Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:07 am

User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13914
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby so sorry on Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:38 am

Fried Gold wrote:



Chills.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby TheBaxter on Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:46 pm

well, duh, of course it's not THAT Kirk. if it was, it would be called DUMBKIRK.

seriously tho, yeah, looks pretty good. get a big Saving Private Ryan vibe off of it,which is very much a good thing. even some of the actors look almost the same (but they'd be 20 years older so it can't be... maybe their sons?).
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18583
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:39 pm

Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it - https://twitter.com/jpraup/status/761327973253414912
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13914
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby so sorry on Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:42 pm

Fried Gold wrote:Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it - https://twitter.com/jpraup/status/761327973253414912


Reshoots!
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby TheButcher on Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:08 pm

so sorry wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it - https://twitter.com/jpraup/status/761327973253414912


Reshoots!

At least 66% of the movie will be re-shot by Tony Gilroy.

Well, everyone knows America single-handedly won World War II.
What this movie presupposes is... maybe they didn't?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17391
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:45 pm

New trailer y'all:

User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby so sorry on Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:29 am

Ribbons wrote:New trailer y'all:




I'm a sucker for war movies, so this is on my list for sure. Trailer looks good.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:01 pm

Looks boring. The film better not look so held back as the trailer is.

And fuck Tom Hardy.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16467
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby TheButcher on Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:55 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Looks boring. The film better not look so held back as the trailer is.

And fuck Tom Hardy.

Yeah. Screw Dunkirk!
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17391
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby TheButcher on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:46 am

Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk': Intense Footage Stuns at CinemaCon

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17391
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby John-Locke on Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:28 pm

Just got back from seeing Dunkirk, what a cinematic experience that was. War seen through the filter of Horror/Terror and Escape/Survival. See it in IMAX. A technical masterpiece not to be missed.
Image
User avatar
John-Locke
BULLETPROOF TIGER
 
Posts: 12365
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Unknown

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:50 am

I completely forgot to comment on this movie when it came out. I'm seeing it on a proper IMAX screen in a couple of days, I can't wait.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Al Shut on Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:29 am

On the most unimportant of all sidenotes I'm kind of annoyed the movie is called Dunkirk in Germany too, instead of Dünkirchen.
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:25 pm

Al Shut wrote:On the most unimportant of all sidenotes I'm kind of annoyed the movie is called Dunkirk in Germany too, instead of Dünkirchen.


I don't know if it's dubbed or subtitled, but I can imagine the decision being made simply because they're going to be saying the word "Dunkirk" over and over throughout the movie.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Al Shut on Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:48 pm

Dubbed like 99,9% of everything that's screened/aired here. So they say Dünkirchen throughout the movie (judging by trailers). The only thing not translated is the damn title
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Moriarty's Dunkirk Review

Postby TheButcher on Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Tracking Board JULY 18, 2017:
“DUNKIRK” REVIEW: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN’S HARROWING WAR MOVIE PACKS AN EMOTIONAL PUNCH
Drew McWeeny wrote:There is a trap built into franchise movies, and part of what defines Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker is the way he not only understands that trap, but has actively worked to evade it. Only by embracing Batman, one of the biggest and most commercially viable properties in the world, was he able to buy the freedom to make giant-scale movies his way about the things that interest him. Three movies about a superhero with daddy issues means you get to make experimental films about historical stories with no easy narrative hook. That’s Hollywood math at its finest.

It is important because there are few people who could get something like DUNKIRK made, and even fewer who could make it this way, with this level of technical skill. There are plenty of war movies, and certainly since Saving Private Ryan, we’ve seen a different kind of war on film, more graphic and experiential. Even so, it seems like it’s hard for filmmakers to shake the narrative conventions that define the genre, and one of the biggest problems is the way writers and directors lean on stereotype to help define character amidst the mayhem.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17391
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:41 am

Al Shut wrote:Dubbed like 99,9% of everything that's screened/aired here. So they say Dünkirchen throughout the movie (judging by trailers). The only thing not translated is the damn title

Has it been titled "Dunkerque" for French movie posters?
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13914
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Al Shut on Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:31 am

Yes, if IMDB is to be believed
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:08 pm

Can you just talk about what you think of this movie instead of fucking banging on about some petty poxy detail????
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16467
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:42 pm

Hey, some of us haven't had a chance to see the movie yet
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Al Shut on Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:45 am

Yeah, the statement 'I'll probably see this one day in the future' seemed even more uniteresting to me than my language nitpicking.

I still don't know where it's coming from, most of the time I don't care or don't even notice.
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Fievel on Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:23 am

Al Shut wrote:I still don't know where it's coming from, most of the time I don't care or don't even notice.


You sound like my wife during sex. :oops:
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:19 pm

Fievel wrote:
Al Shut wrote:I still don't know where it's coming from, most of the time I don't care or don't even notice.


You sound like my wife during sex. :oops:


You caught her having sex?
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16467
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:23 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Fievel wrote:
Al Shut wrote:I still don't know where it's coming from, most of the time I don't care or don't even notice.


You sound like my wife during sex. :oops:


You caught her having sex?


I just googled "cuckold" to try and find a humorous picture to go along with this joke.

I... don't recommend it.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Peven on Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:04 am

Ribbons wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Fievel wrote:
Al Shut wrote:I still don't know where it's coming from, most of the time I don't care or don't even notice.


You sound like my wife during sex. :oops:


You caught her having sex?


I just googled "cuckold" to try and find a humorous picture to go along with this joke.

I... don't recommend it.



try googling "kirkhold"...........it's so much worse :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :( :( :( :(
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14156
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:09 am

I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:55 am

God, whhhhyyy have you gotta be so petty about a little thing like time jumping? All films do this, and stop talking about this war film too much like a "Oooooh it's a Noooolaaaannn film!". This film should stand on it's own right in how you judge it, or at least judge it as an important war film about an important event. Judge it for that merit not on how it compares to previous films by this guy which are much different with what they are about, that's such an irrelevant point.

Fucking hell with this way of comparative thinking you'd give Uwe Boll a fucking Oscar if he made a half decent film.

Just talk about this war film for all the other things it has to offer, don't waste 4 odd lines on how it compares to other unsimilar films just based on bloody time representation! THERE'S MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16467
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:48 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:God, whhhhyyy have you gotta be so petty about a little thing like time jumping? All films do this, and stop talking about this war film too much like a "Oooooh it's a Noooolaaaannn film!". This film should stand on it's own right in how you judge it, or at least judge it as an important war film about an important event. Judge it for that merit not on how it compares to previous films by this guy which are much different with what they are about, that's such an irrelevant point.


I don't think it's all that petty, it's how the entire film is structured. I was trying to make a larger point about how Nolan is considered a cerebral filmmaker, but his work is often "challenging" on a very superficial level. You're right that each movie should have a chance to stand on its own merits, and I tried to watch Dunkirk with that in mind. But it's also hard not to consider how it stands in the context of his entire body of work. I think both are true.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby TheBaxter on Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:44 pm

Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).


i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.

i think the key to making it work was letting the audience know right at the beginning that these stories were happening at different rates of speed, and they did that. i could see some of the audience not understanding that despite being told, or coming in late and missing those title cards and being confused, but fuck em, if you can't be bothered to make it to the film in time you deserve to be confused.

overall i thought it was a good film, not a great film. it's a bit of a trying experience, it throws you right into things from the start, and with the insistent music that never lets up, the film never really has a chance to breathe, and watching it that tension is hard to endure nonstop for the entire runtime. the characters are sketched in at best, you hardly get a sense of who any of these guys are outside of the immediate events of the film, but i'm ok with that. not every film needs to be about what's going on inside people's heads or how they got to be who they are or whatever, sometimes its ok just to have a film that shows things happening, which is all this film is really trying to do, to show how the Dunkirk evacuation happened from a few different perspectives. it works on that level, but it's kind of a shallow level that's inherently limiting. so if you want a deep examination of the effects of war, or the meaning of it all, or what it says about humanity etc you'll have to look elsewhere.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18583
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:16 pm

Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, .


I see what you did there :lol: ........ :| ........... :twisted: :P



yeah, i'm the devil. I work with learning disabled and handicapped kids every day for shit $ and no appreciation from the public because I'm such a horrible fucking person. have a nice weekend
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14156
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:29 am

Whoa.

The joke that I was making is that you are often a contrary person, and I was advocating for a contrary viewpoint; that's all. I do not think you are the devil.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Ribbons on Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:31 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).


i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.


Yeah, I agree. I probably should have mentioned in my initial comment that, despite there being less of a reason for the timeline in this movie to be all wonky, it actually worked better for me than the other two did. I like that Nolan decided to tell the Dunkirk story through a series of almost-vignettes that logistically had to take place over different stretches of time, rather than trying to shoehorn each into a more traditional war-movie formula (war-mula?)
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13567
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Dunkirk (No, not that Kirk)

Postby Peven on Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:17 am

Ribbons wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).


i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.


Yeah, I agree. I probably should have mentioned in my initial comment that, despite there being less of a reason for the timeline in this movie to be all wonky, it actually worked better for me than the other two did. I like that Nolan decided to tell the Dunkirk story through a series of almost-vignettes that logistically had to take place over different stretches of time, rather than trying to shoehorn each into a more traditional war-movie formula (war-mula?)



a little like with "Pulp Fiction"?
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14156
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench


Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests