/DUNKIRK/

Does Sup Forums not discuss this film? Is it because it's actually not meme worthy or just not liked? What's the verdict Sup Forums, tell me what I think of Nolands latest masterpiece.

Sound is amazing , and it does really benefit from being in a cinema. Zimmer + Editing really does tie the film together.

However due to the way it is structured it does not have time for any effective characterisation so in many ways you don't really care what happens as much as you should.

In this respect - its good sure but it has absolutely zero rewatch value in my opinion.

As with all Nolan , It is overrated but that does not mean to say that is isn't worth watching.

>Does Sup Forums not discuss this film?
I take it you didn't see the millions of "I'll be useful, sir" threads the week the movie came out.

We had numerous threads about it and still have.
The general consensus is that is a big improvement for Nolan and while it has some flaws, it's certainly one of the best cinema experiences of recent times.

I would say Dunkirk has more rewatch value than almost any other Nolan film so far. Usually his films are terrible at rewatches because of the constant shoved exposition that diminishes the value of the film every time you watch it, and there is almost zero to none exposition in Dunkirk, mostly pure visual storytelling.

I'm not saying most Nolan films have rewatch value , but I am saying that there is little appeal in rewatching a film with characters whom you do not care about.

Best mainstream twink softcore porn in recent decades, bested only by the inimitable "Les minets sauvages" by Cadinot and the all-time Far Eastern classic "Report of Incest" from the studio Kuruu.

Can you recommend some more twink kino?

>Does Sup Forums not discuss this film?

Oh my poor summer child.

Sup Forums doesn't exist do discuss movies or television, it exists to spout memes and be contrarian.

I know what you mean, but I disagree. They were hard to understand and some of the guys looked alike so they were hard to tell apart, but they were just young men fighting for survival. It wasn't hamfisted attempt at trying to make us care about these characters by giving them a lame backstory or some "young soldier can't wait to see his girl" cliche. I liked the characters because they felt real.

For pure boyishness, there's nothing that beats William Higgins' "Carlo and Friends"

For an early classic of Cobra that captures the sensuality of twinkish encouplement, one can't go far from "Take it like a bitch boy"

For more far eastern examples, I recommend Out Law studio's "Man Quest 3"

If you're into a retro European aesthetic, you cannot miss the classic "An American in Prague" by Bel Ami

Honourable mentions to Cadinot's other early kinos, namely Sacre College, Gamins de Paris, Pension Complete, and Classe de neige.

Wow, thanks for the recommendations, I'll check them out tonight.

Just saw it last night in imax. Fucking really crazy. When they're hiding in the boat and the Germans start using it for target practice, its so intense. All of the drowning is really tough to watch. The ending is really nice, and when big guy is just gliding over the beach is really great but I wish it could have just been w/o music and you just hear the wind for a moment.

really fucking good movie

It was ok. Nolan attempted to tackle the war genre in a raw and visceral style, much akin to French new wave, but I felt it was never actualized. Personally, the lack of character development didn't allow me to feel for the characters and made the movie devoid of tension. It also suffered from its rating. Nolan desired to make a grand visual and auditory experience, which it was at times, but as a whole it felt hollow. The anxieties and horrors of war the audience was supposed to feel was absent imo because of the pg-13 rating. It had incredible scenes, but as a film I felt it was lacking. I still liked it, but wound up dissapointed considering the hype. I've never been a huge Nolan fan though so take from me what you will.

See I can see what he was going for. I have no problem with the plot being non existent because there have been some great genres to do just that, but I felt he didn't execute it well. His intentions were for the audience to be the character in this conflict, but I never felt anything for anyone except Tom Hardy's character. The pacing was constant buildup with no real payoff. It had some great scenes like the dogfights and the finale, but overall I thought it was just ok.

One thing I really, really like about the movie is the sound design. Treat yourself by watching it on IMAX or some shit because it's really damn fucking good.

The movie itself is fine, I guess. It's nothing special, really.

It's a perfect film. I've seen it 5 times now. And still I get chills.

great filming, great sound, amazing theater experience. but there is really nothing else in the movie besides intense scenes. no characters, no good dialogue, no interesting themes, nothing really beneath surface level. i thought nolan actually made a good film this time due to the hype i had heard from friends but it was just par for his usual course. walked out disappointed overall

The waves hitting the mole near the start. Outstanding.

Great sound, great music, great visual storytelling, good performances, excellent editing. All around kino of the year.

really enjoyed it. an original and a visually great non conventional war film. cast was good and realistic looking

There's a lot of subtle sounds in this, like the faint crackling on the planes, the waves, the metal clashing sound on the part where the boat got shot by nazis

like other anons said, filmed well, sound was great, good visuals, but overall i was let down. every time i thought they were going to do something interesting with the characters they just didnt.

why didnt they have the frog opening the hatch to save all those people happen AFTER they tried to sacrifice him for being a traitorous coward? would have shown bond between common men in war, would have shown he wasnt a coward but just a guy, would have given him some characterization. instead he just unceremoniously drowns for no reason for a cheap gut punch.

why did hardy allow himself to be captured? he was easily the best character, but why go through the motions of showing him to be the shepherd that sacrifices himself for his flock to keep them safe if at the end he doesnt sacrifice himself? the last scene should have been him suiciding the germans that captured him.

why go to the trouble of having the non-simultaneous story lines and building up the moment that they all meet as a big climax if that moment isnt really climactic at all?

why make a point at the end of having the two characters from the beach react differently (harry styles feeling guilty over what he did to survive vs the other guy not knowing what to do with the thanks he was getting), showing that some people that game back were tormented by what they did in dunkirk vs other people just being shocked at getting back, if in the end they both end up happy with no real consequence?


lost opportunities. typical nolan

I wrote this in another thread but it's appropriate here too. I went to see Dunkirk yesterday and it made me misty-eyed in a lot of scenes

>when Mark Rylance is almost breaking up shouting at his son when he wants to save the pilot
>when all the ships come in and they say "home"
>when he lies to Cillian Murphy and says the boy is going to survive when he's dead

I thought the dad was Richard Jenkins. I was so confused.

>why didnt they have the frog opening the hatch to save all those people happen AFTER they tried to sacrifice him for being a traitorous coward?
That's the point, based froggo saves multiple brits from drowning throughout the film only to get drowned 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

>why did hardy allow himself to be captured?
He basically constantly sacrificed himself to save others, he could've just turned back when he was at 15 gallons of fuel (like his orders were) but he chose to shoot down that last bomber. Then he could've just parachuted out of his plane when he ran out of fuel, but he chose to do a 180 and hunt down that last Stuka to save the others. Because of that he was too low at the end to parachute, would just end up killing himself. You can even see him opening up the cockpit and looking down to see how close he really is and then closing it.
At that point he couldn't land on the sea on the left because landing a Spitfire on the water even under perfect conditions is pretty dangerous (as seen before in the film), let alone landing a gliding one with the engine off in wavy water. And ofcourse he can't land anywhere on the right so the only choice was to land on the beach, but since he was way out of the safe perimeter he had to burn the Spitfire so the germans don't copy their technology.

>why go to the trouble of having the non-simultaneous story lines and building up the moment that they all meet as a big climax if that moment isnt really climactic at all?
But they don't meet "as a big climax", they are clearly ashamed at first when they all arrive home, it isn't even trying to be a typical "big climax"

>both end up happy with no real consequence
Yeah, I'm sure heavy PTSD by being bombed/torpedoed/burned alive and seeing your friends drowning and getting a survivors guilt complex is "no real consequence"

but he didnt die trying to save the brits, he died trying to save himself along with the brits. that's what im saying, it would have been better if he had died choosing to go back to save the people that were previously trying to get him killed rather than dying because he was trying to save the ship along with everyone else on the ship so they could all leave, and then just not realizing in time. the scene where he is about to jump off the torpedoed ship and instead goes back to open the hatch would have been the perfect moment, but it happened before

you didnt answer why hardy allowed himself to be captured. everything you said is obvious from the movie, my question is, why after the entire characterization of hardy being the person that sacrifices himself to save others, at the end he doesnt really sacrifice himself in the truest sense by suiciding and taking some other germans with him. why make him being captured the conclusion to his story, where he will be tortured and probably give up secrets? they should have had him draw the germans close and then blow the plane up with them and himself around, or burn the plane and then draw a flare at the germans to get himself killed rather than eventually give up secrets. it's obvious they were going for "this guy sacrifices himself," but it's a shitty last shot to just have him taken away rather than something more substantial

the climax i mean is when the two soldiers are in the water, the civilian boat is trying to pick them up, and the bomber is coming around and hardy picks him off. they used the non-simultaneous timelines for the purpose of bringing them together for a specific reason/scene, but in the end the scene is lackluster, hardy kills the bomber but many men are still burnt alive. i get that this is war and miracles are unrealistic (except when hardy shoots down another plane with no fuel...), but it still takes all the climax out of a scene

cont

...where a character is supposed to save others and they still die. not good for movies even if it is reality

i mean on screen consequence obviously, what happens after the screen cuts to black doesnt exist. also, you are meant to go by what happens last in the film, and what happens last in the film is the character that was built up to be the one that "couldnt even look" at the cheering people because he felt guilty, and who thought the blind guy handing them blankets was disgusted with them ("he couldnt even look us in the eye") when in reality he was just blind (ie this character is so guilt ridden he thinks everyone is blaming him when they arent), just reverts back to a celebratory guy coming home and is cheering at the films end. the other character is static throughout the whole film

>it would have been better if he had died choosing to go back to save the people that were previously trying to get him killed rather than dying
That would be pretty fucking generic and cliche, also every french and brit would laugh at it, what the froggo already did in the film is quite a lot keeping in mind that frenchies and brits really don't like each other

>at the end he doesnt really sacrifice himself in the truest sense by suiciding and taking some other germans with him.
Also quite generic and the usual plot point closure, also he obviously doesn't have any explosives (or a gun) to kill himself and the germans around him in an instant. He's obviously portrayed as a hard true brit and "giving up secrets" is certainly not an option by what we saw in the representation of his character

> hardy kills the bomber but many men are still burnt alive. i get that this is war and miracles are unrealistic (except when hardy shoots down another plane with no fuel...), but it still takes all the climax out of a scene
So you the scene would be good if no one was hurt and Hardy shot down the bomber with zero casualties? Sounds pretty cheesy to me.

Sound to me like you just wanted a more usual cliche american Hollywood ww2 clear heroic "good vs. bad" narrative

you really dont understand how films work do you lad

you cant write everything off as generic and cliche just because they have happened in other movies. "sacrifice" is cliche? "saving others that have previously condemned you" is cliche? not to mention BOTH of those things HAPPEN in the movie, they are just executed poorly.

>the scene would be good if no one was hurt and hardy shot down the bomber with zero casualties?
you mean like when hardy was flying the opposite direction and a plane came out of the other direction and was about to massacre the british on the mole and civilian boats, but then miraculously hardy flew in from behind and shot him down very quickly (much quicker than it took him to shoot down any other plane in the film), quick enough that there were no casualties? all the while without any fuel, just gliding on air and fumes? THAT was "cheesy," but it was a very well done scene that was a good climax. You don't have a problem with that. My point was THAT moment should have been the moment where all the timelines coincided, because the moment they DID coincide felt lackluster because it was supposed to be Hardy saving people without any fuel, but instead Hardy shot the bomber down and then the crash lit brits on fire. It was poor execution and pacing


>Sound to me like you just wanted a more usual cliche american Hollywood ww2 clear heroic "good vs. bad" narrative
sounds to me like you cant read. what I wanted was a well thought out movie with good characterization that made me actually give a shit about the three characters on the beach. barring that i wanted nolan to give enough of a shit to write a script that had the supposedly gut wrenching moments be thought out rather than just something he thought of and then said "oh yeah, that's good, make the frog drown that will make the audience see the horrors of war and drowning!" if the frog had stayed behind in the boat a little longer to do something to give the brits a little more time and then died it would have been better

the torpedo scene was probably the most visceral and horrific portrails of submarine warfare(beating out even Cruel Sea and the tanker scene from Das Boot)

it would probably give Kurskfags legit panic attacks