Dunkirk

[ray245]

It seems like this film is getting rave reviews from many critics, with some saying this is an Oscar contender. 98% fresh on RT, with an average rating of 9.2 seems rather impressive.

With Nolan saying the Germans are being hidden from view, and treating this more as a survival film than a standard war movie, hopefully, this means this is a less jingoistic movie. Nolan is one the few directors I like because he doesn't trivialise death like many other directors. There's never the kind of look how funny this person falling to their death is.

The annoying thing for me is there is no 70mm large format Imax screen anywhere near me.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll put this on my list to see. While war movies aren't usually my thing as much as SF films are, I have high regard for Christopher Nolan's skills as a director (even if the scripts of some of his films leave something to be desired in terms of plot and themes).

Though I will say that, while I am not a fan of jingoism, I can't really fault a film for German-bashing in this particular era, for reasons that should be obvious.

[Deathstalker]

Saw it Saturday night at a sneak preview and enjoyed it. Worth it for the flying scenes alone.

[LadyTevar]

Saw it Saturday night at a sneak preview and enjoyed it. Worth it for the flying scenes alone.

I heard the flight scenes are actual planes, actually flying over the beach.

[JLTucker]

I've read it's non-linear, which means I;m going to compare it to the master of non-linearity: Terrence Malick.

And thank CHRIST he didn't use Wally Pfister again. That motherfucker should not be allowed to touch a camera EVER again.

I'll be seeing it in 70mm on Sunday.

[The Romulan Republic]

Saw it Saturday night at a sneak preview and enjoyed it. Worth it for the flying scenes alone.

I heard the flight scenes are actual planes, actually flying over the beach.

That's par for the course with Nolan. He generally shuns CGI, and uses practical effects as much as possible.

[ray245]

Just seen it. It's really good. It, by and large, avoided any jingoism although that came slightly at the expense of the French.

Intersecting timeline is a little confusing for some, but it works for me.

[JLTucker]

I just returned from seeing it. It is quite good for a Nolan movie but suffers from many things. I will be comparing this to Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. Why? Because Dunkirk feels like a poor man's version in its abstraction and non-linearity. This is not a slight against the movie, because no one can Malick like Malick and I'll take any movie that makes me yearn for more of him.

Dunkirk fails the most at one thing, and it's a big one: making you care about the soldiers. I cared for only one ad unfortunately the rest are entirely dispensable. I am supposed to care about the plight these soldiers were in, correct? So why did you create a story where we know nothing about these soldiers? Contrast with TTRL, which takes multiple soldiers and allows us to empathize with the lives they have outside of the war and what they're trying to get home to. Hell, there's a point in Dunkirk that some of these soldiers just want to go home. Well, that's fine and dandy, so how about you show me why I should care if they get home or not.

However: I am open to the interpretation that this may have been purposeful given that they were all feeling forgotten by their government. So... why not make us feel the same way? Though, it's Nolan and I don't think he's that clever.

Also, 70mm was a waste as this movie has some pretty bad war photography. There are too many close-ups of the pilots, the same boring plane-mounted shots are shown over and over, and there's simply not enough wide angle photography to showcase the threat the soldiers faced. I had to stare at a blank sky with two planes going at it over and over far too many times. I felt like I was receiving the Peter Jackson syndrome: close-up after close-up after close-up. We get it: the soldiers are scared and that's important, but show us more about why they are scared. You're going to use that film stock and show a bunch of close-ups instead of filling the frame? GTFO.

With my negatives out of the way, it's time for the positives.

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

The use of time was very good and for once in a Nolan movie I actually had to think about what I was watching. It felt refreshing to not have his script spoon feed me everything.

The music is phenomenal and probably Zimmer's best work to date.

This is the biggest positive: There are no women characters for Nolan to butcher thematically and add evidence that he may be a subtle misogynist.

[Broomstick]

As I am contemplating going to see it with my movie-going friend, I have a question:

I hear that the IMAX version's audio is pretty damn overwhelming and too loud, and the dialogue is hard to make out. Has anyone found this to be true? My ears are aging and not only do I not want to lose my remaining hearing, it's also harder for me to separate out human speech from background noise so this is sort of an important question.

I am seriously considering starting to take ear plugs to the movies, some of them are so damn loud these days! [/geezer]

[JLTucker]

As I am contemplating going to see it with my movie-going friend, I have a question:

I hear that the IMAX version's audio is pretty damn overwhelming and too loud, and the dialogue is hard to make out. Has anyone found this to be true? My ears are aging and not only do I not want to lose my remaining hearing, it's also harder for me to separate out human speech from background noise so this is sort of an important question.

I am seriously considering starting to take ear plugs to the movies, some of them are so damn loud these days! [/geezer]

Yes, but this seems to be an issue with Nolans stuff. TDK had issues with the ending narration, as did Interstellar. Even on a decent home theatre setup those sounded muffled.

The accents in Dunkirk don't help, either.

[ray245]

As I am contemplating going to see it with my movie-going friend, I have a question:

I hear that the IMAX version's audio is pretty damn overwhelming and too loud, and the dialogue is hard to make out. Has anyone found this to be true? My ears are aging and not only do I not want to lose my remaining hearing, it's also harder for me to separate out human speech from background noise so this is sort of an important question.

I am seriously considering starting to take ear plugs to the movies, some of them are so damn loud these days! [/geezer]

Get some ear plugs just in case. Although this is a movie where dialogue isn't really that important.

[JLTucker]

Get some ear plugs just in case. Although this is a movie where dialogue isn't really that important.

I wouldn't go that far.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Saw it this afternoon. A very impressive piece of cinema all told, but the lack of exposition and non-linear nature does make it confusing in places. The acting is generally good but again, a general lack of dialogue makes it quite difficult to empathise with most of the characters.

As much as I enjoyed it, there is something lacking or missing and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. I honestly think it would have worked better without the non-linear storylines and fewer POV characters.

[houser2112]

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing. I am reasonably well-read on WWII, so I know the situation surrounding the evacuation at Dunkirk. However, since the war in Europe didn't start until Torch, a little exposition would probably be a good idea for American audiences.

[AniThyng]

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing. I am reasonably well-read on WWII, so I know the situation surrounding the evacuation at Dunkirk. However, since the war in Europe didn't start until Torch, a little exposition would probably be a good idea for American audiences.

Wasn't that adequately delivered by the opening lines, the propoganda leaflet and the dialog the two guys hiding on the Mole overheard between the RN officer and the army colonel?
Spoiler

That said I have to admit it could get confusing for certain people who don't catch on to the 1Week 1Day 1Hour structure and get confused by things that are vaguely similar (e.g. the torpedo-ed ship the shellshocked guy was picked up from vs the ship that tommy and alex got torpedoed on, or the two times the spitfires engaged Heinkel's etc)

To my shame I didn't realize the confident officer on the boat telling alex and tommy to wait for the next ship was the guy the moonstone picked up - by then his confidence totally broken and shattered...

[houser2112]

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing. I am reasonably well-read on WWII, so I know the situation surrounding the evacuation at Dunkirk. However, since the war in Europe didn't start until Torch, a little exposition would probably be a good idea for American audiences.

Wasn't that adequately delivered by the opening lines, the propoganda leaflet and the dialog the two guys hiding on the Mole overheard between the RN officer and the army colonel?
Spoiler

That said I have to admit it could get confusing for certain people who don't catch on to the 1Week 1Day 1Hour structure and get confused by things that are vaguely similar (e.g. the torpedo-ed ship the shellshocked guy was picked up from vs the ship that tommy and alex got torpedoed on, or the two times the spitfires engaged Heinkel's etc)

To my shame I didn't realize the confident officer on the boat telling alex and tommy to wait for the next ship was the guy the moonstone picked up - by then his confidence totally broken and shattered...

I don't know, because I haven't seen the movie. I was just going on what JLTucker said.

[JLTucker]

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing. I am reasonably well-read on WWII, so I know the situation surrounding the evacuation at Dunkirk. However, since the war in Europe didn't start until Torch, a little exposition would probably be a good idea for American audiences.

I think it's great since it's contrary to how Nolan usually operates. He likes to explain things to the audience via a character. For instance, Ariadne, a throwaway character in Inception, tells the audience what they should be thinking.

I guess I prefer stuff where the audience has to cognitively work for what they're seeing.

[Gandalf]

I ADORE how the movie doesn't tell us why they were there and how they got in the predicament. That dispenses us with exposition-filled scenes and just shows us how they overcome the odds. It gave me the desire to actually read about the conflict.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing. I am reasonably well-read on WWII, so I know the situation surrounding the evacuation at Dunkirk. However, since the war in Europe didn't start until Torch, a little exposition would probably be a good idea for American audiences.

That's ridiculous. Nolan is a British director. Dunkirk tells a British story.

Why should there be crib notes for Americans who can't be arsed to learn about the world beyond their own borders?

[Thanas]

How much more exposition do you need if you have already seen the trailor really? All you need to know is that the British are on the beach (though curiously little seems to be shown of the french sacrifice lol), they need to get off it and the bad germans are bombing them. What more exposition does an american audience need?

[K. A. Pital]

The film is about bitter failure, right?

[JLTucker]

How much more exposition do you need if you have already seen the trailor really? All you need to know is that the British are on the beach (though curiously little seems to be shown of the french sacrifice lol), they need to get off it and the bad germans are bombing them. What more exposition does an american audience need?

"What's a beach?"
"Who is Churchill?"
"Where's France?"
"Which war is this?"
"Help me, Christopher Nolan. You're my only hope."

[AniThyng]

The only legit one might be "what is a mole?" in the context of Dunkirk .

[Broomstick]

Contrary to rumor, some of us Americans actually have heard of the events of the Dunkirk evacuation before this movie was released.

Hope to see it later this week, after which maybe I can contribute a bit more to this thread.

[Alkaloid]

How much more exposition do you need if you have already seen the trailor really? All you need to know is that the British are on the beach (though curiously little seems to be shown of the french sacrifice lol), they need to get off it and the bad germans are bombing them. What more exposition does an american audience need?

Eh, there's a lot of interesting/important stuff about the battle that isn't covered here. The 3rd Divisions night march, Cliftons scratch company, the line at the canal. At the end of the day the movie isn't about the battle, it's a movie about some of the soldiers in the battle and the context is "them". Hence the almost complete lack of Germans.

The film is about bitter failure, right?

Sooooooort of. In the cultural zeitgeist The Battle of France is considered a defeat, but Dunkirk itself a success more than a victory. Kind of have both sides of the coin.

[ray245]

The film is about bitter failure, right?

Well, there is no celebration of victory if that's what you are concerned with. There's also far less nationalistic flag waving compared to your average Hollywood war-film.