ? They removed the cars and said good enough. We are miles behind David Fincher's Zodiac in term of post process CGI to remove and replace to match accurately or trying, a time period.

Also, the Maillé Brézé, the huge ass grey ship we see standing IDLE in water several times (with men on deck waving)... It's a french post war destroyer (a musuem ship in France) it has no propulsion anymore and it was towed for the shooting but... They barely worked on it. It doesn't look anything like a RN ship and its so obvious it's sitting in water : none of the big ships had wake they just all stood there, sitting in water...

Same for the little boats... it felt so cheap, so few of them on screen...

Its very weird because on top of these comments I made, some shots are just out of this world, breathtaking or superb.
 
Fewr said:
]Something I didn't understand about the end:
why did the pilot burn his plane and what happens to him?
Click to expand...
My guess (might be a bit out there) was that
he knew the reception and ridicule a member of the RAF would get on returning to Britain alive, mainly from the surviving ground forces, and he couldn't take it. So he decided to make it look like he died there. Maybe he didn't expect to get caught (I can't see if that was the case why he wouldn't have simply killed himself with an impact landing). But you got an idea at the end of how the Air Force members were seen by the soldiers as a lot of them felt abandoned by them and like they did nothing during that time.
But that is a bit of a stretch but it's all that came to me.
 
SCULLIBUNDO said:
Man, rewatched Atonement last night with my wife (her first time) and this film paints a much more harrowing and detailed painting of the stranded Dunkirk infantry in a much shorter amount of time.
Click to expand...

Ok... That focuses on just the infantry, no? With your typical romance bs? Very different films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Which country are you from?
Social  2 3
139
1K
Shifty1897 replied
In-Home Security Cameras
46
817
Unknown? replied
Whoever controls the music at the Huntsville Trash Pandas game, I see you
0
117
Shifty1897 replied
Break Ups Can Be Hard But It Was Time To Leave....
24
220
John Bilbo replied
ABAF /OT/ Grimm
9
70
DeafTourette replied
Top Bottom