This movie was absolutely underwhelming and dissapointing

This movie was absolutely underwhelming and dissapointing.

I offer you a though experiment - describe this character to someone who hasn't watched the movie without mentioning his appearance, occupation or specific actions he takes in the movie.

Fucking bonus points if you can actually create an illusion of him being different from other 5 or 6 key characters.

This film is an absolute cash grab and Nolan's one-trick-pony status is at full display here.

>describe one of the characters without using descriptions, I dare you!
Do you happen to be employed by the Mesa, AZ police dept?

>What makes a character is how he dressed and what he does
Nope.
Those are not the things that make characters connect and be relatable. And that's what this movie doesn't accomplish.

>movies should be friend simulators

Is this really the kind of thing you care about, or are you trying to fill another empty day the best you can?

>don't mention actions when describing the characters
actions are LITERALLY what make up a character. What you're asking is retarded

Is having an identifiable name on an anonymous imageboard the kind of thing you care about, or are you trying to get the attention your parents never gave you?

I can tell that you are that type of people who was told that a movie has one main character, a plot, and some other crap. And this film, since is a Historical Occurrence with more that one set up, more that one plot line, and no main character at all, this seems to be fucking you up. It is funny how Americans are used to same old crappy shit
-Begining, Middle and End, main plot, main character, one story line, a climax, a villain and what not. But, I will tell you one thing. This film, is above you. Do not watch it. It wasn't made for people like you.

It's pretty amazing Nolan was able to make a whole movie with zero character development
BRAVO NOLAN

He's one of many soldiers who want to be rescued. I don't think Nolan wants to differentiate him whatsoever, he's just the focal point to represent the whole soldier. I don't even recall his name, but that's not what is important in a character.

>le character ark
>le character development
reddit is two tabs left

i would never watch this movie at home, seeing it in imax was the best decision, you just wasted time downloading it to watch it on some small monitor or tv

i saw it a while ago and i can't really remember his character. i do remember the dialogue in his scenes were really minimal, which illustrated his status as an interchangeable grunt.
it was cool though, because while being "interchangeable" as a soldier, following his harrowing pathway through the event makes us reflect on the subjectivity of the grunt experience.

in short, he's a self-insert character.
the other perspectives were more colorful, serving different purposes.

>another plot driven surface-level manbaby casual FILTERED

He's just the average kid thrust into a war he doesn't understand trying to survive by an enemy he can't see.

The typical young grunt they sent to die .

>he doesn’t understand twinkino
Pleb

You talk like you voted for Bernie or Hilary.
Tell us more about how Sup Forums is ruining this board, newfaggot.

Describe me the character of Dave in 2001 without mentioning his appearance, occupation or specific actions he takes in the movie.
It's almost like not all films are character driven, huh?

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT SONNNNN
OP GON LEARN TO APPRECIATE FILM TODAY

OP is a soyboy who say a DVD rip and didn't see it in theatre, so ignore his shitty opinion

Character development is not "same old crappy shit". Please, do new stuff, but don't start your innovations by straight up ditching any sort of character arc. It's been there for a reason.

You're right, I never really got the "experience" before. IMAX was made for this sort of thing.

Tell me the character arc of Dave in 2001

I liked his reading of his "friend" staying on the bridge. He was smart enough to move closer to the door instead of relaxing like the rest, and it saved his and Harry styles' ass.
Another highlight is when he backs off in the Dutch boat argument instead of being all noble and heroic.

Literally shove your attempt at argument up your ass. You're making absolutely no point.

He's a coward who's just trying to survive, but even a coward like him ends up standing up for what's right several times in the movie because the war transforms you. Now fuck off, brainlet

>singlehandedly saves your mediocre movie

>histori movie
>your typical hollywood complete bullshit historic wise
>plebs will defend it

Lmao, the plebs acting like patricians because they watched it in IMAX is priceless

>made a huge point of not showing nazis at all
Nolan is a gimmicky hack.

Explain how? Both Dunkirk and 2001 are not character studies or character driven films about some individuals, the characters are merely plot devices for the actual visual narrative

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.
Is a "le evil nazi screaming german" close up really that necessary for you? Do you want the usual hollywood nazi propaganda?

You can throw em here and there. You can easily tell it became a purpose of it's own for Nolan not to show any for the sake of not showing them at some point into shooting.

>muh stooooory
Why do you watch fiction? Watch documentaries, that's clearly what you want to do. Those indeed didn't happen, they're fiction.

>describe one of the characters without using descriptions
if you can do it, you have a job in german "law enforcement"

But why show them? Why? Really think here.
The entire film is about being thrown into the event itself and you don't see a single shot of anyone but the brit soldiers (and the civilians) in the battle. There is no boardroom generals arguing over a map, no shot of churchill in his office, no shots of moms/girlfriends crying in Britain, nothing like that.
Showing a close up of a german soldier would be directly against the narrative which Nolan is portraying, dehumanising them and keeping them as this looming enemy that could attack at any time from any side is much more effective and keeps the brit perspective intact.

You give me hope that there are more people on this board that aren't entirely contrarian faggots

literally all the capeshit checkmarks. you have to go back, pleb.

You got it wrong moron, character development is one of the good things in capeshit.

>38 posts
>no one came close to describing this dude
I guess Nolan is a hack huh

Exactly, that post you're replying to is telling OP that literally every point OP made is like OP watches capeshit exclusively and bases his opinion of other movies on that specifically

Watched it with full view of my 34" ultrawide and with perfect sound in cabled ANC headphones. Honestly prefered it to the cinema viewing

How the fuck do you prefer terrible downmixed 5.1. audio to a stereo output in your headphones (no matter the quality of the headphones) to a proper cinema viewing?
Also since it's a war film it's almost obligatory to watch it on proper speakers, not headphones, so you can feel your whole body vibrate with every bomb/torpedo/whatever thing going off.

While I do miss my superior sound setup, the benefits of my apartment far outweigh the loss of that. I'm very happy with my home experience and cinema screenings here are without exception ruined in some way by other viewers

what is any character without its appearance, occupation or actions?

watched this on an airplane, it was a pretty underwhelming film. didnt make me feel anything desu and nolan over did it with the music.

I'm four minutes in and already two people have had a poo.

>dumpkirk

>watching a film like Dunkirk on a fucking airplane
you really are not ashamed of being the dumbest of casuals out there are you

those aren't nazis tho

That's the same person you dumbo

what's wrong with that? if i didnt watch it on the plane i wouldve just watched it on the internet eventually. anyway it was underwhelming kiddo, deal with it.

A small ass screen and a non existant audio setup, it's entirely laughable.

>just watched it on the internet eventually
You mean on those atrocious streaming sites? Wow you really are the most ignorant of pleb casuals out there

i bet you go to the cinemas alone.

also special effects dont make a bad movie good. the movie was boring as shit, plain and simple.

>every film has to have ''character development'' and relateable characters with '''''arcs''''' and memorable 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'''''
Fuck off
These buzzwords aren't a checklist that every film has to have to be ''good''. This way of thinking is capeshit babby tier, surface-level reddit shit

>Purely visual experience, feels like you're really in WW2!
>Is a hamfisted OCD shitfest

>also special effects dont make a bad movie good
Not much special effects in Dunkirk.

>the movie was boring
"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.

this

it was underwhelming and dull. i did not enjoy it.

>really feels like you're in ww2
its more like
>watching guys stand on a beach for an hour and 30 minutes

t. brainlet
Can't believe you people really are that stupid. The point was to show war as a force of nature. As a force you can't argue with or negotiate peace with. Showing a single enemy soldier in combat would've ruined the whole point

It's Nolan's worst, that's clear.

t. dumb amerilard who thinks that ww2 is people shooting thousand of bullets 24/7 with guts and limbs flying left and right non stop

It's unironically the best Nolan film since The Prestige.

i pay money to be entertained

Wehrmacht =\= nazis
Amerimutt education baka

If you think any of the other Nolan flicks are good then I'm happy you don't like Dunkirk. It's his only great film.

'boring' is a valid complaint, since a movie is boring because it has flaws. If it can't hold your attention then it has failed no matter what the content is. Dunkirk is 'boring', it has flat visuals and slow disjointed build ups to disappointing climaxes like the civilian fleet or the developing story with the PTSD pilot. There's no reason to care about any of the characters since they don't have meaningful relationships.

>le rlm star wars experiment

>army of nazi germany
>not nazi
In other news: red army isn't communist.

t. dumb ameriburger who thinks film is just about brainless escapism "entertainment" and nothing else

Feel free to indulge in capeshit then my friend.

It's a disaster movie, son. It's not about relationships. You might as well say you don't like it because it's not funny. Well it's not a comedy, that's why it's not funny.

>Comparing this shit to Memento

Most of the general public find films by Tarkovsky "boring", probably because they are a bit slower than todays films. Are they bad films then?
Most of the general public find flicks by Marvel "fun", probably because it's non stop braindead quips and mindless CGI action. Are they good films then?

What you find boring others can find completely riveting and vice versa, it's just a overly general statement of your mood about it, just like saying something is fun, which others can find extremely boring.

I unironically prefered the Dunkirk scene in Atonement to this overrated dungheap

what's the mental illness where you genuinely enjoy watching dudes stand on a beach for 2 hours?
i'm not sure if this fits in the autism category

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? Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.

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 if you're not a full blown turboautist.

You mean the historically innacurate "poetic" try of a gimmicky long take with scattered endless characters running infront of the camera filmed in the golden hour, which never happened?
And the rest of the film is even worse.

>you don't care about the characters and the flat visuals and weak score ruin the suspense
>it has no spectacle and disappointing climax sequences

oh so it doesn't even qualify as a good disaster movie.

I agree, this movie was made entirely for cinema experience, huge screen, loud sound, strong effects
Watching this at home just makes you notice how shallow the movie feels, there's really not that much shit happening and it's from several different point of views at different times of the movie, hell there were like 5 different scenes in the entire movie
Not saying I hate the movie, possibly will even watch it again, but the hype was fucking unreal for what it is

What's the mental illness where the only measurement of quality of a film is "fun" for a person?
I bet you don't watch films released before your birth year.

> Much main character. Muh main plot. Muh development

This is Reddit's level of film analysis

Yeah, I prefer a scene from an actual film to a glorified documentary, because I'm not autistic.

The historical inaccuracies really made it bad in my eyes.

Gonna watch it in 4k on a 55 inch tv with my sound system that doubles as a music production monitor.

I feel sorry for You stream fags honestly.

Are you implying this is historically accurate?

4K wont mean anything see . 2160p is not enough vertical height for IMAX.

That's not saying much because Atonement is a masterpiece

>flat visuals
What a retarded non argument pulled out of the ass

>I offer you a though experiment - describe this character to someone who hasn't watched the movie without mentioning his appearance, occupation or specific actions he takes in the movie.

That feel when somebody watches a Mr Plinkett review and thinks they are fit to critique movies

I'm not implying, I am literally saying it.

there he goes again

Dunkirk is basically a fucking video game cutscene. You're supposed to just see it in IMAX or with some expensive screen and sound system at home so you can feel immersed in the otherwise dull happenings and the unbearable Zimmer soundtrack. That's what everyone is essentially praising the movie for. The immersion and the historical "accuracy". The protagonist of the Mole segments is literally made as empty a character as possible to serve as a self-insert. The hype for this movie is absurd and it will leave no discernible cultural footprint after a few more months or so.

The usual Hollywood sappy ww2 flick with a shoved sappy love story, tailor-made for an ameriburger flick consumption.

it isn't 'boring' because of the subject matter or the pace of dialogue though, it's boring because it doesn't provide an interesting perspective on the event in terms of visuals or scale or characters.

what don't you understand about this film failing to portray characters against the backdrop of the event? The dialogue doesn't need to be mindless exposition however characters that are nearly silent and act inconsistently do not constitute good character studies. This movie does NOTHING well, it astounds me anyone defends it. Even a history channel documentary would provide more insight into the event, and would actually follow interesting characters like the officers.

don't even begin to suggest that Dunkirk is historically accurate, at least atonement provides some good visuals and some sense of the hopelessness and exhaustion of the troops.

>the historically innacurate "poetic" try
so, Dunkirk.

>charcters weren't likeable!
brainlet_wojack(23).jpg

in this movie, it's not about one single person. This guy represents all soldiers as a whole that want to be rescued. It's not a one man story, it's an event story.

Hence why so many of them are pretty and have the same haircut and any of them could be considered the main character.

not all movies have a star wars arc

pretty much the only good shot in the movie
I feel sorry for van hoytema for being hamstrung by working with Nolan, one of the least stylish and most visually dull directors in cinematic history
I bet he had to fight with Nolan to not make that shot boring as hell

Hoyte is overrated gabbagool.

do you literally have a folder of Dunkirk related posts you just copy paste to every thread? I feel like I'm going insane with the amount of deja vu.

>The portrayed situations alone should be enough for you to be attached to the person on-screen if you're not a full blown turboautist.
But the problem is Nolan can't into visual storytelling and structured the film like a brick to the face instead of immersive.

And yet its cinematography, music, editing and pacing, and emotional heft far surpass Dunkirk's.