Dunkirk discussion

I'll be useful sir

glad you got banned you attention whore.

~ THE GREAT DEBATE ~

was he actually useful, sir?

>reposting the same shit over and over again
>discussion

"Notice me senpai."

*blocks your path*

Yes. He was useful propaganda just like he wanted.

just watched it.
overall, visually great and adrenaline-pushing. the sound-design is also impressive. an immersive experience, but surface values dominate too much IMO. not really a story, no real characters, but that can be seen as a strenght. it are just a few of the thousands of people involved. and it reminded me of The Revenant in that it's an IMAX exerience about surviving in rough conditions. but I wouldnt watch it again
my question just is: what about that little boy?? why include him?

He helped unload and load the moonstone. Plus he respected Mr dawson

>43

>what about that little boy?? why include him?
To show the juxtaposition of a senseless and pointless death of the boy with the senseless and pointless deaths of the soldiers on the other side. To give more contrast and tension to the sea narrative. To show what stoicism is with the Rylance's son saying to the shellshocked soldier that the boy is alright. To show that not all "war heroes" are the usual true heroes we all imagine them to be.

according to maritime law the ship's captain is fully responsible and should have to walk the plank.

haven't seen much discussion here about this film which is weird given the never ending discussion of nolan's batman trilogy.

anyway, this seemed like a massive waste of time and resources, i got literally nothing from this film except for my eardrums ringing a bit from the constant explosions and machine gunnery. there was no fucking dialogue, no drama, which i can understand as being a good thing with a ww2 film but it was inaccurate to the reality of dunkirk, the amount of soldiers shown was underwhelming, british were not the only men on the beach, they never showed the germans, there wasn't much acting to be done so no performance really stood out. i watched the entire thing but it was boring and even in imax i was unimpressed with the visuals. the beach and costumes were nice but that was it. one of his worst movies but i still give it a 6.5/10 because it was entertaining at least.

watching it right now, this fuckin background music...

bwitish onlee

>1940
>being useful
ISHYGDDT

the movie was boring.

The plot was "le 2 complicated 4 you xDD" Nolan esc.

There was no twist ending like in all other Nolan films

There was no epic set pieces

There was no clear villain bad guy or clear hero bad guy

Tom Hardy is the closest thing to a hero we get, and he fails and gets captured at the end, rendering everything he did useless and pointless

I will never see another Nolan flick in the cinema... I truly miss the The Dark Knight days..

good points!
lol

off you go


pstt

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUIIUUUUUU BOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM BOOOOOOOOOOM tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM BOOOOM!!!

>there was no fucking dialogue
There is, and the lack of dialogue in a Nolan film is a great thing.

>no drama
Literally the entire film is nonstop tense drama.

>the amount of soldiers shown was underwhelming
It was historically accurate, pic related.

>british were not the only men on the beach
Yes, and the others were shown also.

>they never showed the germans
And that's bad why? The film portrays the experience solely from the brit perspective and all the soldiers didn't see a single german soldier up close on that beach also, why would the audience need to see them then up close?

>there wasn't much acting to be done so no performance really stood out
Acting is not just reciting lines. They had to believably act like they are drowning/being shot at/bombed/torpedoed/being scared for his life in general. Everyone gave a decent performance, Rylance gave a masterful performance.

One of Nolan's best films no doubt.

rear ahmiral

lmao in what piece of shit third world local cinema are you in? Look at that puny tiny size of the screen holy fuck

Is your cinema in Africa? Are they screening a YIFY rip?

isnt this guy a soviet spy???

>The plot was "le 2 complicated 4 you xDD" Nolan
It's literally the most simple straightforward story Nolan has ever made

>There was no twist ending like in all other Nolan films
And that's bad why?

>There was no epic set pieces
The entire film is an epic set piece

>There was no clear villain bad guy or clear hero bad guy
And that's bad why?

Also nice reddit spacing you underage tourist ameritard, I sincerely hope you're baiting.

its in amc orange park, jacksonville florida

also

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

forgot pic

>using a phone during the movie and in the theatre
OUT OUT OUT GET OUT NOW REEEEEEEE

you are a mindless nolan cocksucker

it was his worst fucking movie by a long shot

where is your pic related, there was 300,000 at dunkirk and not even 5,000 appears to be shown in this film

it was not historically accurate for other reasons besides the lack of soldiers

it's not bad really, it just hurt the film slightly since it's about you know, escaping, fleeing, rescuing people from, the germans. but i do like that there's no "evil nazi" trope because of that.

only three spitfires (two of which go down rather quickly) and like two navy vessels? they deployed hundreds there,

ferrier goes from 70 gallons to 15 gallons in a short time while it takes half the movie for him to get from 15-0
i understand he can glide for awhile but still, it rendered his markings on the dash useless cause there was no point where that effected him until the very end when he lands.

yes acting is more than just reciting lines, but the younger men were the only convincing actors. murphy did terrible even as a shivering soldier, hardy didnt have to act at all, just look around with his eyes.

rylance did not give a masterful performance you fucking idiot, wow steering a boat, muh pilot son died so now i get my other two sons killed in the war too.

maybe you just thought it was masterful because he had more lines than anyone else

would it help if he was?

no

kag kag kag kag lag


brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt brrrrrrrrrrrrrt brrrrrrrrrrrt

toh peeedoooooooo

>you are a mindless nolan cocksucker
Actually this is the first Nolan film I genuinely like, no exposition no overwriiten poor dialogue no poor close quarter choreography no unnecesarily complex storyline. And from what I've seen most usual Nolan fanboys didn't particularly like it or found it mediocre, a true pleb filter

>where is your pic related
Here >it was not historically accurate for other reasons besides the lack of soldiers
Please list any of those reasons.

>only three spitfires (two of which go down rather quickly) and like two navy vessels? they deployed hundreds there,
If you payed any attention, the air narrative takes place in one hour and the sea narrative in one day. Yes there were hunders deployed, but IN TOTAL. There wasn't a single time where there were hunders of Spitfire and warships there at the same time, that would be retarded even from a strategic point of view

>ferrier goes from 70 gallons to 15 gallons in a short time while it takes half the movie for him to get from 15-0
Yes, because he engages in heavy dogfights with a lot of maneuvers which need a lot of gas, afterwards he doesn't change the altitude much and even glides with the engine off.

>rylance did not give a masterful performance you fucking idiot, wow steering a boat, muh pilot son died so now i get my other two sons killed in the war too.
Yeah nice argument, I presume your opinion of "good acting" is someone screaming their emotions on screen. Rylance will get a supporting actor nomination, screencap if you want.

Another pleb FILTERED.

WHY DOES HE WEAR THE MASK????

iranian navy to the rescue