All of these worthless """""critics""""" who need to know the bio of every character in order to give a shit instead of...

>all of these worthless """""critics""""" who need to know the bio of every character in order to give a shit instead of just watching the movie
>these """""people""""" legitimately have trouble understanding the struggle of someone DROWNING IN A SINKING SHIP IN THE DARK
What are some other genuine pleb filters, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/21/dunkirk-movie-rightwing-writers-reaction-christopher-nolan
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Better question:
>Why is Nolan so overrated?
Even his Dark Knight trilogy was shit (with The Dark Knight being a notable exception). Why do normies like this man so much? You don't see the normies praising Kubrick do you, it's fucking pathetic that these pseudointellectuals think they can critique film.

The movie was boring as fuck though. It didn't have the emotional, empathetic hook of good characters, or a plot that wasn't a confused garble of multiple interweaving timelines where you're never exactly sure what's happening.

this movie is not smart
this movie is not deep
this movie is not artistic
its just a boring war movie
with non stop action
with good atmosphere at times
that repeats itself for the entire movie
if you are impressed by nolan and dunkirk
you should watch more movies

>do I fit in yet guys

Normies like Batman, and Batfags have shit taste.

>pretending the majority of this board doesnt like this movie

>It didn't have the emotional, empathetic hook of good characters, or a plot that wasn't a confused garble

>this will be endlessly posted as bait

all professional critics have seen more movies than you and are much more knowledgeable about the history of film. That's why they're paid for their opinions and you are not. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to criticize this movie. Besides, most critics liked it.

nolan wants to be kubrick but he's just not as talented. however he is still better than the capeshit we live in

it didnt though, and without that its just explosions on a beach. and we've seen that a million times. the only thing that makes war movies interesting is having a connection with the individual troops on the ground, the action is just action and personally i find action so fucking boring.

>you should watch more movies
Well?

You sound like a faggot

Speaking of, how much of a role does James D'arcys character have in it? I've been wanting to see more of him ever since finishing Agent Carter

It's a very well-made film that says absolutely nothing.

>individual troops on the ground
The way you typed the whole sentence makes it sound like you didn't watch most of the movie, and tuned out of most of it.

Im sure most anons are waiting for the official RLMHITB review before they decide they did or did not like this movie

dropped Nolan after interstellar btw

Loved Dunkirk

>professional critics
>knowledgeable
lol

not much, he has maybe 5 minutes of screentime. he doesn't do anything, he just stands at a pier and acts distressed how they have no help

watched it in 70mm imax yesterday, was wide awake the whole time. the people next to me had the same complaints

t. didnt see it in 70mm

So watching what the soldiers in the movie go through did nothing for you?

>it's another "i enjoy objectively bad film making" for the sake of appearing smart virgin

I bet you enjoy drinking IPA's too.

Is there a more middlebrow filmmaker than Christopher Nolan? At least Spielberg knows that he appeals to mass audiences, and doesn't have any pretensions towards artistic respectability. What makes Nolan especially unappealing is that he thinks he's smarter than he actually is, and thinks that a complex plot will make up for his work's thematic and emotional emptiness.

yeah, right up in my ass too, it's the fastest way.

>dunkirk
>objectively bad filmmaking
fuck off

>tfw nobody on Sup Forums will truly ever understand spr, dunkirk, or any movie about war
>tfw only a select few on Sup Forums who've seen combat understand it

>Dunkirk
>complex plot

see the first 15 minutes were very well done and felt very intense. i just felt like i didnt care whether or not any of the characters died after that. i take back what i said earlier, i dont think its a shit movie or anything. I just think its painfully average and not great unlike some other war movies (thin red line for example.) I do appreciate nolan's attempt at doing something different though.

That's not the crowd he's trying to fit in with. In his mind there is some elite group of Sup Forums posters with superior and refined taste in film, and he wants to be seen as such. It's honestly too transparent to deserve an explanation beyond "contrarian."

i grew up in the ghetto and shooting happened fairly regularly does that count

There are some pretty good IPAs

the weapons they used back then are much more powerful and loud then your puny 9mm ghetto blasters

>he's never seen a silent movie that can tell much more of a story than Christopher "hack" Nolan can
>he thinks large "epic" moments can replace small intimate moments
>he thinks having a stale color tone in all your movies is next level
>he likes watching characters with no motivation flounder about for 2 hours

But hey, at least there was "da big esplosions" right?

Das Boot
To be or not to be
To Hell and back

My trying to add fake depth to his work, Nolan manages to turn something simple into something confusing with his retarded split timelines.

Amadeus

i wasnt trying to appeal to some "elite group" or be a contrarian. I just didn't like the movie and every time i post complaints i am greeted with
>you didnt get it
>t. woman
>pleb
>you need a plot? characters? what?
>the cinemetography is great what are you talking about?
>completely ignore the complaints about non stop action
its just irritating. i dont give a shit if tv agrees with me and a lot of movies i love get absolutely shit on here.

Ignore the critics, fans have been LOVING this raunchy drama.

>he doesn't like cutting to different settings/characters after watching 10 minutes of absolutely nothing with the first set of characters/settings

> and a lot of movies i love get absolutely shit on here.

only because you're a pleb faggot

>Dunkirk
>confusing

Was the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan just white noise to you because you haven't yet seen 15 minutes of characters discussing "FUBAR"?

youre just proving my point you fucking moron

The time splits were pretty seamless. The movie was edited to follow a cadence of tension. If you think it was done with any pretension of being 2deep4you I don't know what to tell you.

>the day it came out Sup Forums seemed to love it
>as days pass more and more people are parroting the 'boring no plot no character' meme
Was there some meme reviewer that came out with this opinion?

I saw it in 70mm and I felt the exact same way about it, unless you're just trolling

the opening scene of SPR wasn't the entire movie though, thats the difference. it was just that; 15 minutes, not 2 hours

>getting this butthurt over a word

like a true pleb

If the stupid text and bending bullets didn't take you out of Dunkirk at the beginning you're a pleb

15 minutes of visceral combat is effective. 2 hours of PG-13 deaths gets tiring

Look man you're welcome to not like the movie and I'd honestly be curious to know why but don't tell me you weren't fishing for some (You)s based on the way you wrote your original post

>he thinks motivation matters in war
pretty disgusting pleb opinions ITT

>'spr is good' meme

Yet it's the only part of the film that isn't kitsch.

>i literally like watching mindless violence for 2 hours

ok ye was made more out of frustration than trying to cultivate discussion i will admit that
i drove very far to see it as it was my first imax 70mm experience and while the screen and sound were great i was very very very disappointed with the movie

t. non-american
your opinion is quite literally worthless

Dunkurk isn't two hours long Nolanfag.

>misses the point of the post
Only proving me right, friend

>White opinions are useless

Time to go back

>the cadence of tension
So to the cadence of a subjective emotion that its the job of the director to elicit regardless of how the narrative is structured? He wrote the film; he could make a compelling, tension-filled story without having to incoherently jump back and forth between timelines.

>beta males and nu males will try to defend this

Hop off Nolan's dick faggots

>t.

>A character should've explain it in detail so I could understand

Nolanfags are cancer.

...

Can someone just tell me what was the point of the time difference in the three narratives? What was the payoff? It was needlessly complex.

I first thought it was the pacing, allowing them to introduce the pilots at the same time as the beach instead of just shoving the pilots towards the end for historical accuracy. But it fails at that too, because the beach segment doesn't feel like one week, and the pilot segment is so repetitive and boring. No one wants to watch the same lame-ass dogfighting scene five times in a row.

>You can only be American if you enjoy jewish war porn propaganda

You prefer that the air and sea plotlines start in the third act? Are you the type of Nolanfag retard that needs charts to understand these simple ass films?

106 minutes isn't 2 hours, retard.

>rounding up 14 minutes

Nolanfag retard.

I hate Nolan, fuck off.

Nice false flag. The minute he doesn't make a pretentious film with pseudo-philosophical pretensions, you fedora tipping turds flip your shit. Do you need a monologue explaining how love is the only force that can overcome 15 miles of sea and Luftwaffe bombings.

not him but i dont like any nolan films
i think hes a hack
i think dunkirk is better than interstellar or inception if thats your point

The film isn't difficult to understand, it just lacks a sort of grace and coherence that would make the shifts in timelines less annoying.

Well that's a bummer, I definitely got the impression that the movie wasn't for everyone (and I don't say that in an elitist "you didn't get it way"). More of a horizontal aspect of taste than a vertical one.

People who shit on this movie are probably uncultured crossboarders who like to fap to anime and shitpost on Sup Forums. Do not listen to these people, Dunkirk is pure kino and is the best pleb filter this year.

>The premise of Dunkirk needs to be explained at all
>There wasn't enough information in a character looking at a propaganda pamphlet that says 'you' surrounded by red
>Implying I'm a Nolanfag
>Implying bending bullets is still a good idea

DIAF

Curious: how did the graphic violence in, say, Hacksaw Ridge - a movie I like, by the way- elevate that movie (or any other rated R war movie). What did Dunkirk miss out on by focusing on terror and fear rather than blood and guts?

You sound a fag tbhfamalam

there's an argument that adding gore makes the action sequences more engaging and impactful but you have to be very particular about using it in movies because the audience gets desensitized to that shit real quick and it becomes lame looking props and takes you out of the movie.

better leave stuff to the imagination if you constantly have people dying.

Viscera makes the stakes of combat seem higher. Seeing someone get his legs blown off and scream elicits a fundamentally different reaction that seeing someone get shot, then fall off screen never to be seen again.

>So to the cadence of a subjective emotion that its the job of the director to elicit regardless of how the narrative is structured?
Narritive structure is a tool, one of many, for eliciting tension. It wasn't the only one relied upon. The "cadence of tension" is pretty specific to editing and structure though because a cadence has to take place over time.
>incoherently jump back and forth between timelines
Wasn't incoherent to me, the only "wait what" moment for me had to do with the plane. The movie was three interlinked vignettes that stand largely on their own, so a chronological structure is not strictly neccissary and (in this case) would probably have been a hinderence to the tone of the film.

I actually agree with these reasons and prefer R rated war movies for much the same reason. I just don't think the impact and tone of Dunkirk suffered much, if at all, from the abscence of realistic visual brutality. It was a movie about dread, the anticipation of bad things to come, rather than their realization imo.

When I'm not able to tell apart the three leads in the beach narrative, then that's a problem of the film. Eventually they tell us one's a frog, but that's well past the halfway point, and it still doesn't really differentiate them.

still doesn't hold a candle to SPR or TRL

sorry Nolan but America won WW2 in more ways than one

Films with unconventional narrative structures have good (and often unconscious to the audience) demarcations that indicate a narrative break. Whether it be having some characters appear exclusively in one timeline, or the film is color-corrected in a way that indicates a break from the previous scenes, or the plot is clear enough for one to understand when something is taking place. This has none of that. Instead, Dunkirk has a minimalist plot where the entire film is just the chaos of war stretched into a two hour long action sequence. That wouldn't be a problem in itself, but having very little plot doesn't juxtapose well with the methods Nolan uses to tell it. Plot and structure are intertwined, and having little plot with a structure that would better suit a Tolstoy novel feels like it's requiring too much from the audience for absolutely no payoff.

I'm American but Thin Red Line is pretentious garbage at a level even Nolan could only dream of making

The main problem with Dunkirk is that it is entirely forgettable and superficial. It was a good film but was in no way groundbreaking, which is the way that it has been described. It really had nothing else to say other than:

war = bad
nazis = bad
allies (specifically British) = good

The Thin Red Line is one of Nolan's favorite movies

yeah and?

well that explains a lot

Nolan wishes he could make a movie as beautiful and life-affirming as The Thin Red Line

TRL was such a fucking mess

That's an embarrassing opinion. I wouldn't share it if I were you.

It doesn't deserve the amount of praise plebs are giving it.

TRL is one of the best films ever made. Period.

the movie is garbage man, it's full of itself it gets on my nerves

I'd rather marathon Band of Brothers twice in a row than watch the first half of TRL

t. critic

theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/21/dunkirk-movie-rightwing-writers-reaction-christopher-nolan

Not a single SJW complaining about Dunkirk.

Bitter right-wingers raging anyway

>im not even mad youre mad

pathetic shit