Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by townsend, Aug 6, 2016.
The original was pretty good.
It's not visually stunning, but tells the story better.
I'm surprised "Dunkirk" left IMAX theaters as quickly as it did - seems like the other IMAX Nolans lasted much longer.
"Dunkirk" and "Interstellar" made virtually identical US grosses, but "Interstellar" stayed at one of the 3 Smithsonian IMAX screens for 5 months, whereas "Dunkirk" was gone in 6 weeks!
The question for premium large format fans is whether or not 70mm film prints will be distributed for Murder On The Orient Express?
This film is now on Blu Ray so I had the chance to give it a second viewing and I'm still not impressed by this film for any number of reasons. Number one is Nolan tries to stretch his technique by taking this kind of freeform, unstructured approach that eschews tossing out traditional character development and story. The result is this airless void in which we sort of are familiar with the individuals thrown before us, but you don't really give a damn about them as they never really are known by us. The two boys trying to get aboard a ship may be war's "Everymen" but in terms of traditional film and storytelling, they're just mannequins be bounced around, I don't feel anymore for them than I do the bodies flung around by explosions in every war movie ever made -- they're set decorations of disaster, not hallowed figures and heroes, and as a result I'm ambivalent about their fates for the whole movie. The photography is nice, but trying to avoid traditional character development or more intricate plotting, the result is a pretty but emotionally uninvolving film filled with shadow characters and little motivation (except the presumed "avoid getting killed") it's really a lovely but empty picture. The pacing is uniformly flat, no rollercoaster peaks and valleys, just monochromatic with Han Zimmer's relentless, droning score helping to make it feel like an endurance test. I was hoping I'd like it better this time, but I found it just as unrewarding.
Did you get a U.K. copy or somethin'...? Amazon isn't sending my copy till next Tuesday, the 19th. I'll enjoy the spectacle of it even if I end up concurring with your review.
I read a post today that pretty much sums up how I feel about the movie, and it was in response to the 3.5/5 score the Blu-ray.com reviewer gave the movie in their 4K/BD review. (By the way, I watched the first 28 mins of the 4K disc over lunch and it was reference in every way)
I watched Dunkirk this morning and I liked it. I don't think that the characters need extensive development. It maybe could of used a few more characters in the way of citizen-rescuers. The movie was short and they could of been worked in.
I haven't seen the film since it was in theatres, but the more I think about it, the less impressed I am with the film. My main complaint originally was of the diminished scale depicted in the film compared to the actual event. I never got the sense that approximately 400,000 men were on or near the beach. The scenes made it look like a few thousand.
I got the same feeling, not enough men on the beach and too few planes in the air. I watched the special features about the planes. Besides the Stuka dive bombers, which were digital, the other planes were real. They just had too few of them. Single German bombers making attacks is wrong. There should be a whole formation of 'em. They only had one and only one ME 109. They had access to either 6 or 7 Spitfires. I don't think there was ever a scene with more than 2 or 3... Also, there should of been continuous shelling and way more soldiers on the beach. They should of filled in the film with more digitized stuff, men, planes, and ships.
That post you quoted is absolutely spot on. Just how I felt about it but unable to express so well. Cheers
The movie was not intended to be a documentary.
Yeah, my great-grandfather had a sergeant in the Great War who fought in the second Boer War, which made the sergeant 35-years old when he saw action again in 1915. 19 years older than my great I grandfather. He was killed in combat at Loos.
Anyway, I finally saw Dunkirk in my home last night. I thought it was close to amazing, which means that's it was pretty damn good. I love the way the story was told.
Being at home, I had no problem with the score. It sounded great! In fact, the score WAS the film in many respects: such an integral part that it kept the movie suspenseful. I noticed a few times that the instruments, themselves, sounded like dive bombers, and whistling shells, just to keep an awareness of what was going on in precious scenes, or scenes to come. It was seamless.
I think yeah, this film will go down as one of the greats in its genre. It wasn't the best ever, yet it kicks the he'll out of a dozen war flicks that I could name off the top of my head.
I'd add that I was just in England and met a pub owner whose father was evacuated from Dunkirk. From what his father told him about his time there he (the pub owner) said he thought the movie captured the essence of what it was like to be there.
That wasn't an issue for me, I just thought it really really boring.
I think that the problem with this movie is that the expectations were for a big budget war epic, and it is not. Also, if someone is not very familiar with this particular episode from WW2 could hardly understand what exactly is going on.
I watched The Darkest Hour last night - fantastic. Afterward I was thinking it would be every interesting to mesh these two films together to make one terrific movie about the incident. They only overlap visually in a couple of scenes and each film gives a different view of the same incident. It would definitely be more traditional film making but I think it could work to increase the storytelling and impact.
I was not very familiar with the story, the exposition of the film made it apparent (exactly) what was going on.. no problems there.
Dunkirk felt pretty well epic to me... well-made and visually beautiful. I actually felt concern for Gibson's character, and the primary soldier (who's perspective we're subject to) - loved Rylance's character, too. The sense of dread, terror, and the hopeless/resigned attitude of the soldiers was clear. I can't really understand complaining about this film in an age of cinematic excess, it's a breath of fresh air. I dug how the pilots' voices shook as their planes rattled, and the heavy sounds of the guns coming off the stern of the bombing planes. If they had used more planes (in the air), the action sequences might've had less impact. Soldiers, casually jumping off of boats as they listed / sunk, the sounds of the gunfire piercing the hull of the doomed Dutchman's boat... all these bits of physical realism combined for an affecting experience. I didn't need another Atonement, SPR, or BoB. Also, this was infinitely more watchable to me than Inception.
What I meant is that most people would normally expect that a heavily promoted high profile movie called "Dunkirk" would deal with the battle of Dunkirk, and not only and exclusively with the evacuation of the British troops. I'm not saying that the movie is bad, just a bit misleading for the general audience.
I didn't find it misleading nor was I expecting a movie about the battle of Dunkirk. Maybe I appreciated the film more not knowing much about the subject. I had no expectation when I went in and really enjoyed the whole thing.
Misleading? I really wonder how many people have felt mislead by the title.
Well, I was. I admit that I didn't read much about the movie in advance, my understanding was that this is THE war movie of the year, and because of the title, I was expecting some complex account on all events about this important stage of WW2.
I agree about this being an age of cinematic excess, except in THIS particular project, the excess was needed and I'd say, absolutely necessary. The primary complaint, here and elsewhere, is how 'small' and unpopulated the movie is. Perhaps for someone who's unaware of the history, the story's being told correctly, but the simple fact is, it isn't.
Yeah, I saw "DH" today and had the same thought - you could play "Dunkirk" right after "DH" and the 2 would fit together pretty snugly.
Obviously the 2 films weren't planned that way, but it'd work - kinda like "Dark Side" played over "Wizard of Oz"!
And the title is easy "Dunkirk, the Darkest Hour"
I think of it like the Godfather saga.
I'm hoping for at least a mention on the end credits.
Your insight here has amped-up my anticipation for this one.
Separate names with a comma.