sems4arsenal
Member
Loved that movie. Not my fav Nolan flick but was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dunkirk |OT| You can practically see it from here...home.
- Thread starter WadiumArcadium
- Start date
breakfuss
Member
I'm a huge Nolan fan but my ass literally fell asleep on this and that rarely happens (Quantum of Solace was the last time). I certainly recognize the skill, erudition and talent involved here but it was flatout uninteresting to me. Exhausting. And loud as fuck. Even went to an IMAX screening. Oh well.
Worth mentioning I detest WWII movies, games, shows etc. Seems even my man Nolan can't change that. Oh, and I can't believe I got into an argument with my girlfriend over going to see this (begged me to watch Girls Trip w/ her instead). THANKS FOR NOTHING.
He got caught in chains hanging from the ceiling.
That took me out of it a fair bit. I was thinking they'd pan to show hundreds of small boats assisting the navy (in the end the Navy and company [eg merchant marines]), as the navy did most of the evacuation, there would have been a lot more there. Instead for basically the whole movie there was just a handful of boats visible from shore at any given time, even during the climax of the 'mole' segment. This was a bit that demanded some CGI to fill out the scene. Same with the soldiers - upwards of 400k, and all I could think was 'where are they and how did they get off the beach?'. Never felt like there were more than a few thousand soldiers at any given time, if that.
On accuracy, there were some materials that were plastic-ish at the time, but yeah the cranes took me out of it. On the one hand, not knowing Dunkirk, I presumed that it would have been a major industrial port at the time, so factories/cranes on the water would have been common, but those cranes definitely looked like modern container cranes. I haven't been able to find a picture of a WW2 era crane that looked similar. Town was the same way - near the end as Hardy is flying by the town looks like it's right out of a modern tourism book. For some reason the pedestrian striping was what really took me out of it (even though the town may have had those back then).
On the behind-the-scenes shots - all this images just make me think Nolan is a loon for obsessing about IMAX still. It's nice in some ways that he's a film holdout, but c'mon man, I think you should work to make digital better rather than holding on so hard to these giant film formats!
True Savior
Member
This is the type of colossal filmmaking that used to characterize the big US film production. A sense of scale and awe everytime a picture was on screen. The moment we see the air and the camera does this little in-and out approximation to the center and the airplanes appear over a thundering sound, there's a palpable sensation of authenticity seeing those planes flying.
It's very loud, so be warned.
Inferno313
Banned
Has he seen other war movies? It's VERY intense, quite loud. Yet, it's also more about the psychological horrors of war than the violent horrors. He's not gonna see anyone get their head blown off.
jellies_two
Member
I found it lacked a sense of scale 
400k soldiers on the beach but mostly saw only a few thousand. A flotilla of small boats turned up, over 400, but only saw about 12. Undoubtably many aircraft but the movie showed 3 British and maybe 5 American.
CGI would have been fine. I think he did CGI in two shots to pad out the scale but it wasn't nearly enough.
400k soldiers on the beach but mostly saw only a few thousand. A flotilla of small boats turned up, over 400, but only saw about 12. Undoubtably many aircraft but the movie showed 3 British and maybe 5 American.
CGI would have been fine. I think he did CGI in two shots to pad out the scale but it wasn't nearly enough.
ZackieChan
Member
Eh, it wasn't that clear what the one week, one day, one hour mean. I didn't really understand until the end.
Also, did the soldiers just stand there on the beach for a week? They never showed them sleeping or camping or eating or anything that showed the passage of time. So it wasn't obvious that the events on the shore took place over a week.
I have the exact opposite opinion on scale. I left the movie feeling like I was right in there because of the fact they didn't overscale it with CG and extreme shots. It felt lived in and like the camera was right there with the soldiers. Sure, this may have been under-exaggerated to make it more easy to film, but I think huge, sweeping CG shots of thousands upon thousands of soldiers and boats would've really taken me out of the experience. If I could use one word to describe it, it would be authentic. Not in the sense of historical accuracy, but everything felt in-place and self-consistent.
Anyway, I continue to appreciate it more after chewing it over more and more.
Anyway, I continue to appreciate it more after chewing it over more and more.
Manny Calavera
Member
Definitely agree with everything you wrote and when it comes to scale I thought this was one of the most authentic films since Lawrence of Arabia. Everything in the film just felt real. Can't wait to see it again on 4k Blu-ray.
Nailed it. I saw this in IMAX yesterday and was completely floored by the movie. Expected to finally visit this GAF thread and see all the praise but I'm shocked to see so many people disappointed for seemingly petty reasons.
Did I watch the same movie as the rest of you? For me, this wasn't a film setting out to show the grandiosity of WWII with massive panoramic shots of beaches full of soldiers, giant naval armadas or intense gun fights. It became very evident early on in the film that the story was going to be uncomfortably personal with what some of these individuals may have experienced at Dunkirk. The authenticity of using intimate, upclose shots of real plants/boats and soldiers sold me on the personal experience far better than massive CGI scenes. Couple this with the fucking insanely loud sound effects and relentless score and I was seriously stressed out the entire movie.
In fact, some of these other criticisms about the character development or scenes not giving enough time or effort to allow for the viewer to connect also make me question if we were watching the same film. Yes, there was very little dialogue in the film and the little dialogue used was difficult to hear/understand. Yes, many of the scenes that showed loss, despair, tragedy, triumph and victory were short lived as the movie continued its pace to the next scene. As the credits began to roll, I had this huge emotional tidal wave hit me and I literally began to cry as the gravity of the film settled on me.
My personal experience of the film was that we purposefully weren't given enough time to appreciate the horrors soldiers saw/heard in combat,
the elation of troops being rescued or the selfless sacrifice of British citizens using their civilian boats for rescue
The clock finally stops when the young man closes his eyes on the train to sleep.
Man that was such a great movie. Suprised about the mixed reception tbh. It was beatiful and the music reminded me of there will be blood with how it was implemented. Doubt I'll ever see it again though, it was a movie made for the cinema through and through, my weak ass tv wont ever do it justice.
True Savior
Member
What mixed reaction? Film has been lauded as hell. It's his best reviewed work since Memento.
RBelong2Us
Member
Neogaf mixed reaction lol
I can understand the mix of opinions on the movie after watching it. I've had an interest in what happened at Dunkirk for a few years but know little else about wars honestly. Knowing this was being made really piqued my curiosity and I've been desperate to see it for months now. But I think a lot of people went into the movie thinking either A) that this is a standard war movie with a Nolan feel, or B) that even if it wasn't A, it would be an action-packed movie with lots of big set-pieces with Hardy being center stage. Nolan made it pretty clear what he was going for with making a movie that focused on the tension set around that excruciating time where those forces were given orders to retreat (and for some of them it was a very long trek) and when they finally got there they simply found a beach packed with soldiers awaiting a fate they had no control over. It seemed pretty clear that there was no clear protagonist and that there would not be an enormous amount of dialogue. I expected something based on that and loved it, I've found movies that can create and hold such a high level of tension for so long few and far between and love it (No Escape from 2015 is the last one I saw and thought it did it superbly). But I think other people expected this to wow them in other ways and instead were disappointed as they felt they couldn't connect to the characters because there were a lot of them, and because the timeline moved around they felt it was a little too confusing.
I can still see the movie's flaws (mainly with random plotlines, some of which were mentioned here, like the Dutch soldier), and the recent articles / opinion pieces about whitewashing give something to think about, but regardless of that it was still an incredible experience and in my opinion was executed superbly.
jellies_two
Member
Went to see it at vmax (good sound but not imax). The audience was silent all the way through no gasps or collective murmurs. At the end nobody paused and there wasn't a single clap. Most just jumped up to leave - wasn't that 50% sticking the credits out.
As a Brit by birth Dunkirk was part of our childhood, everyone knew of the huge effort and flotilla of boats snatching the army away from destruction.
My feelings are that Nolan somehow managed to make the whole - huge - event look a minor skirmish, a sort of Sicario or Crash but with interchangeable blank sheet characters (except for Harry Styles).
Despite being pre-programmed to latch onto various broad English accents, I didn't accurately hear a good 30% of the lines said in stress, not that that mattered much because the dialog was largely props.
Overall it was frustrating. Mixed.
Discotheque
Banned
It's not. Makes for better threads than the usual circle jerks tbh.
I'm of the opinion that it was a really good movie though. But I think the biggest problem I had with it was the lack of attention to detail on the actual beach itself. It was way too clean and uniform considering how messy pictures of the event looked (or even atonement where it actually looked like a lived in beach with stranded soldiers)
Plus I think while it was an excellent trick of editing he showed off his timeline juggling skills at the expense of the tension tbh. Could have made for something better if he didn't keep cutting to something happening on an entirely different time period or show the same moment through a new perspective.
The trick that they did with the sound mix and score though was really cool. Felt like it was just getting continuously louder and more anxious as it went. I think it certainly deserves a bunch of technical nominations. And director and cinematography too
Also Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy are so good.
True Savior
Member
It's also a trick of is great writing. He writes the crosscutting in the script. It's really quite unique his abilities to structure that particularity and it's pace immediately in the pages. He's not discovering that rhythm in the editing room but everything is conceptualized right away.
It's hard to feel tension when you're not invested in the characters you're following.
jasminlovesyoux
Banned
I saw this tonight and absolutely loved it. It was extremely intense! I really enjoyed the intertangled storylines and overall non stop suspense. It was such a fight for survival on all fronts. Well done Dunkirk.
Thought this movie completely failed to capture any real sense of dread or suspense, no matter how much music was used to manufacture tension. Watching Dunkirk I was left with an impression that Nolan has no real sense of how movies work, especially action movies, and I don't think he'll ever be good at them and I pray to god he goes back to his roots with The Prestige and Memento, where he actually has some clue about how to create compelling cinema. He has no sense of how to create truly EPIC setpieces that don't rely on IMAX cameras to make everything FEEL big. He has no sense of how to move the camera, no sense of creating scale inside the frame, no sense of how to stage coherent action with a clear sense of geography. Shit, just watch the last hour of Titanic to see a director film complete and utter chaos, while still maintaining some sense of coherence and focus on the characters and their individual conflicts, all the while creating WONDER and AWE, neither of which Nolan even comes close to creating in Dunkirk. Fuck, when the most memorable and beautiful shots in your action movie are of a completely empty ocean, maybe you should go back to the fucking drawing board.
I realize all this bitter rage puts me in a complete minority, and most of it probably comes across as the ravings of a loon, but the praise for this movie as some grand achievement for action and disaster movies when it can't even hold Titanic's bathwater gets me a tad upset. Sorry.
I realize all this bitter rage puts me in a complete minority, and most of it probably comes across as the ravings of a loon, but the praise for this movie as some grand achievement for action and disaster movies when it can't even hold Titanic's bathwater gets me a tad upset. Sorry.
The dogfight sequences and the finale where the narrative threads converge had an excellent sense of geography and spatial awareness.
The movie is not a grand epic in the old Hollywood tradition like Titanic and it was never purported to be. So the comparison is completely invalid and wrongheaded in my view
The movie is not a grand epic in the old Hollywood tradition like Titanic and it was never purported to be. So the comparison is completely invalid and wrongheaded in my view
Inferno313
Banned
I'm a believer in Walter Murch's line of thinking. Geography and spatial awareness are important when cutting a scene, sure. However, they should never ever take precedence over emotion, story, or rhythm. I like the way Nolan stages action scenes.
I had actual tears of joy when the boats arrived at the beach accompanied by that beautiful bombast Zimmer score.
I don't need to know the background story of these soldiers. That's what they were in that war. Nameless faces trying to survive. When they get rescued I was like fuck yeah.
I don't need to know the background story of these soldiers. That's what they were in that war. Nameless faces trying to survive. When they get rescued I was like fuck yeah.
Seriously disappointed.
I knew what to expect going in, at least I thought so - I actually am very fond of the cinematic experience that was TDKR in the theatre, with Nolan and Hans Zimmer creating this constant brooding doomy atmosphere that had me sitting paralysed in my seat the whole time.
So hearing about Nolan & Zimmer making a(nother) whole movie around this kind of immersion? Hell yes I'm in!
Well, the way it turned out, it didn't feel like the constant suspense and terror that I was hoping for. What the movie actually felt like for me was this:
A random soldier (with no reason for us to care for him) tries to get on boats, then they sink, many soldiers that we care even less about die, he manages to survive. Rince and repeat!
Until they get saved.
They try to amp the supsense up with Zimmer's click-clock, obviously, but it doesn't work (for me). It mostly just feels forced, as there is not enough thrilling stuff actually happening in the build-ups to these supposed climaxes (neither in the climaxes himself). Also, yes, I gotta echo critics there, there is not enough emotional connection (due to the known total lack of characterizations) for one to get hooked into the supposed suspense. I'm not saying there has to be, but for this whole setup/idea to work, you will need one or the other, you will need something that gets you invested you to make it work.
The split up narration also didn't help as both storylines not happening on the beach took me totally out of any suspense most of the time. I will give the Air-line (haha) that it had some great visuals and decent dogfights, but they became repetitive.
The movie had some moments of neat suspense for me, but not nearly as much as I hoped for, meaning it pretty much fell totally flat, as there are obviously not much redeeming qualities if the "edge of your seat"-hookup doesn't work.
I have to say I had to watch this movie in a just average cinema, about which I'm still sad as I knew immersion will be everything in this movie and I hoped to get the best (and biggest) technical prerequisites for this supposed "experience" of a movie.
That being said I have to doubt that a slightly bigger screen and a slightly better/louder sound system would have really elevated the movie above the shortcomings described above.
Also, it's not my fault if Nolan's movie doesn't work when watched in an, again, average (not bad, not state-of-the-art-IMAX-perfect) theatre, is it?
I knew what to expect going in, at least I thought so - I actually am very fond of the cinematic experience that was TDKR in the theatre, with Nolan and Hans Zimmer creating this constant brooding doomy atmosphere that had me sitting paralysed in my seat the whole time.
So hearing about Nolan & Zimmer making a(nother) whole movie around this kind of immersion? Hell yes I'm in!
Well, the way it turned out, it didn't feel like the constant suspense and terror that I was hoping for. What the movie actually felt like for me was this:
A random soldier (with no reason for us to care for him) tries to get on boats, then they sink, many soldiers that we care even less about die, he manages to survive. Rince and repeat!
Until they get saved.
They try to amp the supsense up with Zimmer's click-clock, obviously, but it doesn't work (for me). It mostly just feels forced, as there is not enough thrilling stuff actually happening in the build-ups to these supposed climaxes (neither in the climaxes himself). Also, yes, I gotta echo critics there, there is not enough emotional connection (due to the known total lack of characterizations) for one to get hooked into the supposed suspense. I'm not saying there has to be, but for this whole setup/idea to work, you will need one or the other, you will need something that gets you invested you to make it work.
The split up narration also didn't help as both storylines not happening on the beach took me totally out of any suspense most of the time. I will give the Air-line (haha) that it had some great visuals and decent dogfights, but they became repetitive.
The movie had some moments of neat suspense for me, but not nearly as much as I hoped for, meaning it pretty much fell totally flat, as there are obviously not much redeeming qualities if the "edge of your seat"-hookup doesn't work.
I have to say I had to watch this movie in a just average cinema, about which I'm still sad as I knew immersion will be everything in this movie and I hoped to get the best (and biggest) technical prerequisites for this supposed "experience" of a movie.
That being said I have to doubt that a slightly bigger screen and a slightly better/louder sound system would have really elevated the movie above the shortcomings described above.
Also, it's not my fault if Nolan's movie doesn't work when watched in an, again, average (not bad, not state-of-the-art-IMAX-perfect) theatre, is it?
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
No it isn't. You'll find this in plenty of screenplays.It's also a trick of is great writing. He writes the crosscutting in the script. It's really quite unique his abilities to structure that particularity and it's pace immediately in the pages. He's not discovering that rhythm in the editing room but everything is conceptualized right away.
True Savior
Member
Most movies don't crosscut extensively and recurrently through the whole film like Nolan ones. Off course it's extremely unique. Dunkirk script is entirely different from something like his own movie, Inception, for instance.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
That Dunkirk is essentially one long, extended montage, doesn't suddenly make cross-cutting between scenes at the script stage unique.
True Savior
Member
Nor did I said otherwise. But the extensive nature of it makes it very unique. Inception is a great counterpart of a film that, in the 2nd half of it, as a huge crosscutting section and the jumps are much less controlled in the script and the rhythm was dictated afterwards.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
True Savior
Member
Off course you are being pedantic. Did I wrote that in the context of a general movie thread? Or in the Dunkirk one? Show me films with so much crosscutting, where the entire thing follows exactly the script and then let's characterize it's uniqueness.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Again, and I promise I'm not going to go around in circles on this; the extent to which Nolan uses this technique in Dunkirk, doesn't suddenly make the technique unique.
Intercutting scenes in a screenplay happens all the time. Nolan employing this practice a lot in one film doesn't suddenly make it unique. I really don't know what else you want me to say.
I'm not being pedantic, I'm just not agreeing with you. And you're not understanding me so I'm trying to be more clear and specific about my response, which you're calling pedantic.
fastford58
Member
Holy balls. Imagine if that guy researched something useful...like medicine or something.
True Savior
Member
Interstellar's Docking scene with the Supermarine track
Not bad. The transition in the middle of the song is pretty decent.
Not bad. The transition in the middle of the song is pretty decent.
sems4arsenal
Member
That was well done.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yeah, the end bit doesnt go with whats happening on screen. but the opening is ok.
Best way I could summarise the film is like it being a 90 min simulation at an amusement park. Watching on IMAX was thrilling and there was an intensity throughout which was helped greatly by the wonderful sound design and score.
However as a piece of storytelling it felt flat. There is practically zero emotional attachment to the characters, and with next to no character development it's hard to feel anything for the movie apart from this immersive journey I outlined before.
I also found the prominence of things like TV aerials jarring, in fact I'm pretty sure there's a modern apartment block in full view as the Spitfire flies over Dunkirk towards the end.
So in conclusion I think Dunkirk is a showcase IMAX experience without being an outstanding film.
However as a piece of storytelling it felt flat. There is practically zero emotional attachment to the characters, and with next to no character development it's hard to feel anything for the movie apart from this immersive journey I outlined before.
I also found the prominence of things like TV aerials jarring, in fact I'm pretty sure there's a modern apartment block in full view as the Spitfire flies over Dunkirk towards the end.
So in conclusion I think Dunkirk is a showcase IMAX experience without being an outstanding film.
One of the things I loved most about this was the toying with
in a very subtle way.
Nolan slacked and tightened the pacing of each narrative thread in isolation, so that there was a perfect pacing of action, tension and quiet moments that sometimes we saw
from different perspectives. He spread a couple of key scenes
Absolutely awesome and so subtle.
I don't think you are. Agree with every word and thought the film was phenomenal.
I don't really get this. The point wasn't to tell Grecian three-act narrative where characters are exposed to tension and develop by the end.
This was all Act 2 with a tiny hint of Act 3. This film ignored your expectation of payoff and told a totally human cinematic narrative - cinematic as in "in the moment"/"temporally tight" and "visual". This was a study of how people survive and react in the absolute crux of one of the most dramatic events in history.
Besides, IMO there was plenty of humanity. Sacrifice - in this case the trade off of "one life for many" - was explored in multiple ways throughout the film and showed the psychological and social impact this had.
Perhaps most importantly, ending with
- showing that besides all the grandstanding and all the rhetoric, their lived experience was what really happened, was what really mattered.
Just outstanding.
chronology
Nolan slacked and tightened the pacing of each narrative thread in isolation, so that there was a perfect pacing of action, tension and quiet moments that sometimes we saw
multiple events
across the whole length of the film, and played it from the perspectives of different characters.
Absolutely awesome and so subtle.
I don't think you are. Agree with every word and thought the film was phenomenal.
I don't really get this. The point wasn't to tell Grecian three-act narrative where characters are exposed to tension and develop by the end.
This was all Act 2 with a tiny hint of Act 3. This film ignored your expectation of payoff and told a totally human cinematic narrative - cinematic as in "in the moment"/"temporally tight" and "visual". This was a study of how people survive and react in the absolute crux of one of the most dramatic events in history.
Besides, IMO there was plenty of humanity. Sacrifice - in this case the trade off of "one life for many" - was explored in multiple ways throughout the film and showed the psychological and social impact this had.
Perhaps most importantly, ending with
Churchill's legendary speech but then flipping it with a brief meaningful glance from the young soldier
Just outstanding.
I'm fucking pissed now that in the future, the music when I rewatch the movie is NOT Supermariner
It fits so well
DeviantBoi
Member
Was Cillian Murphy in any other part of the movie other than the old man's boat?
I could have sworn I saw him at the beach... this was before I realized that the movie wasn't exactly in order, so I wasn't sure if it was him or not.
I could have sworn I saw him at the beach... this was before I realized that the movie wasn't exactly in order, so I wasn't sure if it was him or not.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
It was him earlier on chronologically - before the ship he was on was sunk.
Saw it this evening. Hadn't looked at any reviews or reactions to the film (still haven't really).
I liked it. It was more of a 'mood piece' than a film about anything in particular. Even Dunkirk - which seemed more of a narrative vehicle to make this particular sort of film than 'subject matter'. That is, the film wouldn't have lost anything from having the Dunkirky bits taken out, like the little boats arriving, or the coda back home.
That's not really a criticism, just an observation. I was fine with frothing seas, brooding skies and the thundering soundtrack and was quite happy to let it wash over me for the pleasantly lean running time.
It was a pretty film, and a loud one.
I liked it. It was more of a 'mood piece' than a film about anything in particular. Even Dunkirk - which seemed more of a narrative vehicle to make this particular sort of film than 'subject matter'. That is, the film wouldn't have lost anything from having the Dunkirky bits taken out, like the little boats arriving, or the coda back home.
That's not really a criticism, just an observation. I was fine with frothing seas, brooding skies and the thundering soundtrack and was quite happy to let it wash over me for the pleasantly lean running time.
It was a pretty film, and a loud one.
Spaced Harrier
Member
The Marie Claire review was hilarious for many reasons.
But for me the funniest thing that stuck out was the declaration everyone knew who Harry Styles was and it would take you out of the film.
Such a blinkered worldview for someone so apparently woke.
I hadn't a fucking clue until the end credit.
I also didn't realise that was Tom Hardy until the goggles came off.
But for me the funniest thing that stuck out was the declaration everyone knew who Harry Styles was and it would take you out of the film.
Such a blinkered worldview for someone so apparently woke.
I hadn't a fucking clue until the end credit.
I also didn't realise that was Tom Hardy until the goggles came off.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell thoughts ("Straight to the good stuff") on Dunkirk. (they are actual film theorists and scholars).
edit: of course I posted this at the end of the thread. oh well.
edit: of course I posted this at the end of the thread. oh well.