Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


DC Murderverse posted:

I saw it at a regular theater and I didn't have any of the problems you did. Maybe your theater has lovely projectors/screens/theaters?

Didn't say there were any problems, just that it didn't forever change me with crystal clear visuals or deafening audio like a lot of reviews are talking about because to me it looked and sounded exactly like a normal movie would.

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


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.

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


Bottom Liner posted:

I mean, his last three (non-Batman) movies used the same time trick: screen time = vastly different amounts of time for the various layers of the story. Dream depth in Inception, relativity in Interstellar, and historical time lines in Dunkirk.

I wouldn't even call it a gimmick in this film, just a clever way of having three timelines intersect at the climax while starting them at different points in the overall timeline.

Except the big climax where all the timelines meet is the bombing of the minesweeper which:
A) is basically a repeat of a scene we already saw (the hospital ship getting bombed)
B) almost tensionless since none of the characters we'd been following are even on that ship

It was so baffling to me when watching it that he went to all that trouble to set up three timelines and the big payoff is all the characters watching a repeat of something we saw earlier happen again to someone else.

  • Locked thread