Dishonest films

>almost non-existent plot (just about 40 min of story that go back and forth)
>no character depth
>pathetic brits screaming the entire film
>annoying buzzing
>aspect ratio change
is this the definition of dishonest ? it just plays with your feeling with that loud buzz, good at recreating the feeling of a war but take imax out of it and it's just forgettable

you gave away your agenda by the third line. fuck off

The movie was shit and if it wasn't by Nolan people would have called it shit.

YOU JUST HAD TO GO AND DO IT

GODDAMNIT

NOW THE SAMEFAGGING BRITFAGGOT WILL START 20 THREADS ABOUT THIS PIECE OF SHIT

This movie revealed the true nature of the frog.

>aspect ratio change

wut?

>if it wasn't by Nolan people would have called it shit.
But I hate Nolan and liked Dunkirk...

...

Yes, very dishonest.

The story of a retreat is bound to be seen as pathetic by most. Nothing that much heroic in running away. Of course the brits have been brainwashed into believing this was the pinnacle of ww2 heroism, almost ignoring the 2 years of british military passivity that ensued until Pearl Harbor happened and the American army finally directly engaging in the western front.

did you not notice? it wasn't just aspect ratio but different colour grading which would alternate between every other shot

>>almost non-existent plot (just about 40 min of story that go back and forth)
>>no character depth
>>pathetic brits screaming the entire film
>>annoying buzzing
>>aspect ratio change
Must be comfy being this much of a brainlet. Imagine being so dumb that you can't get a Nolan movie

>not knowing history

imagine being such a subhuman that you think nolan flicks are good

What about the german scuba riflemen though

>tom hardy lands his plane perfectly
>"i'll be useful sir" obviously used for le sad death scene
only issues with the film

This. He also did it in all the batman movies.

LONDON

Good lord.

Reminder that any anglo denying this film being kino is a race traitors

>almost non-existent plot
>no character depth
This is what happens when people learn a little about some basic writing principles and then think they know everything. And sadly this is becoming more and more common.

Rest assured Nolan doesn't know history either

>MUH DIALOGUES, MUH PLOT

retard

>>almost non-existent plot
How? The story moves forward from the first frame right up until the last one. Do you think a "plot" is when characters recite lines into the camera?
>>no character depth
Yes, most characters don't even have a name because this is not a character driven film, it's about the event itself, not any individual and their sweethearts waiting at home.
>>pathetic brits screaming the entire film
Ran out of arguments? Pretty sure a standard american ww2 flick has far more screaming and yelling throughout the entire film than Dunkirk, because brits know order and are not chaotic impulsive monkeys.
>>annoying buzzing
You mean the soundtrack? Yeah I agree Zimmer is a bit too repetitive, a lot of scenes would work just as well with no soundtrack, the great sound design delivers all the impact needed.
>>aspect ratio change
Whoever is complaining about aspect ratio changes is watching films on a 13 inch Toshiba laptop because you never hear these complains when the films is released in theaters.
You literally don't see a good chunk of the picture on your computer/TV because the full frame IMAX is much higher vertically than your 16:9 screen, pic related.

Literally made to be seen in a cinema.

pretty much.

This one is.

go back to watching disney movies

literally just a British propaganda film made 70 years later.

>the cowardly french trying to leave with the british even though they saved their asses at dunkirk
>when you retreat you actually win

>almost non-existent plot
it's a disaster movie disguised as a war movie. the characters are all doing their best to survive or help others survive by getting themselves and others off he beach and away from the oncoming enemy. How is that not a plot?

Nobody who studies battle of france will say that the French are cowards though. They are kinda like the Italians fucking up in the Balkans and Africa, they had fight in them but poor leadership and discipline. The film doesn't portray the French as cowards at all. The main character was trying to desert himself.

Also without the BEF, England might not be able to hold out.

how the fuck did fortis 1 turn the plane around without losing air when he was out of fuel? he even shot down a diving bomber

Bombers fly slow. Spitfires are notorious for pulling altitude out of their ass with little speed. Honestly though, I bet a 109 pilot could do the same thing. WW2 fighters glide quite well. This kind of thing happened a lot in the war.

He did?
This first wide shot is immediately after he loses fuel showing his perspective of the beach, second one is when he turned around and shot down the last Stuka.

That was an HE111 not a Stuka that he shot at the end. A big slow level bomber. Stuka would have broke off and out turned him probably since his engine was out.

I think you got mixed up. He shot down the Heinkel bomber while he still had fuel, it's at that oil fire scene.
This is the last plane that attacks the beach with Kenneth Branagh sort of accepting his death before Hardy brings it down.

Ah okay maybe you're right. It's been a couple of months.

interrupted shitting xD

No, retreat is often a tactical decision. This movie portrayed the heroism of civilians and certain individuals in the military, but not the military.

Moonlight is the definition of dishonest fimmaking.

>no story
> no character development and backstory
>manipulative "are you feel sorry for this nigger yet, please feel sorry for him!!!"
>bad, and without chemistry romance.
>ultimate oscarbait, two gay niggers
>white leftist forced to like if, because if they not, they will be labelled as racists (including ciritics and oscar voters)
>niggers forced to like this, because if they not they will be ridiculed by black family, black friends and black community.

First two points couldn't be more wrong, literally all there is to that film is backstory and character development.

you should add:

>won, because political reasons, and "oscar so white" and vote manipulation by black oscar voters.

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

>The problem arises, however, when you look at the script, which is primarily just a means to an end. Aside from Juan, who isn’t even in the film that long, the characters are one-dimensional and are largely just shallow representatives of the film’s themes. Chiron starts out as wimp, then becomes masculine, then reveals his frailty again. And.. that’s pretty much it. We hardly know anything about his lover either. The film’s main trick to get you to care about Chiron is making him suffer. “See this gay negro get beat up by homophobic kids! Watch him confront his drug addicted mother! DO YOU FEEL SORRY FOR HIM YET?!”

I’ve used this phrase in my review of The Defiant Ones to describe the type of film that it wasn’t, the S.S.S.M.M.M.M. (Super Serious Series of Manipulative Misery and Monotonous Moralizing) film, and Moonlight is no exception to that group, but also unlike The Defiant Ones, the complexities of the themes are hardly worthwhile. Moonlight was released in 2016, where the message that people should be more tolerant of others has already been jammed down everyone’s throats. What’s the stance of Moonlight when all is said and done? “Homophobia is bad, bullying is bad, be nice to people, be a good person and good things will happen to you.“ No one needs a film to be given that information. I’m certain that the film’s tackle of homosexuality is the reason why the Hollywood elites gave it so much clout in the first place, so they can further reinforce their ideology without really challenging the audience in any way. This is hardly bold, it’s redundant, and all it really achieves is making the more obnoxious liberals finally shut up about blacks not winning enough awards.

>I know I’ve made mention of the filmmaking quality of this film, but a film that’s technically competent yet has little to offer storywise is like an egg without the yulk. And even then, there’s some questions to be made about Barry Jenkin’s actual artistry . His direction in this film is GREAT, but as an overall artist, there’s much more to be desired. Jenkin’s style is notably derivative of Wong Kar-wai and Hsiao-Hsien Hou. Now, it’s very common for filmmakers to be influenced by other previous filmmakers, but then he straight up steals the final shot of Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. In fact, Moonlight has practically TWO final shots, putting the Truffaut shot at the end. Again, nothing wrong with influence, but that takes away the notion of Barry Jenkins being a brilliant visionary that’s been built up so highly of him. He’ll surely improve his own personal style over the years as he makes more films, but as of now he’s simply a good director and little more.

>"is this the definition of dishonest?"
No?

TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK

The ticking stops when Tommy goes to sleep on the train as all three narratives come to an end.

>at the end of the movie where they finally managed to run away from combat
BRAVO NOLAN, truly heroes

>no plot
>event actually happened in real life and was one of the most important in ww2

My one issue with dunkirk was how empty the beach looked. 400 000 British soldiers would take up a lot more space than that.

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.

I can film my asshole for 45 minutes, it actually happened but it still sucks

Oh I don't doubt that your asshole sucks, fag.