Dunkirk (forthcoming in 2017)

Have you seen Hacksaw Ridge?

 

No need to sink to the Mel Gibson level, and I agree that SPR had its share of gratuitous violence. Nolan takes the high road.

 

Or worse, the John Woo level, if you saw the forgettable "Windtalkers". My recollection was that the movie sucked, and John Woo wanted to one up the gore we saw in SPR.

 

Thankfully I managed to avoid Windtalkers.

Whenever I see movies like SPR and Blackhawk Down now, it reminds me of Tropic Thunder, which made great comedy of all the blood spurting and guts spilling.

 

Standing and waiting. Not sitting. Standing. Waiting for what? Godot?
Yes, the beaches were a little too clean. Photos of Dunkirk from 1940 show the evacuation area littered with vehicles & hardware. And if there was ever a better time to employ CGI, it was for the citizen flotilla. Still, I liked the film...just not the last 10 minutes.

 

well, I would think this.....

 

Bingo. My feelings exactly summed up.

 

Yeah, in the first shot where you see the flotilla, there were about ten little boats. Zero wow factor. I call that dropping the directorial ball, and nothing else. Nolan might have been playing against cliche, but Kenneth Branagh's soft spoken, dreamy delivery didn't do a lot to ratchet up tension. He might as well haven been lamenting a poor turnout for his cotillion.


I'm sure he had them pointlessly waiting in line for a "Godot" like effect but as you say, where were the abandoned vehicles, and other trash? Solider sleeping IN THE WATER just for poetic effect? The sea foam was beautiful, though. The only well directed attack was the one bridge bombing. Otherwise, nothing very special.

I actually think he under-used the gore, to the loss of the film. You have direct bomb hits on soldiers and afterward they're shown laying in a group on the beach without a mark, like they fell asleep around a campfire looking pretty and young as always. I immediately thought - "That's pretty glossed over...."

 

Just got back from seeing "Dunkirk" and I was very underwhelmed. Maybe my expectations were too high. I was hoping to see an epic film (nope), with a terrific cast (nope), emotional scenes (nope), gripping scenes (nope), engaging individual adventures (almost the three soldiers),... great cinematography (yep!), amazing special effects (yep!).
There just aren't any characters which draw you in. The dreary Mark Rylance just kills everything he is in. We just see him setting off at the beginning. It would have good to see him in his ordinary life, getting the call to go, with his wife joining him, or something. The guys on the beach had possibilities but Nolan blew it. Harry Stiles was the best of the bunch! Tom Hardy is wasted as a muzzled Spitfire pilot. He should have been a soldier trapped behind enemy lines, spending all the movie trying to desperately fight his way through the town, with his wounded buddy, finally making it to the beach and a little boat at the end (call me next time Nolan). Etc., etc. Disappointing.

 

I think you just wanted to see a different movie. From all accounts, Nolan has done a pretty good job at depicting what happened. It was a scramble to the beach aided by French sacrifice, and then the British actually lined up and waited, hoping for navy or air force support. It was a defeat that set forth the next stages of the war; a heroic fictional subplot would counter that. If you see Hardy as the hero of the plot, the conclusion for his character fits with the character of the film.

Possibly this is the difference between American and British perspective? America needs to have a winner in the end, whereas the British want to show they were stoic and orderly even in defeat.

One thing Nolan did miss was the amount of equipment that was left behind -- Germany was able to make a huge technology leap while the British spent the next year rebuilding.

 

Now that would have made a good movie!
We only got a glimpse of it at the beginning. As I said, a film-long desperate quest to get to the beach would have made a very interesting component to the scenario. Could have saved the film.

 

Just got back. A bit boring and as for the sound, it was like the sub was full volume.

 

Yes, I agree on that -- that collapse into retreat backstory could have been interesting, and it's really just summarized in a few scenes, about 10 words of dialogue and a scowl. I wonder if some of the consideration is that version of a war story has been told before? It's possibly a unique war story, in that it's focused on waiting after defeat. I can't think of many war films with a similar theme?

I said "scramble", but really it was a strange tactical move by the Germans, again alluded to with a few words, that let the British get to the beach and ultimately off of it. There's a whole side story there that could have been interesting, but maybe credit to Nolan for keeping the narrow focus and not making it more of a bio-pic.

 

Saw it yesterday in Cinemark XD. I expected a much better movie. At least with Hacksaw Ridge you truly cared about the characters.

It was very hard to hear the dialogue between the pounding of the soundtrack. I thought Interstellar had problems hearing the dialogue and this was much worse.

Didn't care for the one scene daylight next scene darkness with no continuity. No twilight going into nightfall.

 

In an alternate universe, Michael Bay makes this movie with the opening scene on the beach set to ZZ Top's "Waitin' For The Bus". But the last scene with Hardy catching a near eternal gust of wind in his Spitfire is exactly the same.

 

saw it today in a Dolby theater,great movie but damn it's LOUD ,the problem is the volume is so high when people speak it sounds muffled maybe back down a bit or make the soundtrack more dynamic so a conversation does not sound like it's coming out of a megaphone.

 

I didn't have any problem hearing dialog even through the music or effects. There were a few times I didn't understand the word they were saying, but chalked that up to the accents. I could hear them just fine.

 

Yeah it sounds like your theater had a problem with their sound set-up. I saw it at a relatively small indie theater and can testify the sound mix is fantastic, no problems with dynamic range. I imagine atmos theaters and true imax sound amazing.

 

Even though I loved the film, I liked your post because I know many people will feel the same way. Thinking of my dad and brother in particular. The trailer makes the film seem like it's going to be Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, or Hacksaw Ridge at Dunkirk. People expecting to see a similar film to those (all excellent films in my opinion) are going to be disappointed. It has the emotional reflection of Thin Red Line without the dialogue, character focus, or action scenes. And I remember a lot of people were disapointed in TRL compared to SPRyan when they were in theaters due to the lack of action emphasis in the former.

 

Thought it was great. The dogfight scenes were fantastic and had just the right touch. SPR had a better story but had too much Hollywood etched in it.

 

Saw it in "regular" 70mm (5/70) yesterday afternoon and liked it a lot. Would have opted for 15/70 IMAX, but the nearest screenings are a four-hour drive away, and that's not in the cards for me right now. The presentation at the theater I was at was top-notch - the print was immaculate, with no sign of wear at all, and the projection was rock-solid. You could just barely, if you were really looking for it, see the tell-tale movement in the white-on-black end titles that let you know you were watching film instead of digital, but it was very subtle, unlike many 35mm screenings where the titles bounce and weave.

Hats off to everyone who made such a wide release in 70mm possible - when I saw the roadshow presentation of THE HATEFUL EIGHT in 70, I figured that was the last time I'd ever see such an effort expended for a new release. Fortunately, that turned out not to be the case.

 

Same here. I honestly thought that Hateful Eight would be the last 70mm film by a major director. I'm glad I was wrong. 70mm film will be able to be recreated digitally within the next couple years I'm sure, but we're not quite there yet. 4k digital cameras are just starting to become available and most films are still being shot in 2k. I have not seen a 2k digital film capable of capturing the grand vistas of 70mm. For some reason, I can't even think of any cinematographers who have been able to capture the feel of 70mm coloring though I'm not sure why it would be a technical obstacle to synthesize digitally.

There are very, very few theaters that still own a 70mm capable projector. The Loft (indie theater in Tucson) is the only regular theater showing the film in 70mm. In Arizona, the only other places are the Grand Canyon theater that normally shows documentary/tourist info films and another museum theater. Even places that might have the requisite projector don't have staff trained to operate it. Most theaters now are set to show the film on a thumb drive or BR disc. The job of projectionist used to be a skilled profession, almost an art. Now it's phased out completely.

There are fewer and fewer reasons to visit a theater if you have a UHD player, 65" or larger OLED, and decent surround sound. I (and I'm guessing others) would be willing to pay twice the ticket price for the option to view it at home on my television for most films. Not a fan of fake-butter popcorn smell or the sound of incessant munching during quiet scenes. I'm guessing the only reason why this isn't a reality for most films is because it would make piracy ridiculously easy and harder to trace. Dolby Atmos will never catch on for home use but I hope continues to be successful in theaters, otherwise they may soon go the way of drive-in movies....and as someone who buys memberships to support local theaters that would be a sad day.

 

More gripes:

Spoiler

Nolan tried to build emotion around the old man in the small boat with the two teens. It's true that it was essential to have a story like that but it was so poorly handled. As I said earlier, no build up from their domestic life to create to contrast of heroism and commitment. It should have been a long journey to...the beach at Dunkirk! Nolan has them only getting halfway there, picking up oily soldiers out of the water in a scene that is repeated five or six times from different viewpoints! Big deal, are we supposed to find that clever? It wasn't a particularly dynamic scene either.
When the young lad was dying below deck, Rylance's character just gave us his tried and tested worried, soppy expression. He didn't shout "Grab the helm!" and run down to examine him. He didn't cradle him saying "Hang in there laddie, we'll get you home safely", you know, things give emotional hooks to a movie. Character focus was very weak throughout this lacklustre movie.

 

Yes, I have. A very good movie, but the pathos is a little bit too much for me. By the way.... I also enjoyed "Letters from Iwo Jima".... but both are not favorites.

I also think the combination of the movie with the soundtrack is awesome.... reminds me to Interstellar. Yes, I know the same guys.

 

Right on the money. Or "spot on" I should say. I want to say I enjoyed watching the film, but as Purple Jim said, there was some clunky direction in it. And his point about Nolan skimping on character development really was an oversight. I can see wanted to cut of cliche, but he trimmed back so far it became a rather vague emotional experience. Only the last speech by WC roused me a little. I would honestly have to say the awkwardness outbalanced the good. Had it been less artsy laconic, it would have been a much more "satisfying" film for most viewers. I still had fun -- but a letdown.