I consider it the Lawrence of Arabia of war movies: slow, often monotonous, lacking in real human characters...

I consider it the Lawrence of Arabia of war movies: slow, often monotonous, lacking in real human characters, but gorgeous and timeless and definitely "of an era".

But Lawrence of Arabia was actually a good movie

Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie

>and definitely "of an era".
if by of an era you mean mediocre in an otherwise solid genre yes.

Lawrence of Arabia is the Lawrence of Arabia of war movies.
Dunkirk was shit and so is Nolan.

How is Dunkirk a mediocre war film in your opinion?

Dunkirk is the best Nolan film since The Prestige.

I condider it twinkkino

I wish i could reply properly but the truth is I barely remember anything about this movie.
yes you have good air fighting and whatever but it is a generic uninteresting movie.
also that fucking opresive music.

How is it generic?
Tell me a single other war film similar to Dunkirk.

watched dunkirk in imax
watched LOA on netflix and got bored


guess my age

maybe you are right and this is the best war movie ever and defining of the whole multiverse.
war movies are not my favourite anyway.

Fury

didn't care for dunkirk its fucking boring.

This might have been the greatest cinematic experience of my life. I can only shake my head and laugh when I hear idiots attempt to criticise to this film. This film just requires a very high level of intelligence which sadly most people don't have.

"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.

Are you retarded?

>every war movie is literally: battle-crying-map room-battle-wives crying-battle-preaching-moralizing-bigger battle
>nolan breaks the mold and makes a survival war thriller
>capeshi/tv/ hates it
imagine my shock...

Fury was actually good though?

HURRR DURRR WHERE'Z MUH SCENE OF FLAG-DRAPED CASKET BEING LOWERED TO THE GRAVE??

Literally no corellation between those two films except for both of them being in the ww2 setting

Wait, what? Lawrence was awesome and colorful, Dunkirk is monotome and bland.

I was yelling at my screen in disappointment and surprise by the end. Dunkirk is a mediocre movie at best mate. Watch “Empire of the Sun”, Band of Brothers, or anything WW2 from Spielberg for 100x better story, production value, cinematography, and acting.
There were some glaring inadequacies and annoyances in Dunkirk! How about the soldiers (the 90 or so poorly directed extras) who were supposedly getting strafed and bombed, you’d think they’d put some hustle in it! Instead, they were loading onto those boats like cattle on quaaludes.

You realize you missed the whole point of the movie?? If he wanted to create more character development, he could've. If he wanted a better story, he could've made one. You said yourself that Christopher Nolan is an amazing director that can do these things, but he chose not too. This isn't some fiction war story that has action and romance and blood, it's about the experience.

>the reason why Lawrence of Arabia is good is because it's "colorful"
The absolute state of Sup Forums

Lone Survivor

>If he wanted to create more character development, he could've. If he wanted a better story, he could've made one.
Titanic was a fictional story from a real event. Titanic was a good movie, but Dunkirk was not. If he could have given character development or better story he would've.

Go ahead and watch your Spielberg sappy fake empathy schlock my dear mental midget casual.

I thought the film was pretty mediocre.
The most common retort I get is that it's meant to be seen in an IMAX theatre because the movie is all about sound and putting you"in" the war. It's meant to be experienced, not watched.

In other words, the movie is pretty shit and the constant monotone droning of the music gave me a headache.

I thought it was a very powerful film. It told the story of Dunkirk and underlined the significance of it. It was about survival. The characters actually don't matter than much and as such there was no need to develop them. It might have been helpful to put it in context for people who perhaps don't know how important a "victory" it was for the Allies and how finely balanced it was. But for the bravery of those who sailed "the little boats" the British might never have saved enough of its army to be able to regroup and eventually, along with the other Allies, launch the D Day attack.

>"Boring" is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching the film.
well the movie changed my mood to boring. only decent part was them about to kill the french dude while the boat was sinking

what the fuck. lawrence of arabia had actual characters, dialogue and drama. dunkirk will be forgotten as soon as the nolan bubble bursts

>le character development xD
Not every film is character driven you dumb ape. Tell me the character development of Dave in 2001

I went and saw the movie with my younger sister the day it came out because the trailer was epic and the critic reviews were raving. But everyone at the cinema was pretty disappointed after the movie, myself included. It was kinda boring, my younger sister fell asleep during the movie, and it was hard to follow certain scenes. I personally believe that Nolan was trying to spin the genre on its head with this avant garde film but it just came off as boring and almost felt pretentious.
After watching the film, i went and researched Dunkirk for about an hour and realized how much better the film could have been. Some people here are saying that the film is about the event and how important it was, but they're insanely wrong. The film is portraying Dunkirk as the soldiers themselves experienced it; not much happened in Dunkirk for the soldiers being extracted, it was an evacuation, period. The soldiers didn't have to fight, they waited around in line to be extracted, this mirrors the film. Anyone saying there should have been more action, is just grabbing at straws...unless they were talking about the french soldiers holding the line.
cont

Your opinion is trash.

cont - HOWEVER, IF the film wanted to demonstrate the immensity of the event, they could have included scenes of the leaders of the countries involved in the war. There was some scandalous/controversial shit happening around Dunkirk from the British side. They could've shown the German leaders making the grave mistake with the halt order, it would've given the audience more insight and a bigger payoff at the end when the soldiers escaped. What didn't make any sense to me was why Nolan would downsize the event compared to historic reality. Maybe budget issues due to Nolan refusing to use much special effects? There was like 100 times more soldiers on the beach than what the film portrayed, there were like 10 times more civilian ships than the film portrayed, a few more airplanes than the film portrayed, and much more hostilities between the allied forces. There was even racism towards the black and Muslim soldiers. Soldiers of color were tortured horrendously by the Germans when captured. They also did little to really explore the sacrifice the french soldiers made, to allow the evacuation of Dunkirk to occur.
There was A LOT of juicy historical content there but Nolan decided to ironically mirror the experiences of the soldiers on the beach; boring with despair and the occasional attack from German planes. I believe the most interesting scenes were the ones with the older man and 2 younger lads.
I don't believe the film deserves the Godlike praise it's receiving but it WAS shot beautifully. And who knows, maybe Nolan lowkey trolled everyone and got away with it. Amazing cinematography and that's it

The cast choice was likely made by a 13 years old girl who is a bigbang fan. Nolan's beach scene is a complete disaster to me. The entire thing feels like kindergarten kids waiting for a school bus. Only like what, a few hundred people were shown, there was no fire, no smoke, no blood, the beach is cleaner and neater than an actual travel spot. People are just literally standing there doing absolutely nothing. The entire German thing makes no sense. I am NOT a guy who like to complain about how "realistic" a movie is. But just the beginning of the movie, a bunch of guys acting like they are shopping for Nike in a mall when they are soldiers in a war zone against Nazis. Planes dropped half a million posters but there were NONE on the beach 20 meters away. People in sandbag castles defending invisible Germans, I truly wander how long it took them to line the sandbags up so perfectly. They said they were losing ground every day, what, was the sandbag castle slowly sliding towards the beach? If they lose that sandbag castle, which is defended by less than 10 men against the German army, the "forty thousand men" will be like sheep facing a wolfpack. Yet, they are chillin on the beach 20 meters away from war zone. I bet the actors hoped they could have their phones out.

>survival war thriller when you can't tell apart any character and even if you could, the timeline is mixed up because bravo nolan. you can't honestly say this flick gave you any of the emotions a thriller is supposed to give

It unironically is.
It's the first Nolan film without the usual Nolan flaws (no constant shoved exposition, no overwritten dialogue, no too complex storyline, no poor close quarter choreography) seems like he finally listened to all of the critiques.
Pure visual storytelling, The Wages of Fear in a war setting.

Those German "20 meters away" were an advance unit poking for weak points, not the main German army.
The main Germany force was still miles and miles away, due to a halt order.
Please, please, please read up on history before you make complete fool of yourself.

>PLANE?

My entire point. You just summed it up.
If this was a formal debate it would look like this:
-Dunkirk have no story, emotion or character
>"It's not about the story, emotion or character, it's the visual effects."
-Dunkirk does not make any sense.
>"It is historically accurate."
-Dunkirk does not explain anything to its viewers
>"You should have done your research idiot, it's historically accurate."

So a shit movie. A fucking fake documentary wannabe. With no depth into story, character, or emotion. The logic, with the information that were provided to the viewers, doesn't work.
You have to research on Dunkirk like a project before the movie to get a single stripe of shit out of it.
Yeah. What a great fucking movie.

only the worst of nolan babbies can compare this to the wages of fear. if you felt any form of fear during this you are really trying hard

This.
I intentionally did no research on the details of the evacuation, just to see what this movie had to offer me. I wanted to judge Nolan fairly since I think most people judge his films on whether or not they like him as a person.
It pretty much did a multiple choice with no question sheet, in place of an essay.
It provided no information whatsoever to the viewers. How the fuck are we supposed to know if the Germans were halting and the advancing troops are only fucking commando snipers that we should just see as props.
And also at the beginning of the movie. They were NOT retreating. They were walking casually all over the street, drinking water from pipes, hanging out and reading propaganda sheets. With their fucking weapons down in a supposedly, peace zone, because Germans are miles and miles away right.

>they could have included scenes of the leaders of the countries involved in the war.
That would be the usual war flick shit, boardroom generals throwing exposition for the audience over a map. Nolan wanted to put the audience in the event itself from the first frame to last.

>There was like 100 times more soldiers on the beach than what the film portrayed, there were like 10 times more civilian ships than the film portrayed, a few more airplanes than the film portrayed, and much more hostilities between the allied forces.
The Dunkirk beach is extremely long, it's not like all 400 thousand men were standing in a single spot like sardines.
It's not like all the 900 cilivian boats came at the same exact second, same with the 40 Destroyers, only a strategic moron would do that. Do you really think 40 Destroyers went at the same damn time, I mean what the fuck would they even do just sit and wait to get torpedoed while a single Destroyer is being boarded?
Same with the Spitfires, it's safe to safe that during an hour time which the air narrative takes place in that only 3 or 4 Spitfires were in air during that entire week, there was never a point in the entire Dunkirk battle where there were 50 Spitfires vs 50 Stukas or anything like that.

Unless you wanted a historically inaccurate fairy tale americanised flick where a whole armada of thousands of boats coming at the same exact same second just so the viewer goes "woah epic so many"

Well made and produced. Boring and slow. 5 minutes after the movie I had forgotten all about it. Its basically a movie about waiting for the bus.

Were audience members expected to bone up on the holocaust before viewing and being deeply affected by Schindler‘s List?
Did you need to do a deep dive on D-Day and the invasion at Normandy to get anything out of Saving Private Ryan?
You keep making the OP’s point for him by referencing interesting, important, plots and subplots that shaped and determined the outcome at Dunkirk, yet weren’t even alluded to in “Dunkirk”.
Dunkirk was an okay movie at best, but given the extraordinary resources involved with its production, or in comparison to any of the truly great World War II movies, it’s an absolute joke. If only they’d dedicated half the effort and money into editing (or coffee to wake up the zombified extras) as they did building buzz and marketing this turd.

>The most common retort I get is that it's meant to be seen in an IMAX theatre because the movie is all about sound and putting you"in" the war

I was told that Gravity was an awesome movie. Turns out it was merely a passable thing that would have made a terrific IMAX experience. Dunkirk falls into the same category.

If the movie doesn't make sense then the incident doesn't make sense and that's not the film's fault.
The soldiers in the beginning were on their way to the beach for the first time. One guy had to take a dump and others were thirsty. And they were supposed to be in a safe area. How did you miss all this?
After Interstellar, a movie with HEAVY exposition, did you not google the science behind it? Most people would have. So why is researching history that wrong as compared to understanding science to see if it is scientifically accurate?

Gravity was better than Dunkirk. Easily

How was it supposed to be a safe area? They were advance of the front line against the Nazis! At which point did the movie explain that they were going to the beach for the first time?
In the actual Dunkirk evacuation, the city was trashed by Germans. A large part of the two armies' combined strength were in the city, holding off Germans, while others escape.
In the movie however, there were about 10 guys sitting in a ballon castle, at the border of the city, which was in mint condition(He even shot the actual Dunkirk city), defending imaginary Germans for about 400 people who are standing on the beach chilling out.
In Interstellar, the movie explained all its science background. I cannot say if it's confusing or not because I knew the stuff before I watched it, but they explained it. From the wormhole to time shift. But for Dunkirk, we did not actually feel the "shooting fish in a barrel", because no Germans were shooting! They send like one plane per hour when the English and French are pretty much laid out for them to kill! This was not the actual history.
But there were indeed not fighting in large scale due to the halt order. Which is a complete mistake, and yes the history didn't make sense because of that. BUT:
I am writing this in all caps:
The movie did not show that! The movie showed the halt order as a genius because so the Germans could shoot them like "fish in a barrel". BUT they did not even show that!!! They did not even show that the Germans were massacring them like that!!!
In an actual, logical, working story, no matter if it's actual history or fiction, mistakes are made by its characters. BUT, BUT if the mistakes are talked about as genius, that's the illogical! That's why it's the movie that is not making sense!!!

Historical accuracy
Planet Earth is the best TV show ever
People were suppose to hang out in the front like like shopping in War-Mart
You have no idea what actually happened, the city of Dunkirk was suppose to be in perfect pristine condition, Germans were suppose to be miles away.
And of course the movie did a good job explaining those to the audience.
I am the biggest Nolan fan. I watched every single one of his movie at least 10 times. You think I wouldn't take time to research about a historical event he was making a movie out of?

For the IMAX? Sure. As a movie? Not really.

I completely agree with you. I do not see what people find so special about this. People throwing around words like "the experience". It was mostly an incoherent mess from a storytelling perspective. Not to mention it could never really establish a set piece that felt right. Some movies you can feel where objects are in space. How the planes are flying and moving together etc. This movie was just a chopped up mess. Airplanes flying out of fuel for 20 minutes just to continue the needed emotional rollercoaster of a Nolan film. Weird shots that feel like they are from a soap opera instead of an actual war zone on long clean piers. Wow they had fire and screaming!! It is war! Pretty boys galore. The sound direction was pretty great. That's all I can really say about this weird out of sync slideshow of a movie with zero characters. It was all about the ride I guess cause there was nothing else there. I like watch ships go boom boom on screen and boring flat characters swim between the various sunk ships. Yay the last plane to show off to everyone that he shot down the bf109 yay :) Everything is always a last second escape. It felt in authentic. This could have used a very healthy dose of some band of brothers sensibility. You know characters? Dunkirk deserves a much better film than this. There was a good movie hidden in here...somewhere.

It's ridiculous.
>HURR It's not suppose to be a "movie", it's the "experience" LMAO XD
So what, do I have to turn off all of my brain functions during the movie and just experience this with my eyes?
I may as well watch Transformers.
A movie with completely no depth is not a movie, it's a random video.
Yes Nolan did exceed his level on stuff like exposition and some shots. But It's like going into a really fancy restaurant with shit food, writing a review focusing on the sexy waitress and expecting that to justify the shit food.
A movie with no depth, no story, no character is not a movie, it's a video. And the fucking Nolanfags defending this shit should be shot

>A documentary about brits and frogs being fucking useless in ww2
about time they were exposed, BRAVO NOLAN

>we shall queue on the beaches
>we shall queue on the landing grounds
>we shall queue in the streets
>and in the fields
>we shall never surrender unorderly

The only characters worth anything were the father and son. This movie is a lot of noise and confusing storytelling.

is this a new meme

Anons are now actually copy pasting posts from reddit because they can't form an opinion themselves.
The absolute fucking state of Sup Forums

Am I the only one who noticed that this is the first time he put on the mask and everyone cared who he was and then he actually crashed the plane with a survivor?

Actually, the usual "nolanfags" found the film "boring" just like you, probably because it has no epiccc twists

ITT: Sup Forums's basement dwelling neckbeards inevitably come with their empty meaningless overly general "boring and nothing happens" brainless statements who just saw the film on an atrocious compressed artefact filled torrent encode on their 13 inch Toshiba laptop with one earbud on while simultaneously shitposting on Sup Forums

What a surprise, the people defending this film are idiots that can only express themselves in buzzwords

>You keep making the OP’s point for him
I'm not a "him".

Why, WHY doesn't Nolan manage to make masterpieces? It's like there's always something undermining the whole film at it's very core.
Had the same feeling with Interstellar, it was new and like nothing else, and yet... Felt empty?

>ITT: Sup Forums's basement dwelling neckbeards inevitably come with their empty meaningless overly general "boring and nothing happens" brainless statements who just saw the film on an atrocious compressed artefact filled torrent encode on their 13 inch Toshiba laptop with one earbud on while simultaneously shitposting on Sup Forums
what a millennial thing to say

the undermining element in every single one of his movies is shitty writing. he's more interested in stupid twists and gimmicks than writing a good story and characters. his brother is exactly the same way, they are both completely obsessed with making it seem like they are Intelligent Filmakers to the audience

it's just gimmicky crap

>you can't tell apart any character
not nolan's fault you're a pathetic phone-checking, chit-chatting soyboy.

The prestige is terrible user

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to enjoy Dunkirk.

>lacking in real human characters

that's factually false

if that were the case it wouldn't be rated so high

fuck off

>Dunkirk is a mediocre movie at best mate. Watch “Empire of the Sun”,

ok I'll try

>>Band of Brothers,
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


> or anything WW2 from Spielberg for 100x better story,

AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA you liked saving private ryan's story? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

> production value, cinematography,

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


>and acting.

whatever.

Tv is full of plebs, a lot of reddit tier simpleton opinions about movies, jesus christ kill yourselves!

It's impressive on a technical level. But if you need IMAX to make it good, you have a problem. Is it a fully realized movie? Not so much. The story it covers, the evacuation at Dunkirk, could have been infinitely more interesting.

And don't give me that bullshit of "it's supposed to be about over feel of the average soldier or whatever. If it was it would've been about the dudes that were sitting around, not some retard trying to take a beached boat.

But Dunkirk has great writing though?
You are aware that writing is not just writing lines for the actor, right?

Saving Private Ryan, for all the contrarian shit it gets around here, is on way more interesting than Dunkirk.

I agree, also a more developed story and characters wouldn't have helped the movie at all. It works exactly the way it is. Examining characters stories would have made it stupider and more bloated than it needed to be.

There are people here who absolutely should never express an opinion about movies, ever

I honestly found this movie to be absolutely horrendous

The scenes with the people trapped in the boat were sooo fucking bad.

The rest was just boring as shit. It's a bunch of dudes standing around. I'd rather watch WW2 footage.

When people say writing they mean dialogue.

Obviously a full script was written, but that's not what people mean.

no,you fuck off.
you can tell nolan knows one or two things about cinematography seing this movie,its correct and all that, but is boring as hell and the characters are a mess.
also this movie has no sense of tension,it has and endless loud opresive mussic,i felt like if i was in an hospital with my heart being tested.

>>who just saw the film on an atrocious compressed artefact filled torrent encode on their 13 inch Toshiba laptop

some times I forget about this literally being the case for many idiots here

>Gayrance of gayrabia

So, its shit?


Agreed

>I consider it the Lawrence of Arabia of war movies
the absolute state of modern Sup Forums. Nolan can't make a film 0.01% as good as Lean. You are literally insane/retarded/manchild.

great writing for 16 year olds lmao

muh non linear time frames

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAH

sorry but dunkirk is a milestone achievement in war movies, saving private ryan is outdated big time

Bit late to the party, but any person who says "turn off your brain" at the cinema is like asking "be a brainless zombie, while you are spoonfed with mainstream popularism". In this case - Dunkirk.
People who went for the "experience" just wanted to see a pretty movie, that's it. It looked cool so let's give it a high rating. Nevermind bland characters, piss poor plot, boring scenes. It showed the hardship of war - for the 234,567 time in Hollywood history? How many times are we gonna go through the same thematics?

I consider it the Lawrence of Arabia of movies

maybe movies are not for you

>milestone achievement

On a technical level maybe. But it's boring as shit. Watching a good war documentary is better than Dunkirk. It's barely a movie. SPR is way more interesting, and if you deny that you're lying to yourself.

>When extremely dumb people say writing they mean dialogue
ftfy

Do you really think writing is just dialogue? What about other films with not much dialogue, do you think their script is non existent either? Do you think 2001 has bad writing then?
How much of a surface-level casual can one be?

Dunkirk is trash

>Watching a good war documentary is better than Dunkirk. It's barely a movie

I'm sorry but I don't think you realize what makes movies interesting or not. stick to documentaries. You care about information not movies

>milestone achievement

LOL

come on,even seing pandorum or event horizon you have some light moments and is not everything edgy loud music.

I never said that genius. I'm just saying that's what most people mean when they say "Oh that show has good writing."

Obviously the script has no dialogue scenes and crap that translate into magic when handledby a good director. But I'm just pointing out that's not writing means to most people. It's just semantics.

I just watched it and I'm also extremely disappointed.
I went into watching the movie with the expectation that this will be a nerve-cracking, intense and psychologically draining ride. Turns out it's far from that.
It's boring, it's disjointed and it isn't entertaining. I think one of its biggest problems are the 3 completely different stories, jumping from one to another. This removes every piece of intensity and storytelling of the movie. For example you have one shot where you see these guys inside a ship in fear, waiting to sink. This maybe lasts for two minutes and then it shifts to an air dogfight with Tom Hardy. Why? Just why would someone design a psychological war movie fuse like that? It was completely impossible for me to get into the movie because it's a mess. Nerve-cracking moments last for less than a minute and they're being constantly broken.
On top of all that there are no characters and personalities whatsoever. You'd think they would at least make some moments that don't need any characterization and dialogue to be intense, but those are horse shit as well.
The thing is that it's extremely difficult to make a war movie that realistically portrays events that aren't pure infantry combat and chaos and instead something a bit more complex and "boring", in a way, such as Dunkirk. This is why Hollywood mostly excels in making more chaotic war movies such as SPR and Hacksaw Ridge. The only way to do what they tried to do here is to make you feel like you understand the nervousness and intensity of the situation to make the movie intense, and I get that's what Nolan was going for. But, it failed.
Overall, it's hard to say it's a bad movie but it's so messy and emotionless, it fails so hard. I can't remember when was the last time I got so disappointed with a film. I liked the concept, but I just can't like the film.

Started watching Dunkirk and couldn't get through the first major scene. So fake, acting sucks, special effects are on par with 1970s technology.

The Germans come to take out the American troops in some old farmhouse and the Germans just stand out in the wide open shooting at the house while the American troops who out-number the Germans are hiding inside and refuse to take any shots at the Germans and instead decide to take some bullets and run away. Whoever choreographed the fighting scenes was probably a woman. I don't think anyone from WW2 was actually involved with the making of this movie.

>loud opresive mussic,i felt like if i was in an hospital with my heart being tested.
And this is bad why?

I care about actually interesting stories, not just information. You can hardly call Her information heavy for example, but I still found it enjoyable. Or Anomalisa or Synedochie New York. And on and on.