|
Saw this last night in admittedly gorgeous 70mm. I wonder when Nolan last made a movie that made me feel anything. Memento? Or maybe Insomnia? Good fun, great running time but the fact that Nolan's cold writing even manages to make me not engage emotionally with a WWII drama is pretty astonishing
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
drunkill posted:Seeing this tomorrow (there were advanced screenings tonight but missed out) but not at Imax because it is booked out for weeks (also expensive) which is a pity because we have the worlds largest screen here (while Sydney imax has been demolished) and they're showing both 70mm and laser projection sessions. Just came back from a showing at the Melbourne Imax and totally worth it. The film does an amazing job of pulling you in to what's happening, and I actually had no idea it was a PG -"M" over here but sort of equivalent- film before I saw it or after. If you had asked me how much gore there was in the film directly after I saw it my gut reaction would of been a lot, but thinking about it there really was very little. It gave an amazing sense of the tragedy of the deaths that happened, and how trivial death can be in war, without needing buckets of blood. The atmosphere of the film really was quite amazing. Although as noted the characters are thin, and the plot threadbare, but that's not what this film was about, it seemed to just really want to put you as close it could to being at an event like Dunkirk. A great and interesting film, and I really like what it was trying to do. widunder posted:Good fun, great running time but the fact that Nolan's cold writing even manages to make me not engage emotionally with a WWII drama is pretty astonishing Haha yeah, you could tell this was a Nolan film by the coldness and distance everything had. I actually think it was quite amazing how much he managed to pull me into what was happening, while still feeling so dis-attached from it at the same time. In someways I think it helped as it never, to me at least, seemed to judge desperate people for their actions. The film always just seemed to say, 'hey people do some good, and some bad things when put into horrible situations, who are we to judge?', but the distance does hurt a bit as always seeming to be an arms length from characters you have spent considerable time following. dr_rat fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
I love the "supermarine" track on Spotify so look forward to hear the rest of the soundtrack, and indeed the sounds in general of the movie. If we're having the debate about "gory" war films, I'd say that a good soundscape is far more important for immersion than gore. Also, thinking a war movie is bad because no gore, I dunno, makes me think you're watching Apocalypse Now for the explosions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
widunder posted:Saw this last night in admittedly gorgeous 70mm. Interstellar made me cry multiple times maybe watch that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Interstellar made me cry multiple times maybe watch that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Watched this last and really enjoyed it. Saw it in a regular theatre and kind of wished I'd gone to a showing in one with a better/bigger sound system; the sound design was fantastic. I also thought the air battle sequences were really well shot, delivering a lot of tension despite not having a lot of planes in the air. The time scale framing device was interesting but handled really well, I was afraid that it wouldn't hang together but everything made sense to me and fit together nicely. As for the sense of scale, the lack of ships/aircraft I thought was explained and made sense in context, but I was never able to buy that there were 400k men waiting for rescue. I don't think I ever saw more than 10-20,000 throughout the film. So that was probably my one gripe with the film but overall it's definitely worth seeing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:So then We Were Soldiers is better than The Thin Red Line? I also prefer toothless sanitized portrayals of war. War films should be as inoffensive as possible to reach the largest markets. I hope Dunkirk shows the Brits and Germans shooting eachother with Super Soakers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
The theater I went to hosed up the movie times, and ended up showing Dunkirk 30 minutes late. They apologized and gave the audience free movie passes.  The movie itself was alright. One of the loudest movies I've ever experienced. Every gunshot and bomb felt so significant. The pacing was perfect (although some people in the theater didn't agree, people in front of me walked out of the movie about 45 minutes in). This is definitely a movie to see in a theater. Nolan did a great job starting right from the beginning establishing a tone of just dread/fear/uncertainty that stays consistent till the very end, and keeps tension going throughout the film. I still think Interstellar does a much better job depicting scale, although some of the aerial shots in Dunkirk are absolutely stunning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Super Fan posted:I also prefer toothless sanitized portrayals of war. War films should be as inoffensive as possible to reach the largest markets. Are there any criteria for what makes a war movie good other than "realistic" portrayals of violence (whatever that means)? The most realistic war movie would be a first person handheld account of the D-Day landings but right when the door on the Higgins boat comes down the movie cuts to black and credits roll. So realistic! And yet here we are, with a PG-13 war film that critics are raving about. Sorry that it won't cater to your weird violence fetish. You can skip Dunkirk and watch Hacksaw Ridge instead and see that awesome totally badass GI pick up that corpse with one arm and use it as a human shield as he charges the Japanese soldiers. That really made me feel like I knew what it was like to live through that. Hoorah! Here you go, the apotheosis of immersive warm films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v0yOhL6SY&t=201s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v0yOhL6SY&t=257s Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Are there any criteria for what makes a war movie good other than "realistic" portrayals of violence (whatever that means)? The most realistic war movie would be a first person handheld account of the D-Day landings but right when the door on the Higgins boat comes down the movie cuts to black and credits roll. So realistic! I suppose the rebuttal to this dopey nonsense is pointing out that Hacksaw Ridge and Saving Private Ryan convey what ACTUALLY happened on the battlefield. You can try to paint this as me wanting to live out some WWII fantasy or playing out a video game scenario but your alternative is this loving defanged family friendly poo poo that belongs in the 1950's. A loving bloodless war movie  I'm sorry that the accurate portrayal of war offends your delicate sensibilities but cinema has moved on. Jewmanji posted:
Holy gently caress jewmanji, there's...blood and violence in these scenes! Did you pass out when you watched them?!? Super Fan fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
For whatever it's worth (likely not much) I'm a combat vet a few times over and I think this movie, along with Jarhead, are the only films I've ever seen that feel anything like the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:For whatever it's worth (likely not much) I'm a combat vet a few times over and I think this movie, along with Jarhead, are the only films I've ever seen that feel anything like the real thing. Eh, Jarhead was about the mundanity of an impersonal and lopsided war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Super Fan posted:I suppose the rebuttal to this dopey nonsense is pointing out that Hacksaw Ridge and Saving Private Ryan convey what ACTUALLY happened on the battlefield. You can try to paint this as me wanting to live out some WWII fantasy or playing out a video game scenario but your alternative is this loving defanged family friendly poo poo that belongs in the 1950's. A loving bloodless war movie When an artillery shell hits a man and leaves a crater where he was before, I really also need to see a couple of stray limbs and a touch of red mist to hammer home that yes, this is a bad thing that's happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Saw it in 70mm and didn't care for it, sadly. And I think "didn't care for it" is the best way to say it. The movie was a masterpiece of visual filmmaking, but had little going for it in terms of storytelling. I never cared about what was going to happen next.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Saw it in the best IMAX theater in the area with a phenomenal sound system and it was so loud that I felt like I had been to a rock concert. While the sound design is fantastic, I couldn't help but think that if the incredibly tense to the point of overkill musical score was removed, you would feel almost no tension at all, as I felt very detached from most of it. It really is an experience more than a movie, the type of thing IMAX theaters are made for. I'm going to guess that no other movie has achieved the feel of actually being there as well as this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Reminded me a bit of Paul Greengrass's work, especially United 93 or Sunday Bloody Sunday. A bit cold to the touch, but goddam do you have to admire the craftmanship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I will say that I was kind of surprised that there wasn't really much payoff to the film's structure, i.e., the different timelines. Everything flows together naturally and coherently, but there's never a moment like you have in Inception where everything reaches a point of harmony so great that you're like, "oh this whole thing was plotted out to get us to exactly this point." Nor is there a really moment where he uses the timelines to pull the rug out from under us, which I was also kind of expecting. It feels kind of like 100 minutes of edging with no release. Which still isn't a bad time at the movies, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
How much of this movie is Tom Hardy dogfighting in his plane?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:How much of this movie is Tom Hardy dogfighting in his plane? A lot and it was good. I did not expect groups of teenage girls to be in the theater watching this but there reactions of confusion were gold. I guess Harry has some draw
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Harry Styles was very good at playing the character of "selfish twat"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
For the record 90ish % of the aerial stuff was done for real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
D C posted:For the record 90ish % of the aerial stuff was done for real. Tom Hardy shot down a poo poo load of real Nazi pilots for this film. The man deserves an Oscar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Film was good and I pretty much hate Nolan. Sound was v. good. It got to the point that I was half expecting Hardy to glide all the way back to England.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
sweetmercifulcrap posted:Saw it in the best IMAX theater in the area with a phenomenal sound system and it was so loud that I felt like I had been to a rock concert. While the sound design is fantastic, I couldn't help but think that if the incredibly tense to the point of overkill musical score was removed, you would feel almost no tension at all, as I felt very detached from most of it. Lolling at this
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
It was a good movie, I don't think it will do well in America though, once word gets out to the public of what it actually is versus what all the actors have been selling it as on late night talk shows. Hell, it might need to be subtitled for an American release. I saw it at a new cinema, biggest theater there, dolby atmos and laser projection. It looked and sounded great, although I think the soundtrack went overboard in a few scenes, especially the air stuff where it was far too loud when they could have just used raw engine sounds which would have been magnificent, instead the roaring merlin engines are only properly heard a few times in the movie either fading out in moments of concentration for the two pilots or being drowned out by the soundtrack, not the best decision to do that I don't think especially since they filmed with the real things. Even a lack of smoke pouring out of the engines as the throttle was opened up which is a bit of a shame, while beautiful it looked a bit fake in flight for some shots. However, the machineguns in the dogfights sounded glorious and have every a few surprises when a shot was finally lined up and it turns out you were watching gun-camera-like footage of the combat. I know it is a Nolan film and it jumps around a lot and has a few different perspectives but I don't think the general public outside of history buffs and outside of the UK where Dunkirk is known about will enjoy the 'setting' for this too much. I think the text at the beginning should have been twice as long to set up the premise and at the end mention that the small boats, numbering in the hundreds made multiple trips across the English Channel, they didn't just go there once. The beginning is the biggest sorepoint for this. "Mole. 1 week" Most people have no idea what a mole is, they don't know it is like a pier; should probably have said "Beach 1 week" instead. "Air. 1 hour" is a bit more forgiving but it should have said something else... "Fuel/airtime for mission above France: 1 hour" or something. Also getting the point across that the French and some of the English were holding back the Germans outside the city would have been a bit clearer instead of two or three mentions of the perimeter and why they won't risk tanks. A layman would think Dunkirk involved 3 RAF aircraft ~6 german aircraft, 3 minesweepers and 15-20 small ships with around 200 people on a pier and 1000 people on a beach. I get where Nolan was coming from trying to do things in camera, but a little bit of CGI to pad out the beaches in a few shots instead of using cardboard cutouts would have made this seem a bit more fitting. DC Murderverse posted:Harry Styles was very good at playing the character of "selfish twat" drunkill fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
So were the trailers some masterful "let's make this war movie look as boring as possible" play or what? "We need civilian boats to help evacuate the beach!" *cut to show an empty beach and guys on boats looking around with  faces prior to being attacked by strafing planes*
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
drunkill posted:The beginning is the biggest sorepoint for this. "Mole. 1 week" Most people have no idea what a mole is, they don't know it is like a pier; should probably have said "Beach 1 week" instead. "Mole" has double meaning that's made pretty clear by the timing of the title card coming up. *edited for spoilers* General Dog fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
This was an amazing bit of film making. I wouldn't call it "emotionally engaging" in that I didn't care much about anyone living or dying - but a mix of the ridiculously amazing camerawork and cinematography and sound design/score made me feel like I was in every situation in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:For whatever it's worth (likely not much) I'm a combat vet a few times over and I think this movie, along with Jarhead, are the only films I've ever seen that feel anything like the real thing. I'm not a vet but I'd agree there's something definitely harrowing about Dunkirk, showing how much is out of an individual's hands and the main goal is to live to fight another day when the odds are more in your favor. My stomach was getting upset from the tension throughout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Find it a bit eerie goons are coming out of this film saying they didn't care about the characters dying. It is a historical war film. About one of the most significant military defeats in British history. The "characters" are real people. They don't need an hours character development because this actually happened. I don't know how you can be so soulless. I thought it was superb - worth being in IMAX for. The sound was incredible. Above all it felt like an honest film about individuals in the terrible situation of war. Beautiful film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
LemonyTang posted:Find it a bit eerie goons are coming out of this film saying they didn't care about the characters dying. It is a historical war film. About one of the most significant military defeats in British history. The "characters" are real people. They don't need an hours character development because this actually happened. I don't know how you can be so soulless. lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
They should have put Rainbow Dash in it to help us connect with what the characters were going through
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
I think this movie is going to be divisive and I wonder if seeing it in IMAX is going to be a contributing factor to whether someone loves it or hates it. I saw it in a regular theater and all the raving I'm seeing about the visuals and audio effects don't match up at all with what I experienced. For me almost all the sound effects and dialogue were pretty muted and almost completely covered up by the music. Visually the entire film seemed to be filmed in a kind of washed-out grey/blue filter. The only scene that really stood out as looking great were the final scenes of the Spitfire over the beach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
sweetmercifulcrap posted:They should have put Rainbow Dash in it to help us connect with what the characters were going through I could get behind this if it meant Rainbow Dash ate machinegun fire and died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:I think this movie is going to be divisive and I wonder if seeing it in IMAX is going to be a contributing factor to whether someone loves it or hates it. Then you hugely missed out and it makes me worry about this movie's fate after video release. Saw this in IMAX Digital and the visuals and sound were overwhelming. Every gunshot was an auditory assault, every dive bombing terrifying. Every shot felt enormous, though I'll agree that I had a hard time believing 400,000 men were on that beach. One thing I wasn't clear on: What happened to the Frenchman? Was he the one who drowned in the boat?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Yes, to the spoiled question. Also, Nolan tries to be super naturalistic with sound, so it can be hard to understand dialogue, IMAX or not. Other things to notice is that you don't see a single German until the very end, and even then, they are out of focus. Also, Zimmers crazy rear end score starts ticking at the very beginning and doesn't end until a certain character closes his eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
1stGear posted:Then you hugely missed out and it makes me worry about this movie's fate after video release. Saw this in IMAX Digital and the visuals and sound were overwhelming. Every gunshot was an auditory assault, every dive bombing terrifying. Every shot felt enormous, though I'll agree that I had a hard time believing 400,000 men were on that beach. As I mentioned previously I saw it in the best possible IMAX theater and this was my experience as well. I've never heard more intense and impressively mixed sound in a movie, ever. Every shot was so deafening that just anticipating gunfire had me on edge. especially during the "target practice" scene This is an IMAX experience if there ever was one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
I have yet to see this movie but if you come out of it thinking that the Dunkirk evacuation was a 'defeat' then there is something badly wrong with how the story is told.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I have yet to see this movie but if you come out of it thinking that the Dunkirk evacuation was a 'defeat' then there is something badly wrong with how the story is told. The movie plainly presented it as a victory at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I have yet to see this movie but if you come out of it thinking that the Dunkirk evacuation was a 'defeat' then there is something badly wrong with how the story is told. Easy there mate, it was just a defeat in the sense that they were forced to evacuate because they weren't ready for war in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:43
|
|