It's shit

it's shit

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalreview.com/article/449721/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-trivializes-wwii-valerian-sci-fi-future-dazzles
youtube.com/watch?v=n1VJ39nVIBk
youtube.com/watch?v=JpqzF9PIPQw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

My buddy and I walked out 20 min before the end.

*you're

Not a single woman in the whole fucking movie.
It's 2017 god damn it

Thought it was pure kino desu

Did he cum too early?

If you didn't watch it in IMAX 70MM you watched a different movie from me.

>lol fuck nazis and fuck trump
I agree

So brave. Yas kween slay!

confirmed watching shit dvd rip. Sorry your local theater has a no singles policy breh,

And here come the faggots who had nobody to go see it with when it was out in theatres so they waited until it was available to torrent so they could only watch it on a 12 inch piece of shit laptop screen with broken earphones and not pay attention to it and because they're brainlet Sup Forumsfags hate it because it didn't show how "muh based Hitler let the British go on purpose guys he wuz a good goy who dindu nuffin"

A few well directed/shot scenes. Otherwise, yes. shit
.
.
btw, MAGA

If you think that, then you obviously didn’t see the movie you fucking Sup Forumstard

no it isn't

It wasn't a bad movie. Technically was amazing, but I found it a bit too cold. Also, as usual with Nolan (and sometimes, with Kubrick too), I had a hard time caring for the characters.

it was trash

If you didn't feel any emotions when the civilians showed, or when the two soldiers realized that the crowd was cheering for them and not booing, then you have no soul.

The worst degenerate mental midget scum pops out on Sup Forums when a torrent of a somwhat popular film comes out. Just the same overly general statements over and over again

there's almost no Nazis in the movie other than a silhouette, the movie wasn't even about that

I'm a Sup Forumstard and I liked it though.

Let's be real, Nolan strenght is not emotional scenes.

As always, plot driven surface-level casuals can't appreciate anything but Tarantino flicks or capeshit.
It was one of the best cinema experiences of recent times.

When Rylance yelled that that pilot is maybe still alive it kinda hit me pretty hard though

I saw it twice in theatres and it still wasn't enough.

Partially true.
Sometimes he's a little cold, but other times he hits it out the park. Can you say Inception is "cold"? Even Interstellar had that one scene.

I don't think this movie was cold. It had lots of emotions and it dealt with them very well. Just because you don't have people laughing all the time or a man and woman telling each other how much they're in love, it doesn't mean that this movie is unemotional.

Another example of an excellent emotional scene in this movie is when the kid doesn't tell Cillian Murphy that George is dead

It's probably the most emotional Nolan Movie, and it had some strong scenes, but I don't know, I always find Nolan a bit cold. Also, the fragmented narrative was confusing and hurt the emotional attachment to the characters.

Hey guys this is a pretty awful thread
Can someone post spoilered gfur

>it's another leftard who brings Sup Forums in for no reason
I'm not a soyboy filth like you and I enjoyed the flick, so fuck you.

It might be time to admit that you're a little slow.

...

more like DUMBkirk haHAA ]=D

why can't women into ww2 movies?

yea it wasn't anything special. it's not surprising this event hasn't been a subject for many movies, not much happens. nolan even had to do some timeline fuckery to make it less boring.

i didn't care for the sea and air stories and the nolanesque way they connected with each other but the story from the point of view of the soldiers was great
it was great to watch a war film were it's just a constant struggle for survival, very realistic
the french guy was the best

Maybe you're right, but I don't know why that fragmented narravitve was needed in a film like this. I don't think it it added anything special and hurt the experience of being there in "real time".

>Winston Churchill’s 1940 “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech is paraphrased in Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, but after watching nearly two hours of uninspiring mayhem, it rings hollow. Although this is only Nolan’s third movie that is set, at least partly, in his homeland England — it depicts the evacuation of more than 300,000 British Expeditionary troops trapped in Dunkirk, France, at the start of World War II — he seems incapable of conveying a sense of cultural authenticity or patriotic feeling. (For that, see John Boorman’s WWII memoirs Hope & Glory and Queen & Country.) Preening for fanboys in 70mm, Nolan’s vast, clear views of dull-to-horrific killings, plus amped-up artillery sound effects, are no different from what he did in his Dark Knight trilogy. Like Michael Bay’s fantasy Pearl Harbor (1999), Dunkirk uses history as a pretext to show off the director’s fascination for calamity.

>Nolan divides his story into three anachronistic yet interlocking sections: British commander Kenneth Branagh oversees the massive boat lift; pilot Tom Hardy does aerial combat to keep German planes from strafing the beached armed forces; civilian Mark Rylance joins a flotilla of private boats and picks up downed pilot Cillian Murphy. Given such narrative chaos, the only certainty is that the West is under attack. This makes Dunkirk a freakily contemporary allegory for the ongoing global war no one wants to name. (The film’s opening epigraph refers to “The Enemy” instead of citing a nation, philosophy, or religion.)

>It’s routine to describe battle films as “anti-war,” still, that misnomer doesn’t describe Dunkirk — the apolitical Nolan transforms the “anti-war” genre into his patented “life is cheap” genre. Each sequence that details the brutal tragedy of warfare is punishing yet remote. Men caught in numerous doom-laden catastrophes are presented IMAX-size for no other reason than shock, discomfort, and the awe of action-addicted filmgoers — adolescents who are temperamentally distanced from how those experiences shaped modern Western culture.

>Nolan exploits technology for effect, not to enrich history. Unlike Ang Lee’s very fine Iraq War drama, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, which used 3-D to explore the depths of brotherhood and the war’s emotional complexities, Nolan’s movie flaunts empty violence. Duty is depicted as futile, and despite parroting Churchill’s spiritual motivation against darkness, Nolan typically evokes nihilism without any follow-through. Dunkirk feels dispassionate; it caters to pampered Boomers who never fought for or believed in a war or military service. Note the civilian armada approaching their countrymen: Each face is expressionless. Is this because Nolan rejects emotion, or does patriotic fervor embarrass him?

>It’s possible that Nolan, having created an audience of Millennial pessimists, is uninterested in the fellow feeling that Ang Lee made so intimate and that Clint Eastwood’s Sully and Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge made affecting as well as spectacular. Nolan misuses the big screen the same way Paul Thomas Anderson did in The Master — as a fanboy selling tool but not for aesthetic exploration. Nolan emphasizes large-scale violence then looks past its effect as he always does — as in that inept football-stadium bombing in The Dark Knight Rises. Dunkirk is equally repellent when Nolan toys with anonymous men trapped in the hull of a ship, helplessly watching bullet holes pierce their safety, or when a pilot nearly drowns as his plane sinks into rising waters. These sitting-duck moments are not suspenseful but torturous, whereas the great action directors — Eisenstein, Peckinpah, Lean, De Palma, Spielberg, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Abel Gance, Walter Hill, Bay at his best — could all depict action to get at a viewer’s understanding of fate. They mastered narrative and existential coherence. Nolan’s visual language is full of gaps; its pretense at Alain Resnais–style time-shifting seems some kind of joke when a director can’t accomplish straightforward storytelling.

>Dunkirk has been made without wartime sympathy. That’s why the Churchill speech comes off as unconvincing and sappy. Nolan’s detached style mocks the populism that relates to average-grunt, working-joe service; it continues the attitude of Nineties indie filmmakers who chose cynicism over sentiment, anti-Western subversion over jingoism.

>For those with movie memories, hearing the Churchill speech brings back how William Wyler uncannily paraphrased it in his Mrs. Miniver (1942), spoken as part of a sermon in an English church whose ceiling had been blasted open during the Blitz. Wyler visualized hope — contrasting an image of disaster — while the church congregation sang “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” Dunkirk might have matched Wyler’s nobility, but Nolan won’t risk offending our godless film industry.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/449721/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-trivializes-wwii-valerian-sci-fi-future-dazzles

the fragmented narrative was just some stupid gimmicky inception crap. didn't add anything to the movie other than confusion. i'm 99% sure he only did this because if he did it in 'real time' the movie would have been even more boring than it already is

>waaaaaaah why is this british film so british and not american at all waaaaaaah
lmao nicely done you black homosexual conservative professional contrarian man

>Armond says the britishness of the film is a nonpressence
>user is illiterate

It's crucial for it to be non linear because 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)

The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week so the viewer stays in the battle at all time.
If you had 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.

>he seems incapable of conveying a sense of cultural authenticity or patriotic feeling
as much as i love white he misses the point here
the point is the class between atomic survival urge and a unified organised response to immediate danger of eradication
i feel he lets his (justified) dislike of nolan cloud his judgement

oh look this pasta again

>wah wah why do british character don't show emotion?

armond banter too strong for paki island

All points still stand. Feel free to refute any of it

Are you saying british people are robots?

go ahead and explain how you are "being thrown into the event itself" when there are 3 different plots taking place in different timelines that are being mashed together? are you retarded?

Because you never leave the event. If you aren't fighting for your life at the beach then you are in the cockpit of a Spitfire, if you aren't in dogfights you are saving other soldiers on a boat.
Not a single scene out of the event itself, like I said no boardroom generals talking, no mom's crying in britain, no Churchill office scenes etc

/thread

Scenes with Tom Hardy were 10/10 in all regards. Everything else was kinda meh.

brits take pride into not showing emotion, "keeping a stiff upper lip" etc
i'm not british but i'm sure someone here can confirm
i know brits like to portray themselves that way (one example in the greatest war film ever: battle of britain)

No, just that we aren't as loud, expressive and and unnecessarily emotional as our American counterparts. We tend to be much more reserved and patient/tolerant. Not sure why that is, and I don't think we're better because of it.

This is Nolans ultimate pleb filter for normies. I remember leaving the theater and hearing a group of normies saying "Did you get? Why were the scene in random order?"

The complaints people have aren't about the visuals, the visuals were great. It was the content beyond that. It's on the same tier as Enter the Void. Amazing aesthetics, but everything else is vapid as fuck. Like when Tom Hardy surrendered. Who the fuck cares? He was practically anonymous, and why did he even put down the plane in enemy territory to begin with? The scene where the kid gets pushed and hits his head was a total cop out too, if you wanted us to really feel the desperation of the scarecrow guy he should have intentionally hurt them, not just pushed him too hard. And why did they only bring back one guy on the boat? Why did they need a useless extra kid on the boat taking up space anyways? Why was the narrative is some hackneyed three timeline structure that made the structure jankey and added nothing? I get it for something like Pulp Fiction, where it's part of the aesthetic, but it didn't provide anything other than convolution here.

I actually forgot how much I didn't like this shitty movie till I started thinking of it, goddamn. Nolan is great at action sequences and effects, but he is truly heartless and brainless when it comes to just about everything else. An above average action movie director who genre hops.

>no mom's crying in britain, no Churchill office scenes etc
And that's exactly what the amerimutts missed in this. They wanted their classical romanticization, and over the top shitshow.

so mashing up and manipulating things that happened over different periods of time is what you consider being thrown into the event? kek. if they did this movie in 'real time' 90% of it would be spent waiting around on a beach.

this event didn't deserve a movie, at all

>the civilian characters react to the war with the same indifference as one might react to an overcast sky

>Like when Tom Hardy surrendered. Who the fuck cares?
You cared about him because of his constant patriotic personal sacrifice for others, characters are made by action not just by reciting lines about their backstory.

>why did he even put down the plane in enemy territory to begin with?
Because he couldn't parachute or land in the water with the engine off and since he was already way too low he had to land on the beach out of the safe perimeter.

>The scene where the kid gets pushed and hits his head was a total cop out too
The "stupid" way he dies is literally the point of that whole scene and the character of George.
Nolan used it 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 show what stoicism is with the Rylance's son saying to the shellshocked soldier that the boy is alright. To show that in war old men get young men to die for them. To show that not all "war heroes" are the usual true heroes we all imagine them to be.

>Why was the narrative is some hackneyed three timeline structure
See here Feel free to ask anything else you don't understand

>The "stupid" way he dies is literally the point of that whole scene and the character of George.
>Nolan used it 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 show what stoicism is with the Rylance's son saying to the shellshocked soldier that the boy is alright. To show that in war old men get young men to die for them. To show that not all "war heroes" are the usual true heroes we all imagine them to be.

this is the funniest load of 16 year old retardation ive read on Sup Forums in a long time

What's retarded about it?

the movies intensity and pacing made it hard to watch

anyone who complains about it is a pleb though

the kid was accidentally thrown down stairs by a shell shocked soldier that they just saved. saying that what happened to the kid is some juxtaposition of what is happening to soldiers being bombed on a beach is juvenile iamvrysmert retardation

nolan killed off the kid because he wanted that stupid tearjerker newspaper scene at the end of the movie

I agree. nothing really happens. it's just guys standing around, sometimes running or sitting. then these dudes sailing and talking. and Bane flying on a plane. absolutely nothing happens until the last 10 minutes of the movie.

this shit is overrated as fuck.

Why would Nolan write such a specific scene just for the "tearjerker" newspaper scene? Why didn't he actually then make him die like a hero then? Why did he die without even seeing the beach at Dunkirk?
Do you really think someone writes something like that just randomly?

>Do you really think someone writes something like that just randomly?

it's nolan, he writes dumb bullshit like this all the time, where the fuck have you been?

But there is something happening from the first frame right up until the last one?

But where is the dumb part here? It's all simple and clear, this isn't some unresolveable CIA plane scene.

every frame is so dense

...

it's simple and clear that you are putting way more thought reading into the purpose of the kid dying than the effort of thought nolan put into writing it

I been saying that since the start yet user never listens

This so much, I genuinely feel sorry for everyone who will watch Dunkirk first time on their computer/TV

>bruh you need to see it in a theater to get it mannnn

nah

Dunkino

But the kid didn't just die user, he died in a very specific way. Nolan could've kiled him off at any point in time but he deliberately wanted to kill him early on before he even practically enter the "war".
You can pretend that it's just the "le autist Nolan so randumb xD" if you feel better for your opinion but you have no argument there

What do you think of 2001, is it the same on your computer and the big screen? Lawrence of Arabia also?
And mind you that you literally saw less picture that got cut off because the full frame IMAX has more vertical height than your 16:9 screen.

2001 and lawrence of arabia actually are worth seeing on a big screen

this movie isn't, you're just an idiot being overwhelmed by da big screen dooood

>torrentfag reviews a movie
>it took him 4 hours to watch the film in between shitposting and alt tabbing into vidya

The only good thing about this movie, is its cinematography. The plot was weak, and the characters are forgettable as hell. And one can look at pretty picture for a certain amount of time before it gets boring.

MUH EXPERIENCE

>Dunkewk... iz.... keeeenooooo....

>The plot was weak
>the characters are forgettable as hell.
>one can look at pretty picture for a certain amount of time before it gets boring.

the kid was killed by being accidentally thrown down stairs by a shell shocked soldier that was from his own country

the soldiers on the beach are being bombed by the germans

you are reaching. the only dumb parallel you can draw from either of those situation is "omg how senseless war is baddddd"

stop posting

What about the sound desing, the production design, the set pieces, the soundtrack, blocking, editing?

youtube.com/watch?v=n1VJ39nVIBk

A whole lotta females in this thread wew

I dislike a lot WW2 movies for this very reason but this has absolutely none of that. It's not really about the combat war, it's people coping with a disaster.

have you been making this same reply in every dunkirk thread?

I NAe lAiK No Movi but no uroperealan cuntris!!!1111
I anl s4e amerkcs 1000%%% Kinogapfy!!!!1111 no euro o klnonononono

>360 ALTITUDE INCREASING NO FUEL GLIDE SHOT
So real!!

unbased wojak poster

Wouldn't say shit, just dull. Saw with some people. Everyone agreed it was impressive on a technical level, but warm regarding the actual plot.

>the chad americans
make ww2 movies about saving europe

>the virgin brits
make ww2 movies about running away

youtube.com/watch?v=JpqzF9PIPQw

It was the best film of the year along with Blade Runner.

Dunkekso snss noot... knloooo???.......
Uu4ee sumv pelple mo kino.....

But bad*

this meme needs to stop existing