As a smart ass myself, you are welcome. I do agree some critics go OTT with movies.JUMBO PALACE said:
Dunkirk discussion thread
- Thread starter Zontar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That bugged me a bit as well, but they at least gave Hurricanes a mention, and considering all we see of the RAF is a lone bomber and a single flight of 3 fighters, I suppose it had to come down to one or the other.Major_Tom said:
I skipped this movie because of Christopher Nolan. My final straw with this guy was Inception. It was the only time I saw someone in a theater literally screamed in disgust at the screen. I wasn't as passionate as that other person was. I could recognize that Inception was a big pile of crap. It was bad enough that he ruined Batman. The only watchable movie in the trilogy was The Dark Knight. Just as long you don't think too hard about the movie.
So, Dunkirk will be something I would watch on TV or maybe a slow week at the theaters at a discount price. Which is a shame, the movie does look good. Yet, you can only get burned by the same person so many times.
So, Dunkirk will be something I would watch on TV or maybe a slow week at the theaters at a discount price. Which is a shame, the movie does look good. Yet, you can only get burned by the same person so many times.
Just tried to see Dunkirk, had to walk out at the 40 minute mark. My problem is that I'm sensitive to the vibrations of the bass in most cinemas, which means that I tend to get nauseous during scenes with lots of bass (bass pounding soundtracks, explosions etc.) and Dunkirk has bass in droves. Like constantly. Any time it cut to the Moonstone it was sort of alright, but the cuts back to the beach just kept adding to my nausea, to the point where I had to walk up because I was about to throw up.
So Dunkirk now holds the odd distinction of being the only movie that had me walk out of the theater. If only because the soundtrack was way too overbearing with its bass notes.
So Dunkirk now holds the odd distinction of being the only movie that had me walk out of the theater. If only because the soundtrack was way too overbearing with its bass notes.
Watched it this Sunday, twas really good.
It's like Das Boot, in that it is more like a survival horror movie that happens to be set during the war, than an actual conventional war movie with generals next to big maps. It's also one you should watch in a cinema if you can, what with Nolan being very good at big noises and pure spectacle. Also, the story is simple enough to not get screwed up by excessive introspection/needless twists.
It's like Das Boot, in that it is more like a survival horror movie that happens to be set during the war, than an actual conventional war movie with generals next to big maps. It's also one you should watch in a cinema if you can, what with Nolan being very good at big noises and pure spectacle. Also, the story is simple enough to not get screwed up by excessive introspection/needless twists.
I saw it twice and I really loved it. I really enjoyed just how grim, bleak, and nerve wracking it could be. my only complaint was the time line differences I think that it didn't add anything to the movie and made it a bit hard at times to keep track of what was happening. I also think the scene when the rescue arrives would have been all the more effecting if it had not been edited that way.
Still it was a beautiful movie
Still it was a beautiful movie
After sort of a string of dissapointments that Nolan gave me(Inception, The Dark Knight Rises... Interstellar to much lesser degree; still like that movie), finally "Dunkirk" didn't make me regret purchasing a ticket. Best WWII batallistic(even though Dunkirk was more like a series of skirmishes) movie since "Fury". Really tense.
Out of things i didn't like: I only recall one hack line, and despite how i like the director's fondness for practical effects, could add couple of cg Spitfires in post-production, because the airborne scenes made it seem like only 3 planes were delegated to oversee the biggest evacuation in history. So, as you can see, small fries in the con department.
Not even meddling with timeline, one of Nolan's favorite shticks gets in the way of enjoying the film.
Plus, usually in horrors, the most terryfying is that which you can't see. And for the entire movie, barring some blurred stahlhelms, you don't see or hear a single german soldier. It's just faceless bombers, submarines and bullets flying from nowhere.
Out of things i didn't like: I only recall one hack line, and despite how i like the director's fondness for practical effects, could add couple of cg Spitfires in post-production, because the airborne scenes made it seem like only 3 planes were delegated to oversee the biggest evacuation in history. So, as you can see, small fries in the con department.
Not even meddling with timeline, one of Nolan's favorite shticks gets in the way of enjoying the film.
That's a really good comparison. Opening sets that mood really well; that one scene at the beach, where we first hear a Stuka incoming. Really underlines how horrific was to hear that sound, while in an open field, back in the day.maninahat said:
Plus, usually in horrors, the most terryfying is that which you can't see. And for the entire movie, barring some blurred stahlhelms, you don't see or hear a single german soldier. It's just faceless bombers, submarines and bullets flying from nowhere.
It was a great movie. It took a phenomenal and talented director to pull all the threads together to make this movie.
I did not enjoy watching it.
Christopher Nolan has done that to me before. Made a clearly brilliant movie, and then structured it in a way that made me hate the experience of watching it. Earlier it was Momento. The constant re-hashing of information in that movie because the character couldn't remember what was going on KILLED the pacing for me. It was a great movie... I hated watching.
And Dunkirk is exactly the same. Its time compression elements and editing between the 3 different storylines kept killing the pacing for me. Just when I was getting interested in one storyline, bam... jump cut to another. I just couldn't get into it. If you're going to do that you have to let the scenes at least partially resolve before moving on. Like a mini story progression, each segment has to be able to stand on its own as a complete "chapter" and in Dunkirk they kept pulling away with mini cliffhangers each time. That gets old fast. I really understood what he was going for, but how it was put together didn't feel right to me.
I did not enjoy watching it.
Christopher Nolan has done that to me before. Made a clearly brilliant movie, and then structured it in a way that made me hate the experience of watching it. Earlier it was Momento. The constant re-hashing of information in that movie because the character couldn't remember what was going on KILLED the pacing for me. It was a great movie... I hated watching.
And Dunkirk is exactly the same. Its time compression elements and editing between the 3 different storylines kept killing the pacing for me. Just when I was getting interested in one storyline, bam... jump cut to another. I just couldn't get into it. If you're going to do that you have to let the scenes at least partially resolve before moving on. Like a mini story progression, each segment has to be able to stand on its own as a complete "chapter" and in Dunkirk they kept pulling away with mini cliffhangers each time. That gets old fast. I really understood what he was going for, but how it was put together didn't feel right to me.
Amazing score, good tension building scenes and although lacking a little in dialogue, the bits that were there convey a typical Britishness that I recognise. For example the spitfire pilot exchanging pleasantrys "Good afternoon" after just being rescued from imminent death.
I can see that some scenes are borrowed from "Miracle of Dunkirk" by Walter Lord (I think thats the one, Ive read a few), such as the train journey home where the returning soldiers thought they would be snubbed by the British public for retreating. I would have liked to seen more made of those stories through the characters in the film. For example the opening scene where Tommy is escaping from the Germans, in Lords book he describes the panic of crawling through street gutters full of dead and dying soldiers, having to run the gauntlet of intersections where there is no cover. This (and some other harrowing personal accounts) could have been told in the opening sequence.
Not enough was made of the scene where the Royal Engineers build piers from trucks and the appalling strafing from Stukas along those piers. Thousands of vehicles were deliberately scuttled, destroyed and abandoned by the BEF so they didnt fall into enemy hands, but this isnt portrayed much in the film, the beach seems to lack of noise, equipment and soldiers. The sound of thousands of engines with the gas pedal wedged to the floor would have been deafening.
These arent really criticisms though, I loved the film, and I enjoyed the second viewing even more.
I can see that some scenes are borrowed from "Miracle of Dunkirk" by Walter Lord (I think thats the one, Ive read a few), such as the train journey home where the returning soldiers thought they would be snubbed by the British public for retreating. I would have liked to seen more made of those stories through the characters in the film. For example the opening scene where Tommy is escaping from the Germans, in Lords book he describes the panic of crawling through street gutters full of dead and dying soldiers, having to run the gauntlet of intersections where there is no cover. This (and some other harrowing personal accounts) could have been told in the opening sequence.
Not enough was made of the scene where the Royal Engineers build piers from trucks and the appalling strafing from Stukas along those piers. Thousands of vehicles were deliberately scuttled, destroyed and abandoned by the BEF so they didnt fall into enemy hands, but this isnt portrayed much in the film, the beach seems to lack of noise, equipment and soldiers. The sound of thousands of engines with the gas pedal wedged to the floor would have been deafening.
These arent really criticisms though, I loved the film, and I enjoyed the second viewing even more.
Dunkirk to me felt like something between a documentary and a movie without standing out as either. It didn't really have interesting characters or compelling storyline to work as a movie nor the insightful commentary and educational structure that would make it (an admittedly beautifully shot) interesting documentary. As usual with Nolan it's some beautiful cinematography with his typical trademark audio build-up and wide angle shots that ultimately amounts to a boring and vapid experience.