I personally thought this movie was dreadful. I'm a WWII fanatic, and I LOVE war movies, but I just didn't enjoy this film. How can a movie be so simultaneously erratic and boring at the same time XD. But joking aside, besides the lack of character development leaving me to forget EVERYONE, the way in which the movie was filmed seemed so focused on creating beautiful quiet scenes, and then loud Michael Bay explosion scenes that it felt hollow and void of emotion and direction. The score is probably the thing I disagree with the most. The music score NEVER stopped (and by "score" I'm referring to the never-ending ticking of a clock and one prolonged screeching note on a violin or cello) and came off as a cheap tactic to invoke tension and excitement from the audience when better directing and more interesting scenes could have done the trick. This is of course my opinion, but I feel like every reviewer, either consciously or subconsciously, conforms to the critic reviews given to movies.
I personally thought this movie was dreadful. I'm a WWII fanatic, and I LOVE war movies...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>XD
Stopped reading right there
Why the fuck do you need character development? It's literally about savages trying to get the fuck off a beach. And planes and shit would fall out of the sky in nothing but black smoke, so fuck off
Your criticism is on point, but your writing needs work.
Watching Dunkirk is like watching Saving Private Ryan with the sound off. Dreadfully boring.
Dunkirk has no describable characters, arc, or dialogue. You just jump from one spot to the next.
Overrated and over-hyped.
Agreed, this movie is shit. The events themselves are not compelling enough to warrant a full length feature without any character development whatsoever. It's not wonder that the one direction faggot and that family was the most interesting part of the story but even that was retardedly predictable. Everything else is just beach standing, planes, and shots of open air. It's god damn terrible.
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? Rylance's character in general? Isn't that enough "development" for you?
Characters are made by action, not just reciting lines about their backstory.
You must be a first class supreme pleb to think that a film has to have a lot of dialogue to be good. Not having a lot of dialogue is one of the best things Nolan could've done really, especially considering how the rest of his films are exposition and dialogue heavy.
And by comparing a film like this with SPR you out yourself as the biggest casual ever, Dunkirk clearly doesn’t even try to be anything like SPR, it's more like The Wages of Fear in a war setting.
ITT: basement dwelling wagecuck neckbeards finally pirated a YIFY encode of the film to watch on their 8 year old 13 inch Toshiba laptop with one earbud on
>Piratefags are unironically agreeing with bait
>Tom Hardy didn't bail out because he didn't want to lower the British troops' morale
Nolan's only good film.
He was way too low to parachute out, would just end up dead immediately.
muh imax experiuncce
if a movie doesn't work on a smaller screen that just means the movie is shit and you were tricked by a big screen
sparks here
argentina has no basement
Do you enjoy watching films like 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia on a small screen? Or would you say those films are immensely better when seen on the big screen?
those movies are good regardless of the size of the screen you watch it on
dunkirk isn't
I know. I'm just saying that so many retards keep parroting the bullshit about morale. Also he could've just landed in the water like the Scottish guy.
>thought this movie was shit
>but only because Tom Hardy gets captured at the end
>comparing Dolan to LoA and 2001
it's time for you to leave
I don’t know, I'm pretty sure if you played 2001 on a small ass screen to most people that they would find it pretty damn boring and would make the same exact character remarks like people are now doing for Dunkirk after they saw it on their computer/TV
It's becoming apparent to me, especially after a second viewing, that people who hate on Dunkirk are probably mostly younger or emotionally under developed because they just don't feel the mortal doom which is clearly the point of the movie. They don't feel the overwhelming presence of tragic, hopeless death because they can't see the blood, guts, and bullet holes, which Nolan intentionally left out. The whole point behind the movie is lost on them because when you're young you usually don't have a real grasp on mortality, you feel like you're invincible.
I agree, the clock ticking got really fucking annoying by the end. If the ticking was thrown in subtly in a few scenes it would be enough to provoke a sense of urgency, but it plays over nearly the ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE. It’s like bashing someone over the head with a brick repeatedly and saying that it’s okay because you’re doing it to create a feeling of horror for them. Fucking ridiculous.
Nolan is a good director, your memes can't change that.
most of the ADHD capeshit retard movie going audience today would most likely find 2001 boring as fucking hell
>Also he could've just landed in the water like the Scottish guy.
He couldn't, landing a Spitfire on the water even under perfect conditions is pretty dangerous (as evident by the first downed pilot who almost drowned), let alone a gliding one in shallow wavy water
You guys should go watch power rangers. Dunkirk was gorgeous if nothing else. Great realistic dogfighting, and I thought it was interesting that he had that french guy as a symbol for the french people (sacrificing himself for the mostly ungrateful british). My issue, and this could be how it was IRL, but where were the officers? There were like two depicted officers for all 400, 000 men. Nobody giving orders. Just Brits aimlessly wandering around or cueing up all on their own.
lol im 30, the movie isn't anything special
Wrong. Saw in theaters. Still sucked.
You've literally said nothing by saying he's a 'good director' and you have the audacity to claim someone else's valid opinion is vapid. You can't innately have a quality like being a good director, you are as good as the movies you produce and Dunkirk is shit. Hence Nolan was a poor director for this film.
>a 30 year old man unironically typing "lol"
What an undeveloped manchild you must be.
So......... youre a WWII fanatic yet you didnt go and watch this in theatres??
yeah right...
yea i'm not a proper gentlemen like you
laughing out loud
Dunkirk is literally the best Nolan film since The Prestige.
it's so obvious nolan couldn't figure out how to write a central perspective for this movie, so instead he just jammed a bunch of shit that happens in different time frames together and everyone ate it up. the scenes where characters and actions tie in to other parts of the movie were such a complete mess.
>"guys listen up, I grew up with war you know I love everything about war and guns a true fan indeed, now I just pirated this film and believe me it's not that good, but that's my personal opinion ofcourse my opinion only, okay guys like share subscribe"
Why do nolanfags get ---THIS--- assblasted when someone says Dunkirk is shit??
Why do piratefags get ---THIS--- assblasted when someone says that they should have seen it in a theatre??
imaxfags are by far the worst posters on this board. if there is this much disparity between people who saw it in a theater and those who watched it on a tv/computer, guess what, the movie is shit
YU NEEF DA SI DA DOLAN GINO ON IMEX GUYZ
>younger or emotionally under developed
Because most of these posts are just dumb overly general "it's boring nothing happens lmao" posts that sound like they are made by 13 year olds
Atleast write a coherent sentence with something resembling an argument
>This is what piratefags unironically believe
go pay imax shekkelber to get tricked into liking shitty movies
retard
You're a pleb op.
>r-retard
The wagecuck defense system firing at full force.
bro im a cryptocurrency millionaire you dont know who youre talking to bro
>movie comes out in theaters
>Sup Forums loves it
>movie comes out in bluray
>Sup Forums hates it
Like clockwork, friends. When the ugly, and antisocial part of Sup Forums that never goes out (or at least never goes out to the theater) watches a movie, it hates it. Unless of course, everyone in theaters hated it, so now they would love it. It really makes me think that the part of Sup Forums that doesn't go out is really bitter.
or maybe because only dumb people go see movies in theaters
>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? Rylance's character in general?
This is so much bullshit, jesus
>character thinks he has failed up until the last scene when he reads a newspaper with a positive spin on the event
>HE CAME TO UNDERSTAND SUCCESSFUL RETREAT OOOHHHH
>FIN
Get your head out of your ass you pretentious fuck
Pretty much
I don't think your hipothesis would hold water. You know what hypothesis would hold more water? ''People that like movies go to the theater''.
We can all agree that Nolan haters are the most pathetic people.
Yes user, only "dumb" people go to the theater, while the elite supreme patrician gentlemans wait for the first torrent to rip it and half watch it on their computer, sure thing buddy.
I thought Dunkirk was a great culmination of intuition and film-making on the part of Mr. Christopher Nolan. He clearly adjuncts the peril and brute force of war with an uncanny vision for creating images of long lasting and unforgettable allure while touching upon our innocence in times of need. OP is full of shit.
I will assume you are from the part of Sup Forums that doesn't go to the theater.
>I sold my bitcoin at 1200 and now live in regret but at least I can pretend on Sup Forums that I'm rich
Same. If you can't even give a critical review without ironic memery in the first sentence, why bother?
buttblasted theater idiots detected
enjoy sitting next to sheniqua as she yells on her cell phone
>people that didn't pay too see a movie are less likely to like it
No shit, when you pay for something you feel obligated to like it.
Pirate bros are actually honest unlike redditor Nolan faggots.
Memento level time shenanigans to draw out the boring source material did not work for me. Just a genuinely boring movie.
I've watched plenty of movies in theaters I didn't like and so have you
>and I LOVE war movies,
Stop reading right here, too bad it was not really one. You're a stupid amerifat fed on over-the-top hollywood tear-jerkers like that other amerimutt right here , who compares Dunkirk to its complete opposite.
Thank you based Nolan for creating a burger pleb filter.
you watched a movie you didn't like multiple times in theaters? weird
That's not how money works. Don't try to get into the business buisness if you think people will automatically try to like your product when they pay for it. You know what? Just don't try to get into any business.
I don’t live in degenerate america so that's no problem here my dear wagecuck friend
Meme cinematography
Meme actor pilot
Meme music
Meme director
Meme we must survive plot
One of the most reddit movies of the year to be honest.
Yes, people sometimes dislike what they see in theaters. I said that in the post you're replying, what are you saying friend?
If I pay to see a film and I don’t like it I will hate it even more, not find reasons to like it.
All these pseud imdb drones like you acting like Nolan made some kind of masterpiece makes me laugh my ass off
>a central perspective
Muuuuh gimme my band of good war buddies with dem flashbacks with their mamas and Mary Janes waitin their heroes.
"Boring" is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching the film.
Same as saying "it was fun", that does not indicate anything about the actual quality of the film whatsoever.
that's not what a central perspective is you fucking moron
>every film has to have ''character development'' and relateable characters with '''''arcs''''' and engaging dialogue
>every person involved in war has an intriguing backstory, a loved one waiting back home, and, if they die, their death is always heroic and meaningful, or at least relevant to their '''''arc'''''
God, fuck off
These buzzwords aren't a checklist that every film has to have to be 'good'
It's just surface-level reddit shit
I'm just gonna say that you said nothing while using all those buzzwords.
Epic post my friend, riveting insight on the film simply ebin.
people who fervently hate this movie sound like complete idiots to be honest
No homo but how handsome was the blonde spitfire pilot
You can't insult your movie into being good
Marvel audiences... which is also exactly nu-Sup Forums majority.
Let's not pretend Nolan isn't a capeshit director trying to be artsy.
He's probably one of the most inauthentic directors ever and yet you redditors try to pretend he's Bresson.
All a movie has to have is not being shit and your glib Dunkirk turd fucking failed at it
people who like this movie are just snaggletooth britcucks
> Anyone who doesn't appreciate Dunkirk must not have seen it in theaters.
Really speaks volumes that the only rebuttal to disliking this movie is an argument based on pure conjecture.
You people are insecure children.
I bet you loved hacksaw ridge
That applies when you have to decide between two or more things. If there's no decision to be made between two things it doesn't apply. It applies, too, to the memory of that decision. And third, even if it applied in this scenario it would apply to both sides and it will be a moot point.
>a capeshit director
Made only three and then moved on. Had a vision and an artistic view for the universe and characters, whether you like it or not is not the point, it had nothing in common with DC and MARVEL factory flicks. And I'm not even a fan of these Batman btw since I prefer Burton.
now a movie like this from the right side of the war
>He's an american
Your opinion is worthless
My definition of boring for this movie was slow paced with zero substance. A 2 hour movie about a single dog fight, a couple guys who go from sinking ship to sinking ship, and Cillian Murphy who served absolutely no point.
His "vision" is winning awards and praise from critics. He is a fraud.
Memento > Prestige > Dunkirk > rest is shit
Wow you're so cool and different O_O
>slow paced
For fucks sake. You're just confirming my hypothesis, people who do not understand this movie do not understand filmmaking. And are retards in general.
Get the fuck back to your capeshit.
Not baseless conjecture. Way to be proud and arrogant about not getting simple context. That phrase is being thrown around because the threads that are JUST NOW being made about this movie are obviously made by people that didn't see it in theaters. The movie was already forgotten and then threads about it start popping again when a rip comes out. It is a visually and aurally heavy movie, with little dialogue or story, so watching it in a small screen with a low quality sound system will obviously impact the atmosophere.
...
Yep.
This would be much worse with character development and """""""engaging dialogue"""""" since Nolan couldn't write to save his life.
>Oh no the krauts are coming
>instead of portraying them in any sort of way that might make them seem threatening (and thereby letting the viewer understand why all those guys with guns on the beach couldn't just stand and fight) let's just have them shoot a boat a few times and have an officer go "oh theyre over by the dunes to the east, oh no".
The movie failed to provide a compelling reason to RACE AGAINST THE CLOCK, so all the meme ticking was worthless. I did enjoy the dogfight scenes though. Should have just been a Battle of Britain remake.
Better than the fat 56%'s who don't.
>hypothesis
and what might that be?