Nobody knows what he's talking about but that tweet will still sell 3 million copies and be a critically acclaimed hit.
-
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 - Review thread
- Thread starter zsynqx
- Start date
Nobody knows what he's talking about but that tweet will still sell 3 million copies and be a critically acclaimed hit.
Death Stranding being retooled into a WW2 movie. Mads Mikkelsen as Hitler.
Don't get me wrong, there were some intense scenes, but it surpringly didn't have much punch to it as I thought it would have. The lack of flair actually hurts it for me.
H2intensity
Member
Juts got back...8/10. Nolan really lost his touch on story and character development lately. But he still excell at the whole production value, cinematography, sound and especially music which i think save the Dunkirk a lot. Hanz Zimmer really saves Nolan once again after Interstellar.
It's a very bad auto-translation of his Japanese tweet.
https://twitter.com/Kojima_Hideo/status/888410964000882688
He's just making a "deep" observation that while the time between Dunkirk and rescue is different for the three timelines, the "distance" between Dunkirk (the film) and the audience at all times is 0 meters. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I saw it yesterday in 70mm and thought it was an incredible experience. If I had to say anything negative about it it was just
(and it's a minor nitpick for me personally) that I think some of the time jump parts scattered throughout the middle of the movie were a bit hard to read. Other than that it was an incredible film.
Does a film like this really need "story" or "character development" to begin with? I'm leaning towards the notion that there are certain kinds of films (or games) that simply don't need those elements.
DOOM is perhaps the best FPS released in the last decade and it is aggressively anti-story and anti-character development. From the world of film, we can say the same about Mad Max as well.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Just seen it. It was good. Very good even.
Incredible?
Best Nolan movie?
One of the greatest war movies?
I don't know about any of that
Also it may sound like a strange nitpick (and I bet many will not agree with me for this) but it was really difficult to tell apart most of the soldiers :/
Incredible?
Best Nolan movie?
One of the greatest war movies?
I don't know about any of that
Also it may sound like a strange nitpick (and I bet many will not agree with me for this) but it was really difficult to tell apart most of the soldiers :/
It wouldn't surprise me if that was a deliberately intentional decision to emphasize the "commonality" of the experience of the ordinary soldier.
Anton Sugar
Member
Not to say that Nolan was ever a master at these, but it's so plainly obvious that he character development and "story" (whatever the hell everyone means by this) weren't his focus in this movie.
You can't say someone failed at a concept like character development if that was never their intent.
I didn't have much issue with that, but I think it was intentional to not have many of them standout.
I saw it last night in the IMAX with my wife. It was fantastic. I checked my Fitbit after the movie and my heart rate was up 10bpm. Haha.
H2intensity
Member
it depends thought..but 2 of his last film is story driven ( tdkr and interstellar) and it kind of bad in my opinion. Dunkirk is more immersive movie which i got it, but he still push for "story and characters" to it which kind of drag down the whole movie.
I wonder if the people pushing back against the "character development" complaints have actually seen the film? Because it's quite clear that Nolan focused quite a bit on deliberately having 3 separate narrative arcs which each cover a set of characters with every intention of developing them as much as possible in the space the film allows. It's not a "there is no story or character focus" film at all. It's just that like every Nolan film, there are weaknesses which show. I think some people get taken out of it more than others in Dunkirk because if something doesn't work for you, a significant part of the film fails to work. This is a Nolan film without any scifi hook or watercooler twist, so you're either in the experience or you're not, and wonky character work can definitely take some people out of that experience no matter how well executed the technical aspects are.
Inferno313
Banned
Nah. Max, Furiousa, and Nux are all well-developed characters that go through meaningful arcs.
I agree with your larger point though.
Astral Dog
Member
Nolan did it again
Discotheque
Banned
Nah. I think he makes a pretty deliberate intention to not focus on thoughts of any of the characters outside of a few moments in the sail ship in that particular timeline
The main soldier for instance played by Christian Bale Jr. is a blank slate made to blend in with every other soldier out there. His struggle is theirs etc.
And mad max gets shortchanged when people discuss development imo. That movie is always moving and has a lean script but all the main characters in there get some solid development over the runtime tbh. It's just done so seamlessly
The main soldier for instance played by Christian Bale Jr. is a blank slate made to blend in with every other soldier out there. His struggle is theirs etc.
And mad max gets shortchanged when people discuss development imo. That movie is always moving and has a lean script but all the main characters in there get some solid development over the runtime tbh. It's just done so seamlessly
I disagree with this very strongly, but I don't really want to drag out spoilers in this thread.
I think it would be a good discussion though.
[KoRp]Jazzman
Member
Seeing this in 70mm might have been the greatest cinema experience of my life. Obviously the visuals were amazing, but near the start when the planes fly low overheard I actually sunk into my seat more because it honestly felt like you were there and apart of the horror.
I didnt mind the way the story was laid out but I can see why some people wouldnt like it. My god those plane scenes were intense and beautiful though, and for hardly having any dialogue Hardy did an amazing job acting.
I didnt mind the way the story was laid out but I can see why some people wouldnt like it. My god those plane scenes were intense and beautiful though, and for hardly having any dialogue Hardy did an amazing job acting.
Anton Sugar
Member
I've seen it. I just don't think that was his intent.
The closest you get to an actual character arc is the son (Peter?) and his understanding
of what soldiers go through. Mark Rylance doesn't have much of an arc or go through much of a change. Farrier/Hardy definitely doesn't. I don't think that Tommy really goes through any change--he's just trying to survive.
We're dropped into moments of these character's lives to see this moment through their perspective. I didn't find anything "wonky" about it. We didn't have any Anne Hathaway "love" moments. Mark Rylance never makes a big speech about why they're headed to Dunkirk. People just need to be helped (okay, maybe
his other dead son
This. The Fury Road comparisons seemed off to me from the get-go. This movie approaches the depiction of war/soldiers more like Black Hawk Down, except with even less focus on character.
But the absence of those moments also makes the film unrealistic
George is seriously injured and dies and neither of them raise there voice or confront the solider? The lack of dialog seriously hurt this movie. I get Nolan didn't want to get into the characters backgrounds but during all these intense moments no one is freaking out, hardly anyone is talking, nah I don't buy it and it really made all of these supposed 'intense' scenes fall flat for me.
I mostly agree with that except that even as Nolan's most restrained and subtle film, it has the elements of Nolan character writing that he cannot let go of. I mean, we shouldn't just shrug it off. The elements are all there and it was very visible to me. What is not communicated in words for some characters are communicated in actions, and while that's a huge improvement over his hammy dialogue (we get enough of that on the sail boat), it is no less on the nose.
I liked the movie a lot, and I think it mostly works really well. I'm just saying, we shouldn't have this lazy defense where we claim the movie isn't about character development at all and hence it cannot be critiqued for that. It's bullshit because I can point out every lazy character beat that he chooses to use to highlight a scene throughout the film. Did most of those bother me? No, because I'm accustomed to Nolan's style. Would it bother someone who doesn't like that sort of stuff at all? Absolutely.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
The fuck? No you can't.
NaDannMaGoGo
Member
Character development can also refer to 'establishing and developing' the characters themselves, as in, getting to know who they really are, which allows us to empathize with them more easily. It's not necessarily about progressing through a character arc/character growth. I haven't seen the film myself but if people didn't manage to empathize easily with the characters despite their obvious peril, then they seem in the right to criticize character development.
Anton Sugar
Member
In terms of hammy dialogue, is there anything that comes close to his other movies, though? Interstellar, Inception, TDK trilogy all have hamfisted and/or cringe-inducing dialogue throughout. I can't think of anything that came close to that in Dunkirk, although it wouldn't surprise me if I missed something. Don't know if it was the infamous NolanMix or my theater, but I missed out on some dialogue because I couldn't understand it. Luckily much of "what's happening next?" can be understood by watching the screen.
What lazy character beats were present in Tom Hardy's character, or the soldier? You mention that he is obviously concerned with developing each of the 3 main characters as much as possible.
I never said the movie shouldn't be critiqued for its character development, I just think Nolan wasn't trying to develop characters the same way he has in pretty *all* of his prior films. It's plain to see that this movie is far less concerned with that--not that it doesn't have *any* character development, as I already stated.
The construction of the film is needlessly complex/cute by half, resulting in an overly mechanical third act where you wait to see how the different pieces will all come together - as they always must in a Nolan film.
It's not as bad in Dunkirk than, say, Inception (which is the nadir of Nolan's plot puzzle constructions imo), because these pieces provide emotional catharsis rather than plot closure.
But that leaves the film's ending, while a compelling sequence and experience to watch, very emotionally hollow. The ending is kind of a disaster, in general; it reveals Nolan's own inability to decide on what the central ideas of the film are. It's not sure whether this was an earnest celebration of man, an elegy, an unvarnished (if not quite cynical) look at the extremes people will go to survive, jingoistic patriotism, etc. So it just goes for all of the above.
Imo, Nolan has been searching for ways to manufacture a Spielberg-ian emotional catharsis in his films ever since Inception, and I can't help but feel he's fallen short every single time. He keeps trying to make the emotion machines more complex, more fine-tuned with each film, but doubling down on that only reinforces how mechanical the plot construction of his films has become. They're not built for emotional catharsis. And that's fine! (My personal reading of the Prestige is that it's about Nolan's own struggle to reconcile the filmmaker he is with the filmmaker he wants to be: the overly mechanical puzzle maker vs. the natural storyteller. But that's neither here nor there.)
It's not as bad in Dunkirk than, say, Inception (which is the nadir of Nolan's plot puzzle constructions imo), because these pieces provide emotional catharsis rather than plot closure.
But that leaves the film's ending, while a compelling sequence and experience to watch, very emotionally hollow. The ending is kind of a disaster, in general; it reveals Nolan's own inability to decide on what the central ideas of the film are. It's not sure whether this was an earnest celebration of man, an elegy, an unvarnished (if not quite cynical) look at the extremes people will go to survive, jingoistic patriotism, etc. So it just goes for all of the above.
Imo, Nolan has been searching for ways to manufacture a Spielberg-ian emotional catharsis in his films ever since Inception, and I can't help but feel he's fallen short every single time. He keeps trying to make the emotion machines more complex, more fine-tuned with each film, but doubling down on that only reinforces how mechanical the plot construction of his films has become. They're not built for emotional catharsis. And that's fine! (My personal reading of the Prestige is that it's about Nolan's own struggle to reconcile the filmmaker he is with the filmmaker he wants to be: the overly mechanical puzzle maker vs. the natural storyteller. But that's neither here nor there.)
Anton Sugar
Member
Re: the structure, I still need to think on whether or not the different
were necessary. I *did* appreciate all the different ways that a new perspective informed a situation, I just don't know if it made for a stronger film vs something more conventional.
timelines
I was very skeptical of the triptych structure going in, and was pleasantly surprised by how well Nolan pulled it off. However,
Not that the film is incoherent, but there are a few "aha!" moments clearly built into the script that will confuse some.
I don't really see the point in cutting up the timelines in order to pull of that triptych. It didn't feel necessary - frankly because it wasn't even used all that much. There were only two or three cuts, iirc, where you actually see events replay themselves from a different perspective.
If anything, it would be more faithful to the concept of a triptych if the film had focused on each setting/perspective for one act of the film, shifting perspectives at those natural intersection points. I think that would have been pretty unconventional as well, but a bit more coherent.
If anything, it would be more faithful to the concept of a triptych if the film had focused on each setting/perspective for one act of the film, shifting perspectives at those natural intersection points. I think that would have been pretty unconventional as well, but a bit more coherent.
More_Badass
Member
Duty and not wanting a shell shocked survivor to kill himself over guilt took precedent
Nah
the father showed like zero worry for George and the son would have acted out more not just stayed quiet. I get that the intention was not trying to make the soldier feel guilty when he is already traumatized but the whole scene lacks a normal human reaction to the situation. Actually a lot of the movie suffers from this.
Anton Sugar
Member
Yup. I was thinking "oh god don't yell at/freak out on him".
More_Badass
Member
It was very clear that George was definitely worried from his reactions, but as a veteran and in the midst of such a vital mission, he was putting the mission and keeping the soldier's mind at ease first before his own feelings. Same with the son after he understood the bigger picture.
In the context of the story, you shouldn't expect the normal human reaction. That was the whole point. In a regular situation, he would turn back. He would go down and help, or stop to mourn. But there was no time for that and there were literally hundreds of thousands of lives depending on them
In the context of the story, you shouldn't expect the normal human reaction. That was the whole point. In a regular situation, he would turn back. He would go down and help, or stop to mourn. But there was no time for that and there were literally hundreds of thousands of lives depending on them
I have seen both and I like Apes more. So what ya goingg to do about that bro
? COme at me xDAnton Sugar
Member
Can't really complain about that. I thought Apes was fantastic. Compleeeeeetely different types of movies, of course.
That's true of course. Compleeeetely different indeed. But I think you can still compare movies even totally different as in how you or I like them in general.
The mole is the structure they use as a pier for the naval destroyers, since they cannot land on the beach (unlike the civilian boats).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(architecture)
I do think that Nolan intended that to be a pun on "mole" (i.e. the French soldier), however.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
his son died in battle. the son likely had PTSD. his father's reaction makes perfect sense. Besides, no one knew how serious it was. he just fell down some stairs. Going to the crashed plane despite his son's objections made even more sense when you find out his dead son was a pilot.
The Jackdog
Member
im luke warm on the movie TBH, but i actually dont get the complaints about (minor spoilers)
the nazis. yes you dont see them, yes you never hear nazi you just hear enemy, and originally i didnt like that.
on thinking about it though i do. they are treated like a force of nature. they are coming, they cant be stopped, the brits are trapped and a storm is coming.
on thinking about it though i do. they are treated like a force of nature. they are coming, they cant be stopped, the brits are trapped and a storm is coming.
The Jackdog
Member
I do think you do lose a very significant aspect of the horror of war when you treat the Nazis as some inhuman force of nature. But, as Nolan would probably argue, there are already plenty of war films that reckon with the humanity of the enemy and the terrible things war inflicts upon its combatants.
More_Badass
Member
I think that captures that on-the-ground point of view pretty well though.
Have you seen the documentary Restrepo? The journalist is embedded with an Army platoon in the Korangal Valley. Any time there's combat, all you ever see from the soldiers' side are bullets flying from the distant trees and hills. That's what I thought of while watching this
brianjones
Member
I get the cold complaints but I dunno I was really up for that I guess
It was like the opposite of something like hacksaw ridge which I didn't care for
It was like the opposite of something like hacksaw ridge which I didn't care for
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Still of the opinion this film should have been R.
I was personally taken out of a certain
that would have otherwise had me shook.
I was personally taken out of a certain
beach scene
I think some people just don't get the movie, if you really want big characters development , violence, blood and everything, ask Tarantino for an another war movie.
Dunkirk is subtle, in everything, you don't need to see the nazies,you don't need to know where the soldiers are from or what they were doing in their life before, you know the basics, they're English or French, they're young, they're terrified and they want to go home.
This is not a victory or a defeat, it's an evacuation, a course against time because the French won't have enough ammunition and ressources to keep the nazies far enough for the Dynamo Operation to succeed.
Dunkirk is subtle, in everything, you don't need to see the nazies,you don't need to know where the soldiers are from or what they were doing in their life before, you know the basics, they're English or French, they're young, they're terrified and they want to go home.
This is not a victory or a defeat, it's an evacuation, a course against time because the French won't have enough ammunition and ressources to keep the nazies far enough for the Dynamo Operation to succeed.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
This is a Nolan thread alright. How long till we get the diagrams explaining how the different narratives of Dunkirk interconnect? Come on, Mondo has T-shirts to make.
Beer Monkey
Member
Indiana State Museum IMAX. If anybody went there, was it too loud? Should I bring earplugs?
Is Row G far enough back?
Thanks.
Is Row G far enough back?
Thanks.