Dunkirk

[BMCG]

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.

to each there own....and to balance this negativity ..still applaud the film strongly....dialogue was crisp in my London theatre..with the King's coming through loud and bloody clear.

The sound of the Merlin engine in the Supermarine Spitfire..also compelling ..full throated as Jerry took strafe...on multiple occasions.

For the list of war movies...

paa dansk: "Under Sandet" ....which runs under the banner "Land of Mine" in English..warrants consideration. Brutally true.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/land_of_mine/

 

[marty]

There was war and mayhem all around but I looked at the film more as an evacuation.

The evacuation best pictured in the movie was when one of the soldiers pulled his pants down and actually took a crap on the beach. It may have been the highlight of the movie.

 

[BMCG]

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 was Kenneth Branagh...playing Commander Bolton...made the comment.

 

[asiufy]

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.

You mean Kenneth Branagh? Great actor, underutilized in the extreme. And yeah, I remember the scene. But at some point, the whole beach clears up, and they're all gone, and we're led to believe that those handful of rickety boats saved that entire mass of people. Not plausible.

It almost feel like they cut the film too much. A little more dialogue and story-telling would've come a long way towards making people empathise with the characters and their struggle. As it is, it's just a bunch of sound effects and people you don't really care for much.

 

[asiufy]

The evacuation best pictured in the movie was when one of the soldiers pulled his pants down and actually took a crap on the beach. It may have been the highlight of the movie.

hahahahahaha
+10 for you there, Marty

 

[KeithR]

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”?

I'm sorry you'd just like some "dumb" CGI'd movie instead. There were live shots of 60 real ships at a time. Nolan rebuilt a Spitfire and Luftwaffe bomber to use.

from wikipedia:

On the first day of the evacuation, only 7,669 men were evacuated, but by the end of the eighth day, 338,226 soldiers had been rescued by a hastily assembled fleet of over 800 boats. Many of the troops were able to embark from the harbour's protective mole onto 39 British destroyers of the Royal Navy and civilian merchant ships, while others had to wade out from the beaches, waiting for hours in the shoulder-deep water. Some were ferried from the beaches to the larger ships by what came to be known as the little ships of Dunkirk, a flotilla of hundreds of merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft, yachts, and lifeboats called into service from Britain for the emergency. The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers during the French campaign and had to abandon nearly all of its tanks, vehicles, and other equipment.

Yes, more ships were used and the evacuation took place over more days - not the single one basically shot in the movie. and Tom Hardy was caught by the Nazis at the end - not exactly the usual "high fives" kind of flick

 

[KeithR]

You mean Kenneth Branagh? Great actor, underutilized in the extreme. And yeah, I remember the scene. But at some point, the whole beach clears up, and they're all gone, and we're led to believe that those handful of rickety boats saved that entire mass of people. Not plausible.

It almost feel like they cut the film too much. A little more dialogue and story-telling would've come a long way towards making people empathise with the characters and their struggle. As it is, it's just a bunch of sound effects and people you don't really care for much.

I felt the opposite - the emotion without dialogue was much more powerful that 50 year old war-story telling tropes like troops talking about "missing the girls at home" or "generals huddling around a table." What kind of background did you want? Mark Rylances family in particular was powerful.

The worst part for me was the focus on the two scared pussies. Those 2 pissed me off - like, be a man!

 

[BMCG]

I'm sorry you'd just like some "dumb" CGI'd movie instead. There were live shots of 60 real ships at a time. Nolan rebuilt a Spitfire and Luftwaffe bomber to use.

from wikipedia:

On the first day of the evacuation, only 7,669 men were evacuated, but by the end of the eighth day, 338,226 soldiers had been rescued by a hastily assembled fleet of over 800 boats. Many of the troops were able to embark from the harbour's protective mole onto 39 British destroyers of the Royal Navy and civilian merchant ships, while others had to wade out from the beaches, waiting for hours in the shoulder-deep water. Some were ferried from the beaches to the larger ships by what came to be known as the little ships of Dunkirk, a flotilla of hundreds of merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft, yachts, and lifeboats called into service from Britain for the emergency. The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers during the French campaign and had to abandon nearly all of its tanks, vehicles, and other equipment.

Yes, more ships were used and the evacuation took place over more days - not the single one basically shot in the movie.

more facts here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr...04/02_february/03/dunkirk_facts_figures.shtml

 

[Steve Williams]

It was Kenneth Branagh...playing Commander Bolton...made the comment.

my mistake

You're absolutley correct

 

[Steve Williams]

I felt the opposite - the emotion without dialogue was much more powerful that 50 year old war-story telling tropes like troops talking about "missing the girls at home" or "generals huddling around a table." What kind of background did you want? Mark Rylances family in particular was powerful.

The worst part for me was the focus on the two scared pussies. Those 2 pissed me off - like, be a man!

I agree Keith

There was no dialogue (or very little to this movie). The emotion was scripted on the faces of all of the troops

 

[jazdoc]

A few of thoughts...

1. We saw the 70mm cut at Cinerama in Seattle. The picture and sound were terrific.
2. One of the great strengths of the movie is the use of time and how Nolan weaved together three stories occurring on three temporal levels: the Spitfire pilot's action occurs over one hour, the soldiers' story over a day and the entire evacuation over one week. All of the characters are running out of time and the soundtrack was very effective in reinforcing the urgency.
3. There wasn't much need for dialogue because the overarching story is not about the individual characters; rather it is about the character of a nation and its response to an existential crisis. One of the highlights and great devices of the movie was having one of the "two scared pussies" haltingly reading the text of Churchill's "Fight Them On The Beaches" speech at the film's conclusion. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether any Western country would be able or willing to pull off such an evacuation and whether any Western leader would be willing to address their countrymen in such a manner today.

 

[marty]

There was no dialogue (or very little to this movie). The emotion was scripted on the faces of all of the troops

Respectfully disagree. Great actors with emotion scripted on their faces include Charleton Heston in "Ben Hur" when he is tortured and crawling and looks up to see Jesus giving him water. Unforgettable. Jimmy Stewart's face when he is contemplating suicide by jumping off the bridge in "It's a wonderful life". Even Oprah Winfrey (yes Oprah) when her son died in The Butler. Never forgot how pain and sorrow and anger could coalesce so perfectly in a human face. I didn't see much of that kind of acting in Dunkirk. Or were you thinking of facial expression acting like this:



Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[WLVCA]

Tough crowd here!

 

[asiufy]

What I think is happening here is that folks with reasonable knowledge of the events go in and "fill in the blanks", and find acting where there's none, simply because they know what went there, and they see the vivid depiction (and the LOUD BOMBS), so everything comes together.

Maybe if I had a more profound knowledge of these events, I would've enjoyed the movie more. But I'm sure I'd still find the LOUD VOLUME too obnoxious and gratuituous

 

[still-one]

Maybe it was the IMAX version that is the problem. I have seen it twice this week in the 70mm version. I went alone and again with my wife. In both showing some of the dialog was unintelligible but I chalked that off to that other English they were speaking. After reading some of the early comments on this and other sites I was expecting to hear walls shake and be assaulted with high explosions, etc. There was none of this in the 70mm version I saw. Yes, the initial rifle shots were sharp as they were when the bullets pierced the sides of the boat as they waited for high tide. Neither of us enjoys loud movies and she never mentioned anything during this one.l

I had planned to see it the second time in IMAX but my wife did not want to wait the extra hour for that showing. I wish I could have compared the two.

 

[Steve Williams]

Here is an interesting caveat....

my son who is in the film business when asked what gives with the dialogue in all of Nolan's films as being difficult to hear told me that this is typical of all of his films as he does this purposely

Doing a quick search revealed the following

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/cinema/32883/anyone-else-struggling-to-hear-dialogue-in-the-movies

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/dunkirk-too-loud-christopher-nolan-1201860027/

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6p2p4k/why_is_the_dialogue_in_christopher_nolan_films/

 

[marty]

I was stunned to see the litany of complaints about the sound of Dunkirk, particularly in your second reference.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/du...-nolan-1201860027/?replytocom=1251204#respond

 

[NorthStar]

It's movies like these that teach us more about the human race through history, and about the dictators and leaders of wars in times.
We spend trillions in sacrificing our young soldiers by sending them to the electric chair, instead of building bridges of peace between countries and continents with a helping hand. If we have learned anything from the 1st and 2nd World Wars it will be in full display again in the 3rd one coming up.

We are crazy to let these events happen, to let the deranged take over our sanity. The days are over to build huge armies of young people when @ the press of one button we can now annihilate the human race, in totality. Wars are not fair, these aren't video games. Looking back on what has started it all in the first place even historians don't agree with each other (2nd World War)...1937 or 1939?

Dunkirk made me look @ history and how uncalibrated the heart of man.

I will see the film, just to look @ one's man vision; Christopher Nolan's vision with both eyes wide open. And I will read more on the history book of what leads to this disaster of super bad decisions. They were lucky, and wars are not supposed to be about luck, but about intelligent strategies. The more we learn about Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, France, USA, Canada, Ireland, scotland, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, China, Finland, Poland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Russia during tough times (war times) we reflect on all of us including the rest of the world.

Where are we today? With the internet it's easy to find out...Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabia, Africa, Philippines, North Korea, China, USA, Russia, Venezuela, etc. We are still playing with money (bitcoin), with power, with control, with mind games. And who pay for those sick old fart games? Our young ones, that's who.

It's interesting to read the different comments here about the film, and I thought that our wives and young women would find solace in making sense of it all? How really could they?
No, I won't bring with me the sensitive ones, the smart ones, the ones I respect the most from only one's own point of view. It is way too restricted and not accurate IMHO.
Besides, the first few minutes are violent I've read. It might be a part of a grandiose evacuation in man's history, but it was during war time when bombs were raining and young lives gone forever.

It's funny too that in the year 2017 we put so much emphasis on how war films should be viewed: IMAX, 70mm, Dolby Vision/Atmos, surround sound all around and above, the size of the screen and the master level of the main theater's preamplifier. Waves from the ocean @ the beaches, bombs underwater and above and on distant horizon, words exchanged between young soldiers, ...all count in our learning experience, in our historic search. If we depict real live facts from the best historians with accurate accounts, let's get to the heart of the matter with full understanding of the words spoken.
I ain't going to a theater to see a film in gargles language wondering what was said and asking the viewer next to me, no way. And I'm not going to be inssulted and harassed and assaulted and invaded by extreme brain damaging low frequencies. War @ the movies shouldn't kill the movie viewers more; it should teach us more about man's history than destroy our sanity and ears.
That balance I find more recomforting in the walls between my own room @ home. There I control my own destiny without someone else deciding for me.

I will see Dunkirk, maybe @ IMAX (the best around my area) or I will see it on Blu. For now I am peacefully reading all your comments and learning about history. I'll get women to see Wonder Woman. :b

* By the way, I edited this post few times before I submitted it. Because from what I've learned about this evacuation in Dunkirk in 1940, and the friend of my friend was there @ that time.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk

You can put any IMAX camera all you want on a drone or a helmet of a biker, but if you can't hear the words how can you obey orders from your superiors? ;-)
That's why we relate more in our own sound systems in the privacy of our homes than the inferior ones in public venues.
Do you prefer driving your Toyota Camry or Lexus or Cadillac or Rolls-Royce or Acura or Infinity or Tesla or Ferrari or Bugatti, or do you prefer riding the bus or the train or the plane?

By the way, good point on the number of ships and evacuated people within this film's time frame. I've read about that too, and some members here mentioned it; Steve among them.

I have a strong feeling that the UHD Blu-ray of this film is going to be a big seller...picture and sound wise. ...Woofing wise too. And I bet that the dialogue is going to be much better than the majority of theaters.
_____

Extra: http://www.thisisinsider.com/highest-grossing-movies-box-office-2017-1

 

[asiufy]

I was stunned to see the litany of complaints about the sound of Dunkirk, particularly in your second reference.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/du...-nolan-1201860027/?replytocom=1251204#respond

OMG, this quote from Nolan is precious:

“I don’t agree with the idea that you can only achieve clarity through dialogue. Clarity of story, clarity of emotions — I try to achieve that in a very layered way using all the different things at my disposal — picture and sound. I’ve always loved films that approach sound in an impressionistic way and that is an unusual approach for a mainstream blockbuster, but I feel it’s the right approach for this experiential film.”

What a load of bulls***!!!
OK Nolan, you definitely jumped the shark. Your early stuff was fine and all, but this is too much.

 

[NorthStar]

OMG, this quote from Nolan is precious:

“I don’t agree with the idea that you can only achieve clarity through dialogue. Clarity of story, clarity of emotions — I try to achieve that in a very layered way using all the different things at my disposal — picture and sound. I’ve always loved films that approach sound in an impressionistic way and that is an unusual approach for a mainstream blockbuster, but I feel it’s the right approach for this experiential film.”

What a load of bulls***!!!
OK Nolan, you definitely jumped the shark. Your early stuff was fine and all, but this is too much.

He's...different. He is is own bird with his own plumage. He's loaded too because picture is also 3-dimensional but he won't experiment with 3D.
And sound; he is stuck mainly in the front soundstage, he's not into surround much and none @ all into immersive sound like from Dolby Atmos and DTS:X
He's like Woody Allen, with his mono LPs. ...Almost. But the music yes...The Dark Knight, Interstellar...

As for the dialog, I agree with you; loaded with baloney. He's old school, from the silent era. It's a good thing that people around him are waking him up.
He's good, real good @ some stuff, but not that good @ other stuff. He still is one of the top film directors today though. Just imagine if he would but a little more emphasis on clear dialog, on the best spoken scripts; it would catapult him to a higher plateau. I truly think.
_____

* Bonus: http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/dunkirk-how-christopher-nolan-very-loud-sounds-of-war-1201860117/

By the way ... Christopher Nolan ? Born: Jul 30, 1970 (age 47) · London, England - Happy Birthday!