Daily reminder that this masterpiece wont win the Oscar for "Best Picture" because it doesn't have degenerate...

Daily reminder that this masterpiece wont win the Oscar for "Best Picture" because it doesn't have degenerate pro-nigger /pro-faggot/pro-whamen propaganda.

It has a realistic cast, some good conservative values and um sweetie is problematic.

This movie was oscarbait shit and you know it.

>because it doesn't have degenerate pro-nigger /pro-faggot/pro-whamen propaganda.


literally fresh air in movies

Or maybe it's just fucking boring.

Nolan fan boys are annoying as fuck.

Daily reminder that this lmovie was so fucking boring that nolan had to do the old " let's just fucking mess up, the chronological order otherwise i'm losing half the audience before the end" trick

"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.

I feel like anyone who wasn't impressed by this movie probably watched it on a PC monitor while also browsing an imageboard. It really doesn't have the same impact. Like watching 2001 on a mobile phone.

Nigger Dunkirk is literally filler the movie

>a british ww2 film that is not a remake/reboot/prequel/sequel with a full white brit male cast and zero quips or shoved diversity in 2017
>"oscarbait shit"
sure thing buddy

Kill yourself, faggot. Boring says a film is not intellectionally stimulating enough.

t. ADHD ridden surface-level plot driven casual who most probably doesn’t watch films released before his birth year

This is the "it's fun with friends" argument for Sup Forums

lmao

Its not that great a movie, BR2049 blows it out the water by a very very wide margin. Still the second best this year though

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

my grandfather and i went to see this. he described it as 'harrowing'

What is even the appeal of war movies? It's just white people shooting at each other

Way to admit you watched it on a PC monitor while browsing a Taiwanese basket making board.

why do you guys whine so much? fucking snowflakes

>a film has to be "fun" to be good
Are you 12?

Not really, Blade Runner 2049 is even longer and slower but it feels like most scenes mean something compared to this fucking shit.

>"not really"
>mentions a films literally released in 2017
You can't make this shit up

most of the critics think that in order for a film to be good it needs to be F U N and D I V E R S E

War movies are the real superhero movies. Not some quippy soyboy faggots in latex underwear

The movie was BLAND like eating nothing but bread. Nothing eventful happened.

>masterpiece
>boring ass piece of shit excuse for a film
Pick one

Both are for aoy boys. One is blatant propaganda, the other wishful fantasy

Imagine sailing away really, really fast was your biggest achievement of WW2 and you are so proud of it that you continue making movies about it decades later

Masterpiece

So in your numale mind Thor Ragnarok is better than this film?

See here

I'm 28
Probably seen 1000+ movies in my life old and new.

This movie is entirely skippable I'm not even sure why it needed to be a movie.

Nolan's worst.

I enjoyed Nolans previous films but this one did nothing for me. It was ok I guess, but I didnt give a fuck about what was happening. If it wasnt for Sup Forums I'd forgot I've eveen seen it

We should be more inclusive towards your people, I agree. But then I don't know how we could make 90 minutes of spear chucking work.

Original Alien or 2001:SP are the same. From what i remember almost nothing happens in Alien for like half of the movie, it still didn't feel as unecesarry as most of Dunkirk. Legit it was something like this
>Scene where they fight in the air, or more like chase eachother
>Scene in the boat when they travel to them
>Scene with the fag who had like 3 lines in the movie
>repeat for 2 hours

it's your fault that you give a shit about awards. this movie will stand the test of time, unlike every oscar winner from this decade.

Literally and unironically the best Nolan film since The Prestige.
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.

When I've come out of this film I was like "Why"?

and "wow it was nothing"

it just was completely forgettable. I'm not against war movies in general, I've even enjoyed hacksaw bridge more

b-but b-but you probably like cape shit

Why the fuck do you even bring up Marvel movies people are talking about this borefest

Where is the propaganda part in Dunkirk?

This was a terrible fucking flick with not a single memorable character, that glorified cowards, had no lines except cheesy memes delivered poorly and portrayed a battle of 900 airplanes and 300000 men as a fucking joke. Emotionless characters with no development not to mention the laughable boat and plane scenes (duude no fuel no problem). If you liked it you really need to leave

LITERALLY NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS

All the relevant shit that made the plot of this could be in a 30 second commercial on TV

>HURRRR DURRRR WHERE'S MUH FLAG-DRAPED CASKET LOWERED INTO A GRAVE SCENE
>HURRRR DURRRR WHERE'S MUH WIVES CRYING IN PICKET-FENCE HOUSES SCENE
>HURRRR DURRRR WHERE'S MUH GUTTED SOLDIER SCREAMING MOMMY SCENE

>No x
>No x
>No x

More like No nothing a waste of time.

>I've even enjoyed hacksaw bridge more
Ofcourse you did you filthy ass plebeian.

I like that the people defending this movie can't say shit only

>KINO KINO NOLAN KINOOO

It was propagandistic, which is normal for a war movie I guess. I was kinda disappointed by the depiction of the beach: It didn't catch the chaos of 400k men being trapped in front of a sea at all. If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there were never more than a couple of hundred Brits present.

The T rating sucks hard for a war movie.

And the Tom Hardy finale was really construed and unbelieveable.

>cracking the German codes
>only country that Germany tried to invade but couldn't get a single toe on
>invented military radar
>was Britain vs the might of Germany for a large portion of the war untill Hitler got bored so though Russia would be comfy
>established organized commando warfare, setting the precedence for modern war and combat
>after the first half of the war was able to win battles it was outnumbered in, became the surgical strike operator country in the late stage of ww2 while the Russians and Americans were throwing their soldiers in the meat grinder.

Dunkirk was a hard defeat, but the British learnt from it and changed how wars were waged as a result.

Watch it again.

This movie started out so good in like the first twenty-thirty minutes during the set-up but it ended up being dragged-out, underwhelming garbage.

there were 400k people there? I dont know shit about history and went to dunkirk just to see a good film, and I honestly had no idea what was happening there

I thought there were like a houndred of them, like you said

shit flick btw

this movie did not accurately portray the amount of soldiers actually on the beaches in normandy

This is the result of (((Nolan))) not wanting to use CGI

>filler the movie
user, it's a movie about a historical event. You already KNOW what's going to happen. The important part is the experience, which is something Dunkirk did very well.

I watched it with my grandad and he was still salty about Nazis loosing the war to ferry-escaping faggots

>single memorable character
Most embarassing point, are you like 12? Not all films are character driven schlock
>had no lines
And that is bad why? Do you think a film is only when characters are reciting lines into the camera?
>portrayed a battle of 900 airplanes and 300000 men as a fucking joke.
The Dunkirk beach is more than 10 miles 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, like I said it's safe to say 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"
>Emotionless characters with no development
Not a character driven film you dumb ape and Rylance has shown more genuine emotion than any of your degenerate starshit/capeshit flicks
>not to mention the laughable boat and plane scenes (duude no fuel no problem)
There are cases of Spitfire pilots gliding for more than 18 miles user, as long as he reached atleast 120mph before his engine was turned off he can glide for a pretty damn long time, and the air narrative represents a single hour so he was gliding for mere minutes.

Try an actual argument next time.

Don't worry user, Oscar's instant runoff voting system for Best Picture is designed to let mediocre film win

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

See here

>only country that Germany tried to invade but couldn't get a single toe on

Ahahaha, noooo , fucking noooo. Germany never ever made ANY serious attempt to invade Britain.
You got BTFO from the continent really early into the war and limited yourself at raiding sea routes and later on airborn raids against civilians. The British contribution to World War II was miniscule compared to other nations, especially on the land.
Surgical strikes my ass, that means nothing compared to the Red Army taking out 2/3rds of German land forces alone.

>ask simply where is it
>"ughmmmmm yeah just watch it again"
Pathetic

I like how the very existence of this film baffles every single ameritard because they can't even fathom the idea of a WW2 film being something other than the usual "WE THE BEST LET'S KILL ALL THE EBIL NAZIS/GOOKS SO HEROIC SO VICTORIOUS" shootout gorefest flicks because they can only take pride in their victories, which is pretty shallow.
Degenerate amerilards will never understand something like this, it will baffle their puny little minds till eternity.

Pls don't stereotype amerilards like this

>The Dunkirk beach is more than 10 miles long, it's not like all 400 thousand men were standing in a single spot like sardines.

So you honestly think that you can spread 400 thousand men over a distance of mere 10 miles so wide that you never ever see more than a hundred at one spot with huge distances between each group?
Come on, man...

Its just that the movie is boring.

the movie was a great risk because it's not a nazi killing bloodbath murican fantasy. Nobody except nolan could've pulled it off

>an island nation plays to their greatest strengths in navy and air force
>still sends troops around the globe to fight for own and allied territory
fuck off

Yeah so Nolan just opted to make a movie where nothing happens. Literally background noise tier film. A movie that tv stores play to sell 60 inch TVs

I was fine with the gliding until he shot down the plane and did multiple turns over the beach at the end

"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.

Kill yourself faggot the beach had body piles big enough that people couldn't even reach the sea, just because you cherrypicked some meme pics doesn't mean shit. The airspace was hell there were airplanes being blown up and falling on the beach, bombs were dropped and the soldiers were shot at while also shooting at the enemy planes.
>le director doesn't need to show you every single enemy
Scale matters retard am I supposed to imagine this was a 400000 people battle when the director shows me toilet queues instead? This shitty flick had soldiers standing on the beach emotionless and speechless, this was fucking chaos not a black friday sale. And no, characters showing no emotion and delivering lines like a first timer isn't a good thing autist, the movie ends and we literally know nothing about all these characters. Murphy kills a kid and the guy driving the boat barely reacts at all. Murphy is supposed to dive in the cold sea and he doesn't even shiver. It's like they're all AIs or something.
>duude my plane has no gas yet I can glide for hours and also maneuver and also take down another airplane ayyy lmaoo
>duude the boat has huge fucking holes and is taking in water, we better force someone to die so that the boat will magically stop sinking?? (that was top tier cringe)
>duuude being a coward is actually awesome and heroic
>duuude the city where every soldier is barricaded at is actually spotless and doesn't even have 1 building destroyed
>duuude just imagine 100 times the people man and the movie becomes good
Yeah maybe I'll go see a good movie instead of reimagining what this pile of shit could have been you mongoloid

t. Lord Abu

>this was fucking chaos not a black friday sale
Seems like the usual Hollywood ww2 schlock made you think that every army is filled with brainless uncontrollable panic boys, try again. Pic related

>the movie ends and we literally know nothing about all these characters
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? Mid bombing quips and jokes? A scene of some old generals in a boardroom arguing while staring at a map? Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy schlock, 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, which you sure seem like you are.

you literally didn't name ONE legitimate critique

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

Le 56% face

>TIS IS NO TA GOOD WARM MOVEMENT PICTURE WHERE ARE THE EXPLOSISIONS AND GORE

ITT: Sup Forums's basement dwelling neckbeards inevitably come with their empty meaningless overly general "boring and nothing happens" brainless statements who 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 and taking 24 different snack breaks inbetween

You literally didn't provide one argument on how my points were illegitimate.

Are you burgers so ignorant to the irony you inflict upon yourselves?

No it wasn't. It didn't even say the word Nazi once. If they wanted for it to be propagandic they would put on forced diversity characters and put a BIG emphasizes on war affected refuges

Holy shit how will brainlet soy boys EVER recover

The depiction of the whole ending is one giant myth fairy tale
You don't seem to understand the difference between WW2 propaganda and SJW agenda pushing.

>WARM MOVEMENT

>The depiction of the whole ending is one giant myth fairy tale
Why?

>the movie ends and we literally know nothing about all these characters.
BECAUSE THERE ARE 400,000 OF THEM SINCE THE POINT IS TO SHOW THE GENERAL TRAGEDY AND HOPELESSNESS OF THE SITUATION

DO YOU FUCKS NEED A ROMANTIC SUBPLOT IN LITERALLY EVERY MOVIE

Boring is boring mate
There is no need to get upset

Maybe next time Nolan will do something interesting and entertaining you know something that's actually worth a movie

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

If there isn't any character development I do not give a shit about the character plain and simple. Now we can sit here and pretend that you cared about all the characters that died in Dunkirk and how you will immortalize forever that one character that was shown being blown up in 2 frames whom we don't know anything about but every post you write is pure unadulterated kek material. So yeah a guy lost his son years ago, then a kid gets murdered on his boat and he doesn't even give the killer a reprimand, he doesn't even react, wow 10/10 character, shame he didn't die. It had the music it deserved though I'll give you that, bland, uninspiring, and makes you kill yourself after the first 10 minutes. I like how you didn't respond to 70% of my previous post though made me think about stuff. And yeah your own pic proves how big this battle was, I know they were standing together in lines at one point but everyone was talking to each other, comforting each other, they weren't speechless, it wasn't a fucking urinal line with 10 people

>being this obsessed with blacks

>a film has to be """entertaining""" in order to be good
Spoken like a true mental midget

400thousand men were not mainly saved by brave fishermen. Their contribution was rather marginal.

Then you have the whole 'brave down to earth general stands at the planks unattended and is about to get shot by a German Messerschmidt, but oh no Tom Hardy changes gliding directions, glides upwards and shoots it down last minute' scene.
Everybody laughs, everybody happy. Great joke.

Germany threw their entire airforce at Dover during the battle of Britain. The red army was only so successful because Hitler sacked all of his good generals and strategists because they weren't telling him what he wanted to hear.

Let me guess, your knowledge of ww2 is limited to 1944 and only around battles which have had movies made about the American soldiers?

>but everyone was talking to each other, comforting each other, they weren't speechless, it wasn't a fucking urinal line with 10 people
Have you even read about the military? The line-up was rote, it was ordered by their officers. They lined up to receive their first rifle, they lined up to fill out paperwork, they lined up to get onto buses and trains, and now they're lining up to wait for evacuation. It's not out of the ordinary.

Break their moral, so they surrender/ally with you and you don't have to invade. That was Göring's plan. Also the Luftwaffe was a meme.

Nope, German

go watch the next avengers user is more of your speed

>a film has to be """entertaining""" in order to be good
Literally yes.

>character development
>in a film that spans a couple of days
>pic related (you)

How much 'character' development do (you) have when you spend days writing essays on a Hungarian hussar drawing appreciation board?

Even if that's what Germany was attempting to do they failed miserably, which is the poin of the film, how unbreakable the British people's morale was.

Being German is worse, you must get taught your "history" by some self hating new loving kraut.

Actually no but it needs to interesting in concept at least.

This should have been a British film made by some no name British director or something.
Not a Hollywood movie and not a Nolan movie.

Why do Nolancucks get so defensive when you're just trying to tell them the truth.

>If there isn't any character development I do not give a shit about the character plain and simple.
Do you like 2001? Also not a character driven film that is more about the events itself, not the character.

>he doesn't even react
Because he's not an impulsive little bitch.
His son intentionally lied that the boy is alright so he doesn't off himself right there and then.
It's not like he intended to hurt him, it was just an accident. They didn't want to unnecesarily put even more weight and trauma for him to carry for the rest of his life, also you get a quick lesson in stoicism with the kid sucking it up and telling that shellshocked soldier that the boy will be alright

>I like how you didn't respond to 70% of my previous post
You actually expect anyone to take brainless DUDE LMAO word spews seriously?

>I know they were standing together in lines at one point
You clearly don't when you literally said they didn’t in your last post and compared it to a black friday sale, utterly embarassing. And it wasn't "at one point", that's how they waited on the beach during that whole week

>but everyone was talking to each other, comforting each other, they weren't speechless
Sure when there was no immediate danger in sight they threw some bantz, while this film is literally shoving you in the battle from the first frame right up until they get to Britain.
What did you expect, mid bombing laughs and goofs? A quirky "nerd" soldier with glasses that is made fun of inbetween all the drowning scenes?
You really wanted a standard Hollywood bullcrap? A second torpedo comes by and annihilates your entire group, and you expect for the character to start talking about their girlfriend at home? Stukas make a fly by for the fifth time and for them to talk dumb childhood stories? Imagine yourself in their position, would you talk about dumb shit like that to other soldiers inbetween getting bombed/torpedoed/nearly drowned etc?

So you think films are just empty entertainment?
Do you think films like Threads or The Hunt are "entertaining"?

Terrible movie. Nothing conveyed artistic excellence nor could be stimulating. The "film" was bland and nonsense. Probably a money laundering scheme by Hollywood.