Dunkirk (2017)

[dxmatrixdt]

3 minutes ago, Matrix4You said:

as a lover of so many movies, watching this is one of those moments where I have to savor every second of this film.  I would be one of those RT reviewers who writes "they don't make them like this".  So once again, just like with every other film he has made, I appreciate what Christopher Nolan has done.  I appreciate the time I spend watching his films.  I really do.

 

In regards to the dialogue of the movie, I gave up trying to understand what they were saying.  I had to just guess.  It reminded me of The Witch.

 

As for the multiple story thing being a bad thing.... what about Traffic?  Wasn't Traffic similar to Dunkirk in that storytelling way (from what I remember).  If so, look for an editing Academy Award. 

 

What I liked about the no story or character development part is that the film puts you there.  You are inserted into the movie and there is no reason to know any backstory.  It is like the dude at the beginning who escapes being shot up and comes across combatants on the beach.  There is no room for nothing but survival and the sound of the dive bombers.  I think Nolans so called weakness becomes his strength when telling a story like this.  If he keeps making future movies where the audience is basically inserted into the film, it will only get better and more intense with each film he masters.  However, this will be hard to top.

 

[aabattery]

5 minutes ago, Rsyu said:

@aabattery Watched it a second time and indeed, I did catch several scenes (mostly after the torpedo attack), which seemed to indicate a passage of time (thanks!)

 

One last thing I didn't quite get and bothered me; the shivering soldier who was picked up by Mr. Dawson, he seemed to be stranded on top of a sunken ship when he was rescued and his words indicated that he was a victim of a torpedo attack. As I remember the night of the torpedo attack that was shown during the film, Tommy was in the water and approached a small boat where the shivering soldier tells him that he couldn't get on board. So the "shivering soldier" wasn't the victim of that particular torpedo attack. Does this mean that there was a second torpedo attack off camera that we didn't witness? Or am I missing something here?

 

 

Huh. Didn't think of that. A second torpedo attack would make the most sense though.

 

 

[Rsyu]

4 minutes ago, Matrix4You said:

as a lover of so many movies, watching this is one of those moments where I have to savor every second of this film.  I would be one of those RT reviewers who writes "they don't make them like this".  So once again, just like with every other film he has made, I appreciate what Christopher Nolan has done.  I appreciate the time I spend watching his films.  I really do.

 

In regards to the dialogue of the movie, I gave up trying to understand what they were saying.  I had to just guess.  It reminded me of The Witch.

 

As for the multiple story thing being a bad thing.... what about Traffic?  Wasn't Traffic similar to Dunkirk in that storytelling way (from what I remember).  If so, look for an editing Academy Award. 

 

In regards to the dialogue, was it because of the British accent? I saw it with an American friend who said the same thing

[dxmatrixdt]

6 minutes ago, Rsyu said:

 

In regards to the dialogue, was it because of the British accent? I saw it with an American friend who said the same thing

Maybe.  I thought it was the theater, but it probably was the accent.  I know Eames has fun being hard to hear, but it was also the sailors and the leaders having conversations on the Mole.  I just could not understand a damn thing, I felt like I had to feel out to absorb what they were communicating

 

*edit - the only person I understood was Cillian Murphy

Edited July 22, 2017 by Matrix4You

[4815162342]

5 hours ago, Rsyu said:

@aabattery Watched it a second time and indeed, I did catch several scenes (mostly after the torpedo attack), which seemed to indicate a passage of time (thanks!)

 

One last thing I didn't quite get and bothered me; the shivering soldier who was picked up by Mr. Dawson, he seemed to be stranded on top of a sunken ship when he was rescued and his words indicated that he was a victim of a torpedo attack. As I remember the night of the torpedo attack that was shown during the film, Tommy was in the water and approached a small boat where the shivering soldier tells him that he couldn't get on board. So the "shivering soldier" wasn't the victim of that particular torpedo attack. Does this mean that there was a second torpedo attack off camera that we didn't witness? Or am I missing something here?

 

 

The land portion of the film took place over a week, so between the torpedo attack on the boat the young soldiers were on and Rylance leaving port, Murphy's character found another boat to get on, which was sunk in the Channel.

[Rsyu]

3 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

The land portion of the film took place over a week, so between the torpedo attack on the boat the young soldiers were on and Rylance leaving port, Murphy's character found another boat to get on, which was sunk in the Channel.

Yeah, I thought that was the only case that made sense. But I guess I've been too acclimatized to having everything being explained to me on the screen, that scenario didn't immediately jump out at me. 

[Nostalgia]

I very much liked the core concept / many ideas of the film but I didn't like it overall as I thought I would.There were many beautifully written and shot scenes but editing was too swift , the scenes were passing/flying away without much impact.As every Nolan movie it had great score,cinematography and setting , only if editing wasn't swift it would have been great.

I left theatre with lesser experience than TDK,TDKR,Inception and Interstellar (I watched it in normal multiplex). 

 

This idea of swift editing technique spoiled my day.

 

The non-linear structure narration was also bothering many audiences but can't blame Nolan for that.

 

The efforts & brain he put in making a film is just incredible.As every Nolan movie filmmaking is at it's very best.

[Nostalgia]

The thing that needs to be mentioned is this film has no gore,blood,violence,sex.It can be watched by all ages.Has it ever happened for this kind of movie ?

I am still thinking whether this decision helped or dented the movie prospects ?.

[redfirebird2008]

8 hours ago, Rsyu said:

 

In regards to the dialogue, was it because of the British accent? I saw it with an American friend who said the same thing

 

The British accents can be tough, especially with the very loud sounds in the background. But I will say it was a lot easier to understand dialogue in Laser IMAX than LieMAX. Much, much, much better sound system with Laser IMAX. 

[Water Bottle]

A master class in tension.

 

A

[cannastop]

I understood what Nolan was trying to do in Dunkirk, but some details still felt off to me. It's admirable that the events of the movie take place mostly without dialogue or explanation, but there were a few moments where I was caught off guard, and I wasn't sure what happened. George's injury on the boat happened so suddenly that I was puzzled at what exactly occurred.

 

I was looking forward to more rescue than destruction. Without the little explanatory dialogue there is in the movie, you might assume only 1,000 soldiers escaped on little boats, rather than the large rescue that actually happened.

 

Nolan still captures the claustrophobic conditions that the soldiers faced. There is a real sense of peril heightened by Hans Zimmer's score.

 

It is a beautiful movie, and I recommend you see it on the largest screen possible, and in film rather than digital. I saw it in digital, which captured enough of the details to make me long for the clarity of film.

 

9/10

Edited July 23, 2017 by cannastop

[filmlover]

This movie had me grabbing onto my armrest for almost its entire 100 minute running time. I don't think I've ever seen a movie in theaters that feels less like a movie and more like an experience as much as this one does (and I saw it in the standard format due to the 70MM being sold out so I have to imagine what those seeing it on a large screen must've felt). Christopher Nolan puts the viewer in the midst of the chaos, and I thought the nonlinear approach with the three storylines worked out perfectly and was never confused. Everything about this movie excels: the battle scenes are visceral without feeling at all neutered by the PG-13 rating, the actors (yes, even Harry Styles) are all great in the roles they are given, Hans Zimmer's score is nerve-wrecking and heightens the action, and the movie knows not to overstay its welcome with a short running time. I'll be seeing this again in 70MM real soon and I'm interested in seeing how the experience holds up. A

[CoolioD1]

did the main dude ever get to take that shit though?

[filmlover]

11 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

did the main dude ever get to take that shit though?

So moved he was by the soldier burying a fellow soldier that his bowels stopped moving.

[eXtacy]

One thing I thought very clever was you don't actually see a single German soldier until the very final seconds of the movie.

 

That was claustrophobic as hell. Like the cinema walls were closing in on me.

 

A

[hasanahmad]

.

Edited July 23, 2017 by hasanahmad
Delete this

[rukaio101]

1 hour ago, eXtacy said:

One thing I thought very clever was you don't actually see a single German soldier until the very final seconds of the movie.

Can I be honest and say that was actually one of the things I really didn't like?

 

Don't get me wrong, I thought it worked in the opening sequence, where Fionn's squad were getting shot to pieces without a single glimpse of the enemy, but I also thought that overall it really ended up undercutting that whole 'trapped on all sides, enemy slowly moving in' atmosphere that the movie was trying to create. I get that Nolan was probably going for that whole Jaws-esque 'Nothing is Scarier' feel with them, but you never really get that same sense of overwheming threat and pressure that the movie needed if you don't actually see the enemy at your doorstep. I ended up more fearing the threats in the water and the air than the apparent horde of German soldiers supposedly closing in on the beach.

 

So yeah, for me, it just ended up feeling more gimmicky overall than actually helping the story.

[hasanahmad]

The genius of Nolan in Dunkirk

We get 3 perspectives and each perspective has individuals which provide a collective summary of all that happened in Dunkirk. Its genius storytelling . you don't need to know the personal lives of the individuals portrayed because their experiences fear and emotions are a collective of the 400000 men the sea farers and the airmen all in one movie . this is why the focus is not on the individuals but their actions because if the focus would be on individuals they would become the singular protagonists in the movie and it would be their journey. Instead this is a collective summary journey of all the men on that beach who some died some captured and some escaped and who lived for another day to give their lives and their heart for UK and win back Europe from fascism. This is why we are getting so many perfect scores because we have never seen anything like it

This is his best movie and so far his Magnum Opus

10/10

[4815162342]

1 hour ago, rukaio101 said:

Can I be honest and say that was actually one of the things I really didn't like?

 

Don't get me wrong, I thought it worked in the opening sequence, where Fionn's squad were getting shot to pieces without a single glimpse of the enemy, but I also thought that overall it really ended up undercutting that whole 'trapped on all sides, enemy slowly moving in' atmosphere that the movie was trying to create. I get that Nolan was probably going for that whole Jaws-esque 'Nothing is Scarier' feel with them, but you never really get that same sense of overwheming threat and pressure that the movie needed if you don't actually see the enemy at your doorstep. I ended up more fearing the threats in the water and the air than the apparent horde of German soldiers supposedly closing in on the beach.

 

So yeah, for me, it just ended up feeling more gimmicky overall than actually helping the story.

 

Part of that is because there were about 40,000+ French soldiers holding the line outside of Dunkirk to allow the nearly 340,000 other soldiers to escape. No Germans actually got near Dunkirk until after the evacuation due to that, as well as the infamous stop order by Hitler around the time the evac began.

 

So not seeing any Germans was realistic. In fact the opening scene (and occasional scenes thereafter) was the one that didn't make sense since the Germans never got that close to the beach until after essentially everyone was evacuated.

[cannastop]

30 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

In fact the opening scene (and occasional scenes thereafter) was the one that didn't make sense

Such as the boat target practice scene. I was thinking "wait a minute..." in the theater. Why would the enemy be that close?