Dunkirk (forthcoming in 2017)

As with Hateful Eight, in my town they're only playing the 70mm Dunkirk in an old, long theatre with a small screen and where half the seats are so far away you may as well be watching TV.

 

Just saw the latest trailer...its going to be very very good. The question is will the pablum palated and sequel-minded brain dead American public realize it?

 

I was at the Music Box today and peeked in at their 70mm screen which was showing West Side Story. It looks like it will be a perfectly acceptable place to see the 70mm print.

 

Let's hope the film at least makes efforts towards historical accuracy. If the current marketing of Dunkirk films is anything to go by, people could be easily confused. Currently on the market:
A) new blu ray cover of classic 1958 film

B) New DVD cover of 2005 BBC production (also very good)

C) New US DVD cover of the same 2005 BBC production - you'll note the cover depicts US soldiers on what looks like a Normandy beach!

D) US DVD cover of Operation Dunkirk - definitely US soldiers!

 

Such a short running time was very surprising to me. I wonder if that was Nolan's idea from the start or if it happend during editing

 

I think because it seems that a film can't be made under 2 hours anymore, anything less seems short. An hour and 46 minutes is a respectable length for a film.

 

In the TV ads, Nolan is featured very prominently, saying that Dunkirk did not result in a slaughter which makes it one of the most important stories in history. Here is what he said at CinemaCon: “[It’s] one of the greatest stories of human history. At its heart, it’s a survival story. The enemy is closing in on the British on this beach with no escape. I wanted to put the audience in the story.”

Nolan's sense of morality has always resonated with me, even in the Batman movies. I think this could be what led him to take this project, and I really look forward to seeing what he did with it.

 

From the start... his first draft was a mere 76 pages, and he deliberately wanted dialogue kept to a bare minimum. I think this film is the very definition of 'show don't tell'.

 

Saw the preview last night. A brief Q&A with Nolan and his producer wife beforehand - nothing particularly revealing although he did mention that Panavision and Imax had to work to produce special lenses to enable the Imax camera to film the aerial sequences. The BFI announced that the couple had made a 'substantial' donation to the national film archive

The visuals were as spectacular as you would imagine, just fantastic photography. The sound design was perhaps even more impressive - this will be a demo disc for sure. Unfortunately dialogue was mixed very low again - not that the dialogue is particularly important in this picture, but even so, I don't understand why they do this. It was a really visceral experience overall and a very impressive film. However, a few cliches crept in towards the end and I don't feel it quite reached the emotional crescendo that the director was aiming at. Still highly recommended though - see on the biggest screen possible. This was a 70mm presentation - I have a feeling Imax would be even better.

 

yeah, but I fear 10 or more minutes will be closing credits. So it's probably a 90 and some minutes film.

Hopefully Mr. Nolan will prove me wrong; eg no closing credits at all or something like:
"Warner Bros. Pictures and Christopher Nolan would like to thank everybody involved with this movie. Too many to mention"

 

War movies are exhausting to watch, especially extended battle scenes or crowded sequences with many extras. Kudos to Nolan if he cut it down to an hour and a half while maintaining the integrity of the story.

 

I resemble that remark. Probably not.

 

I've been seeing a new teaser trailer (can't find a link). It seems like they're now trying to sell it as a generic action picture (which I very much doubt it is). Does that signal concern over its broad appeal?

John K.

 

Reviews are starting to come in - VERY positive so far.

Dunkirk

 

Variety just gave it a great review. I think the reviewers for Variety are almost always very accurate.

 

One of the reviews on Rotten Tomatos says they used a couple of real Spitfires in this movie - I didn't know there were any still flying.

The trailers also showed BF109s and Stuka dive bombers; those have got to be CGI, right?

 

I'm no fan of Nolan's work, but some critics are saying this movie will bring skeptics like me around. I'm intrigued...

 

There are two intact Stukas but neither are in flying condition.
Of the Me-109's there are around ten that are airworthy with many more on display.
With the Spitfires there are 55 that are airworthy.

 

Rotten Tomatoes score currently at 98%.

 

A critic I follow, who has never liked a Nolan film, loves this one. This is getting more promising by the minute...

 

IMG?

 

Dunkirk was a year and half before Pearl Harbour, d'you think they'll be box office appeal in the USA?

 

Nolan has never done anything remotely resembling a war movie. It's a very unNolan film in everything except the moral compass.

 

This director cannot put a foot wrong. The only director where I enjoyed all his movies.

 

Does it really matter at this point in time? PH was 76 years ago, time fades the impact of all historical events. I think the appeal will be limited but not because of the timing of the event, more than likely North American audiences are kind of burned out on war movies regardless of their quality. This one will find an audience but I don't expect it to be a box office smash, if anything it'll be hard pressed to break even imo.