Nolan fag here

Nolan fag here

Saw it last night. Absolute amazing filmmaking... but God it was boring.

I'm not a fan of character exposition but christ that doesn't mean there has to be none. I'd like to at least know who the fuck I'm watching struggle to survive.

The classic Nolan, non-linear time approach was completely unnecessary. Just leaves you confused about when every scene is occurring through 90% of the movie.

It was very well made but I was ready to fall asleep half way through. The tone for entire movie is suspense and fear. But it just gets numb at a point. I honestly feel bad for dragging my girlfriend out to watch it with me. This is not one of Nolan's best.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NcgV4RZ874Y
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If you got bored, then you are either a complete soft little faggot or have mental disability. The movie was even under 2 hours.

I'm not a Nolanfag and I really liked it... really makes you think

OK so no surprise that a post which doesn't sound like it was written by (((((them))))) gets no reply. I haven't seen the film, but sounds like it's classic Nolan again. Gets hold of some neat idea, in this case a movie with no dialogue( a complete 360 of his previous style), then meme the shit out of it to cater to the reddit crowd.
Like this guy. Either reddit or poo in loo. Here's your 2 cents.

What do you like about it?

Think about what exactly? There was nothing but a few contrived and unoriginal representations of 'war is hell'.

>God it was boring
>Just leaves you confused about when every scene is occurring through 90% of the movie.
>I was ready to fall asleep half way through.

t:brainlet

>There was nothing but a few contrived and unoriginal representations of 'war is hell'

If you unironically only got that from this kino, then there is no hope for you, there was so much human drama in this, which felt real, not contrived.

Entertaining and pretty to look at? Sure. Insightful or reached for a greater meaning like a good film should? No.

>posts about a movie I haven't seen but want too agree with because it goes against the grain are the only ones not by (((them)))
Do you see yourself? Is this how you imagined it would all turn out?

didn't find it confusing at all, lot of the time changes are predictable
every image is fantastic & beautiful
the sounds are amazing
dialogue? who cares fuck off
also the boys are kawaii
goat kino folks

>muh dialogue
>muh relatable characters
>muh greater meaning
this is what happens when you allow brainlets on your board

It entertained me for 2 hours, was shot well, had great sound and was tense as fuck. I wasn't bored at all

>I'd like to at least know who the fuck I'm watching struggle to survive.

some ordinary 18 yo dude who was drinking with his bros and fucking Mary Jane in a barn yesterday and today is dodging German bombs and bullets
if you're a man you can relate perfectly, well except for the whole fucking part

Will he hate it?

You've got to actually explain why he's wrong, shills

>he
Nice samefag friendo. We can see your IP you stupid cunt

>IT WAS BORING
>NO CHARACTERIZATION
I am glad that I have lived to see the day when Nolan created the ultimate pleb filter.

At least you're admitting to it

Wot

It's so predictable that he will hate it.

Jay will love the non-linear film-making but will have his opinion sidelined as usual.

>start music at 4:00
youtube.com/watch?v=NcgV4RZ874Y

>"What is it, sir? What do you see?"
>"Home."

manly tears in cinema were shed

I hope so. The number of people on here parroting his opinion will be huge and Dunkino will become the best pleb filter on the market

Are you fucking stupid? It's not Nolan's first movie. I already know his movies are shit. It being good would be a surprise.

>it's too cold and unhuman
>can't relatable to characters, even can't tell them apart
>muh plot is nonexistent

screencap this

Do you think you answered my question?

Kinos Women won't understand
Kinos Americans won't understand

You have to understand the British spirit to understand this kino.

The old man is old to enough to have been in, or at least experienced World War One. In WW1 millions, literally, died. Many millions more were wounded, shellshocked, and ruined. WW1 changed british society more than any other event in history, and the old man knew this, and knew that he was going out, quite possibly to die, to save others. Not because he had to, but because the only thing standing between society surviving and collapsing is the courage of men. This film isn't even about war, and if brainlets think it is then so be it.

There are no other characters really because soldiers never should be characters, the only mistake I think Nolan made was making the pilot out to be a hero. It would have been more fitting that his plane just stopped working and he crashed and died out of shot.

How many of you went in not knowing much about Dunkirk or even ww2 basic history? Why is this considered a good thing and attribute it to the movie?

What's there to explain to someone who goes "waaaah so boring waaaaaah"?
"boring" or "nothing happens" are not valid arguments. As for the characters, they were intentionally pretty regular young britbois who get scared shitless and try to get the fuck out of there by any means possible.
I for one loved the decision of Nolan to make such a strong subjective POV from the soldiers with no usual FunnyComicReliefSoldier1 FatSoldier2 NerdGlassesSoldier3 BraveHeroProtagonistSoldier4 etc, no fake empathy/sentimentality bullshit, just straight psychological fear through survival.

Americans believe ww2 started with pearl harbor

Holy shit all shills sound exactly the same. Oh the sound was good, and the cinematography was good, and the editing was good. Was really good! Honest!
>reminder that shills are given notes on what to say
No because your questions are fucking stupid.
Sage.

It will be hilarious when Mike completely misses the point of the movie like his fellow pleb, Jeremy Jahns.

>ITS BORING
>I WANT MUH CHARACTERS
>I NEED EXPOSITIONAL DIAGLOGUE TO EXPLAIN WHATS HAPPENING BECAUSE I AM STUPID

have another 0.02 on me

Russians belive WW2 started in 41

Yeah that basically sums it up. Which is disappointing because Nolan is usually so good at doing both

You don't have to like it mate. You don't have to be so angry, we're all friends here

POO

You literally haven't even seen the fucking thing. Lmfao, who is the real shill?

And the war between Japan and China started in 1937 with minor fighting since 1931

Thought he said hope

And usually you get nothing but detailed essays for posts about other films here, right?
The sound design and the visuals were the highlight of the movie, ofcourse most people will then comment on that element.

No he definitely said home

Take The thin red line for example, a movie nolan has praised and has attributed to being a big inspiration to the movies he's made. The power of cinema and how the viewers take it all in and react to what they're shown. Nolan has surprisingly done the inverse of this with dunklirk and created a clinical play by play of events, throwing many of his signature artistic meta possibilities we've seen in things like The Prestige and Inception away. It's an exciting and compelling 1hr40 mins but lacks a lot of depth. If all you can focus on is american cliche's as being the alternative, you're the true pleb.

>42 replies
>13 posters

Yeah, i'm done for dunkirk now. Shills can die.

>WAHHHHH PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT A RECENTLY RELEASED FILM ON THE FILM AND TELEVISION BOARD

Michael Bay shit also has visual and sound moron. How does it make the movie good. I don't expect an essay. I expect at least some reasoning. Just saying this is good that is good means I will deem you a shill.

>threads should have equal amount of replies and posters
>people should not be having conversations with multiple people in the community
how does it feel to be actually literally retarded?

I found Dunkirk way more immersive and engaging than The Thin Red Line. Dunkirk isn't supposed to be poetic or "le deep", it's a film about transporting a fuckload of people from point A to point B under constant danger.
Yes Nolan likes Malick and The Thin Red Line, but he never said he tried to do anything like that here. He screened The Wages of Fear for the entire cast and crew before filming for them to get a sense of what kind of feel he wants portray, and now after watching Dunkirk it makes perfect sense with all the tension ramping up.

I agree visuals, audio, and all production aspects were amazing. But that's only part of what makes film great. I hate those fucking elitist film students that focus all their effort in the visuals and audio. What makes film great is the plot, the characters, the story that moves you. This was a great, great movie. I think it turned out exactly how Nolan wanted it. But I could have gone to the restroom and grabbed snacks for 30 minutes and I wouldn't have missed anything important...

I've contributed more to the discussion than either of you lot, it's painfully obvious though, they repeat the same talking points each thread.

So it's not just me noticing the same fags shilling up the place

>But I could have gone to the restroom and grabbed snacks for 30 minutes and I wouldn't have missed anything important...

Apart from the experience, which is part of it, if you were watching this for a story (hint: everyone who isn't a brainlet knows what happened at dunkirk anyway) you were watching for the wrong reasons.

Stop being contrarian.

But Michael Bay visuals and sound design are a completely uncoherent stuffed mess with no clear thought, especially compared to Hoytema's framing and composition.
And I thought I was desensitisized to the usual Hollywood shooting and killing with thousands of weightless bullets flying left and right, while here a single bullet felt like an actual threat for everyone's life, on and off-screen.
The opening shot alone gave me PTSD, from the city shootout to that first Stuka beach dive bombing while I can watch a whole city crumble in a whatever Michael Bay film and not feel a damn thing.

I watch movies in general for the stories user

I bet you're the kind of faggot who says "who're the badguys" while halfway through the film

Fucking hell this is what happens to you when you poo in the street. You become a moron.

It's called national pride. It's called remembering the sacrifices of your forefathers. It's called remembering what has been pushed out of schools and everyday life. It's called fighting for home, for family, for what you believe in. It's called remembering who you are before you disappear into the ash heap of history. If a movie has to literally tell you what it means, you're retarded.

>no IDs on Sup Forums
>no way of knowing who posted which reply
Well meme'd friendo

>What makes film great is the plot, the characters, the story that moves you.
Visual storytelling is what makes film great, not the written narrative.
Do you think Tarkovsky or David Lynch are incompetent filmmakers then?

I like war films, but generally about the terrors of war. My favourites are:
1. Apocalyse Now
2. The Thin Red Line
3. Platoon
4. Full Metal Jacket
5. Bridge on the River Kwai

Would you recommend this to me?

I've seen the EXACT last two lines in another thread

Yeah I know that, i'm using it as an example, an example more so to reflect nolans style and his other movies. He's wandered away from it and aspired to create a more personal in the moment experience for the viewer, more simplistic. I'm making the argument if you don't aspire to reach for greater meaning from things you're limiting how good of a movie it actually can be.

Please give 3 examples of Nolan telling a story through visual. Go ahead.
Also Tarkovsky is a hack. Here's your 2 cents.

Maybe the same person is posting in this thread?

sorry your girlfriend is a plebe, mate. i saw dunkirk with mine and she loved it so much she recommended we see it again next weekend, in imax.

yes, a hundred times.

OP here, shouldn't be comparing this to Michael Bay work. Filmmaking here is on another level. Despite finding Dunkirk boring, I'd watch it a billion times before subjecting myself to a Michael Bay film.

Why are you talking about Michael Bay you fucking street shitter.
POO

>I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like

My god, there are actual people alive who unironically allow Sup Forums to dictate their opinions. Don't bother seeing the movie user, you don't deserve to.

I'm gonna pirate it. You're not getting a fucking cent from me.
Sage.

We can argue forever is the film truly great or not, but I think we can all agree that the world is a richer place with it being made.

That's retarded. That means you are barely following along. Why put something on film if the only part that matters could just be written on one sheet of A4 paper? Story as you mean it is the least of a Director's responsibilities. Same with writing. What's the story of Old Man and the Sea? An old man tries to catch a big fish and be does, but then he dies. I guranfuckingtee you the story is one of the east relevant parts. Movies are a visual medium. If don't care about the visuals, you're. of watching a movie.

Exactly. It's definitely kino, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.

Nice contribution though, have your money.

how new are you?

Yeah, he went from being postmodern fucboi to actually wanting to contribute meaningful art.

I think most Nolan films receive too much praise and attention on most days. Inception is nothing more than a wasted concept. So I am surprised that even some Nolanfags find this film boring when I feel it's well in his top 2 (the other being The Prestiege). Do Nolan fans go in expecting crazy visuals or something? I don't know but I was engrossed in the film as son as it had the scene of the 2 blokes carrying the stretcher across the beach.

Because that first user I replied too mentioned Michael Bay's visuals and sound for comparison, which I agree was absurd.

worst nolan film since memento

dull cinematography
out of place musical score
treated too much as a thriller than as a war film
shitty disjointed editing jumping from a day scene to a night scene

just shut it down...
I'd have preferred just watching band of brothers and SPR again

the only thing I did like was the roar of the spitfire engines and the screams of the stuka planes

1. the two soldiers meet on the beach. one is burying a dead man with bare feet before we see the soldier tying his own shoe laces. this illustrates how desperate the situation is, that soldiers would rob boots from the dead, and sets up a future plot point. no dialogue required.

2. the same soldiers find a stretcher with a wounded man on it. they pick up the stretcher wordlessly and carry it to the boat. initially we are led to believe the soldiers are being selfless, but we then realize (if we are paying attention) that the soldiers were using the wounded man as an excuse to get free passage onto the boat. this was never explicitly said, but was instead implied sans dialogue.

3. the pilot, flying alone and low on fuel, sees a bomber heading for a boat. he silently has to make a choice, to save himself or to save the men. no dialogue required.

i could go on. but i've made my point. dunkirk is a movie that demonstrates how powerful visual story telling can truly be. it presents an experience that cannot be gleaned from a book, a video game, or even a tv show. dunkirk is a MOVIE, and needs to be seen in a theater to be truly appreciated.

however, i believe ive wasted my time explaining this to you, as you clearly would be more entertained by sticking to capeshit and bayformers.

Being bored usually says more about the person than the thing. You need to grow up.

I don't see how I'd get a cent from you anyway, kid

Aha no

That was me retard. I merely mentioned him. You wrote a fucking essay about Michael Bay in a nolan thread. Are you retarded because you poo in the street?
I haven't seen the fucking movie idiot. Give examples from previous movies.
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE

Nope, their pasted talking points are paper thin too.

>treated too much as a thriller than as a war film

But it wasn't a war film

I genuinely feel sorry for everyone who will watch Dunkirk first time when the torrent is out. I can't imagine someone experiencing the same thing when that first Stuka beach attack comes in if you watch it on your computer. The cinema experience is worth it for the sound alone.
That first shot when the brit is drinking water visibly startled the entire theatre where I was, every single shot in the film had weight to it. One of the better cinema experiences of recent times.

>one of the greatest war films ever made
>thinks it shit.
Have you actually ever met a veteran? Do you know anything about war? Have you ever evolved from reading cardboard picture books?

A FUCKING RETREAT

As disorienting as that day to night scene is when it happens, it makes sense later on.

It was incredible. Almost traumatic. I will have a hard time ever watching it anywhere but a theater.

Actually the best way is to watch it in cinema (3 times) then when the bluray is out you should buy 1 for you and 1 for your boyfriend because this movie MUST be seen in 4k guys. It's that good.
SAGE

I don't think this is really a movie, as much as museum bait for all those museums that have IMAX screens attached to them, like the one at the USAF museum or the Alamo museum that only shows historical or semi-historical war films. I can see this playing on a double feature after Alamo 7 Days of Glory (sit movie but because it was an early IMAX experiment and about the Alamo gets constant play in San Antonio)

It's called a completely visceral experience that relies on all previously established and unoriginal themes you listed that have already been extensively explored in other movies, but just because it was done in a subtle toned down non verbose american way we should ignore the fact that the movie didn't strive to achieve anything outside of it's face value.

"The cheapest sort of pride is called national pride. For if a man should br proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

If you can't differentiate between Bays sound and visual and the stuff the anons are talking about, you're a fucking moron who needs to leave

>haven't seen the fucking movie
>makes multiple posts in the thread arguing about the same film

Are you an actual autist?

Did you watch the fucking movie? How can anyone be so fucking stupid. Ordinary citizens with no training took their boats across u-boat infested waters to save their boys. A military failure, but is their really anything more emblematic of the British national identity? It's like there's a Nelson in every man woman and child. 300,000 should have died there. Instead they were saved by the love and pride of their countrymen. I practically wept in the theatre knowing I would never be half a man as those.

what you mean to say is that you cant afford/have no friends to go to the cinema with

this "LE YOU AINT GETTIN MY MONEY" meme is basement dweller loser talk

>gives an example of visual storytelling
>WAHHH I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, PLEASE SPOONFEED ME