|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Wait what He later commented that it was all "jolly good fun". Or so I imagine. I liked the film. It wasn't the greatest thing ever, but it was good in almost every respect. I don't really ascribe to the idea that this either puffs up war or I want to believe after engaging the last stukka that Hardy had enough altitude and beach space to do SOMETHING, like 180, or belly-flop in the ocean nearer to the british side, or maybe pull up into a stall and jump out as the airspeed zeroed above 1000 feet. He just seemed pretty resigned to going straight however far he could. I didn't notice the ticking of the score until it went away at the end, which was a very sharp break in tension. My theater must have had good sound mixing, because everything sounded incredible to me (except for, obviously, mumbly british dialogue). The stukkas were terrifyingly loud, the gunshots had weight, the spitfire cannons sounded awesome, it'll win sound mixing/editing oscars for sure. The Week/Day/Hour thing really straddled the fence between working and not working. It's really cool when it's clear what the order is and you can see some events replay from different perspectives, but some of the timeframes (like getting the Dutch ship from the beach out to miles offshore) seemed so odd or disjointed it took me out of the action a little. I didn't necessarily care for any one person in the story, excepting maybe Branaugh, Hardy, and Rylance, but rather just kinda hoped for everyone to make it. Too many movies walk you through the steps of heroes, this one made you spend a lot of time identifying with random soldiers who had relatively little say over how they lived or died. Bottom Liner posted:Saw it in 70mm. Incredible movie all around. Breakneck tension, gorgeous cinematography, and an ensemble cast that all perform with a realistic desperation. It reminded me of Mad Max: Fury Road in pacing. Really tight editing and script. An understated masterpiece that will probably go down as Nolan's best, and I'm completely ok with that. I'm a huge Nolan buff, but I'd say this movie works so well because it's the least "Nolan-esque" in storytelling, but maintains his masterful touch in actually filming a movie.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
As I understand it, ejecting out of a fighter of that era was not an easy thing to do. So if you had enough control of the plane to land it, that was the much better choice regardless of where you actually ended up landing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The most affecting part of the movie, for me, was the horrific deaths that occurred just off-screen we only know about through sound design. Specifically, I got really hosed up and panicky when the first ship got torpedoed against the docks after Main Soldier and Harry Styles snuck to the rafters. You could just barely hear people yelling and screaming, a crunch, and a sudden absence of sound. Same thing happened when the destroyer capsized and trapped some soldiers trying to escape, you hear them suddenly realize what they're up against, then... nothing. It did a great job showing the randomness of war brutality. A split second, a single action, one foot of space marks the difference between one man dying over another. I had some qualms with what the timeline wackiness does to the overall emotional arc - it leans on the soundtrack really hard to drive tension and emotion - but it was a great way to show how horrific things were. Still pissed that Shivering Solider got off scott-free. I get it, but man, gently caress that dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Oscar possibilities: Director Cinematography Sound design/sound editing <- probably a lock Editing
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Cool bit explaining the ever increasing tick-tock soundtrack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVWTQcZbLgY
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
In the expanded 10-film Oscar race it's a shoo-in for Best Picture. Screenplay, too, since it'll probably be the one Warner Bros. puts a big advertising push behind, and Best Picture nominees always get a poo poo-ton of nominations. Hans Zimmer could get a nod for Score due to name recognition and they're not against giving big war films nominations for Production Design (War Horse, Saving Private Ryan, Atonement have received nominations in the past).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
CRINDY posted:The most affecting part of the movie, for me, was the horrific deaths that occurred just off-screen we only know about through sound design. Specifically, I got really hosed up and panicky when the first ship got torpedoed against the docks after Main Soldier and Harry Styles snuck to the rafters. You could just barely hear people yelling and screaming, a crunch, and a sudden absence of sound. Same thing happened when the destroyer capsized and trapped some soldiers trying to escape, you hear them suddenly realize what they're up against, then... nothing. By shivering soldier do you mean the first guy the little boat picked up? That's Cillian Murphy, Nolans muse. He was in another scene too. Also, it's just the start of the war, he's not safe yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
So I didn't see this mentioned in the last few pages, so maybe the timeline thing just confused me, but the pilot that lands in the sea almost drowns and gets rescued by the boat, but the first time you see him crash hes standing on top of his plane and waiving at Tom Hardy... or am I just mixing things up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:So I didn't see this mentioned in the last few pages, so maybe the timeline thing just confused me, but the pilot that lands in the sea almost drowns and gets rescued by the boat, but the first time you see him crash hes standing on top of his plane and waiving at Tom Hardy... or am I just mixing things up? I thought it was just his arm reaching up through the gap in the canopy, which looked like a wave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:So I didn't see this mentioned in the last few pages, so maybe the timeline thing just confused me, but the pilot that lands in the sea almost drowns and gets rescued by the boat, but the first time you see him crash hes standing on top of his plane and waiving at Tom Hardy... or am I just mixing things up? Yeah, you mixed things up. He's inside the cockpit with his hand out the window "waving"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
"Oy, me chap is waving, all's well!" Guy is frantically gesturing for help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:"Oy, me chap is waving, all's well!" Yeah but what would be have done anyway? Could have been simply waving goodbye, good luck
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
I didn't think this movie was that good, but I went in expecting a war movie and got a survival movie, so maybe I need to watch it again with that mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I didn't think this movie was that good, but I went in expecting a war movie and got a survival movie, so maybe I need to watch it again with that mindset. I'm in a similar situation. I saw this last night with a couple coworkers, but had a digestive incident during the movie, so was pretty miserable for the first half, and had to leave for a few minutes to take care of it. I enjoyed myself a lot more in the second half, but I'm not sure if it's just because I was feeling better. Both the guys I saw it with hated it, and I will say it was definitely not what I was expecting. It also felt really repetitive. I also somehow didn't piece together the asynchronous timelines, so I think that affected the flow for me. That being said, though, I'm totally willing to give it another shot this weekend. One positive thing I can definitely say, is that it had possibly the most terrifying use of Stukas I've seen in a movie. That was incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Cillian needed a timeline. Sticking in that night shot without any further backstory was awkward. He's the lone survivor of a whole ship and he elicits almost no sympathy. It feels like there's a 3 hour version of this movie that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Cillian needed a timeline. Sticking in that night shot without any further backstory was awkward. He's the lone survivor of a whole ship and he elicits almost no sympathy. I wouldn't say you needed more from him. The timeline had the Mole crew get torpedoed, try to get on Murphy's boat, him turning them down and telling them to calm down. Their response was "let's see how you are when you get torpedoed." The "next time" we see Murphy, he's siting on a ship that got torpedoed, and he freaked out more than they did. I don't really need any more from him, since his character was about the aftereffects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I didn't think this movie was that good, but I went in expecting a war movie and got a survival movie, so maybe I need to watch it again with that mindset. What's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
I'd say the most whining about this movie comes from idiots with a weak grasp of history. They wanted an oorah action films and instead got one about a horrible military blunder, the effects of war, and regular people doing their part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I'd say the most whining about this movie comes from idiots with a weak grasp of history. They wanted an oorah action films and instead got one about a horrible military blunder, the effects of war, and regular people doing their part. Bingo. This was like the opposite Hacksaw Ridge. That was just over the top, almost comedic violence in a movie that needed a mature look at war based on it's main character and the heart of his story. The horrors of war (even in battle) can be communicated without blood and gore, as this movie did masterfully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
I feel there needs to be a point to gore in war films beyond just being "realistic". Band of brothers uses it to emphasize the unpleasant business of keeping a dying man alive long enough to get him to a medic. The Pacific, which is much more violent than BOB, uses its extreme violence to emphasize the desensitizing effects of the moment and contrast them against the aftermath when ptsd sets in. Or how Fury uses its violence to say "gently caress your patriotic bullshit sanitized heroic war fantasies". Whereas hacksaw ridge uses violence to make the pacifist medic look better and do right by God, while in the foreground a man uses a shredded limb as a trench club.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Didn't Hacksaw Ridge have one shot that was a literal blood fountain a la Kill Bill? I definitely remember the bullet through the eye that looked like Evil Dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:Yeah but what would be have done anyway? Could have been simply waving goodbye, good luck I'm pretty sure it was just to indicate to Hardy that he landed alive. The water didn't start to fill the cockpit at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I'm pretty sure it was just to indicate to Hardy that he landed alive. The water didn't start to fill the cockpit at that point. Uh, to me it looked like he was trying to get the canopy open, desperately, and you realized in the earlier scene that Hardy misinterpreted it as a wave "okay". Not that he could have done much about it besides fret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I'd say the most whining about this movie comes from idiots with a weak grasp of history. They wanted an oorah action films and instead got one about a horrible military blunder, the effects of war, and regular people doing their part. Almost all the complaints I've seen about this movie have been about the weak character development. I would gladly have given up several scenes of whats-his-face swimming to and from various sinking ships and Tom Hardy shooting down lone fighters for more scenes like the one in the stranded Belgian freighter where they start to turn on each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Pander posted:Uh, to me it looked like he was trying to get the canopy open, desperately, and you realized in the earlier scene that Hardy misinterpreted it as a wave "okay". Maybe I'm misremembering that too. I was pretty stoned when I saw it. Pro-tip: this is a GREAT movie to watch stoned!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
There's a showing near me at a omnimax. I've never seen a movie in one of those. Would it be recommended? It'll be either that or a 70mm showing somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
it shriveled up posted:There's a showing near me at a omnimax. I've never seen a movie in one of those. Would it be recommended? It'll be either that or a 70mm showing somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
it shriveled up posted:There's a showing near me at a omnimax. I've never seen a movie in one of those. Would it be recommended? It'll be either that or a 70mm showing somewhere else. Omnimax is awesome, it's better than 3d and doesnt need glasses. Not sure how it'd work with a normal movie though, but check out some nature documentary in it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Didn't Hacksaw Ridge have one shot that was a literal blood fountain a la Kill Bill? I definitely remember the bullet through the eye that looked like Evil Dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v0yOhL6SY&t=201s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v0yOhL6SY&t=257s I'm still waiting for RedSpider or SuperFan's reaction to the "highly sanitized" Dunkirk to see if they thought it was for sissies or something. I just got back from and IMAX showing of it. The thing I'm most surprised by is how unlike every other Nolan movie it is. Every other film he's done seems to fit neatly into a oeuvre, but this really stands apart. The sound was absolutely punishing- a pure sensory assault from beginning to end. As far as criticisms, I do wish they had added a few scenes in the middle of the movie to The Mole to clarify the fact that it's taking a week. To me it felt like two days separated by a night. Maybe some more of that haunting Hoytema photography on the beach or something. I think it would've also been helpful to somehow indicate that in the course of that week, there were lots of successful evacuations. In the moment, it felt like barely anyone was making it off the beach alive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
There’s a problem with scale. Like there were no where near enough Germans, but there’s 300k Allied troops and we’re looking at probably 3000 at any one time. So all those Stukas are probably hitting French positions, but it means you aren’t really appreciating the sheer size of it all. And yeah, the week timeline didn’t feel like a week. Like, at least show him pooping more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Like there were no where near enough Germans, but there’s 300k Allied troops and we’re looking at probably 3000 at any one time. I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Germans were intentionally off-screen the whole time. Do you just mean they should've shown more strafing runs or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Agreed it could have used more panning airborne shots of the whole beachfront to give the illusion that there were really 300k in the town.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Oh, they were in the town? That makes sense when I think about it, but I was of the impression they were all stuck on the sand. The town looked deserted and the defensive line seemed to be right on the edge of the beachfront.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
I think the sparseness of the shots is a deliberate film-making decision. In the war zone there are a lot of wide-angle shots that are sparsely populated which I believe are meant to highlight the feelings of desperation and isolation among the men trying to escape. It doesn't matter how many men are on the beach, they are all surrounded and isolated and literally just waiting for death or capture by the Germans. However, from the time when they are rescued until they get back to England, the shots are much narrower and much more populated. The soldiers are no longer alone, but surrounded by civilians and other soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
The world is big. Atonement has that big tracking shot and you'd think the entire BEF was in view. They didn't have a lot of space on the beaches at Dunkirk but 400 000 men spread out in either direction can cover an area sparsely even if it is only a few kilometers. On top of that the film was focusing mostly on the far eastern side of the beach. The scale only falls apart when they break for the Dutch boat outside the perimeter and it's only a half mile walk away from the mole. That and the fact there is no sign of any of the British equipment or guns that were left scuttled on the beach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Germans were intentionally off-screen the whole time. Do you just mean they should've shown more strafing runs or something? Planes mostly. I know Hitler told the army to hold back, but I we saw a handful of enemy planes and most of those were in the 1 hour timeline. It was probably a deliberate choice since it created a surreal effect, but it made the scope of the event difficult to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
I have to mark the movie down a lot, did they ever mention each others names? There was guy with black hair, 2nd guy with black hair, 3rd guy with black hair, pilot 1, pilot 2, Colonel (who got more character development than anyone else) and British Naval officer. I didn't work out till the end that the guy on the torpedoed ship was different from the 2 (near identical) guys on the Dutch boat (one of whom said 4 words total. In French! A simple difference in their battledress would have helped. I also couldn't hear 1/4 of the words DUE TO THE MUSIC I CAN'T HEAR YOU SPEAK LOUDER WHAT DID HE SAY?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Just saw it two nights ago and holy poo poo I hated it. It was pretty, yeah, and I admired the ambition of the way the timelines all dovetailed but god drat what bunch of dull, character-less characters. I am more emotionally invested in my bathmat than in any one of those characters, none of whom I can name.
Happy Hippo fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Them being faceless and nameless is the whole point but ok
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Ammanas posted:I had a really hard time enjoying this, from the uncompelling characters (aside from Boat Dad, god Mark Rylance is a treasure) he's the greatest living actor and in large part responsible for the best shakespeare performances ive ever seen
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 19:18
|
|
