Dunkirk vs Ghostbusters 2016

Dunkirk vs Ghostbusters 2016

>Visuals
Dunkirk: drab, blue filter, unrealistic colours. Peacefully dreamlike, which creates dissonance with the gritty subject matter of war and the anxiety that is being conveyed. Not enough soldiers and airplanes because of low budget.
Ghostbusters: High contrast, colorful and cartoony, visuals are in service of setting the tone.

>Story
Dunkirk: Three seperate stories told simultaneously only so that Nolan can intertwine them, comes across as pointless, pretentious and distracting. The pilot story has no personal growth, the father son story on the boat was novel and nice, the soldier story was inchorent fleeing and running and hiding, most boringest of them all.
Ghostbusters: Classic hero's journey, all charachters except the blonde crazy one have personal growth. Derivative of the original ghostbusters, but more low brow humour, reminds me of family guy a lot.

>Tone
Dunkirk: Anxious. Anxious. Anxious. Tense music throughout the movie, my body and mind isn't capable of feeling anxious for more than 10 minutes then it turns into BOREDOM. Some individual scenes are meant to make you feel good but it falls apart since Nolan decided to be "artistic" and make all his characters without any personality whatsoever. As someone who went in to the film rooting for the germans Nolan did NOTHING to make me root for the brits, if anything the brits were acting dishonourable and made me hate them even more.
Ghostbusters: Comedic with an emotional core. Dumb but doesn't take itself too seriously.

Overall Dunkirk is a 0/10, a movie where only one emotion is conveyed is more boring than any other movie you can mention to me. Ghostbusters gets a 4/10, some good jokes, some jokes that were so bad they were good and the happy atmosphere somewhat made up for the boring bad jokes and action.

>inb4 nolan fanboy normalfags who couldn't make a good argument on film if their life depended on it

I thought dunkirk was incredible. It kind of makes me sad that some people think it is so terrible. I am realizing that there are people who are almost fundamentally different from me. the things that I thought were great about the movie and really resonated with me are completely meaningless to alot of people

nolan fanboy normalfag who couldn't make a good argument on film if their life depended on it resorts too talking about his bitch boi emotions

>oh no guys I'm making him SAD :(

Haven't seen either of them but it baffles me that someone would spend the time writing all this out for the purpose of getting attention on an Afghanistani flower-arranging forum.
At least tell me it's a copy-pasta and you didn't come up with it yourself OP

>Ghostbusters gets a 4/10, some good jokes

You wrote that out to get attention. Literally no other purpose to post what you did.

My post generates discussion, yours is only attention whoring virtue signalling garbage, then you project your attention whoring on me?

You are a ridicolous little man

Well yeah but I wrote like a couple of lines you actually had to spend time typing up a bunch of points you don't even believe to get (you)s

I'm not being insincere. Dunkirk sucked balls, Nolans a pretentious twat.

I ironically enjoyed ghostbusters though

Friendly reminded that the tripfag KILLKID !!dwWfiBE+ah5 is an actual diagnosed mentally disabled autist, if this thread isn't clear about it already.

Ad hominem, try harder nolan fag

I get this post now lol

You are aware that most "nolanfags" didn't like Dunkirk or found it maybe mediocre?
It's a hard turn from his usual exposition filled overly complex shitfests, a great turn that is.

>>inb4 nolan fanboy normalfags who couldn't make a good argument on film if their life depended on it
No, both films are shit.

He had three stories that could be told seperately but decided to intertwine them just because that's what nolan does. That's overcomplicating things, you can't honestly tell me that all the cutting between them was necessary.

this, ghostkino is here to stay.

>boom mic reflecting off her goggles

LOL

The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week, how else would you do it? A linear representation of that whole week?
Then you would have Tom Hardy sitting in an airbase somewhere sipping tea and wanking off to pictures of dear old Marge, and Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.
And by seeing those moments again you get a bigger picture of the situation which is told extremely subjectively from every perspective and to form a coherent interconnected story with those moments, also even more tension bulilding (that Spitfire pilot crash landing on water, looks like he's giving a thumbs up that he's okay to Hardy - cut later - he's actually struggling to get out of the Spitfire so he doesn't drown and the cockpit is stuck because of the hard impact on water)

Try again with actual arguments.

that's a ghost kiddo

holy fuck lmao, such attention to detail

Are you a woman

It was not about being thrown into the event itself. The movie is way too stylized for that with constant aerial shots.

I would have it as a three part movie.Also I think if you are gonna cut between different stories they need to have the same level of tension, otherwise you are left with cliffhangers.

My main critizism on this movie is how every scene was trying to make me anxious/tense, without slower scenes you just stop caring about what's happening. And the constant bombardment of the "tense" music.

>It was not about being thrown into the event itself.
Yes it was, you literally never leave the event throughout the entire runtime (except for the ending obviously). The "aerial shots" are the event also, you know.

>My main critizism on this movie is how every scene was trying to make me anxious/tense, without slower scenes you just stop caring about what's happening
Now you're just switching subjects after I clearly explained the non-linear representation of the film. The boat scenes were fairly "slower" than people being burned alive and drowning on the other side I would say.
I agree that Zimmer could've toned down a bit in some scenes, even though the whole point was for the ticking to be constant until the ending point of each of the three narratives.