When the torpedo scene on the boat is at night, and it suddenly switches to George and Peter on the civilian boat in the daytime, it is.
-
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
When the torpedo scene on the boat is at night, and it suddenly switches to George and Peter on the civilian boat in the daytime, it is.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
It's weird because you see the stories converge near the beginning, when the planes fly over the boat that is part of the rescue, so it seems like they are going on at the same time.
I don't know, I can understand why people would find the editing confusing. They might chalk that night time scene up to a continuity error or something.
Anton Sugar
Member
I didn't find the that confusing at all but I also knew a little about the structure before I went in. I understood that seeing the same characters in two timelines didn't necessarily mean they converged, it's just showing a future scene from an early perspective.
Warm Machine
Member
It isn't full of action. I'd argue the only actual action where the characters are motivated and proactive is the air sequence. Other than that they are running away or hiding in the dark doing a whole lot of nothing. There is also barely any tension in it as characters are so similar and interchangeable visually.
From the very first scene the characters are fighting or finagling their way off the beach. What are you talking about?
It's boring because it has very little plot.
Saw it this past weekend. Not much of a Nolan fan but this was very good. Definitely his best. Saw it in IMAX which was the right decision. I did find the PG13 rating hurt it a bit, especially the scenes on the beach but not enough to negate the overall impressive quality of the film. My only other niggling complaint was that I am kind of over Zimmer's musical shtick but that is really just a personal preference.
It doesn't need a plot to be exciting.
Atraveller
Banned
You're giving me flashback to Mad Max Fury Road OT, and not in a good way.
Our group all really liked this. Saw this at BFI IMAX and I think this definitely would lose a lot if I saw this at home or on a plane. It is very coherent for a Nolan film, the visual cues were smart and on point. There is a clarity of vision here that also make it refreshing too.
Static Veins
Member
Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Super tense throughout and I liked the format of being told through three points of view.
And as it's been brought up in the thread a few times, fun fact: I live in the town where the Dunkirk scene in Atonement was shot. I watched that film (and this film) in the cinema that the long tracking shot ventures into. Was surreal as all hell to be sat next to the side door where the soldiers enter on screen!
And as it's been brought up in the thread a few times, fun fact: I live in the town where the Dunkirk scene in Atonement was shot. I watched that film (and this film) in the cinema that the long tracking shot ventures into. Was surreal as all hell to be sat next to the side door where the soldiers enter on screen!
Inferno313
Banned
Having lots of plot is never the reason any movie is good.
The action was also trash. The stuff on ground and water was terrible. HBO has done much better with a tenth of the budget. And the dogfighting was just boring. I was expecting some kind of depiction of dogfighting tactics or something visually interesting, but there was no meat there, just amateur hour flying that would get you cut to pieces within the first minute of a Warthunder match.
Also, Marco Beltrami did the "score as tension builder" thing far better for Logan than Hans Zimmer did for this.
This entire opinion just baffles me.
The action is incredible. It's quite easily the best film of the year so far.
I mean my favorite part is that his point of reference for a realistic depiction of dogfighting is a fucking F2P game.
Aye lmao.
Warm Machine
Member
The characters run and jump a fence. WOW!
Are you kidding me? They are just trying to survive. It's a movie about survival !
What exactly do you consider "action" in this film?
The pyrotechnics were a hot mess. Stuka dive bombers dropping hand grenades, what a joke. The incongruity of that lack of danger completely undercuts the tension.
HBO did better fifteen years ago.
As a vaunted director, Christopher Nolan also does an awful job of establishing the space that his scenes are occurring in. A beach teeming with 400,000 desperate men facing the guns of the enemy or a watery death is reduced a handful of scattered single file lines. The soldiers walk a hundred yards in one direction and suddenly reach a boat that is "outside of the perimeter". Apparently them crossing the perimeter goes unchallenged, and Germans are able to get in position to shoot them up without any kind of response from the men manning the perimeter defenses.
Warm Machine
Member
I understand that the guy who looks just like the other guy ending up on a beach with guys that all look like him are trying to survive. Engaging.
Seriously, There is almost no direct action in this movie. There is also almost no tension. Maybe seeing in it IMAX with loud noises gives it that but the theatre I saw it in didn't have a loudness war on to imply action and tension. Scenes literally come out of no where without direct motivation, building drama, or setup. Most of this is due to never showing the enemy.
The movie is an experimental art piece. Nolan has made great movies before with Memento and the first two Batman films. This isn't one of them. This is The Thin Red Line without the endless poetry and bullshit but all the hollowness.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
RE: the dogfighting
They are using real aircraft there which are few and far between so I get not wanting to do harrowing dives and pursuit climbs etc, and the 109s don't fly like you'd expect German pilots to fly. Also the amount of aircraft is pretty sparse (1 Stuka at a time, when they attacked in 3s during the actual war) again due to the constraints of practical effects. Then the ending where Hardy with no propulsion is able to shoot down a Stuka somehow are things that pulled me out of it.
I will say their attention to detail in how the pilots interacted with the planes were amazingly realistic. How they kept the fuel amount with chalk , operating the manual undercarriage system due to no hydraulics, discussing not climbing to save fuel...Their depiction of the aircraft is pretty authentic even though they were constrained by real aircraft not able to fly like the war.
Your original criticism was that the scenes involving the soldiers on the beach are "unmotivated." I don't think you understand what this word means. Their motivation is to get the hell off the beach because they are sitting ducks against Stuka dive bombers and other German aircraft. What do you mean there is almost no "direct" action in this movie? Direct action between who? Opposing armies? Like infantry?
And you keep saying you couldn't keep track of who was who because everyone looked the same. I don't know, it was pretty easy for me to differentiate on guy from the next. And the movie has nothing in common with The Thin Red Line. Thin Red Line is an epic tone poem. This was a lean suspense thriller that alternates between three different perspectives of the event that converge. You seem to have hallucinated during most of the runtime
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Bolded for truth.
Dunkirk was much ado about nothing. There was hardly any plot, almost all of the protagonists were blank slates you couldn't root for, the soundtrack was mostly noise, there was no sense of scale considering the fact that 400.000 men were trapped on the beach. Some of the set pieces were OK, but after a while I just sat there in the audience wishing the movie was over. I think this is Christopher Nolan's worst movie.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
The soundtrack was the best thing about Interstellar. Dunkirk has an excruciatingly bad soundtrack. Just thinking about the constant loud droning noises makes me dislike the movie more.
Just saw the movie and this sums up my thoughts pretty well.
Movie was awful. Plodding, lacking in humanity, and wholly direction less.
Inferno313
Banned
Heh. The Thin Red Line is my favorite WWII movie ever.
It's a fantastic film. It also has absolutely nothing in common with Dunkirk.
Watched, left unimpressed. Christopher Nolan has told some amazing stories, and to make a story-less movie I guess was a breath of fresh air for him - but not to me personally.
It had some tense scenes which were effective at that - but I think in particular the whole picture wasn't painted very well. I couldn't properly understand the conflict, the scale of people involved. The focus on Britain (intentionally forcing other nations to the background) also seemed a missed opportunity for exploring how different nations were trapped in the same place and how they did or didn't cooperate in getting out - some plot please!!! My favourite character was the
because he actually had a bit of meaningful arch.
Overall well done movie for someone setting out to "create tension without plot" as an objective. But a lesser movie than it could have been if that hadn't been the aim to begin with.
It had some tense scenes which were effective at that - but I think in particular the whole picture wasn't painted very well. I couldn't properly understand the conflict, the scale of people involved. The focus on Britain (intentionally forcing other nations to the background) also seemed a missed opportunity for exploring how different nations were trapped in the same place and how they did or didn't cooperate in getting out - some plot please!!! My favourite character was the
defective survivalist
Overall well done movie for someone setting out to "create tension without plot" as an objective. But a lesser movie than it could have been if that hadn't been the aim to begin with.
I simply do not understand where you guys are coming from with your criticism of the plot.
What the fuck are you looking for?
Some deep character developments that put a whole new spin on things? Plot twists where they're not actually trapped at all?
The film set out to show what sort of things happened at Dunkirk. It achieved that. I really do think that people who criticise the plot completely misunderstood what this film was going for.
Just watched it. The more I think about it, the better it gets.
It's so artfully done, but you never get the sense that Christopher Nolan is selling you "Art". It manages to be refreshingly simple in its delivery - there are no Hollywood heroics, no over-the-top action set pieces, and no deliberate sentimentality. The commitment to unvarnished realism is exceptional. The dogfight sequences are a standout in all their intensity and frustration.
And yet at the same time it establishes its own heightened reality, an abstract place removed from the real world, where the whole of existence is a beach and an ocean. The cinematography and score do an incredible job in painting this picture, as well as the deliberate absence of enemy combatants (dissociated further by never being referred to as Germans but rather the "enemy").
Watch this on the biggest screen you can. It's worth it.
It's so artfully done, but you never get the sense that Christopher Nolan is selling you "Art". It manages to be refreshingly simple in its delivery - there are no Hollywood heroics, no over-the-top action set pieces, and no deliberate sentimentality. The commitment to unvarnished realism is exceptional. The dogfight sequences are a standout in all their intensity and frustration.
And yet at the same time it establishes its own heightened reality, an abstract place removed from the real world, where the whole of existence is a beach and an ocean. The cinematography and score do an incredible job in painting this picture, as well as the deliberate absence of enemy combatants (dissociated further by never being referred to as Germans but rather the "enemy").
Watch this on the biggest screen you can. It's worth it.
I don't necessarily need a plot or whatever single element you can extract from a movie. What I do need from a movie is it making me feel something. Often by getting immersed. Creating tension. If a lack of plot, characterization or whatever seems a reason for a movie to fail to achieve this for me, then yeah, it has to be criticised. Again, this does not mean that every movie needs crazy plot twists or whatever.
But what was there in Dunkirk just wasn't enough for me as a functioning whole (and obviously for other people too).
Well maybe. Doesn't make it a better movie though, because "showing what sort of things happened at Dunkirk" doesn't really qualify for a worthwhile movie in itself. Basically what he said:
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
The final shot with
was beautifully shot and I might even have to get that framed.
Hardy and the plane
True Savior
Member
David Bordwell just posted his Part 2 about the movie. The first entry was about the structure this one is more about the style and he goes a little in-depth about the crosscutting.
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2017/08/09/dunkirk-part-2-the-art-film-as-event-movie/
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2017/08/09/dunkirk-part-2-the-art-film-as-event-movie/
Merchandise
Member
Mass Appeal
Member
Saw it other day and loved it. One of Nolans best.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Saw this at BFI IMAX last week.
Entertaining and beautifully shot, but the film can be essentially summed up to
tick, tock, tick, tock.... RUN! RUN!... tick... tock... HIDE! HIDE! ... tick... tock... tick... tock... BAIL OUT!!
It's a good action film and depicts the desperation of the situation well. But there is little development in any of it, and you don't really relate to any of the characters. It's more like a macro view of an event.
I am also unsure about whether I like an IMAX shaped screen, a square shape just doesn't seem as natural as wide screen.
No regrets about seeing the film, but also I don't view it as a classic.
Entertaining and beautifully shot, but the film can be essentially summed up to
tick, tock, tick, tock.... RUN! RUN!... tick... tock... HIDE! HIDE! ... tick... tock... tick... tock... BAIL OUT!!
It's a good action film and depicts the desperation of the situation well. But there is little development in any of it, and you don't really relate to any of the characters. It's more like a macro view of an event.
I am also unsure about whether I like an IMAX shaped screen, a square shape just doesn't seem as natural as wide screen.
No regrets about seeing the film, but also I don't view it as a classic.
I think that's kind of the point.
SentientStone
Member
Guess I wasn't the only one, hasn't changed my opinion on war films, which I usually cannot get into anyway. I am just glad Nolan is done with this and will most likely be back to his usual self in his next fillm.
Patrick Bateman
Member
Btw. what happened to the French soldier in British uniform? I somehow lost sight of him at the end of the movie.
Drowned in the boat iirc, he was the last to try to get out, and got stuck on something.
Edit: hmm, this isn't a spoiler OT? Guess I'll tag just incase then.
TheGameshark
Member
He drowned in the fishing boat that sank from bullet holes
Patrick Bateman
Member
:/
I found that scene quite depressing. Too bad it ended that way. That other British soldier who wanted the French soldier/"spy" killed got killed himself when he had to dive up into the flames in the later scene, right?
Btw.
Hardy's character looked out of his plane and saw a little private boat with a couple of people jumping in the water. With all those different timeframes I thought it was the boat of that English father with his son and the friend of his son. But since they made it back:
Who actually was that on the sinking boat?
Who actually was that on the sinking boat?
Re second spoiler tag:
I believe that was the soldiers boat, the one the French soldier drowned in, iirc.
Nope