Dunkirk

Overall a competent movie, but with two glaring issues:
>All three parts - land, sea, and air - would've benefited from a linear storytelling, instead of your typical Bravo Nolan nonlinear mind fuck
>Air and sea had the potential to be have good characters, but Nolan decided to avoid all characters, which only ruined the boy's death, as an example. I would've liked to know Tom Hardy's character a lot more
>Not sure why Hollywood, as of late, is slowly switching to no exposition at all when minor exposition can work. See Memento as a solid way of inserting exposition. In Dunkirk, it's jarring when Nolan jumps from one scene to the next without any hint of what's to come or what the characters feel.

Overall I r8 Bravo/10

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/w9A1elwb_J4?t=14m17s
youtu.be/Ln_64_ZG8fs?t=16m12s
youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>>All three parts - land, sea, and air - would've benefited from a linear storytelling, instead of your typical Bravo Nolan nonlinear mind fuck

not a criticism

>>Air and sea had the potential to be have good characters, but Nolan decided to avoid all characters, which only ruined the boy's death, as an example. I would've liked to know Tom Hardy's character a lot more

not a criticism

>Not sure why Hollywood, as of late, is slowly switching to no exposition at all when minor exposition can work. See Memento as a solid way of inserting exposition. In Dunkirk, it's jarring when Nolan jumps from one scene to the next without any hint of what's to come or what the characters feel.

not a criticism

Is this Sup Forums's best attempt? lmfao

Air wasn't about Hardy as the pilot, it was about the plane and its role and support of the land / sea efforts.

Pleb filter caught another


Sorry OP

That poster makes me want to cum on his british face.

Imagine pounding his sweaty boy pussy behind those dunes and being all gay and naughty

Salutations, NolanFans.com!

the good thing about nolan's characters is they don't fall neatly into archetypes.

the problem is he achieves it by not really making them have much personality at all. they're all just very serious and professional.

i didn't think there was a problem with the structure of the movie, it wasn't difficult to understand and i find your 'no exposition' comment very odd. it had a completely normal amount of exposition.

Shoving my cock in his mouth and cumming all over his british ass.

>Tom Hardy flies a spitfighter with all his might. ?Nolan shows this constantly.
>"Oh it's not about the man flying the plane, it's the plane itself"

>very serious and professional.

name one thing the main soldier characters did that was "serious and professional"

>exposition

Im laughing at Americans not knowing an extremely famous historical event

They're Brits. They have no character.

>it wasn't difficult to understand and i find your 'no exposition' comment very odd. it had a completely normal amount of exposition.
It's not difficult at all. Exposition meaning when one character, or two, suddenly decide to do something without prior build up or even hinting at it. It's poor writing and storytelling.

When the British kid and French kid suddenly decide to help that poor guy who got shot, they just decide to pick him up and run to the nearest departing ship. There was no build up. All there was to rill up the audience was Zimmer's score.

Watch this from 14:17 to 19:49 its already better than the whole movie.
youtu.be/w9A1elwb_J4?t=14m17s

the soldier characters did panic and show some small disobedience but they were generally co-operative and didn't mince words.

as per your second point, you can still know the events that happened at dunkirk and need exposition to know what's happening in the movie. but as i said i didn't think it was lacking in this department.

>i didn't think there was a problem with the structure of the movie
The nonlinear aspect wasn't needed.

They didnt decide to rescue him. They used him to get onto a boat to save themselves you fucking idiot

>Exposition meaning when one character, or two, suddenly decide to do something without prior build up or even hinting at it.

that's not exposition though. exposition is not necessarily a pejorative.

there was expository dialogue and imagery throughout. you knew tom hardy was concerned about his fuel. you knew that the kid wasn't supposed to be on the boat and why it was headed to dunkirk. you knew what the stakes were and the situation with the lack of boats through branagh's conversation on the mole.

i don't see what the problem was with exposition.

and i don't know what sort of build up you wanted with the guy who got shot. it was the start of the movie, they saw a guy get shot, they did their job rescuing him and tried to use it to get on the boat. what's the ish?

whether it was needed or not i think it was effective.

this

>nonlinear mind fuck
Um, really? Your mind was "fucked" by a movie simply having three things going on at once and occasionally cutting between them? Jesus Christ.

Fuck off edgelord

This

no, u

The film literally tells you how the nonlinear template works when introducing them. Do you need a even bigger spoon to tell you how it works?

OP's point flew over your peewee Marvel induced brain. He didn't say Dunkirk was a mind fuck, but rather Dunkirk had what Nolan typically does in terms of story structure.

which isn't in and of itself bad.

Lmfao he literally said "All three parts would have benefited from [SOMETHING ELSE] instead of [WHAT NOLAN ACTUALLY DID]," keyword being INSTEAD

Learn how to reading comprehension retard

>Memento = Excellent + Nolan's commentary makes it even more effective
>Batman Begins = Good use
>The Prestige = Good use
>Interstellar = Starting to get out of hand
>Dunkirk = Fuck outta here.

pleb

>Instead of your typical Nolan mind fuck
That reads more like a blanket statement than actually saying Dunkirk was a mind fuck

Well argued.

not
an
argument

Actually, the nonlinear usage here reminded me of Man of Steel, whereas it just didn't work. Nolan loves it, but linear would've worked better here.

We're arguing?

It is an argument but you refuse to argue because your brain is full of Nolan. Better hop back to NolanFans.com where you belong.

Why doesn't it work?

dunkirk was three linear stories on different time scales. it told you this at the start. are you saying you had a problem following it? or is this simply an issue common with film critics where they develop the ability to recognise a filmmaker's characteristics and berate them for having recognisable characteristics at all?

can you give a reason for why you think it didn't work? it was simple and consistent and worked well at compressing/expanding the drama of the different respective scenarios so that they all fit into a two hour movie format.

>it just didn't work
But it did.

movies americans will never understand

Not even close to Following standards and that was a good movie.

I don't think you know what linear means if you believe Dunkirk had three linear stories. Nolan hop scotched back and forth, day to night, night to day, to tell his story when he could've told the story day to night, focusing on the three majors characters for land, sea, and air. Instead he does what he does these days, which is mindlessly overthink and make a simple evac story into a needless complexity.

Not that guy but the thing that the nonlinear structure killed for me was the tension. It solves the problems before it even introduces them.
When Branagh is complaining on The Mole that they don't have enough ships, there's no tension or sense of danger because we've already seen that problem solved 30 minutes ago at the start of the movie when they activate all the small ships. It makes the "Home came to us" scene very cheesy and unnecessary.
Another example is when you see the blue stranded ship in the water with people bailing out of it even before all the troops get onto it on the beach. You already know it's gonna float and that most of them survive.

Heres a version with more footage.
16:12 to 24:50
youtu.be/Ln_64_ZG8fs?t=16m12s

The tension is seeing fucking destroyers get sunk by air-planes. Then you see the small wooden ships and think will they make it.

Was it just me, or did Nolan forget to tell us what happened to Cillian Murphy's character after he told those British boys to swim back to shore?

No dude. Tension = build up from suspense. I.e, a bomb under a table. Seeing shit getting blown up isn't tense at all, especially when you don't care for any of the characters.

We know the ships are coming. but we see gigantic metal ships sink. Small wooden ships are set up to have no chance to survive. Thats where the air-plane story comes in. See it works. Even if you try so hard to convince yourself otherwise

Knowing bigger more stable ships have been sunk isnt tension? Fucking sit down mate

Nope. It would've been tense had we cared for any of the character aboard those ships. Watching them struggle to escape as the ship capsizes would be tense. But as it stands, no. It doesn't work for me.

>I don't think you know what linear means

i do. tom hardy's story went from A to B. the infantry's story went from A to B. mark rylance's story went from A to B. the 'nonlinearity' came from cutting between them as they progressed at different speeds. but a sense of linear motion from A to B was still clear as when you cut back to one strand you knew time had passed since the last time you saw it.

this isn't even a big deal. most movies do it on some level. if you're cutting up a movie about a spy, for instance, you may be following his story which jumps from country to country over days or weeks while cutting between expository scenes within the agency he works for or the machinations of the antagonist somewhere else. many movies will plot out a structure that have different strands occurring over different time frames in this way and they trust the viewer to slot them together.

Nolan should of made a love triangle between The Brit and the Frenchman with one of the ship maiden so we would care about the characters.

>Nolan loves Michael Bay flicks
>Nolan decides to dedicate Dunkirk to Michael Bay's finest film, Pearl Harbor, by including a love triangle between three flat ''''''characters''''''
Bravo!

The problem is that we know that Dunkirk was successfully evacuated. So the small ships have no choice but to succeed. There is no choice but for Hardy to shoot down the dive bomber in the last shot because they have to use the Mole. That's why there's no tension for me.
If I already know the ultimate result, the movie gives me the endings of the individual stories midway through, and I'm given no info about the characters, then what am I supposed to get out of the movie?

>The problem is that we know that Dunkirk was successfully evacuated. So the small ships have no choice but to succeed.

if that were a problem any movie about a historical event would have the same problem.

So the flaw with the film is that it actually happened. Fuck you history! You ruined my movie going experience

Also. How do you know the boat that all the protagonists wouldn't be one of the boats that got sank on its way back home?

I think the problem lies within Nolan's decision to use the nonlinear approach. It's in no way, or fair, to compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan, because we know D-Day was a success, but the movie shifts to the Ryan story following D-Day. Dunkirk was just only that, Dunkirk.

It would've been cool if Nolan decided to make the movie about Mark Rylance, George (the boy who died), and that other kid going to Dunkirk to save as many lives as they can. You can then interweave all the air and land stuff into it.

Which is why I included the other two conditions. I can enjoy Fury and Hacksaw Ridge because I am invested in the characters. I can enjoy Valkyrie and The Longest Day because I'm invested in the individual stories they tell and how they unfold. Knowing the outcome doesn't sink a film but knowing without either compelling characters or stories does.

youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I

great movie. Saw it on one of the biggest IMAX screens in the country

>It would've been cool if Nolan decided to make the movie about Mark Rylance, George (the boy who died), and that other kid going to Dunkirk to save as many lives as they can. You can then interweave all the air and land stuff into it.

i don't really see how this differs substantially from the movie that was actually made.

the nonlinearity did not spoil the ultimate fates of the characters.

No one compared it to Saving Private Ryan. Also Saving Private Ryan is fiction in a non-fictional setting so fuck you. You're idea for the movie sounds shit.

>i don't really see how this differs substantially from the movie that was actually made.
Oh, there's a huge difference, especially if Nolan decided to give focus and develop the characters more. Imagine knowing and understanding George's plight and desire to be a hero over the course of the film's 90 minutes. It'll be a totally different movie because you'd have a much greater emotional experience.

>the nonlinearity did not spoil the ultimate fates of the characters.
Because Nolan tacked each no-name flat character to either land, sea, or air, it did spoil their ability to grow.

This was my first time seeing a movie in IMAX that was almost entirely IMAX scenes. It definitely swayed me towards liking it, I'm ashamed to admit.

You're right. Americans would have attacked. Didn't the allied forces still outnumber the Germans? We lost Bataan, but it was nowhere near our shores.

Dunkirk is about the event of Dun-fucking-kirk! Thats why its not too worried about character! Fury and Hacksaw Ridge about Soldiers and their experiences. Dunkirk is focusing on the experience of being on that beach. sailing into a war zone and flying a plane which is running out of fuel while fighting other planes. Its a simple concept. Dont know why its so hard to understand

>ashamed to like things
you have to be the most boring human being

i don't disagree that the lack of characterisation was a central flaw of the movie but i think that's a separate point to the nonlinearity issue.

>Because Nolan tacked each no-name flat character to either land, sea, or air, it did spoil their ability to grow.

when you're talking about an infantry member, an RAF pilot and a volunteer rescue skipper i don't really see how you expect them to 'grow' beyond those strata.

Why do you need to know a characters whole backstory to know is intentions. We know hes a war veteran from knowing a plane just from the sound of the engine.

>Ashamed to like it because people say they dont like it
Sheep

I'm ashamed to like it for something like the IMAX scenes were amazing. It's like saying you liked a movie purely because of the effects.

Because you think its cool to hate on a film that you have seen anons on Sup Forums hate on.
Sheep

what the hell did you need? a flashback of him walking by an enlist poster and him being like "thats it"

>Dennisrapeface
All the characters from Fury suck. The "implication" rape made that clear.

Spoilers fuck you

5 guys get dropped pop pop pop pop pop then a full auto mg gets the next guy then the Germans stop shooting and let the guy hop the fence, he then lays back against the fence which bullets were just passing through then they start shooting through then it's like yeah OK you guys with the sandbags take care of that I'm going 15 feet over here to the beach like nothing happened.

Then wubwubwub veeeeerrrr tick tock tick tock tick tock veeeeerrrr
>Takes a poop on some sand
Veeeeerrrr tick tock tick tock tick tock vummm vummmm weerrrrr
>Some guys standing on a dock no one has said anything in the movie yet
Vruuuuummmm so tense tick tock

VRROOOOOOM AIRPLANES BOOM BOOMBOOM explosions on the beach oh yeah this is what I paid to see, I hear the whole movie is like this!
>Everyone stands up from the carpet bombing like nothing happened
>Oi, ya daft cunt, where be's those Spitfires?
Main character hides on dock, that idea goes nowhere and they get back on the dock. Then they're on another boat, bread and tea, yes the movie has only been on for 15 minutes I'm sure they're rescued
>Cue torpedo and some mild explosions

THE AIR
>Oi daft cunt 1 this is jolly Roger tango, running out of fuel over
>Copy, I just got strafed and says I'm out of fuel probably nothing

Small squad walks over to beached boat to hide in, kind of missed what happened because I had to pee but 5 minutes later water is spraying dramatically into the hull

>Relax he's just shooting this boat instead of those 400,000 guys on the beach
PYOOM PYOOM TING PLANK oh fuck they're firing burst fire incrementally down the side of the ship but minutes apart, the one guy got shot trying to plug the holes, let's all plug the holes at once! Why is this boat suddenly in the middle of the water? Why did the sniper stop shooting now that we're jumping out of the boat?

:'( bloody cunt killed ma boy

Oh frick a plane coming to kill all our fishing boats I wonder if Tom Hardy can stop all the planes

>Imagine knowing and understanding George's plight and desire to be a hero over the course of the film's 90 minutes.
You're gay, shut up. Stick to criticizing the movie.

>lack of characterization
A solid point but in the end I don't see why it mattered when it wasn't about the characters to begin with.

Funny. I can sense the autism

xD

>I can enjoy Fury and Hacksaw Ridge because I am invested in the characters. I can enjoy Valkyrie and The Longest Day because I'm invested in the individual stories they tell and how they unfold.
I can enjoy Dunkirk because it's about Dunkirk.

>ashamed to admit
Yeah it sucks to enjoy things, /especially/ when it goes against the cool contrarians on Sup Forums

>I'm ashamed to like it for something like the IMAX scenes were amazing
>I'm ashamed to like a move because it had amazing scenes
thinking emoji

>opinion

I agree with the people who said it would have been better if the story had been more linear. In Memento there was a reason to make it like that but there was absolutely no reason to have scenes run out of sequence. Does Nolan think he is some kind of discount Tarantino or something?

I mean, technically there is no tension at all because this ACTUALLY HAPPENED 70 YEARS AGO

>Spoiler alert: The British get saved

I can't dignify this movie with a proper review. I mean it was tastefully done but you could predict everything that was going to happen, except the parts where nothing happens but the music makes you think something is about to happen. I heard the movie was tense but jeez

Each individual part of the movie was linear. It only skipped back and forth to show the same events from different perspectives.

1. There is nothing wrong with thinking a movie is good for its effects.
2. It is nothing like liking a movie for its special effects (which I assume is what you meant) since it used practical effects.

>muh plot
It isn't about the tension. It's about the patriotism of the civilians and the pride and relief from Branagh when he sees the ships coming.

>Hey Nolan, at the end of Interstellar you added just a TINY BIT TOO MUCH story and fucked it up, if you could have just a tiny bit less it would be perfect

Ok.

[Dunkirk's with absolutely no story whatsoever but amazing narrative technique]

No thank you. Give me Tom.

Take your autism pills please. Do you know what shellshock is?