>No hamfisted romance storylines
>Entirely (Accurate for once) White Male Cast
>Nolan Directing
>Hardy Starring
>Intense as fuck
>Shows the horrors of war as realistically as possible
>No bullshit agendas being pushed (grrl pwr, diversitee, ebul Germans/White Men, the 6 gorillion)
>kike free
>Greatest feeling of dread you can feel in a Cinema
>roastie free
>Accurate with Vehicles
>Accurate with Weaponary
>Only recent film I have seem brave enough to be Completely dedicated to a Male Audience, unashamedly
Honestly doesn't get much better than this, closest modern war film to this would be Der Untergang, & it still feels greatly inferior to this
A kind of film like this hasn't been made since the Early 60s
I don't know how you could shit on this, or even nitpick through it, Sup Forums.
Is This The Greatest War Film of Our Generation?
Its a reddit film and the entire internet, Sup Forums imdb and letterboxd is reddit. Fuck off you tom hardy loving faggot.
>Shows the horrors of war as realistically as possible
>pg 13
Please explain how it's a reddit film if there was no libshit propaganda pushed at all in it? You're probably only saying that because it made a fuckton of money on it's opening you disgusting hipster.
>ebul Germans
Yeah buddy they were being shot down by god or something
It just showed them as enemy combatants doing their job.
Instead of the usual hollywood depiction having a Blonde Hair Blue Eyed Hans personally gassing 10 million jews himself whilst curb stomping a black man & raping the corpses
Yep
The british did there job
The german did their job
the french where shown doing their job.
I still shocked on how good it was.
it'll be the goto substitute history teacher movie for a while
It was more terrifying then Saving private Ryan. you can drown people and burn them alive with PG-13
Just got back from seeing it, yes it was far better than saving private ryan.
No agendas, no overexaggerated special effects (the pacific, saving private ryan) just lads on boats praying they don't get dive bombed, or drown under a boat, or burn to death in the sea by oil.
10/10 topkino
To be honest, I was semi-worried about it being only PG-13, but since the majority of deaths were drownings, and bombings at sea, it was definitely acceptable. Easily the most dread I've felt in the cinema in at least 5 years.
Provate Ryan was a shlocky gorefest for the sake of being acshlocky gorefest
>(((spielberg)))
Big surprise
Surprised no-one has really mentioned the outstanding zimmer score, cinematography (well worth seeing on 70mm), or the sound design.
Skund design really hooked me
The gunfire & the ominous ticking prevented me from taking a piss for 145 mins
Just added to the tension desu
Those Stukas Jericho trumpets seriously were terrifying in this movie.
>Winston Churchill’s 1940 “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech is paraphrased in Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, but after watching nearly two hours of uninspiring mayhem, it rings hollow. Although this is only Nolan’s third movie that is set, at least partly, in his homeland England — it depicts the evacuation of more than 300,000 British Expeditionary troops trapped in Dunkirk, France, at the start of World War II — he seems incapable of conveying a sense of cultural authenticity or patriotic feeling. (For that, see John Boorman’s WWII memoirs Hope & Glory and Queen & Country.) Preening for fanboys in 70mm, Nolan’s vast, clear views of dull-to-horrific killings, plus amped-up artillery sound effects, are no different from what he did in his Dark Knight trilogy. Like Michael Bay’s fantasy Pearl Harbor (1999), Dunkirk uses history as a pretext to show off the director’s fascination for calamity.
>Nolan divides his story into three anachronistic yet interlocking sections: British commander Kenneth Branagh oversees the massive boat lift; pilot Tom Hardy does aerial combat to keep German planes from strafing the beached armed forces; civilian Mark Rylance joins a flotilla of private boats and picks up downed pilot Cillian Murphy. Given such narrative chaos, the only certainty is that the West is under attack. This makes Dunkirk a freakily contemporary allegory for the ongoing global war no one wants to name. (The film’s opening epigraph refers to “The Enemy” instead of citing a nation, philosophy, or religion.)
Yep. The sound design was amazing. As it will be used for years as best examples of sound design and sound editing.
My only minor complaint was the three troopers looked a lot alike, so I wasn't sure for a bit which one of them died by inhaling fire
Then again, that might be by design.
>It’s routine to describe battle films as “anti-war,” still, that misnomer doesn’t describe Dunkirk — the apolitical Nolan transforms the “anti-war” genre into his patented “life is cheap” genre. Each sequence that details the brutal tragedy of warfare is punishing yet remote. Men caught in numerous doom-laden catastrophes are presented IMAX-size for no other reason than shock, discomfort, and the awe of action-addicted filmgoers — adolescents who are temperamentally distanced from how those experiences shaped modern Western culture.
>Nolan exploits technology for effect, not to enrich history. Unlike Ang Lee’s very fine Iraq War drama, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, which used 3-D to explore the depths of brotherhood and the war’s emotional complexities, Nolan’s movie flaunts empty violence. Duty is depicted as futile, and despite parroting Churchill’s spiritual motivation against darkness, Nolan typically evokes nihilism without any follow-through. Dunkirk feels dispassionate; it caters to pampered Boomers who never fought for or believed in a war or military service. Note the civilian armada approaching their countrymen: Each face is expressionless. Is this because Nolan rejects emotion, or does patriotic fervor embarrass him?
Was somewhat boring, didn't really get interested in the characters or plot.
3/5.
Nolan should leave writing to someone else
>It’s possible that Nolan, having created an audience of Millennial pessimists, is uninterested in the fellow feeling that Ang Lee made so intimate and that Clint Eastwood’s Sully and Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge made affecting as well as spectacular. Nolan misuses the big screen the same way Paul Thomas Anderson did in The Master — as a fanboy selling tool but not for aesthetic exploration. Nolan emphasizes large-scale violence then looks past its effect as he always does — as in that inept football-stadium bombing in The Dark Knight Rises. Dunkirk is equally repellent when Nolan toys with anonymous men trapped in the hull of a ship, helplessly watching bullet holes pierce their safety, or when a pilot nearly drowns as his plane sinks into rising waters. These sitting-duck moments are not suspenseful but torturous, whereas the great action directors — Eisenstein, Peckinpah, Lean, De Palma, Spielberg, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Abel Gance, Walter Hill, Bay at his best — could all depict action to get at a viewer’s understanding of fate. They mastered narrative and existential coherence. Nolan’s visual language is full of gaps; its pretense at Alain Resnais–style time-shifting seems some kind of joke when a director can’t accomplish straightforward storytelling.
>Dunkirk has been made without wartime sympathy. That’s why the Churchill speech comes off as unconvincing and sappy. Nolan’s detached style mocks the populism that relates to average-grunt, working-joe service; it continues the attitude of Nineties indie filmmakers who chose cynicism over sentiment, anti-Western subversion over jingoism.
I can see that. I think after a bit it was easy to tell the difference, though. Or it could have been by design since the film contained basically zero exposition, which made it feel even more real IMO. I.e. soldiers in a shit situation like that wouldn't sit around talking about Jane back home, etc, when the feeling of the next impending attack is just around the bend. Really happy with Nolan's decisions across the board.
>>For those with movie memories, hearing the Churchill speech brings back how William Wyler uncannily paraphrased it in his Mrs. Miniver (1942), spoken as part of a sermon in an English church whose ceiling had been blasted open during the Blitz. Wyler visualized hope — contrasting an image of disaster — while the church congregation sang “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” Dunkirk might have matched Wyler’s nobility, but Nolan won’t risk offending our godless film industry.
No it wasn't. In the first scene when the entire group gets shot down running to the beach the whole theatre was laughing because it was so lame, guys get shot, no blood no nothing. It was so goddamn tame that it ruined it. The only time you see blood in the movie is when the kid on the boat is pushed down. Fucking kek.
War movie and not a single drop of blood, I felt like I was watching a kid's movie.
Wasted/10
coming out of Dunkirk thinking it is anti-war or "life is cheap"
Jesus, did this asshole even watch the same movie?
>Is the boy alright
>yeah
I think also part of it was that the survivors where covered in oil so you couldn't tell the fine facial stuff.
But I agree, it worked brilliantly. Didn't matter why they wanted to go home, just that they needed to get home.
were you in the plex with a bunch of 12 year olds?
saying its so great about white power when
they were fighting and had a hand in defeating fag nazis
can't wait for the yify rip to drop
>That nod by the dad after
I cried at the end
it's a fucking masterpiece
No, but even the Dark Knight trilogy handled death far better than Dunkirk. Completely emotionless and without impact here because it was so tame.
Is Nolan the GOAT director of our time?
Leave the French to me
no, but he's very very good. a lot better than Sup Forums contrarians give him credit for. if he continued to make films on the level of dunkirk, he could be in the running for greatest modern director.
No he's a watered-down talentless Kubrick, but even more autistic and inhuman
nolan's not kubrick, he's spielberg. he's a very talented pop director, but he doesn't approach the depth of somebody like kubrick.
Just back from it, amazing film. Great experience. Glad I didn't wait another second to see it.
I was going to say this. I really like Nolan's vision and taste, but even for how great and original a film like inception is (9/10 imo), there are always silly, glaring plot holes, or egregious amounts of exposition. That being said, Dunkirk had none of those things.
> depth
> film
You're just as pathetic as the man-children reading comic books. There's nothing deep about your autistic little indie directors. Film is a lower tier art form for good reason.
>Those hints of Nimrod in the soundtrack to the closing sequence
Pure fucking Kino
Kek, you know, sarcasm doesn't do well online as no one can tell if you are being sarcastic or just retarded.
No, he's pseudo intellectual hack with no depth, vision or understanding of his content or work. He exists to enforce spectacle and peddle popcorn to the unwashed masses who lap up calamity and human carnage but his films have no moral message or deep philosophical insight.
Nolan is the epitome of reddit. He is memes.
He does not in anyway stand up to the likes of Bresson, Godard, Snyder or Malick
A pointless brothers war, all this effort just to destroy their civilization
And know that their grand children will be raped by muslims
If you didn't experience a major adrenaline rush during the final action sequence when all timelines merged together you're a literal cuck.
He's worse than Spielberg, though
And much, much less emotion-driven in his movies
>comparing Nolan to based Spielberg
>but his films have no moral message or deep philosophical insight
If you're looking for deep philosophical insight you should be reading a book you fucking pseud.
i think he's more consistent than spielberg. but my point is that people who think he's the modern day kubrick or hitchcock are off base.
I don't think he a kubrick or Hitchcock.
but now he has 3 great films (Memento, Prestige, Dunkirk) and not many directors have three great films.
Hitchcock is overrated garbage though
The guy probably had survivor guilt as it was, better just leave him be.
Stylistically he's a lot more comparable to Kubrick than Spielberg, but I agree that saying he's close to either is really wrong. He's his own dude, but a very sterile, stageplay sort of filmmaker with a complete ineptitude on writing, editing and action.
And a complete lack of actual emotion in his movies.
>The ticking clock throughout
Nothing like being packed to over capacity below deck and going down in an iron tomb with 200 other men.
>And a complete lack of actual emotion in his movies.
If you didn't tear up during Dunkirk you're probably a subhuman 3rd worlder
>gives kids school photo to the local newspaper
>a complete ineptitude on writing, editing and action.
Wrong, the editing and action in Dunkirk is flawless. Nolan isn't good at hand to hand action but he's fucking great at large scale action.
>all the sound effects every time the dogfights came on
Yep
This, I got a little watery when all the little boats came over the horizon. And my wife almost pulled my hand off since she thought they where going to pull a "Das boot" ending where you think they make it but then they died.
Yep, Nolan has two weaknesses
Hand to hand action
talking
The movie had no hand to hand action and very little talking. everything else he does is great, and the movie is brilliant.
I'm judging him by his entire filmography.
If Dunkirk breaks the mold, sure that's great.
But so far I've thought he's been very emotionless, and aesthetically uninteresting.
>When all the timelines begin to click together in your head
Bravo Nolan
what
I didn't get it when they showed the old man boat in the day time and then cut to night time in dunkirk and then back to day time in the sea with the man wtff I thought it was happening at the same time
Redditkirk: The film
It is shit, and all you plebs need to FUCK OFF
So anons
which of the ship sinking got to you the most?
>The ticking stops
>He's his own dude, but a very sterile, stageplay sort of filmmaker with a complete ineptitude on writing, editing and action.
Generally agree, except The Dark Knight is basically a perfectly edited film
The first one where everyone is happily eating bread and jam and drinking tea thinking their ordeal was over.
What's it like being 15?
So you watched it with a bunch of middle schoolers
its almost as if when people are shot they dont explode like a balloon full of red paint
>The Dark Knight is basically a perfectly edited film
I think it a bit long. But I am in the minority in that view.
This
out of interest how many of are British and do you think that improved your opinion of the film?
>everyone laughed
why would someone do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies
stream when?
(you)
Yep. The reality is that when you are shot and you are wearing a coat like the troopers wear it takes a few minutes for it to show. For example, when Reagan was shot they where blocks away before they realized he was shot and they diverted to the hospital.
American here, but watched it with my wife who effectively a brit. (White African of British extraction)
I just came back from the theater and No. God no.
It was the same shit throughout the entire film. Shoot plane, white smoke puffs out. Sinking ships, picking sailors out of the water.
It was extremely boring, and the score felt extremely misplaced for a WWII film compared to Nolan's other films.
I love WWII films, but this was very dry.
After you see the first dogfight, you pretty much have seen ALL them for the rest of the movie; truly boring. Same with the ships being blown up.
Also the soldier on the beach that had a bomb dropped on him would have been blown to pieces, instead he just flies up with some sand.
I wanted to like this film, truly. I love WWII and WWI movies, but this was just felt lackluster.
>Completely dedicated to a Male Audience
but you just said it was accurate and realistic. why would that mean its dedicated to a male audience?
Literally turned my head around because I thought someone was fighting with something
It's not. Some of my male friends are plebs and thought it was meh, but my girlfriend loved it. Idk what kind of women you faggots hang around with, or maybe you're all just teenagers, but it's hardly catered to only males
I think its more that i's just aimed at a non-plebby audience. If you go in thinking it's going to be some blood and guts action movie like some people in this thread did you're going to be disappointed. It's a film about dread.
>The blasts of static
>Warner Brothers Pictures
>kike free
It was just another movie stylizing the horrors of war for profit.
> lackluster
> re
You're American. You wouldn't understand the target audience.
Does the pop singer die? Seems out of place casting someone like him and I don't believe for one moment Nolan casted him without knowing he was in some faggy boyband beforehand.
Actually turned in a pretty solid performance desu
Oh fuck off
>found out he actually doesn't die when you take the mask off
>The Stukas
wtf i thought this was 70mm this looks like my phone?!
>accurate with vehicles
>Buchon in place for Emil 109
dropped
I get it that Nolan aims for realism with his practical effects and IMAX 70mm blah blah blah but it seems counter to his aims to not even use a proper aircraft. I'd rather see a CGI Emil 109 if they couldn't get an airworthy one than some bastardized stand in.
The sound effects for all the WWII planes
So good
Can we not have first week be Sup Forums week and then when Reddit attaches its slime to it then it can be Reddit? Fuck me we could at least discuss this like adults for ONE week then devolve to mindless hate because Reddit happens to like the objectively greatest director of our generation.
>wings juddering when spitfire takes a tight turn
T O R P E DO
Was getting caught part of his plan?
of course