|
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 14, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Most stuff I’ve read said losing the army at Dunkirk wouldn’t have made much of a difference. There’s even theories that Hitler let the army get away, knowing a defeat that bad could make England unwilling to negotiate. Uh, Russia and Japan faced adversaries with wildly different war goals. I don't think how hard they were hit has much to do with anything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:By the end of the War the British were being unfairly lambasted by American officers as overly cautious or lazy (see Caen). Because by the end of that point the British army had been bled white and while they were still dedicated to fighting, the officers abhorred the idea of wasting lives. Without the BEF survivors forming the backbone of the British army in the preceding years (especially the NCOs), there is no way the British army would have done as well as it did through the war, or been operating at the level it was during the push towards Germany. *constructs additional pylons* Dunno why you're making it so complicated. *constructs barracks* Maybe you're just not as good at this war thing as me. (seriously, the fate of 300,000 soldiers may or may not have markedly affected the probability of an invasion of Britain, and depending on how the US responded may not have even changed the fate of the war. But the psychological and morale effects of rescuing 300,000 sons, brothers, and fathers versus letting them be captured or killed are incalculable. There is no easy comparison between such outcomes and Russia's response to Barbarossa, or Japan's response to the nukes. There's much more to it than just "well that's more mouths to feed at home, innit?")
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
gfarrell80 posted:You remember Henry the 5th? There's that scoundrel character, Pistol, who has a soliloquy: The main character's entire unit went down, he was barely past teenage years, and he had some form of ptsd. He just wanted to live, didn't care about winning the war or good order and discipline and stiff upper lip and all that poo poo. His friend is a French man of uncertain background. The only verified lovely deserters are the guys in the boat, and who knows their story. There's not a very exciting movie here if you stick with one guy just sitting in a queue on the beach for a week straight waiting for his eventual ride out without several life or death escapes. The people we follow are tangential to just showing a kinda crazy week in war. I don't think their flawed decision-making or lack of dialogue was a bad thing. This wasn't trying to be a melodrama like every bit of Saving Private Ryan past the beach. It didn't need drama. And the nonlinear time scales were the only reasonable way to let us focus on a single enthralling dogfight and sortie without the pace being wonky. Integrating the three storylines together was a neat quirk, but probably not necessary I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
The camera focused on two deserters, but you see endless lines of soldiers showing discipline and order all around them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
I only saw Gravity in 3D, not imax, and it was far and away the best movie I've ever seen in 3D. It used it flawlessly and it really added to the experience. Imax would have been a trip. It's not at all the same movie at home on a TV.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 20:30
|
|