Jump to content

Dunkirk


Recommended Posts

As usual I will just wait for it to come out and watch it at home.

 

I really hate going to the movies. I don't remember the last time I went.

I love the whole experience of going to a movie. I have a hard time watching movies at home because of all that I have to do and the distractions. I don't usually like the movies I see at home as well as I would, had I seen them in a theater.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual I will just wait for it to come out and watch it at home.

 

I really hate going to the movies. I don't remember the last time I went.

I love the whole experience of going to a movie. I have a hard time watching movies at home because of all that I have to do and the distractions. I don't usually like the movies I see at home as well as I would, had I seen them in a theater.

different strokes I guess. I don't really have any distractions at my home and I don't have to deal with asshole people and overpriced food.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coming attractions for this move have looked great. The reviews for it have been very, very good. I love history. So this is a movie that I have really wanted to see.

 

Ran out last night and saw it. So what did I think? Largely a snooze fest. Almost walked out.

 

Now lets be honest about the plus's for the movie. The actual filming I thought was very good. At times I really felt like I was in the Channel. Some of the dialog was ok. But if you have seen the coming attractions you have seen (IMO) the best of the dialog.

 

Which brings me to the minus's. For a movie that claims its about an event that shaped our world (that was on the poster at the theatre I went to) there was NO explanation as to how things got there & NO explanation of what came after. Since I know my history I could live with that, but for the fool who does not know there history, they will be lost. Even so, for me it was a big draw back. I wanted some back story to set the movie up.

 

In addition, the dialog was sparse. Like I said, if you saw the coming attractions you herd the best of it. Due to the lack of dialog I could never identify at all with any of the characters. Perhaps the old sea captain. That was it.

 

So I was left with a movie that sort of wandered, with characters I could not identify with, that really did not have a solid start or end, that did not have great dialog or many good lines.

 

Perhaps its just me. I hope you all see it and love it. I can't say don't see it. Maybe I am totally missing something. But it did not click with me at all.

 

Best of luck with this one folks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coming attractions for this move have looked great. The reviews for it have been very, very good. I love history. So this is a movie that I have really wanted to see.

 

Ran out last night and saw it. So what did I think? Largely a snooze fest. Almost walked out.

 

Now lets be honest about the plus's for the movie. The actual filming I thought was very good. At times I really felt like I was in the Channel. Some of the dialog was ok. But if you have seen the coming attractions you have seen (IMO) the best of the dialog.

 

Which brings me to the minus's. For a movie that claims its about an event that shaped our world (that was on the poster at the theatre I went to) there was NO explanation as to how things got there & NO explanation of what came after. Since I know my history I could live with that, but for the fool who does not know there history, they will be lost. Even so, for me it was a big draw back. I wanted some back story to set the movie up.

 

In addition, the dialog was sparse. Like I said, if you saw the coming attractions you herd the best of it. Due to the lack of dialog I could never identify at all with any of the characters. Perhaps the old sea captain. That was it.

 

So I was left with a movie that sort of wandered, with characters I could not identify with, that really did not have a solid start or end, that did not have great dialog or many good lines.

 

Perhaps its just me. I hope you all see it and love it. I can't say don't see it. Maybe I am totally missing something. But it did not click with me at all.

 

Best of luck with this one folks.

It sounds like much of the praise of this film may be acknowledgement of the historical event, rather than the movie itself. That this story is finally told is enough for praise, perhaps. But it sounds like they may have missed the mark a bit in terms of engaging an audience.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the comments I've seen on line so far:

English: thank god the Americans didn't try to steal this story from us.

French: what about us, we were there?

Russian: ummmm, you guys lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to support a few films the next few weeks but increasingly have less patience with audiences these days. Dunkirk is one such film.

I hear you. I love to go to the movies so I try not to let things bother me too much, but there are some things I really hate. Since I worked at a movie theater as a teen, I have no problem telling someone to be quiet or to turn their bright smartphone off. Even with all of that, I still love going to see movies in a big theater.

 

Kids being brought to hard r movies is the worst. A stupid couple brought their baby to see Sicario at a showing I went to. Wait until Epix or hire a sitter, damnit!

 

Great movie, though.

 

Parents taking children to see movies that are inappropriate for their (the kids') age is one of my pet peeves. I see young parents do this a lot.

 

I saw that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

All too common these days.

 

Still good though?

Yes good...but only just so. Even without the character development, it could have been improved just by using a more traditional story-telling technique.

And that pretty much sums up what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought that Christopher Nolan got in the way of making this a really great movie. There are some things he does really well, but I thought the multi-timeline was distracting and confusing. I did like the multiple points of view of the bombing of the minesweeper, but it consumed the movie sort of like a long joke setting up a mediocre punchline.

 

Things I didn't like:

 

Almost no character development at all.

Overdid it with the convoluted multi-timeline.

The soundtrack was annoying and distracting.

 

Things I did like:

 

The cinematography was incredible.

Multiple points of view. (Telling different stories that coalesce)

The actors did a great job for what they did.

 

Overall, it was a good movie. I'm just disappointed because it could have been a really great movie. The true story is quite captivating and I think he could have done a much better job if he used a traditional timeline and spent more time on character development.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got home from watching it, so here are my initial thoughts:

 

The cinematography and soundtrack I think is great. It felt realistic without being overly Hollywood dramatic. One of my buddies was left wanting more gut and gore - but to each his own. I liked how all the small timelines got interwoven and how it benefited the narrative. I too could have wanted more dialogue, but maybe that isn't the point. Maybe the point isn't to attach yourself to a few characters, but the whole lot instead, the desperation and fear they went through. It's very different from your standard war movie. I will buy it on DVD some day, and when I see it more times, it might become better. It might not.

 

By the way, how great is that Imax? Holy smokes! I haven't been in a cinema for years, so I shelled out for the premium seats. I expected a seat but got a couch :LOL:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got home from watching it, so here are my initial thoughts:

 

The cinematography and soundtrack I think is great. It felt realistic without being overly Hollywood dramatic. One of my buddies was left wanting more gut and gore - but to each his own. I liked how all the small timelines got interwoven and how it benefited the narrative. I too could have wanted more dialogue, but maybe that isn't the point. Maybe the point isn't to attach yourself to a few characters, but the whole lot instead, the desperation and fear they went through. It's very different from your standard war movie. I will buy it on DVD some day, and when I see it more times, it might become better. It might not.

 

By the way, how great is that Imax? Holy smokes! I haven't been in a cinema for years, so I shelled out for the premium seats. I expected a seat but got a couch :LOL:

 

I also just returned from seeing it. Outstanding cinematography. Quite suspenseful and profound. I do think that it fell a bit short in capturing the immensity of the battle/evacuation. Could have had more dialogue, but it didn't hurt the film. What I found fascinating was how this battle was depicted without showing one face of "The Enemy". I don't believe I've ever seen it before in a war film.

 

GOOD SHOW. I'm glad I went to see it. :haz:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got home from watching it, so here are my initial thoughts:

 

The cinematography and soundtrack I think is great. It felt realistic without being overly Hollywood dramatic. One of my buddies was left wanting more gut and gore - but to each his own. I liked how all the small timelines got interwoven and how it benefited the narrative. I too could have wanted more dialogue, but maybe that isn't the point. Maybe the point isn't to attach yourself to a few characters, but the whole lot instead, the desperation and fear they went through. It's very different from your standard war movie. I will buy it on DVD some day, and when I see it more times, it might become better. It might not.

 

By the way, how great is that Imax? Holy smokes! I haven't been in a cinema for years, so I shelled out for the premium seats. I expected a seat but got a couch :LOL:

 

I also just returned from seeing it. Outstanding cinematography. Quite suspenseful and profound. I do think that it fell a bit short in capturing the immensity of the battle/evacuation. Could have had more dialogue, but it didn't hurt the film. What I found fascinating was how this battle was depicted without showing one face of "The Enemy". I don't believe I've ever seen it before in a war film.

 

GOOD SHOW. I'm glad I went to see it. :haz:

Dunkirk is easily the best film I've seen in ages. As noted, the cinematography is brilliant. Very similar to what Terrence Malick does, with Dunkirk Christopher Nolan allows the natural elements of the event itself - nature, emotions - act as the central characters. The sparsity of dialogue makes it all work, as the circumstances that the human characters find themselves in, and their reactions to it, say it all. The horror of being in the belly of a sinking ship, of being pinned down by enemy fire, of being in a desperate air battle, of waiting helplessly on a beach for your turn to be rescued.

 

 

A final remark...

 

I agree that the scale of the evacuation wasn't fully captured, but the film captured the first day only, and on that day, only 7,600+ men were rescued. Over eight days, 330,000+ were rescued, and that fact was referred to in the closing scenes on the train.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

All too common these days.

 

Still good though?

Yes good...but only just so. Even without the character development, it could have been improved just by using a more traditional story-telling technique.

And that pretty much sums up what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought that Christopher Nolan got in the way of making this a really great movie. There are some things he does really well, but I thought the multi-timeline was distracting and confusing. I did like the multiple points of view of the bombing of the minesweeper, but it consumed the movie sort of like a long joke setting up a mediocre punchline.

 

Things I didn't like:

 

Almost no character development at all.

Overdid it with the convoluted multi-timeline.

The soundtrack was annoying and distracting.

 

Things I did like:

 

The cinematography was incredible.

Multiple points of view. (Telling different stories that coalesce)

The actors did a great job for what they did.

 

Overall, it was a good movie. I'm just disappointed because it could have been a really great movie. The true story is quite captivating and I think he could have done a much better job if he used a traditional timeline and spent more time on character development.

 

Well, I for one was glad that I didn't have to sit through yet another conventional movie that told me what to think or feel every step of the way. A rarity these days, I was captivated beginning to end.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

I disagree completely. Traditional modern movie making would have made this just another action flick.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

All too common these days.

 

Still good though?

Yes good...but only just so. Even without the character development, it could have been improved just by using a more traditional story-telling technique.

And that pretty much sums up what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought that Christopher Nolan got in the way of making this a really great movie. There are some things he does really well, but I thought the multi-timeline was distracting and confusing. I did like the multiple points of view of the bombing of the minesweeper, but it consumed the movie sort of like a long joke setting up a mediocre punchline.

 

Things I didn't like:

 

Almost no character development at all.

Overdid it with the convoluted multi-timeline.

The soundtrack was annoying and distracting.

 

Things I did like:

 

The cinematography was incredible.

Multiple points of view. (Telling different stories that coalesce)

The actors did a great job for what they did.

 

Overall, it was a good movie. I'm just disappointed because it could have been a really great movie. The true story is quite captivating and I think he could have done a much better job if he used a traditional timeline and spent more time on character development.

 

Well, I for one was glad that I didn't have to sit through yet another conventional movie that told me what to think or feel every step of the way. A rarity these days, I was captivated beginning to end.

I agree with Goose. Nolan is the modern day Kubrick. This film works like 2001 in terms of sparse dialog and visual story telling...IMO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!

 

You didn't feel like it needed more dialogue or character development, as some here are saying? (I haven't seen it yet, but plan to.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

All too common these days.

 

Still good though?

Yes good...but only just so. Even without the character development, it could have been improved just by using a more traditional story-telling technique.

And that pretty much sums up what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought that Christopher Nolan got in the way of making this a really great movie. There are some things he does really well, but I thought the multi-timeline was distracting and confusing. I did like the multiple points of view of the bombing of the minesweeper, but it consumed the movie sort of like a long joke setting up a mediocre punchline.

 

Things I didn't like:

 

Almost no character development at all.

Overdid it with the convoluted multi-timeline.

The soundtrack was annoying and distracting.

 

Things I did like:

 

The cinematography was incredible.

Multiple points of view. (Telling different stories that coalesce)

The actors did a great job for what they did.

 

Overall, it was a good movie. I'm just disappointed because it could have been a really great movie. The true story is quite captivating and I think he could have done a much better job if he used a traditional timeline and spent more time on character development.

 

Well, I for one was glad that I didn't have to sit through yet another conventional movie that told me what to think or feel every step of the way. A rarity these days, I was captivated beginning to end.

 

 

Agreed on all counts! Bingo!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!

 

You didn't feel like it needed more dialogue or character development, as some here are saying? (I haven't seen it yet, but plan to.)

 

No sir! Not at all! The events of that day are the true "star" of the movie, and they are all presented perfectly. I was literally sitting forward on the edge of my seat for much of the movie. I suppose you could say it's not for everyone, and folks may just not be connecting with it, but I clicked with it so much so that the click was nearly audible. I. Genuinely. Love. This. Movie.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!

 

You didn't feel like it needed more dialogue or character development, as some here are saying? (I haven't seen it yet, but plan to.)

 

No sir! Not at all! The events of that day are the true "star" of the movie, and they are all presented perfectly. I was literally sitting forward on the edge of my seat for much of the movie. I suppose you could say it's not for everyone, and folks may just not be connecting with it, but I clicked with it so much so that the click was nearly audible. I. Genuinely. Love. This. Movie.

That's how I saw it too. I'm not as head over heels (I was still thoroughly entertained for my money) but I really wasn't expecting a big main character or looking for character development. I saw it almost as a documentary with some famous faces presented in an interesting way. I thought the three sections of the movie were woven together quite well and really helped build that feeling of pressure and anxiety

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!

 

You didn't feel like it needed more dialogue or character development, as some here are saying? (I haven't seen it yet, but plan to.)

 

No sir! Not at all! The events of that day are the true "star" of the movie, and they are all presented perfectly. I was literally sitting forward on the edge of my seat for much of the movie. I suppose you could say it's not for everyone, and folks may just not be connecting with it, but I clicked with it so much so that the click was nearly audible. I. Genuinely. Love. This. Movie.

 

More dialgoue wasn't necessary, but it wouldn't have hurt, either. It would be an excellent film either way.

 

Anyone see Quest For Fire way back when? Now that had some great dialgoue in it! ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could have been a really great movie had it been told in a different manner. Great actors, but the dialogue is too sparse and the character development too anemic for those actors to shine.

All too common these days.

 

Still good though?

Yes good...but only just so. Even without the character development, it could have been improved just by using a more traditional story-telling technique.

And that pretty much sums up what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought that Christopher Nolan got in the way of making this a really great movie. There are some things he does really well, but I thought the multi-timeline was distracting and confusing. I did like the multiple points of view of the bombing of the minesweeper, but it consumed the movie sort of like a long joke setting up a mediocre punchline.

 

Things I didn't like:

 

Almost no character development at all.

Overdid it with the convoluted multi-timeline.

The soundtrack was annoying and distracting.

 

Things I did like:

 

The cinematography was incredible.

Multiple points of view. (Telling different stories that coalesce)

The actors did a great job for what they did.

 

Overall, it was a good movie. I'm just disappointed because it could have been a really great movie. The true story is quite captivating and I think he could have done a much better job if he used a traditional timeline and spent more time on character development.

 

Well, I for one was glad that I didn't have to sit through yet another conventional movie that told me what to think or feel every step of the way. A rarity these days, I was captivated beginning to end.

That's fine for a fictional movie. This was a real event with plenty of real stories to tell. That's what I wanted.

I thought the odd timeline was distracting from the real story and I really didn't think it was that clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One complaint I have is the volume. Nolan pushed that way too far (or at least the theater I was in did). The explosions actually hurt my ears at times and felt the soundtrack to my core. I'm lucky to have had hearing protection (left in my wallet after a concert).

 

Revisiting the soundtrack today on Spotify, I think it was a real strength to the movie. I've seen others complain about how it was full of things Zimmer has done before but I felt it was excellent with how it conveyed such awful anxiety. Even now it still makes my heart race

Edited by Union 5-3992
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Dunkirk two days ago and I'll just say that it surpasses all of the great things that have been said about it. The movie is simply glorious, go and see it with all haste!

 

You didn't feel like it needed more dialogue or character development, as some here are saying? (I haven't seen it yet, but plan to.)

 

No sir! Not at all! The events of that day are the true "star" of the movie, and they are all presented perfectly. I was literally sitting forward on the edge of my seat for much of the movie. I suppose you could say it's not for everyone, and folks may just not be connecting with it, but I clicked with it so much so that the click was nearly audible. I. Genuinely. Love. This. Movie.

 

More dialgoue wasn't necessary, but it wouldn't have hurt, either. It would be an excellent film either way.

 

Anyone see Quest For Fire way back when? Now that had some great dialgoue in it! ;)

Here's probably the best caveman dialog in a film

 

Pooh has many names

 

So does the physical act of love

 

Now for a more expansive lexicon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One complaint I have is the volume. Nolan pushed that way too far (or at least the theater I was in did). The explosions actually hurt my ears at times and felt the soundtrack to my core. I'm lucky to have had hearing protection (left in my wallet after a concert).

 

Revisiting the soundtrack today on Spotify, I think it was a real strength to the movie. I've seen others complain about how it was full of things Zimmer has done before but I felt it was excellent with how it conveyed such awful anxiety. Even now it still makes my heart race

I didn't like the soundtrack at all. It reminded me of Inception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...