Dunkirk
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
I personally haven't enjoyed a Christopher Nolan film since The Prestige.
I found The Dark Knight to be devoid of real stakes (curiously empty streets, curiously empty tunnels - isn't Gotham city supposed to be a thriving metropolis?), devoid of any tension (which Zimmer tries to make up for in bombast), and devoid of thematic and narrative development (Heath Ledger was fantastic though). Likewise, I found Inception to be completely unemotionally engaging despite the premise of spousal grief and parental regret, thematically confused (who knew a film about the subconscious would be so literal in its depictions), any sense of story-craft undone by the constant exposition of its characters (that is, after all, the whole reason Ellen Page's character exists I'm guessing), and an empty climax in which I cared not a whit for Leonardo DiCapro's character's future, despite having sat through 148 minutes of his story. And the film that was supposed to be about parental connection and sacrifice, Interstellar, turned out to be mawkish, overly sentimental and downright embarrassing in its narrative contrivance (a cosmic bookcase, really?) in using theoretical physics and a black hole to allow a father to tell his daughter he loves her. Let's not even talk about The Dark Knight Rises.
That Nolan is unquestionably a filmmaker who understands the power of the frame and its ability to convey spectacle is a given. That his characters are undeveloped and his stories rely on self-reflexive contrivances unfortunately hasn't encouraged me to buy a ticket. That the reviews are off the chain suggests either that this is the best movie of the year so far, that I'm very much out of step with contemporary cinema, or both. I mean, I liked Personal Shopper, so what would I know?
As an aside, my favourite war films are (in no particular order):
The Thin Red Line
Inglorious Basterds
Apocalypse Now
Dr. Strangelove
Downfall
The Pianist
Jarhead
The Hurt Locker
Three Kings
Restrepo*
Standard Operating Procedure*
Best,
853guy
*Documentary
I found The Dark Knight to be devoid of real stakes (curiously empty streets, curiously empty tunnels - isn't Gotham city supposed to be a thriving metropolis?), devoid of any tension (which Zimmer tries to make up for in bombast), and devoid of thematic and narrative development (Heath Ledger was fantastic though). Likewise, I found Inception to be completely unemotionally engaging despite the premise of spousal grief and parental regret, thematically confused (who knew a film about the subconscious would be so literal in its depictions), any sense of story-craft undone by the constant exposition of its characters (that is, after all, the whole reason Ellen Page's character exists I'm guessing), and an empty climax in which I cared not a whit for Leonardo DiCapro's character's future, despite having sat through 148 minutes of his story. And the film that was supposed to be about parental connection and sacrifice, Interstellar, turned out to be mawkish, overly sentimental and downright embarrassing in its narrative contrivance (a cosmic bookcase, really?) in using theoretical physics and a black hole to allow a father to tell his daughter he loves her. Let's not even talk about The Dark Knight Rises.
That Nolan is unquestionably a filmmaker who understands the power of the frame and its ability to convey spectacle is a given. That his characters are undeveloped and his stories rely on self-reflexive contrivances unfortunately hasn't encouraged me to buy a ticket. That the reviews are off the chain suggests either that this is the best movie of the year so far, that I'm very much out of step with contemporary cinema, or both. I mean, I liked Personal Shopper, so what would I know?
As an aside, my favourite war films are (in no particular order):
The Thin Red Line
Inglorious Basterds
Apocalypse Now
Dr. Strangelove
Downfall
The Pianist
Jarhead
The Hurt Locker
Three Kings
Restrepo*
Standard Operating Procedure*
Best,
853guy
*Documentary
Last edited:
Don't forget
Paths of Glory
All Quiet on the Western Front
Saving Private Ryan
Cross of Iron
Battle of Algiers
Stalingrad
From Here to Eternity
Alexander Nevsky
Das Boot
A Walk in the Sun
Good to see you included Downfall!
BruceD
Last edited:
Hi Steve,
I really like Saving Private Ryan, but it just didn't burn itself into my psyche like many of the others did.
Aside from the first fifteen minutes of visceral action, the rest of the film told me nothing about the way war shapes men and men shape war. From my perspective, the 'find the kid brother' premise could have been equally and validly effective had the context for the story been the vikings, ancient Egypt or 80's NYC. In that sense, as a "war film", the war itself feels incidental to the plot when compared to some of the above. I thought Munich superior in every way, and probably the one film of Spielberg's that dealt with history in a compelling way.
Be well!
853guy
jazdoc said:
Thanks jazdoc, wasn't aware of it. Will try and track it down.
Cheers,
853guy
Last edited:
We went to see Dunkirk today and enjoyed the movie - thought it was well done.
After reading some reviews, a few were critical of the "parallel story technique." Apparently this is something Nolan does in many of his movies. To me he seemed to pull it off in this movie.
I wouldn't call it the greatest war movie I have ever seen but I did think it was a very good movie. I was anticipating an intense film based on the previews and it was. For my taste, I was thankful that it wasn't as bloody as it might have been. But that's me.
Certainly was glad there was a good movie to see as there haven't been too many this summer.
After reading some reviews, a few were critical of the "parallel story technique." Apparently this is something Nolan does in many of his movies. To me he seemed to pull it off in this movie.
I wouldn't call it the greatest war movie I have ever seen but I did think it was a very good movie. I was anticipating an intense film based on the previews and it was. For my taste, I was thankful that it wasn't as bloody as it might have been. But that's me.
Certainly was glad there was a good movie to see as there haven't been too many this summer.
What I would like to know is this: Are women going to like it too?
I know, it's not 'Wonder Woman' (2017), but many here said there is not much blood and violence and guts flying all over (almost nil). ...So, I just wonder.
You guy's wives, what did they say?
I know, it's not 'Wonder Woman' (2017), but many here said there is not much blood and violence and guts flying all over (almost nil). ...So, I just wonder.
You guy's wives, what did they say?
The original list posted for IMAX theaters showing Dunkirk may not be accurate. Additional theaters are apparently being added. We're seeing it in IMAX fairly close by in NJ later today.
Speaking of IMAX: Christopher Nolan is not into 3D, only 2D. 'Dunkirk' is in 2D evidently, and so are all his other previous films...'Interstellar' and 'The Dark Knight' trilogy. And IMAX is losing money in 3D, so they'll be showing more 2D films from now on.
? https://www.themarysue.com/imax-3d-phase-out/
• https://qz.com/1039936/imax-says-no-too-the-reign-of-3d-movies-is-over-in-us-cinemas/
_____
It's too bad because I am into 3D, and few more. It will bounce back, it always does, and James Cameron ('Avatar' sequels) is not dead yet.
But yeah it's funny that a film like 'Dunkirk' filmed in 2D by Christopher Nolan (by the way, he is not into Dolby Atmos either, not even 7.1-channel; he's more a stereo guy, or 3 or 5 channels maximum...all his films are of the 5.1-channel variety and with the main emphasis on the front stage...front stereo, and center for dialog), is the subject to kill 3D just a little more and more. His influence and opinion count, and so is James Cameron and few other cinema maestros.
But @ the end of the line it's the public's money that speaks the loudest and gives the trends. It's not the fine arts, it's the mass appeal.
The best is not always the direction chosen by the masses. Only the true connoisseurs pick the best. That's why there are so few of us in the world of true arts. :b
Anyhow...related to 'Dunkirk' with its golden weight.
? https://www.themarysue.com/imax-3d-phase-out/
• https://qz.com/1039936/imax-says-no-too-the-reign-of-3d-movies-is-over-in-us-cinemas/
_____
It's too bad because I am into 3D, and few more. It will bounce back, it always does, and James Cameron ('Avatar' sequels) is not dead yet.
But yeah it's funny that a film like 'Dunkirk' filmed in 2D by Christopher Nolan (by the way, he is not into Dolby Atmos either, not even 7.1-channel; he's more a stereo guy, or 3 or 5 channels maximum...all his films are of the 5.1-channel variety and with the main emphasis on the front stage...front stereo, and center for dialog), is the subject to kill 3D just a little more and more. His influence and opinion count, and so is James Cameron and few other cinema maestros.
But @ the end of the line it's the public's money that speaks the loudest and gives the trends. It's not the fine arts, it's the mass appeal.
The best is not always the direction chosen by the masses. Only the true connoisseurs pick the best. That's why there are so few of us in the world of true arts. :b
Anyhow...related to 'Dunkirk' with its golden weight.
Just saw it in 70mm - stunning. 1:45 of nonstop madness.
if I had a nit, it would be the focus on the two scared soldiers.
if Nolan doesn't win best director, it will be a crime.
if I had a nit, it would be the focus on the two scared soldiers.
if Nolan doesn't win best director, it will be a crime.
Last edited:
I’m sorry to say that Dunkirk was one of the worst movie experiences in recent memory. To begin, I thought the movie was terrible. I read several reviews which gave it good scores, but I just can’t understand why. One review said, it’s not really a war movie. Oh really? In the first minute alone, 6 soldiers are shot and that was just the beginning of the massacre. There are plenty of dead bodies and enough gunfire and dropped bombs that nobody could possibly mistake this for a family outing at the county fair. This is hardly a spoiler alert as everyone knows the story- Churchill rescued 335,000 soldiers stranded on Dunkirk beach. But they weren’t rescued by large ships or destroyers. Rather they were were rescued by a fleet of small fishing boats manned by non-military townfolk who crossed the channel from jolly old England. But the movie’s signature moment showing the arrival of boats defied all common sense. What we saw was perhaps 30 small fishing boats, and hardly the armada of boats that would have been necessary to rescue 335,000 men. This was so blatantly stupid, the move would have been more aptly titled “Dumbkirk”. The only reason this movie could possibly be nominated for best picture this year is because far better movies such as “Throw mamma from the train” are no longer eligible, so they have to pick something. The 3 story lines are hardly related except for time and place and the dialog was virtually non-existent. Even worse, whatever dialog was there was often unintelligible due to the worst sound system I have ever heard at a movie, let alone an IMAX. The explosions, gunfire and background music with pounding subwoofer intensity was so loud that whenever someone spoke, my wife and I turned to each other asking “what did he say”?
Naturally I took out my trusty iPhone app “analyzer” and captured this sample.
Can you believe that a professional actually allowed this sort of crap to occur? The 30 dB peak centered at 50 Hz was unbearable. Keep in mind the iPhone mic rolls off the bottom end. Believe me, there was no shortage of 20Hz information. At the end of the movie, which was bad enough on substance alone, I felt that I had just gone 10 rounds with a subwoofer and the subwoofer won in a unanimous decision. I’m so sorry we wasted our time on this piece of crap. The running time was 106 minutes but it felt like 3 hours. We couldn’t wait to run out of the theater to breath. Upon leaving, I tracked down the theater manager to tell him how unhappy I was about the sonic assault to my brain, His comment? “Oh yeah, we have been getting that a lot. In fact IMAX just sent us a chip to turn the sound down”. I asked, “do you mean it was originally louder than what we just heard?” Maybe that’s why I saw an ambulance stationed outside the theater when I left.
BTW, most IMAX theaters showing Dunkirk are NOT using 70mm film with 2.20:1 but rather a digital projection with 1.85:1 such as the one I saw last night. A good explanation of this can be found here:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/...iner-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket
Naturally I took out my trusty iPhone app “analyzer” and captured this sample.
Can you believe that a professional actually allowed this sort of crap to occur? The 30 dB peak centered at 50 Hz was unbearable. Keep in mind the iPhone mic rolls off the bottom end. Believe me, there was no shortage of 20Hz information. At the end of the movie, which was bad enough on substance alone, I felt that I had just gone 10 rounds with a subwoofer and the subwoofer won in a unanimous decision. I’m so sorry we wasted our time on this piece of crap. The running time was 106 minutes but it felt like 3 hours. We couldn’t wait to run out of the theater to breath. Upon leaving, I tracked down the theater manager to tell him how unhappy I was about the sonic assault to my brain, His comment? “Oh yeah, we have been getting that a lot. In fact IMAX just sent us a chip to turn the sound down”. I asked, “do you mean it was originally louder than what we just heard?” Maybe that’s why I saw an ambulance stationed outside the theater when I left.
BTW, most IMAX theaters showing Dunkirk are NOT using 70mm film with 2.20:1 but rather a digital projection with 1.85:1 such as the one I saw last night. A good explanation of this can be found here:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/...iner-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket
Last edited:
Interesting post Marty. Could it be that the particular movie theater that you watched this movie in was at fault regarding the SQ...and not so much the movie soundtrack. IOW, the movie theater's sound system and set-up was crap and you happened to experience why.
No, I saw the movie in IMAX here in San Diego, and it was exactly as Marty described. I thought I couldn't make out some of the dialogue because hey, I'm not a native speaker, but yeah it does seem the EQing is totally off.
From the first minute, it was a sonic assault, and not a pleasant one. The gun shot sound was piercing, and extremely annoying as well.
And the icing on the cake was the stupid notion that a handful of fishing boats rescued almost 400k people. Suuure...
This "film" is more like a mock-documentary, and not even a good one at that.
From the first minute, it was a sonic assault, and not a pleasant one. The gun shot sound was piercing, and extremely annoying as well.
And the icing on the cake was the stupid notion that a handful of fishing boats rescued almost 400k people. Suuure...
This "film" is more like a mock-documentary, and not even a good one at that.
Actually if you recall the movie they did NOT rescue 330,000 troops but rather the British troops. Ewan McGregor if you recall said he was going to stay for the rest of the evacuation and the evacuation of the French troops
It seems that 70 mm Imax is a dud. We saw it on a regular screen and had no problems with the dialogue.
I still can't consider this a true war story. There was war and mayhem all around but I looked at the film more as an evacuation. Interesting that the 2 people who were naysayers here both saw the film on 70 mm iMax so there must be a relation there.
I thought the film was very engaging but not enough for me to say this was the movie of the year nor Nolan the Director of the year.
Similar threads
