Dunkirk- honest thoughts

this is one of the most tepid, middle of the pack, "meh", frankly overrated war films I've ever seen.

the set pieces and action are all extremely well done, but I never felt any real connection to the characters nor the copious amount of deaths shown on screen. The movie never gripped me, it felt removed and detached, like I was walking through a museum but in movie form. Its all so safe. Main guy also seems to only have one or 2 expressions.

i didnt care about that aspie kid who knocked his head and died on the boat, and didnt care much about the pilot at the end either. I actually cared more for the french guy than the main protagonist.

Also I think Nolan legit has a brain virus after directing Interstellar, because he cant help but keep inserting hamfisted melodramatic tear-jerk moments into his movie that dont work at all and just come off as cheesy/ dated.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/GOB_ZoIxQZg?t=72
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

honestly it was the most intense movie i've seen in theaters

are you confusing visual spectacle with emotional intensity?

best war film since blackhawk down

hurt locker is a better war film than dunkirk

this

Judging by your vocabulary, you're an American.

Americans do not have the history to appreciate this film. It will mean nothing to anyone but a Briton.

It's a masterpiece.

Best cinema experience of recent times no doubt

masterpiece as in technically well crafted? maybe

masterpiece as in "it will be remembered even after 30, 40 years"?

no.

One of the best movies i've seen this year. I never expected a movie with so little dialogue that was pure tension since the first scene. It's like Nolan said fuck it and made a movie that didn't follow the rules of normal story telling, structure and pacing and somehow he managed to make itvpretty fucking cool. That thing about little dialogue was a good thing. We didn't get the horrible dialogue from Interstellar and none of the ''emotional'' bullshit from it too.

Yes, to both.

You do not understand this film.

also im not american, chinese actually

>none of the ''emotional'' bullshit from it too
you forgot the pilot part

>oh no muh sacrifice,so noble ;_;

i get what nolan wants to do but he always slathers it on a bit too much

Judging by what you wrote it seems that you didn't like it because you couldn't connect with it. You wanted to feel sorry for the number of deaths and you wanted the other personal deaths to be more personall? Gobwatch a soap opera man. In war, fron what i've been told, nobody is thinking about emotional bullshit when they're there. They just want to not die.

Yeah, thr only melodramatic part, i'll give you that, but it wasn't stupid. It was more about sacrifice and less about love hurts.

> chinese actually
Well, there we go.

You do not understand this film, nor its intended audience. So you cannot make sweeping judgements on its 'merit'.

Imagine being this uneducated, this stupid. I come to this board to marvel at retards like you.

if a movie cannot transcend across all cultures, is it -truly- a good movie?

l o l

>The movie never gripped me, it felt removed and detached
I don't know user, from the first frame on I was completely hooked like I wasn't for a long time in a theater, the first 20 minutes or so were especially captivating to me.
And throughout the film I felt the constant fear, tension, fear of drowning, claustrophobia etc.
Something as simple as them being quiet in that little boat and getting shot at bullet by bullet was extremely tense for me, while in other war films the character could be shot at from all positions by thousands of bullets and I don't feel a single thing.

went to watch with a girl and she was checking her phone half the time

>Also I think Nolan legit has a brain virus after directing Interstellar, because he cant help but keep inserting hamfisted melodramatic tear-jerk moments into his movie that dont work at all and just come off as cheesy/ dated.

>Home.

Those types of girls (the ones who all they do is check their phones all day) would never understand this movie. Much less the basic girls of now that only want to see my girl powa on the screen. I went with two girl friends, one loved it and one liked it but felt like it lacked ''emotions''. I know how to pick my friends.

The movie can transcend cultures, if *you* are willing to transcend into a culture.

If you approach this film thinking that it should be some American-style celebration of loud bangs and soldiers reminiscing about Mary-Jane back home in Alabama in the middle of a battle, then you will be disappointed.

The film is an exploration of what it means to be British. If you cannot grasp the meaning behind, and the subtleties within, the Mark Rylance subplot, then you don't grasp the film.

ok thats a much better explanation

Don't even bother discussing this with a bong, it's pointless. They can't or don't want to look at it objectively. The movie is a fantastic visceral experience, but leaves very little for you to digest afterwards. People just naturally need something more to connect with for it to remembered and appreciated, at least as far as really good movies go.

I saw Dunkirk in a Chinese cinema with my Chinese girlfriend, she absolutely loved it and it made her cry on several occasions.

>hurt locker
Not a war film, tho

> leaves very little for you to digest afterwards
Bullshit. I still think about it now.

You don't understand the film either.

She may understand the film. Good for her.

all i can think about when watching this film is how far the british empire has fallen and how they are legit being invaded IRL right this moment by 3rd world shitskins

Sup Forums ruins everything

Can you explain what profound thoughts you had afterwards that weren't painfully obvious during the movie then please?

Why should you have "profound" thoughts? Isn't just thinking about it at all enough? Does a film have to be "le deep" to be considered good?
And why should those thoughts be different from the thoughts you have during the movie?
What "profound" thoughts did you have after watching the Apocalypse Now? People like that movie because of the sheer experience it portrays and the utter chaos and hell of war, not because they reach some answer to the meaning of life itself after watching it.

I'm by no means saying it isn't good, just maybe not as good as some like you would have us believe. That's also kind of the exact argument i'm making yes. Look at a real best film of all time list and tell me that any are similar as to dunkirks modernistic approach to movies. You need established creative devices if you really want to make something meaningful that will connect with the viewer. It's there in the movie yes and I do understand it. But simply because it's british and the subtleties of it haven't been done before doesn't automatically make it good. It feels limiting.

I found the bits focusing on the soldiers trying to get off the beach a bit boring. I would have taken those glorious shots of everyone on the beach all night at the imax.
Also the spitfire holding more ammo then in reality and gliding for ages was a bit far fetched but other than that I loved the flying sections.
I would love a Battle of Britain reboot

>The movie is a fantastic visceral experience, but leaves very little for you to digest afterwards.

thank you

it was a blast to watch (and i wish i'd caught it earlier on imax when it newly opened), but it was akin to watching a high budget history documentary, really

I understood their every intentions, but....just no connection.

>Apocalypse Now

AN is a critique on american foreign policy, made a few years after the end of the VN war, and it has socio-political commentary embedded right in it. It has a loud message and you can dissect entire scenes and characters from AN.

Dunkirk communicates the helpless feeling and futileness of war, but thats what most war movies already gives you. If the "experience" is all you are looking for, then yeah I guess Dunkirk succeeds in that. Very well, actually. But i think what makes a movie truly timeless is what it gives you beyond that 2 hours in the theatre.

>tfw been so emotional in the past year that I cried when at the part where the bongs are all cheering

It's honestly a "meh" movie, it's just that movie critics have such boring lives that loud ass Stukas make them get excited. As a war film, it's probably 7/10.

watching young white men killing each other to secure a dystopian future
the movie made me feel bad

I think Nolan i overrated and this movie was nothing special.

Interstellar Water planet scene for 90 minutes: the movie

technical score: 10/10
kino score: 6/10

What is most startling is how simplistic this is, basically doing the opposite of his grandeur almost meta movie making.
>From the director of the dark knight trilogy, inception and interstellar
Why can't he just focus on the tricks he did in the prestiege and memento, those are his strengths and best movies by far. Movies that are just begging to be deconstructed.

It's basically The Wages of Fear in a war setting. Everyone who expected a yet another Saving Private Ryan was obviously heavily dissapointed

Baby's first foray into bland contrarianism

lmao no, Dunkirk is finally a breath of fresh of from Nolan, before that he started making too ambitious convoluted messes (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar) where he has to resort to heavy use of exposition and dumb writing for it to work, while Dunkirk is extremely simple and effective.
And because the base story is so simple, there is no shoved exposition, no blocky unneeded dialogue, no poor close quarter choreography, a simple story told purely visually, a true experience. It will age far better than all of the other Nolan films I mentioned.

>not being emotionally overwhelmed by the spectacle of pure sacrifice for ones countrymen.

tits or gtfo

That's why I said memento and the prestige, I highlighted those others because they're his weakest movies. You're having a laugh if people are going to remember dunkirk over inception or the batman trilogy though, normies loved those.

I never said what will be remembered more, I said what will age better.

I see this often in dunkirk threads, it almost sounds as if some people aren't aware of the sacrifices made in WW2 or at least don't think about it or history in general, needing a movie to remind them of it.

honestly he could have just landed on the beach and caught a boat home

he just had to stay behind for hours and light the plane on fire so the cameraman can get a strong cinematic silhouette shot and show his sacrifice

too convenient and framed

You're missing the point of his entire character user.

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 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.
Hope that clears it up for you.

the film was very well done, and the audio play made the film good. The first time they got shot at, it made you pop out of the seat, the explosions and gunfire was very loud compared to the rest of the film

Did you even see the movie? Everything he did was justified, he couldn't come back to land to the safe part of the beach, and he had to light that plane. And convinient and framed is EVERY shot in a movie. By the way, Nolan did it again, another movie with no villians. In this case, you don't even see the germans and the actual enemy is time.

All this you said, he said too. The point is that his last movies were grand adventures. This one and his first ones where less about grandiose and more about being very well made.

how fast was he going, really? i would chance it with the water and land near friendly folks than to be captured and get my nuts tasered by the gestapo

the water is shallow enough that he wont sink and drown and it might probably give just enough drag to slow him down safely

I thought the aspie kid was having an asma attack or something. I dont think i even saw him bonk his head

It was the There Will Be Blood of this decade

I thought he intentionally did not land on the beach because he was trying to draw gunfire and attention from the germans to him and away from the beachfags

Ameritard like OP needs flashbacks and all where you see the hero with his son playing baseball in the backyard before the war to "feel connection with the character".

You know what burger, it wasn't meant to "feel connected" with a character in particular, the soldiars are like anonymous, a mass.

>it's a masterpiece and if you don't agree you must be an idiot who doesn't "grasp" the film

kill yourself faggot

>but I never felt any real connection to the characters

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO YOU FUCKING FILTHY PLEB.

NOT EVERY SPIELBERG JEW WAR MOVIE HAS TO HAVE YOU IDENTIFY WITH HEROES.

FILMS DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO FUCKING MAKE YOU IDENTIFY WITH CHARCTERS YOU AUTISTIC PARASITE.

GO NECK YOURSELF

so tell me why i should care about this movie at all

might as well be watching nameless stormtroopers get murdered left and right

I say again, 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.

>Christopher Nolan outright admits he hates telling stories from characters' perspectives
>outright admits he loves the "scale" and set pieces more than character or story
>can't write dialogue that isn't hamfisted exposition
>his interpretation of "Love" is just "Yeah these people feel love and it's great" instead of "This person's insecurities/desires/lusts/shortcomings draw them to people who fulfill these needs in their heart and love is a flawed, bizarre subjective monster that's almost magical"
>he shits on digital and insists on film-only when his visual style is terrible, barely above television-tier, with no real use of dramatic lighting, camera angles or using the aesthetic to convey emotion or narrative
>insisted on dehumanizing and anonymizing the people in Dunkirk by having the Germans literally named "The enemy"
>obsessed with dread and death and misery but shies away from blood and guts and true horrors of war
>but he's okay-tier and uses muh practicals which is better than 90% of current blockbuster directors so pseuds and "film buffs" love him
>compares himself to actual auteurs like Lang, Griffith, Malick, Kurosawa while not even being better than Roland Emmerich

...................how about you just tell me what could happen instead of repeating what you already said

crash? flip?

he had been gliding for some time and he could just make a few more rounds to lower his speed even more so that the risk of him dying is lowered enough to make taking the risk feasible

Can't wait for torrents to drop. Only saw the very first trailer and that poster looks kino as fuck.

>shies away from blood and guts and true horrors of war

i actually noticed this lol

during the start when the bombs are dropping, some dudes can "blown up" but there wasnt any blood or gore. And in the aftermath people are dead on the beach but theres like zero blood

felt like a censored vidya

>not watching in kinobox

you done goofed, that was the whole point

I really wanted to, but I put it off for too long.

>his interpretation of "Love" is just "Yeah these people feel love and it's great" instead of "This person's insecurities/desires/lusts/shortcomings draw them to people who fulfill these needs in their heart and love is a flawed, bizarre subjective monster that's almost magical"

lol you pompous pseudointellectual shit

The lack of impact and blood is one of the reasons that Dunkirk doesn't hold a candle to the last good WWII movie

Nolan has "Love" in his story
>Love transcends time and space and it's good and we don't want to fuck because we love eachother in a sterilized cartoon love that has no flaws or shortcomings and both of us are perfect

Bertolucci uses love
>We are both physically and emotionally attracted to eachother and our flaws draw us together now we will examine how love is created, tested and destroyed and also here is some eyecandy to intensify it

>>Christopher Nolan outright admits he hates telling stories from characters' perspectives
Citation needed. Also your point makes zero sense because Dunkirk is told from three different extremely subjective character perspectives interconnected with oneanother
>>outright admits he loves the "scale" and set pieces more than character or story
Citation needed. The only thing he said is that he doesn't want the movie to be heavily character driven, but he is not retarded to say that story is not important.
>>can't write dialogue that isn't hamfisted exposition
But Dunkirk has zero hamfisted exposition?
>>he shits on digital and insists on film-only when his visual style is terrible, barely above television-tier, with no real use of dramatic lighting, camera angles or using the aesthetic to convey emotion or narrative
This is an absolutely braindead retarded argument. First of all, not all of his films are made by the same cinematographer. And you clearly know jackshit about camera operating and visual storytelling so you resort to bullshit arguments like "no real use of dramatic lighting". The entire first 30 minutes are pure visual storytelling and using the visual medium like it should be used, you can pretend that it's "television tier" and that the heavily claustrophobic drowning shots are not showing anything, but you're just living in denial
>>insisted on dehumanizing and anonymizing the people in Dunkirk by having the Germans literally named "The enemy"
And what's bad about that? Not showing them was one of the best decisions Nolan 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. Listen to the actual Churchill speeches on youtube, he called them "the enemy" most of the times.
Is a "le evil nazi screaming german" close up really that necessary for you? Do you want the usual hollywood nazi propaganda?

You know that by reducing The German Enemy to some faceless monstrous enemy they're doing exactly what hollywood propaganda is doing you worthless Nolandrone it's the dehumanization of the nemy

Korea user here. I saw it alone but both people either side of me in the cinema cried. Both were men. One of them was sobbing for around 10 minutes. Ha!

The film is about being thrown at that beach and is told from the british perspective exclusively. Why would you have insert close up shots of germans when the majority of the soldiers didn't see a single one up close on that beach?
Anything other than how they were protrayed in the film would go heavily against the narrative of the film and would be pretty fucking cliche.

Same thing in Das Boot, is Das Boot then a bad film because you never see the enemy there either?

i don't need backstory to be emotionally invested in somebody
these are young white men, i am a young white man, if i was born back then i would have been in the same position and this is how i relate

I dont hate you in any way. In a way I feel very bad for you for having an opinion like that. I believe it would be best for all involved if you killed yourself right now.

>A
>FUCKING
>FROG

That was really insightful user good job and thankyou.

how racist desu

the scenes on the destroyer(really anxiety inducing) and in the air were great

you do see the enemy in Das Boot

youtu.be/GOB_ZoIxQZg?t=72

but that is a lot different from Dunkirk. U-boats are the hunters not the hunted and combined with the "we aren't attacking men we are attacking ships" aspect of naval warfare it makes sense showing the human effects of sinking enemy tonnage

but hurt locker won the oscar best picture, user.

so visual spectacle can't captivate the viewer emotionally either? It's a fucking movie man.

transformers has mountains of visual spectacle

does it capture you emotionally?

Relying on inward visceral emotions, sure.

great movie and rather original desu

think the civilian convoy could have been handled better
less about that one boat, show an actual flotilla

spitfires weren't that successful, it wasn't the battle of britain

how the fuck can you compare goofy ass transformers to this? what a retarded comparison. visual spectacle isnt just loud noises and explosions.

No because it's a mindless garbled on screen mess, while the audio visual spectacle of Dunkirk surely captured me emotionally yes.

mah nigga

>look at all these people whose stories you didnt know die on screen after only seeing them for 5 seconds
>emotional connection

im neither brit nor german nor french, tell me why i should feel anything

not gonna tell you why you should feel anything. if you didn't, that's cool...but i fucking did.

>self identifies as a faggot

It is a masterpiece. Not because of the history or the story, but from the use of tension, subtlety, and restraint from using WW2 nazi symbols to evoke emotion. What the film is telling the viewer is "this is war from the soldiers eyes"

The history is that your country lost a battle embarrassingly and the government commandeered private property to clean up its mess.

Just like a brit to thank the government for shitting on his head

What a bloody bizarre post.

>What the film is telling the viewer is "this is war from the soldiers eyes"
Watch more movies faggot

Do you need a whole backstory for every character first to care about him? Are you so used to capeshit garbage that you first need an entire origin movie for the character setup to care about a person?
Is it not enough to show how Rylance is a compassionate stoic old man who lost his son in the first two weeks of the war enough to care about him? Is it not enough to show a brave pilot continuously sacrificing himself for his fellow countrymen to care about him? To feel sorry for a group of at last saved barely 18 year old soldiers who suddenly get torpedoed the fuck out of?
What did you want, a scene around a campfire where they all talk about their sweethearts waiting at home? Tom Hardy sipping tea and jerking off to dear Ol' Marge in the airbase? A scene of some old generals in a boardroom arguing while staring at a map? Would that make a better film?

Characters are made by action, not just reciting lines about their backstory. The portrayed situations alone should be enough for you to be attached to the person on-screen

you sound so sensitive lmao

im not going to get all emotional just because a bunch of guys get blown up on screen

real people die everyday and you can watch it all for free on Liveleak

Nolan war
>nameless character shows up on the screen with no introduction
>explosion/bullets/fire/whathaveyou
>dies instantly with no impact or dies without any visceral detail
>audience reaction "Well now he's dead"

Competent war filmmaker
>character is introduced
>through their performance and dialogue you become attached to them
>they're likeable/interesting/sympathetic
>they're in a war they're terrified of
>they get shot to pieces in horrific falling detail, blood and guts and brain and limbs rent by shrapnel and bullets
>they take a gutshot and bleed out screaming as bloody froth seeps from a hole in their midsection
>corpses strewn through bloody barbed wire, helmets blasted to pieces and blood-encrusted dogtags lie on muddy fields
>audience reaction "Jesus Christ war is fucking terrifying"

except pecinpah wanted to show war as hell that should be avoided, only to have audiences love to watch his depiction of it

Then why was the reaction to his movies always "Jesus censor this fucker this is too violent!"

how come his only celebrated movie is the wild bunch and it's most popular for the shoot out at the end?

I see you aren't aware of his actual most famous and bestmovie

The way how soldiers just dropped down in that opening sequence of Dunkirk from a single bullet was way more frightening to me than any blood and guts moment from the usual war shooutout rampage flicks.
The feeling of dread and claustrophobia in that destroyer was far greater than the emotioal reaction to a whatever limb flying scene in other films. Also Hollywood has fucked you up so much that yoi actually think that blood squirts all over the place and organs are falling out from a single bullet shot.
Psychological fear is far more impactful than the instictual short term disgust by seeing blood and guts.

Also why should every character be likeable? Do you need everything to be so dumbed down to the extremes of "le good and le bad" to be able to enjoy a film?