Dunkirk (Summer 2017) directed by Christopher Nolan

Glanza said:
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.
Click to expand...

:D OK! If only the soundtrack used here had that ability, we may have ended up with a decent film.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Sounds like the perfect excuse of being lazy to me, perhaps he has some sort of inability to visualize without physical objects.
Click to expand...

CGI with model aircraft used for HE111 and JU87 because the real ones are all shot down and scattered in the channel ;) The Blenny that flies past the boat and he points out "that's one of ours" is a real and recent restored Blenheim. It played no part in the movie, it was simplyin the movie because it exists and was relevant.
He went as far as possible to utilise real aircraft in the movie, the 109 is not genuine nor what would have been seen at that point in WW2, but nobody other than nerds could even tell. He truly went as far as possible to use real aircraft.

Being lazy? I hope to **** you are just trolling and you aren't that dim.
 
I was slightly disappointed by the lack of scale on the beach and then the evacuation. 100's of small boats turned in to maybe 10 ?!

And the landing at the end with the ( modern ? ) shipping container cranes in the background.
 
With the amount of "little ships" that showed up it makes the story of Noah's Ark seem a lot more plausible...

This movie had a 100 million budget? I'm struggling to see where the hell it was spent as it seemed very small scale, a stretch of beach and some scenes in the sea for the most part and that was it. Editing felt like the reels were chucked into a washing machine and whatever came out when the cycle was done was the final cut, just jerks you around constantly to different time points. I was waiting on the usual cliche of a canopy being stuck and wasn't disappointed.

Overall meh, you don't even see the Germans ffs. But i'm sure that will be lauded as some "extremely artistic choice" or some ****.

and some critics noting it as both one of the best war films of all-time and of Nolan's career.
Click to expand...

Must have been watching a different movie.
 
Last edited:
SOOOOOO many hipster attitudes towards this movie circulating online already! People going so vehemently against the grain that it just starts to look kind of silly.

It's absolutely fine to say you dislike ANY movie, but to deny one of the things it objectively does well... it's not cool and it impresses no one. Apart from the other aspiring hipsters who up vote you cus it's 'edgey'.
 
DrToffnar said:
It's absolutely fine to say you dislike ANY movie, but to deny one of the things it objectively does well... it's not cool and it impresses no one. Apart from the other aspiring hipsters who up vote you cus it's 'edgey'.
Click to expand...

well I personally feel that trans women of colour weren't represented and they could have made more of an effort to include them
 
Gerard said:
With the amount of "little ships" that showed up it makes the story of Noah's Ark seem a lot more plausible...

This movie had a 100 million budget? I'm struggling to see where the hell it was spent as it seemed very small scale, a stretch of beach and some scenes in the sea for the most part and that was it. Editing felt like the reels were chucked into a washing machine and whatever came out when the cycle was done was the final cut, just jerks you around constantly to different time points. I was waiting on the usual cliche of a canopy being stuck and wasn't disappointed.

Overall meh, you don't even see the Germans ffs. But i'm sure that will be lauded as some "extremely artistic choice" or some ****.



Must have been watching a different movie.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine a considerable portion of the budget was spent on pure logistics and rental/building of all the craft used. There's a reason most studios prefer to go the digital route these days...

I'll agree that the time scale mechanic felt a little tacked on and that perhaps the editing cues could have been a little more 'defined', but I think in general it was superb. Lee Smith just sort of gets it. Him and Nolan know when a film needs to breathe and, more importantly for Dunkirk, when it shouldn't.

The lack of any significant German presence in the film isn't so much an 'artistic choice' as it is historically accurate. The German high command halted the movement of the many Panzer divisions outside of Dunkirk itself for fear of being flanked (as well as the marshy conditions they'd have to traverse to get there). It was only at Goering's behest that Hitler sent in the Luftwaffe to being with (though that seems to be hotly debated in the few books that I've read on the subject).

The decision to halt the Panzers is considered by many to be one of the German armies first key mistakes.

The movie perhaps could have focused more on the French and the BEF troops that fought on the defensive line to protect those who where evacuating. But Nolan himself has said multiple times that this movie is about the evacuation itself.

There is often simply too much material surrounding these events too cram into a single movie. IMO, the film was infinitely more enjoyable thanks to it's focus on just a few key events of those 9 days.

dowie said:
well I personally feel that trans women of colour weren't represented and they could have made more of an effort to include them
Click to expand...

Those sorts of opinions are too few and far between to really care about and can often easily be dismissed as click bait twaddle. I'm talking more about the deliberately contrary swine who dislike anything if it's even remotely popular.
 
Last edited:
LMAO...the Guardian really are trying so hard to be relevant to anyone except themselves. God that paper is absolute trash.
 
cu3ed said:
LMAO...the Guardian really are trying so hard to be relevant to anyone except themselves. God that paper is absolute trash.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with a lot of what that article has to say, despite really loving the movie myself. It is ultimately more concerned with the actual cinematic representation of events and how they look on screen. But that's Nolan's style. He's a visual Director above all else.
 
Last edited:
DrToffnar said:
I actually agree with a lot of what that article has to say, despite really loving the movie myself. It is ultimately more concerned with the actual cinematic representation of events and how they look on screen. But that's Nolan's style. He's a visual Director above all else.
Click to expand...
First off lets look at the articles approach. It actually starts its criticism that it dint show every facet of what happened over those days. That is completely and utterly stupid and pointless thing to say. That like saying how every war film missed big aspects. But seeing as me knows little about narrative or screenplays, then it still stands that its utterly stupid to think other parts should be bought in, even though it woudl make the movie unworkable. Also, he says Nolan Ignored them...really?..YOu think Nolan and the amount of research didn't know about most of this stuff, or perhaps he looked at it and realised it wouldnt work in a 2hr movie. Not being acknowledged in a film, is not the same as being ignored.

What’s mainly happening, however, is that lots of soldiers are waiting around. Escapades, not altogether convincing, are therefore contrived for a few of them. Some bombs fall, some ships are sunk. Commanders mutter briefly but sagely to each other. In the skies, fighter pilots conduct what seems like an endlessly repeated dogfight. One plane runs out of fuel, although not as quickly as audiences might have hoped. And that’s sort of it.
Click to expand...

Basically sums up A LOT..if not most war movies though the characters are made to pull a that heart strings, with the over done..over worked over played "tales of how I miss home"...blah blah blah. Most soldiers will tell you they dont like to talk about home at all, as its the furthest place they are at that point.

Film-makers usually instil interest in their protagonists by giving them backstories and meaningful dialogue, thereby creating characters who can be engaged in drama. In Dunkirk, these things don’t happen.
Click to expand...
Because...you know..people don't talk like that...and most of them already new each other. I don't need my friend to tell me where hes from..I know his family...also even less up for conversation given where they are, im pretty sure we talked out by that point.

Cant be bothered to read much more after that, as no doubt it nitpicks the smaller things and makes no idea or suggestions about how to screenplay it into a watchable movie.
THe Guardian is a trash paper, it has been for a long time now, and these utterly worthless "critic" pieces they have fro, utter no names doesn't make them look any better.
They have done this with so much stuff, Music, Games Film, anything really, its like they are trying to hard to be cleaver, but just come across as douche bags.
 
I think it's cool that they're representing both camps. I think there's validity in some peoples criticisms for sure, even if they are overly scrupulous to the point of being meaningless at times.
 
I thought the editing was brilliant and had no issue following the multiple and converging timelines.

However, even one of the Empire magazine reviewers didn't quite understand it the first time he saw it (He thought two separate Spitfires 'landed' in the North sea!) and it wasn't until the second viewing that it became clear for him.

I guess it's just how different peoples brains work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom