Now that the dust has settled

What's the consensus on Dunkirk?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU
youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anti German propagamus

It's Britannica-kino.

obviously very rare

It would have been better for all parties concerned if Britain surrendered.

Sound editing and mixing was probably the best in a film since Interstellar. It was simply put breathtaking hearing those Stukas, the explosions, the tick tock, the incredibly realistic gunshots. Sound perfection.

The plot felt very Mallick-esque, in that it didnt really have characters driving a plot, but more a plot which happens to have a few characters running into each other.

The weakest point of the film is that the magnitude of the actual event was much much bigger. Atonement got it right, Dunkirk didnt.

youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU

All in all probably the worst Nolan film since TDKR and probably to be put slightly above Insomnia and the capeshit.

Ive only seen it once, but I can assume that rewatchability will be 0.

This. All of this.

Watched it with gf. The only thing she said during the whole movie was "where are the women?"

It was highly rewatchable for all the twinks but if you're not into that yeah there's not much to get from it on second watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I
>it's another "Atonement was better in 5 minutes" meme

I despise that idiom

I watched it a second time, this time in 70mm. Was incredible


At least you guys didn't complain about the lack of relatable characters. Absolute plan opinion

I feel about it the same way I did about Interstellar.

Competently produced but the script is dry and passionless and it just ends up being some huge pointless benchmark for "impressive" cinematography.

Spectacular. There was no drop-off on the second viewing for me.

Took my parents to see it, my mom went in with no interest because she thought it was a war movie, and came out of the IMAX theater saying that it was the most phenomenal film she ever saw

If you don't see it in IMAX, or even lieMAX, you're missing out on some of the best sound and visuals in a movie ever.

He didn't say it was better, he said it got the magnitude correct. Are you illiterate? Also only fucking morons argue by linking to YouTube videos

Your mom's a stupid cunt with shit taste.

So was he on the docks the entire time? and just stood there after everyone left expecting some french to come? why did he do it bros?

t. pleb

This and honestly is was dull. Some fantastic cinematography but terribly bland storyline.

dunkirk more like dunkino

Was there at least one black man or woman as a main character?

incredible. my favorite movie

Your opinion is not supposed to register as criticism. You didn't actually point out any flaws except that you wished he showed more, which is not the point of a minimalist film. Artistic license is the directors and he executed flawlessly.

It really wasn't very good. I don't think it will be remembered kindly. It had no characters, and it really wasn't Mallick-esque enough to get away with just being beautiful and philosophical, because it wasn't very philosophical and it was only beautiful during some of the flight scenes. There was no breathing room either, and one could argue that "ooh it's war, there isn't breathing room," except that hours and hours would have been spent sitting on the beach doing nothing, so there could have been moments for the film to give the viewer some space to reflect and even wander. Issues with the magnitude also hold the film back, I feel. I don't think any scene ever really makes it feel like this event ever involved more than a couple thousand people. The colors also look like shit. I saw this on 70mm would have preferred it to look like something shot on film before everyone went teal crazy a few years ago.

wasn't that great

Is the film totally shot in imax becuase I hate it when it's half and half like dark Knight rises, that abrupt fuckin aspect and resolution change is so hideous to watch my fuckin goodness

The story was incredibly weak and dull. Kenneth Brannagh was like the rice cake of characters. Unbelievably bland.

Technically flawless but I didn't feel a single emotion, even in the one moment when Cillian Murphy was supposed to make me feel some sort of compassion.

nope, it's great

the only scene that got an emotional response was when tom hardy was flying without fuel and was gliding along the beach and later when he landed

You mean gay.

Great fucking movie.

the visuals on the beach scenes made me feel like I was looking at some unnerving piece of modern art. Those feels are much more interesting to me than the typical war movie back stories and concerned spouses stuff

yeah it's pretty happy ending desu

The story and characters did nothing to deserve the fantastic filmmaking. Utter waste of beauty.

Completely agree.

You people live in another world. You're literally different creatures at this point. This was as bad as Batman Vs. Superman to me. and just a disgrace to history. Watch Battle of Britain and just stop being so empty as human beings.

That was the idea. Hitler originally wanted the British as allies. That's why he offered mercy as they were trapped on the beaches. It;s fucking Churchills fault that he didn't enter into an alliance with the nazi's in order to fight and occupy the rich russian lands which could of given the the germans the resources needed to become a super power that could of matched the power of the united states for centuries to come.

Has the dust settled? Has it really?

>WHAT'S MY NAME
>DUNK-A-KINO
Haha no but seriously MOTY and Nolan's best movie by a mile

0/10

>character gets blown up or shot
>no screaming
>one gunshot to the body results in instant death
>character lies face down like they are sleeping
>no blood
>no missing limb
It really took me out of it. Saving Private Ryan had realistic death scenes. I feel like Nolan made the death scenes shit and unrealistic just so he could have the movie be rated PG-13 and be shown to a wider audience

>M-MUH PLOT
Will we ever get rid of plebs, bros?

In case this isn't bait
Nolan doesn't do "style-only" art films, he tries to seem artistic in simplistic aims. Sometimes he succeeds, but not enough to do away with plot and character development entirely. He vastly overestimates his own style.

The existence of Dunkirk proves you wrong

Dunkirk is the worst offender, you brainlet. If Hans Zimmer wasn't a genius, nobody would have enjoyed the film beyond "eh, it was ok".

>I want Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson for this part, but their agents call me a "pseudo-intellectual self-absorbed hack" and hang up on me
>no problem, Chris, I know just the right guys

>if one of the crucial aspects of the atmosphere of the movie was worse than what it was, the movie wouldn't be as good!
Damn...

But it's being praised as a masterpiece and the absolute best part was the part Nolan had the least control over. Practical effects were good, if completely unrealistic (see: bloodless explosions), plot was shit, characters were completely nonexistent. Literally the only part that was actively good was the soundtrack, the rest was very pretty filler.

>think it was a rather good movie, and probably one of Nolan's best direction-wise
>talk with friends about it
>they complain about lack of bloods, not having lot more planes, about movie being centered on the Brits

That's when I knew my friends were plebs. The movie isn't even that great (sappy as hell ending, glaring inaccuracies which don't really serve a narrative purpose) but they didn't like it for the worst reasons.

>it's another Nolan film carried by Zimmer again
His newer independent ventures (Inception, Interstellar and Dunkirk) are the worst offenders.

Pretty decent but forgettable, worth watching once or twice in theaters preferably in IMAX.

Eeeeee, I watched it yesterday and if I remember correctly we don't see a single german the whole movie. Not a single one. We see the planes, and at the end we see some very fuzzy germans surrounding the pilot, but we don't see their faces.

Also, in the text in the beginning that sets up the moview plot for us, it doesn't mention germans, it just mentions "the enemy".

Seems like some kind of white-washing of history to remove from it national identity fo the enemy.


I found the movie overall was interesting, with some really great visuals, and some interesting scenes, but in was very weirdly cut, and some scenes were really drawn out for no good reason, making them almost absurd and funny.

6.5/10 ?

I felt like they didn't get enough extras for the beach scenes. I know Nolan likes to use pratical effects and does away with CGI whenever he can but he really should have either hired more extras or use CGI to show more troops. There were thousands of men on that beach yet in the film it looked like there was like 1000 at most.

This, when they had the wide shots of the beach I was thinking "wait.... that's it?". Especially jarring once you hear the admiral talking about 400 000 men.

...

Best cinema experience of recent times.

>not shedding a single tear when Hardy von Kino did the silent fly-by when his Spitfire ran out of fuel

He fucking shot down a plane while having his engine dead, at that point all of my suspension of disbelief was gone.

>minimalist defence

im not even with that guy and I know the entire bloody army wouldnt line up on the beach waiting

watching a bunch of britcucks being blown up was pretty comfy

Do I go watch this in the theatre tho

I thought it was a phenomenal film, my only big complaint was the Spitfire combat was a little weak (and a bit much with the gliding) and perhaps it could have been edited a little tighter in second half.

t. Hans Zimmer's washing machine

I didn't think Nolan would do it but he did it. Somehow he managed to exposition and time gimmick a simple retreat. Can't he just tell a story straight for once?

I'll be having words with your parents, young man.

I watched the film with my World War II vet grandpa.
After the movie he said, "Back then, when I was your age we were kicking the nazis asses, this is why your generation is so pussified."
I lost it at yelled at him that the wrong side won WW2 and that he and his buddies should've been killed by a Stuka. He began to yell at me, so I punched him in the face and ran off.
I think I may have killed him.

I liked it

>the incredibly realistic gunshots
Something games have done for years.

Where was the exposition?

I went in expecting the usual Nolan shitfest and got slapped with the most kino cinema experience of my life probably.
Every usual Nolan flaw is practically non-existant here (no constant exposition, no overwritten dialogue, no too complex storyline, no poor close quarter choreography), seems like he finally listened to all of his critiques.

This, however my only complaint is he went over opposite of what he does usually, where he was trying to have as little dialogue as possible he went too far, there was just one moment when I feel dialogue would have been ok and he was trying a little too much. Otherwise fantastic experience and BRAVO NOLAN FOR GETTING OUT OF THE GUTTER.

You lost all credibility when you listed that garbage Atonement as a better movie.

>muh Hitler did nothing wrong
fuck off Sup Forums

what is a better war film?

>games that literally take genuine gunsounds to use for their audio isn't realistic

You lost all credibility when you cant read.

Be careful with him down there

He's dead, mate

...

so be bloody careful with him

I can't wait for the directors cut nolan promised with the alternate ending where the main characters get captured by the SS and violated over and over until they moan like whores. Nolan is truly the master of twinkino.

I liked it, but I didn't really feel any attachment while watching it. It's one of those movies that was good enough that I can't really criticise it, but wasn't entertaining enough to make me say "holy shit, this is fantastic." Ultimately I enjoyed it but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.

>guy goes off on the boat hoping to help his country
>falls down some stairs and conks his head
>goes blind and dies without ever doing anything
What was the point of this besides some out-of-place black humor

Boring, bad sound, no script, no likeable characters (no idea who any of them were due to lack of development), bad and confusing editing, extremely tiny scale (only a couple hundred soldiers, a couple ships, and a few planes).

Horrible.

The point was to set up the cloying ending with the newspaper article.

>Hero at Dunkirk at just 17
>Literally did nothing

The least they could have done was had a scene where they had to make the tragic decision to throw his ass off the boat to make room for more soldiers if they wanted to pull at some heart strings. That honestly probably would have gotten to me honestly.

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.

>not a single german shown in the movie
>germany never even mentioned once
>anti-german propaganda
not sure if retarded or just haven't seen it

>Batman Vs. Superman
>bad

This and it didn't show how the French Army was fighting off the Germans the whole time.

>plot was shit
the plot is literally a historical event
>characters were completely nonexistent.
characterization was fine. you can see character arcs, redemption, failures and growth via their actions. dialogue is not even necessary.

6/10 at best.

Shite movie. 2 hours of Christopher Nolan trying to suck his own cock. I could hardly hear any of the shit dialogue that Nolan wrote in an afternoon

>Boring
Not a valid argument

>bad sound
What? Are you talking about sound mixing? Because it is superb and it is the most probable Oscar winner in that category.

>no script
A script isn't just actors reciting lines, this is just a completely retarded point

>no likeable characters
So a film is good only if it has likeable loveable characters? What did you need, a scene of Tom Hardy sipping tea and jerking off to dear ol' Marge at the airbase to care about him?

>lack of 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?

>bad and confusing editing
Babies first non-linear narrative? Lee Smith had done a great job and the editing only enhances the tension (for example that Spitfire water crash landing first you think the pilot is waving that he's okay only to later find out he's actually trying to save himself from drowning)

>extremely tiny scale (only a couple hundred soldiers, a couple ships, and a few planes).
There were 6000 extras at one point and the planes and ships were flying sparely in real life like that, there was never a point in the actual Battle of Dunkirk where there were 50 Spitfires flying against 50 german fighters with hundreds of ships fighting below. If you payed any attention the air narrative takes place in a single hour and it makes sense that only three Spitfires were airborne in a single hour, same for the sea narrative

Next time try with actual arguments, my dear plot driven surface-level manbaby casual

Is this fucking b8? Not every death in a war movie has to be realistic and bloody. Yes, there were some moments where the PG-13 aspect made the deaths unrealistic but implying that every death in war is violent is naive.

Valerian was better.Think about that.

Really decent film. Not kino, but pretty good.

>it didn't show how the French Army was fighting off the Germans the whole time.
Did you even watch the film? Immediately at the opening sequence Nolan explains the whole historical context and shows the French fighting off at the perimeter while brits wait at the beach, and the film is about the brits waiting at the beach not about the french. You even get that based froggo character who saves multiple brits from drowning throughout the film only to get drownes himself while saving the same brits who wanted to kill him minutes ago, he's the representation of all the french troops giving their lives so the brits could escape.
If you want a whole film about the french at Dunkirk exclusively than call a french director and tell him to do that.

Worst post in this thread.

Atonement's a good movie. It's pro-fascist

>guy knocks his head and dies
>old man says 'that boy Dun Kirked his head'

That was pretty fucking jarring

you've never seen a real death have you

He didn't say anything about hitler you triggered pussy.

HELP HELP

GEORGE 'DUN KIRK'D 'IS HEAD

What did he mean by this?