Dunkirk (Summer 2017) directed by Christopher Nolan

I thought it was brilliant. Didn't get bogged down in a ropey script and just got on with telling the story of impending dread for those men trapped and the desperation to get off the beach.

Nolan has gone from extreme to another between this and Interstellar - I much prefer this stripped down way of film making (in way of no fluff or guff padding things out), it was fresh and brutal without the gore and boring dialogue.

Oh, and people that are saying the score went on and on, do one. Hans Zimmer has yet again come up with a perfect score to a film that brings the meaning of what's going on to your ears -
the most notable moment in it for me was when it stopped, briefly, when things looked like it was over (near the end). That silence hit me and forced me to breathe properly for the first time in 90 minutes.
 
The score wasn't so much a score like a tune you can hum, ala Star Wars, superman, your John Williams classic. this feels like a background atmospheric, it's absolutely perfect for the movie but I think as a soundtrack, it'll probably be very boring.

As for the movie, i like it a lot. Not your typical war film for sure, it's actually my least favourite story to tell...I thought it would be just dull but he managed to not only make a movie that held my attention from he first scene, he also managed to make me care and understand all the characters and what and why they do what they do without much dialogue and back story.

Nolan has become my favourite if not my favourite director and I think he is the best director working today. I think he is now at a level where Scorsese, Spielberg, Kubrick were at the height of their powers.

I saw it in IMAX and the sound design, the guns and bullets in this film is unreal, you can feel it in the cinema almost.
 
Overhyped imho, left disappointed and still feel so 5 days later: From the lack of Churchill, any real story in the UK, not seeing the German army, supposedly loads of people on the beach and many left behind which didn't get shown, a fly over of the beach at the end with no troops left nor bomb damage, the half hour of constant overstretched large ship sinking and the inability of the spitfire pilot to shoot down an aircraft even in level flight....

I can see what Nolan was going for and i understand why "critics" are "creaming" all over it, however as for it being an "epic" war film, no, if i was at Dunkirk i'd feel insulted tbh.
 
I think people are thinking about the score like a typical film, Nolan and Zimmer used the soundtrack in this instead of talking, it set the scenes and the tone for what we we're watching rather than the actors speaking for speakings sake.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Overhyped imho, left disappointed and still feel so 5 days later: From the lack of Churchill, any real story in the UK
Click to expand...

Nolan wanted it from the point of view of the people that were there, a 'UK' story wasn't required and nor was Churchill. Hence the soldier reading the speech in the paper. It sounds like you wanted a traditional type of movie that's been done to death

not seeing the German army
Click to expand...

They were being held back by 40,000 French rearguard soldiers and Hitler stopped the advance of the German Army. That's what actually happened.


supposedly loads of people on the beach and many left behind which didn't get shown
Click to expand...

? At various points it showed lots of soldiers on the beach waiting to evacuate.

a fly over of the beach at the end with no troops left nor bomb damage
Click to expand...

At the end Tom Hardy had flown well past the safe allied zone of the beach and landed in enemy territory

the inability of the spitfire pilot to shoot down an aircraft even in level flight....
Click to expand...

I don't know too much about it, but I know they only had enough ammunition to shoot for 14 seconds.

I can see what Nolan was going for and i understand why "critics" are "creaming" all over it, however as for it being an "epic" war film, no, if i was at Dunkirk i'd feel insulted tbh.
Click to expand...

 
Firestar_3x said:
Yes, i think the "issue" is i wanted a proper war movie and all that brings.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/fi...-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold
Click to expand...

I can fully relate to this. I was hoping for more of a conventional war film really but for once based on a British WW2 battle. Felt like we half got that but it was essentially an impressionist piece. It didn't really feel "epic" in scale either. Not sure why critics are claiming it is. The best part of the film is, without doubt, the dog fights. Even those were limited though, in terms of what you actually saw.

Saying that though, I am seeing it again on weekend and looking forward to it. Certain scenes linger in the mind and I want to try and accept it for what it is instead of hoping for a proper battle scene.

It doesn't hold a candle to previous Nolan films though imo. Just feels lacking. Nor does it really come close to the classic war films of yesteryear. But that is just opinion.
 
Phonesis said:
I can fully relate to this. I was hoping for more of a conventional war film really but for once based on a British WW2 battle. Felt like we half got that but it was essentially an impressionist piece. It didn't really feel "epic" in scale either. Not sure why critics are claiming it is. The best part of the film is, without doubt, the dog fights. Even those were limited though, in terms of what you actually saw.

Saying that though, I am seeing it again on weekend and looking forward to it. Certain scenes linger in the mind and I want to try and accept it for what it is instead of hoping for a proper battle scene.

It doesn't hold a candle to previous Nolan films though imo. Just feels lacking. Nor does it really come close to the classic war films of yesteryear. But that is just opinion.
Click to expand...

Yup, agree with all of that. I'm a big Nolan fan and love a good war film, but agree with the sentiments above. Like when the little boats arrived, they only seemed to show about 20, max. I didn't feel like it had an epic scale either as the story was very confined.
 
While everyone was expecting British "Saving Private Ryan" Nolan delivered "The Thin Red Line" without annoying voiceover - powerful, lofty, awardy, snoozy art fest rigged with plot discrepancies (weren't civilian boats impound and commandeered by British Navy to Dunkirk rather than taxied back and forward by their owners?) to keep the disattached viewer barely at the edge of involvement. It's a form triumph (there was no war movie like it before) that will never become anyone's favourite go-to movie for Band of Brothers weekend. In fact, I doubt anyone will sit through it more than once.
 
I already have...It's great.

And were you not paying attention? The Navy and volunteers were requisitioning all the boats at the dock, and were about to do the same to Mark Rylance before he cast off and piloted the boat himself. Whilst most were manned by officers and naval volunteers, there were certainly Fishermen and the like who piloted their own boats.

It sounds like a lot of people here just wanted some Saving Private Ryan gore-fest.
 
If you take away IMAX 70mm this and that and the Nolan circle jerk is it actually a good film?
Does it do it justice?
Marmite.
 
That would need a second viewing and home release to find out ;)

Not sure how it would all translate onto the small screen.
 
From what I have read...its as much about the SFX used....so it would transfer well to a home with a decent sound system.
 
For the biggest most miraculous naval evacuation in the history of wárfare it feels like a busy Sunday queue for the pedaos at times...
 
It really stems from Nolan really not wanting to use CGI at all if he could get away with it

There is an interview on youtube with him were he talks about 100% accuracy vs real and also the compromises he made like using a real 1050s french minesweeper instead of a CGI British WW2 one
Even the H111s (no flying examples left) are a flying scale model rather than easy CGI
Or how the 109's have the wrong engine (could have easily CGId) or how they chose to have yellow noses even though that is not correct for the time period because it helps differentiate the planes

He could have easily cheated and CGId loads of people on the beach or boats or modern buildings out of backgrounds etc etc but he seems to have approached it from the specific objective of not using cgi at all
Yes maybe at the expense of "epicness" or whatever but a creative choice he chose to make rather than just lazy negligence
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom