Fried Gold wrote:
Chills.
Fried Gold wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it - https://twitter.com/jpraup/status/761327973253414912
so sorry wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it - https://twitter.com/jpraup/status/761327973253414912
Reshoots!
Ribbons wrote:New trailer y'all:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You caught her having sex?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, .
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.
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?)
Ribbons wrote:I'm just jealous that you have a screen and projector in your home, you bastard
Peven wrote:I watched a home film-strip edition on my projector.....it just sucks when the "dings" to turn to the next slide start coming too fast to keep track of
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Watched Dunkirk on your iPad.
Watched DUNKIRK on your I-FUCKING-PAD!
A film - shot so nicely, and with such big visuals that Nolan wanted it in Imax theatres, the director who, you know, objects to movies going to Netflix instead of cinema as it ruins the big visual experience.
I am fucking done with you.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Watched Dunkirk on your iPad.
Watched DUNKIRK on your I-FUCKING-PAD!
A film - shot so nicely, and with such big visuals that Nolan wanted it in Imax theatres, the director who, you know, objects to movies going to Netflix instead of cinema as it ruins the big visual experience.
I am fucking done with you.
Fievel wrote:I got this Blu Ray for Christmas and made the mistake of asking the wife if she wanted to watch it. We could never find time. So today I said "fuck it." I waited until everyone was at school, turned on the projector, and turned the speakers up as loud as comfortably could.
Fuck..... this was an amazing experience.
When Branagh sees the civilian boats..... easily up there near the top as one of my favorite moments on film. Ever. The entire movie up to that point was just constantly beating the viewer over the head, showing them how horrible and hopeless this situation was. But not only were we seeing how horrible it was, but the soundtrack ramped up the tension to an infinite degree. And in the moments leading up to this scene, Zimmer's music was so nerve-wracking....and when Branagh lowered the binoculars the music resolved into a beautiful, bright, major chord that gave me chills and tears as the line of civilian boats was shown.
I loved this film.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest