Sup Forums used to hate Nolan for the worthless hack he is...

Sup Forums used to hate Nolan for the worthless hack he is. Now that he made a war film with pretentious cinematography they're fawning all over it. What happened lads?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85232997/#85232997
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85193808/#85193808
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85231504/#85231504
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85122202/#85122202
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85236818/#85236818
youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Which directors do you consider to be good?

Answer carefully

It's a good film that deserves the praise it's receiving

It's kino you dumb American

I don't watch movies, I just shitpost about them on the internet.

didn't see it but what the fuck is "pretentious cinematography?"

Because it was a good movie and so far every criticism on Sup Forums about it has been non serious or simply retarded.

I haven't seen it but it looks shit and I have 0 faith in Nolan
What kind of hack can't even release a fucking 20 second teaser without fucking it up?

Nolan sucks normally, but Dunkirk was amazing

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?

It was kino. I liked it.

>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.

>"pretentious cinematography"
How much of a braindead can one be. Please explain how is the framing and composition "pretentious"??

This is the perfect Nolan film tho. No shit script to ruin the movie, the whole movie is carried by visuals and sound.

Because normies hate him now.

Normies are praising this movie too, though.

Not really, most normies found it boring and "le nothing happens". Even the usual overpraising nolanfanboys have mediocre opinions about it.
It's a true pleb filter indeed.

The sound was incredible. I actually felt a measure of panic during the Stuka attacks and torpedo scenes. The theatre shook during bomb blasts, and the lack of CGI was absolutely beautiful.

The ending is a crime against consistency of tone. It's comical how overly melodramatic it is in comparison to the stoic bleakness of the rest of the film. And the churchill speech, oh god.

Otherwise it's damn good. Especially for nolan.

I actually jumped multiple times during the boat shooting when the tide was coming up.

>pointless death

There's an original fucking theme in a war film.

It's literally no different from 100 other WW2 flicks.

>The ending is a crime against consistency of tone
So is the scene where they cheer the arriving civilian boats (cue swelling music which quotes Elgar, FFS.) Blatant emotional manipulation that I found really jarring.

The film is an old-fashioned crowd-pleaser. Technically very good, but nothing new in terms of tone or content. It's just a British answer to Saving Private Ryan.

>It's literally no different from 100 other WW2 flicks.
It's entirely different, it almost isn't even a war film.

This would be Dunkirk if it was the usual war flick.
1. Backstory: MC should have his father killed in WWI while his mother, brother and Skippy the dog have terminal cancer.
2. Clear villains: a German Nazi with monocle and Austrian accent should be cackling and rubbing his hands all the time while kicking dogs and executing cancer patients.
3. Love interest: a blonde French girl with DD tits and sexy English accent should have graphic sex with MC but then dies by Stuka
4. Fatherly Seargent: worldly non-com with cancer ridden prostitute wife with a heart of gold, who took MC under his wing but dies by Stuka.
5. Unhistorical inclusion of Yank Mustangs and Battleships against German jet fighters
6. Gasoline explosions and laser-looking tracers
7. Scenes of British citizens jumping and hollerin while waving flags and not queueing.
8. Mid bombing quips and jokes for "comic relief"
9. Exposition by scrolling text during opening scene which copy pasted the entire wikipedia article on the battle of Dunkirk.

>It's just a British answer to Saving Private Ryan
??

It's literally nothing like Saving Private Ryan and it doesn't try to be. It's a suspensful thriller about transporting a fuckload of people from point A to point B under heavy danger, it plays more in the psychological fears like claustrophobia and drowning than the physical fear of gore and spilled guts. It's entirely about the event itself with zero shoved fake empathy/sentimentality.

It's not like saving private ryan, that's why the melodramatic parts are jarring. Saving private ryan is personal, this is intentionally impersonal.

Name any WW2 flick that has that shit.

>Saving private ryan is personal, this is intentionally impersonal.
Nope. SPR starts out impersonal and then gets more emotionally manipulative as it goes on. You know, like Dunkirk.

>with zero shoved fake empathy/sentimentality
>Elgar
>ending with Churchill's speech
>all the personal stories tied up in a bow

It's a horrible mess. Without creative plot gimmicks (Memento, Inception, The Prestige), exceptional music (Insterstellar) or magnificent acting (TDK), Nolan's flaws are exposed. Indeed, the film does not play to any of his strengths as a director.

The action is poorly constructed - to me there was no real threat. All of the tension evaporates by switching time and perspective. The bombers are terrifying, but that's really it. I didn't feel any urgency, threat, tension or claustrophobia, because everyone was standing on the beach, doing nothing. The tension only built when the shot included the threat (mostly the instances of drowning). In many ways, the film lacked any momentum or urgency beyond its opening. At times it felt like they were merely having a mild logistical problem rather than being threatened with the loss of 400k troops.

Many lines of dialogue are difficult to hear, and the dialogue that is comprehensible leaves much to be desired. The score is bland and unimaginative.

Sure, there are some excellent shots. At times, it does feel that Nolan is learning and developing that side of his filmmaking. But there's nothing else to this film. The haphazard chronology, the uncertainty of direction ... it's not his territory at all. Once you strip away the few plusses, you're forced to conclude that the film does not develop beyond its opening. There's no notion of pacing or tone. The pointlessly weird chronology messes with the side plots.

Nolan should stick to his strenghts.

I watched it over the weekend. One of the greatest war movies ever made. Nolan managed to send the audience in that time and place and immerse the audience with a great combination of acting visuals and sound elements that work together perfectly. There isn't some great speech about how war is shit. You are made to feel it. The bullets the guns then cannons are not needed to showcase the horror of being a simple soldier on a beach waiting to go home.
Nolans vision for the movie is unique in the sense that he makes war hell without having to go gory. The opening scene with those soldiers running from gunfire was enough to immerse you in a time and place when the world was at war. A simple quiet street turned into a war zone in a split second.
Another scene where bullets riddle a boat. Simple but powerful.
An airplane with no fuel that's gliding over the beach. A pilot that sacrificed himself for others.
Great story great movie

...

The day it released there were multiple threads bashing it. I have not seen Sup Forums praise it at all, actually. On Reddit it seems to be the best movie of 2017, though.

oh good lord Sup Forums is able to produce good OC after all

Underrated as fuck.

Dude, there were multiple threads bashing it for days after it released. It's Nolan's worst film, easily.

t. burger

It's only being "bashed" while the ameritards are awake, spewing all the meaningless "boring" and "nothing happens" plot driven comments. Everyone else pretty much loves it, a true pleb filter.

It's just plebs who fawn over every new release. Literally everytime something new is released, there's a bunch of praise for it here.

I kind of liked this movie more than other Nolanshits, but the more I thought about it, the less it holds up. It's better than most of his movies, but still hard to say better than 5-6/10.

Fuck off. No one gives a shit about Nolan's shitty movies except plebs/mainstream idiots.

This whole thread and this post is 100% backwards. The movie sucks. Its audio visual porn with no substance whatsoever. Reddit praised the movie on release weekend and Sup Forums hated it. Seems the roles have reversed after a week, though.

Fucking someone gets it, thank you. It sucked.

>It's Nolan's worst film, easily.
Please explain how with valid arguments, my dear fellow surface-level american.
It even doesn't have the usual Nolan flaws of shoved constant exposition, overwritten dialogue, poor close quarter choreography or an overly complex storyline so it's automatically better than the majority of his filmography.

The movie is just war porn. Anyone who says different is wrong.

And a better director would've done a better job with visuals and sound. Several audio and visual parts were edited badly (meaning the sequence was confusing, or the sound/visuals detracted from the tension, or caused another problem the filmmakers obviously would prefer to avoid), and there were plenty of visuals that weren't nearly as compelling as they should've been--see Atonement for a more compelling scene of Dunkirk.

nolan just isn't very good. He's proved this after what, 10 movies/flicks?

> Reddit praised the movie on release weekend and Sup Forums hated it.
Nope, that's your headcanon after seeing maybe one single thread with OP hating it and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the posts said how much of a plot driven pleb he was.
If I'm wrong feel free to link me with the threads on the day of release from the archive

Yeah but those problems all stem from making an actual movie, which Dunkirk is not.

Just go look yourself, I'm not making it up so I don't have to defend it. You show ME different.

>see Atonement for a more compelling scene of Dunkirk.
lmao really? Le "impressive" long take filmed in the golden hour with endless characters running infront of the camera?
You're funny.

>please provide arguments
>"u-ugh Dunkirk is not a mobie"

woah sure showed me there user, what a statement

Good parts

>opening scene
>first few plane scenes until they become repetitive
>most civilian boat scenes
>scenes with the general

Everything else pretty much sucked.

It is impossible for Dunkirk to have the problems you stated because there is no plot and no dialogue. Only the blocking you mentioned could apply to Dunkirk. That does not make it better, that makes it lacking.

Just a stupid, butthurt, redditor. Nothing to see here.

>there is no plot
Yes there is.

>no dialogue.
Yes there is.

And even if there wasn't a single line of dialogue, why would that disqualify it from being a movie? Is 2001 not a film because it has minimal dialogue then? Are you that much of a filthy fucking plot driven casual?

because it's 30% dogfighting and dogfights are BORING SHIT

>surface-level american.

Are you implying this, or any Nolan movie is "deep"? Do you think the Joker's "philosophizing" or Durden's rants are smart too? Dear god. It's time to go to bed. You've started talking crazy.

No, I'm implying that you have a surface-level understanding of film where you think the lack of dialogue and the fact that you found it boring means it's a bad film. Dunkirk is not "le deep" and it's not trying to be, it's the most simple straightforward Nolan story he ever made.
Also funny how the first thing you think of when talking about Nolan is his capeshit, a true ameritard.

it's much better than anything Nolan did visually in 2 hours. He managed to make Dunkirk as sterile and small scale as possible, despite the 300k+ troops there and huge opportunity.

That's what Nolan does. TDK is a silly, sterile version of Heat for manchildren. Instellar is a silly, sterile version of 2001 for manchildren. Dunkirk is a sterile war movie for manchildren.

"boring" is not a valid argument my dear burger friend, try again

So funny to see this board go completely 180 degrees.

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85232997/#85232997
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85193808/#85193808
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85231504/#85231504
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85122202/#85122202
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/85236818/#85236818

>surface level understanding of a movie that is not le deep

You literally contradict yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I

How so?

>pretentious cinematography
This board is filled with sub intelligent autists. How can someone type something like that and click post.

because dogfights are by nature unnecessarily drawn-out and in this particular case they lacked any real tension

most of the time it was just 2~3 planes flying over the most boring landscape conceivable (the sea), we already know tom hardy's character has to make it to the beach and we already know he'll run out of fuel from the moment his gauge breaks

yet it occupies 1/3 of the movie

to me it seems nolan decided to follow a few principles before writing the script and they all turned out to take away from the experience

>decide the movie will be about the event and nothing else
>result: leaving out any context (the front, the headquarters) takes away from the incredible urgency and drama of the situation, not like we need more WW2 context, but it's still a movie and it should be a complete package

>divide the movie will jump between land, air and sea
>result: it paints a very realistic picture, but like I highlighted with the dogfights, an unecessarily drawn-out one, at least he was aware of it and cut the movie short to 109 mins

>go out of your way to not show a single nazi the entire movie
>result: again, takes away from the urgency and drama of the event

he could have made the same film following these same principles but following the kid the entire time and it would have been much better

>leaving out any context
Why should he? He isn't trying to make a history lesson, it's a film about survival. Immediately from the opening sequence you understand that they are retreating and what is happening, you don't need any narration or a wall of wikipedia text explaining the situation in detail to get the sense of urgency.

>go out of your way to not show a single nazi the entire movie
One of the best decisions he could've made. The entire film is told exclusively from the british soldiers perspective, and we as the audience, just like those soldiers on the beach, don't see a single german soldier up close. Would a le evil nazi german close up really give you more "urgency and drama"?

>he could have made the same film following these same principles but following the kid the entire time
But the film is not abou the kid, it's about the event itself. This isn't Desmond Doss in Hacksaw Ridge, the beach itself is a character here.

the movie is not about surviving, it should have been though

if it was about survival the goddamn kid would have been the true MC, he's the one pulling antics left and right trying to survive

instead we have to jump to drawn-out boating and dogfighting that while contributing to realism (it's a movie about the event after all and it really felt like I took the airplane trip across the channel seeing how long and boring it was), it really took away from the emotional core of the movie

I respect the decision to leave out the nazis but when he goes out of his way to do it like in the sinking boat, it's distracting

this movie is like a war documentary but without any actual information

99% shots of people dying or distressed soldiers

no plot, no character development

those things aren't completely necessary for a movie to be good but usually at least one needs to be present

Because a certain website decided they hate Nolan now, so being the contrarian snowflakes they are, Sup Forums changed its opinion overnight as usual

The opinion only changes when the ameriburgers come flocking in. It's literally an everyday cycle of opinion changing based on timezones.

>no plot
How so? Just because the plot is simple and straightforward doesn't mean there isn't one.

>no character development
What about Rylance's son coming to understand what stoicism is? Styles coming to understand that there is something to praise in a succesful retreat? Hardy coming to understand personal sacrifice for a greater good? Also Nolan has said consistently that he wanted minimal character details to emphasise the situation these people were in, the event itself is the focus here.

good post