Dunkirk

[marty]

For now I am peacefully reading all your comments and learning about history. I'll get women to see Wonder Woman. :b
]

Now yer talkin'!! The big difference between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman is that it was difficult to watch Dunkirk for 1 hr 47 min whereas nobody, and I mean nobody, could possibly have any difficulty watching Gal Gadot for 2 hr 26 minutes. Even if she just sat around eating pizza, it would be more enjoyable than watching Dunkirk!

 

[KeithR]

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.

I had issues with the sound mix in Innerstellar, but other than the tough English accent for a few peeps, no issues in Dunkirk. Poor Hardy though- dude always has his mouth covered it seems

Sounds like the Imax sound edit was quite different than normal.

 

[R Johnson]

I saw "Dunkirk" on 7/22 in Dolby Cinema, plus about 10 minutes in 70mm and 10 minutes in a regular digital presentation. After reading about the 70mm showings, I checked the times at the AMC near me. To my surprise, I found that they were showing it three ways. I had read great things about Dolby Cinema, so I had to check it out, especially given that Nolan shot the movie on large format film.

The 1st show in 70mm almost completely filled a large auditorium. My 2nd Dolby Cinema had perhaps 25% of a similarly large auditorium (but with much less capacity due to recliner seating). The 3rd digital show had perhaps 50% of a smaller auditorium. All three morning shows were priced the same - $11.06 + tax = $12.42.

It was certainly loud, almost all the time. This theater seems to have motion actuated seats, which I did not appreciate. But I had no trouble with the dialog, especially with Mark Rylance, whose character was about the only one I cared about. I did not think the film was as good as many of the reviews suggested. But certainly not as bad as some here have found it.

In regard to Dolby Cinema: I'll have to give it another try with another movie later on. The images were generally quite good. But, all the end credits were quite blurry. During the trailers I noticed something similar, but when that image faded to black, the text got sharper. Hmmm. Blooming?

The projection system appears to use two projectors facing each other with two 45 degree mirrors in between. One projector and its mirror is above the other. Thus you see two stacked images on the projection room glass. I understand that the projectors are 4K Christie units driven by lasers. The two sets of lasers are tuned to different frequencies to support Dolby 3D, though this is a 2D movie. (The above may or may not to correct.)

 

[NorthStar]

For me to see it in IMAX 70mm I would need to drive an hour, take the ferry (90 minutes), drive another hour, then come back. It would be way too expensive and a long expedition. I have no choice, I can see it in an inferior format because I live on an island in Canada. Movies they go with the territory, and on smaller islands just forget it; Dunkirk is not even playing, Cars 3 is playing.
I agree that if you live in New York City or San Francisco; the cultural life is much more abundant and the pace is different. Even driving a car is not the same; you don't need a car in a big city.

• Geographical guide for your region: http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com/
• http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/why_see_dunkirk_in_imax_70_mm_explained_video.html
• http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/19/dunkirk-imax-70-mm-where-to-see/

So when we read the comments here and @ other places they will vary greatly. It's nothing new; it's the same with the music formats we listen to in our various rooms and @ different music concert venues. Our experiences reflect unique venues and formats, be it visuals or auditory or both. Plus everything else that makes each one of us unique in our perspective.
_____

My nearest IMAX theater:

The largest IMAX screen in British Columbia measuring 61'H x 85'W (18.59m x 25.9m) combined with crystal clear images and wraparound digital surround sound, offers you an incredible immersive cinematic experience through the power of IMAX with Laser. Victoria IMAX lets you feel like you're really there! Located in the world-renowned Royal BC Museum, Victoria, Vancouver Island.

? https://www.imax.com/content/imax-difference

 

[marty]

For me to see it in IMAX 70mm I would need to drive an hour, take the ferry (90 minutes), drive another hour, then come back. It would be way too expensive and a long expedition. I have no choice, I can see it in an inferior format because I live on an island in Canada. Movies they go with the territory, and on smaller islands just forget it; Dunkirk is not even playing, Cars 3 is playing.
I agree that if you live in New York City or San Francisco; the cultural life is much more abundant and the pace is different. Even driving a car is not the same; you don't need a car in a big city.

• Geographical guide for your region: http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com/
• http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/why_see_dunkirk_in_imax_70_mm_explained_video.html
• http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/19/dunkirk-imax-70-mm-where-to-see/

So when we read the comments here and @ other places they will vary greatly. It's nothing new; it's the same with the music formats we listen to in our various rooms and @ different music concert venues. Our experiences reflect unique venues and formats, be it visuals or auditory or both. Plus everything else that makes each one of us unique in our perspective.
_____

My nearest IMAX theater:

The largest IMAX screen in British Columbia measuring 61'H x 85'W (18.59m x 25.9m) combined with crystal clear images and wraparound digital surround sound, offers you an incredible immersive cinematic experience through the power of IMAX with Laser. Victoria IMAX lets you feel like you're really there! Located in the world-renowned Royal BC Museum, Victoria, Vancouver Island.

? https://www.imax.com/content/imax-difference

Bob,
Don't be sure that seeing it in a formal less than IMAX is necessarily worse. There are now widespread reports that the 70mm IMAX has problematic sound in many locations. Could be that 35mm film might be preferred overall.
Marty

 

[NorthStar]

You might be right Marty. I still have time; it's not playing yet @ that IMAX theater in Victoria.

 

[ddk]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...eral/wcm/17834f2f-bbec-45d1-a4e2-f3b60d8c6813

 

[WLVCA]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...eral/wcm/17834f2f-bbec-45d1-a4e2-f3b60d8c6813

And now it gets political.

 

[marty]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...eral/wcm/17834f2f-bbec-45d1-a4e2-f3b60d8c6813

THe WSJ had an editorial review of Dunkirk that made many of the same points. But this piece went further in making very relevant generational comments about the Millennials and Snowflakes. Kudos.

 

[NorthStar]

A quote from an experienced moviegoer:

Has anyone seen it in 70mm imax and regular 70mm? Is it worth it to see it in the non imax 70mm version?

Yes, I saw both. The standard 70mm is definitely a different experience from the 15/70 film, but it's still a wonderful and authentic way to view the film. If I'm brutally honest, of course 15/70 is the way to experience the film (and you don't just watch it in 15/70, you experience it), but the standard 70mm print I saw on opening weekend was gorgeous, just like the print of The Hateful Eight I saw at the same theater.

If you can't get to a 15/70 show (and remember, most can't without a trek), then I would, by all means, see it in standard 70mm instead. Apparently, there are also a handful of theaters showing the film via 35mm reduction prints, but those are few and probably far between. I haven't seen IMAX Laser, so I can't comment, but that would be my next choice, as even though it is digital, you get most/all the picture information from the IMAX 15/70 version. Otherwise, if you must go digital, I guess try and make sure they are running the 4K DCP in native 4K, and not on a 2K system.

In short, if it's possible for you to see it on film, do so, and see it on the biggest film, and the biggest screen you can.
_____

As for Conrad Black's article on Dunkirk, global warming and the heat wave starting tomorrow on the Northern West coast: He can write all the books and articles he wants about history and the state-of-the-affairs in North America and abroad. He can even tweet, and write in any newspapers any news that we already knew way ahead of him.
Thank you very much; Dunkirk in the year 1940 (seventy-seven years ago) we get the best information sources from the best in the history business.

I will see the film, and starting tomorrow stay in the shade with light color clothes and a large cold water bottle. That's for the North West coast...heat wave.
And it has nothing to do with Dunkirk or/and global warming. :b It's just a Pacific weather pattern thing.

 

[KeithR]

THe WSJ had an editorial review of Dunkirk that made many of the same points. But this piece went further in making very relevant generational comments about the Millennials and Snowflakes. Kudos.

give me a break. can we take politics out of this discussion please?

Morganstern, the WSJ movie reviewer, loved the flick fyi.

 

[NorthStar]

We're funny; movies, audio, science, space, weather, oil industries, economics, new technologies, cars, turntables, analogue, tubes, tapes, humor cartoons, travels, ...we often end up putting sticks in our wheels.
Soon we'll have nothing else to talk about and learn from. I'm just kidding; it's not that bad, but still, Dunkirk is a film about real history, in 1940, from a movie director's own vision and style.

The history side is important and educative, very. We're intelligent people and we keep that balance in check @ all times.
Bifurcating from history is not an option; we have to keep realistic in our assessments and search for all the facts. World War 2 with Dunkirk is no joke, it was a grandiose disaster.
The circumstances of this high drama on the beaches and @ sea and above in the air could have been catastrophic, and this should not even have happened in the first place, ever...very bad strategical plan poorly executed.
...Mediocrity @ its best. Maybe the film exposed that main aspect? ...The conditions these young soldiers were in because of poor planification? It's a good thing that we all take great care of all our allies. ...Plus the rescue boats and the RAF.

 

[Folsom]

Sadly, and damn them, there was no 70mm in my area... I am someone that would greatly appreciate that format, too.

I agree that it seemed weak not having enough men on the beaches and not enough boats. But I liked pretty much every thing else. A few times there should have been a few words said when there were none.

It wasn't the best movie, but good. It was however a theater only movie. There is no real purpose to watching it on a TV, as it was all about giving you a "feeling" as it employs no traditional movie sequences that define a begining and whatever else until the end. The sound was fine for me, and I understood the majority of what was said... however I hate it when I can't, that drives me nuts and Nolan should probably be kicked in the balls for his dialog volumes over the years.

The split stories worked for me, but what didn't was the "one hour" "one week" and such. That was utter nonsense. I made sense of the movie but trying to tell me the time frames of the different people was just a pain since I sat around wondering wtf it meant, when I could have been more into the movie. In fact this was one of the most enjoyable parallel storied movies I have seen; I have hated several like Crash, where its like watching a movie written around the need to make a parallel storied movie.

The best part? Tom Hardy having his face covered the whole time. Ironically for the second time while working with Nolan. I despise when film makers unmask people that should not be, just because they are famous. Super hero movies are extremely guilty of that. Any way, with the combination of Tom Hardy and not hammering A-list actors in my face is a very welcomed thing from me. Some movies have A listers but thrh don't rub it in, and can work well for me... you get the idea.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...eral/wcm/17834f2f-bbec-45d1-a4e2-f3b60d8c6813

That really wasn't necessary... It isn't a movie review, its a rant disguised as one (poorly).

 

[steve williams]

Interesting video

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/737616669759271/

 

[marty]

Interesting video

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/737616669759271/

I couldn't open this as I do not have a Facebook account but I was able to find it in Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVWTQcZbLgY

Fascinating!

 

[steve williams]

t

 

[NorthStar]

Interesting video

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/737616669759271/

Good stuff Steve, I really like that, thank you for sharing.

 

[Folsom]

Indeed, the sound bit is great.

 

[NorthStar]

? Interesting observation and commentary

Bonus: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/

 

[flez007]

Music scores are 50% of the movie for me, great shots, good actors/performance and interesting story about the evacuation and heroic acts. I agree with many that is not necessary a 100% war movie, but it was time well spent for Thursday night.