Dunkirk (forthcoming in 2017)

They probably won't like it because there are no "nekid gurls".

 

Damn, Rylance is in this. I will have to rent it.

 

From the CBC's q with Tom Power...Dunkirk: 11 things about what some are calling the greatest war film ever made.

 

Right or wrong, the impression I'm getting of Dunkirk is that it's like the brilliant opening section of Saving Private Ryan, only stretched out to 107 minutes. Which is fine with me, as that was by far my favorite part of SPR.

 

The trailer didn't suggest that to me.
Always willing to eat my humble.

 

I think one difference will be that Nolan is using different perspectives from troops on the ground, to ships to planes. Supposedly there is minimal dialog.

 

And if I'm not wrong, the blood and guts are kept to a minimum, at least as opposed to Saving Private Ryan.

 

That seems pretty nutty if true; I'd think some kind of body makeup would be a lot cheaper, with CGI touchups where necessary.

 

Perhaps, but I don't think a director sets out to do a project of this magnitude unless it's truly a labor of love. Any accolades are just a bonus. I'm sure he made a pretty penny. Also, he and his brother have had an idea to do this movie for decades, according to what I've read. They put it off until Nolan had a few blockbusters under his belt and the ability to direct huge sets, tons of extras and manage enormous budgets. A number of his films deserved Oscar nominations and this reflects worse on the Academy than on films such as Prestige.

The article posted above mentions 60 destroyers being in the water at one point--real ships, not CGI. It was filmed on location in Dunkirk. Nolan has made a career of avoiding CGI wherever possible.

 

more confusing then ever ,Imax 70mm,Imax digital,70mm ,Digital They really screwed the public with that phony "Imax Digital " not to mention I am not found of directors who use more than one Aspect Ratio's

 

You forgot laserdisc, Beta, and Hi-8.

 

Catching it tonight at the Alamo Drafthouse in 35mm.

 

What theatre is that? The Park? I'm hoping it will play in either of the collossus theatres in Langley or Richmond.

 

I see it's also at Richmond's Silvercity IMAX. Might be worth the trip.

 

I just saw it in true IMAX. First off, someone else who does is going to have to comment on the sound, because in the theater I saw it (AMC North Point in Alpharetta) the sound mix was atrocious and overwhelming. I, and people around me, had their fingers in their ears at many times. The bass, particularly, was just a continuous assault.

That said, it didn't impinge upon my involvement to the detriment of the film. It was fantastic. To the comment that there isn't a lot of blood and guts, that seems appropriate given the point of view of the three main plot lines. It certainly is about war, and you'll know it, but just another aspect of war.

Regarding CGI, that the film relies largely on practical effects is very much a part of its success. I saw only one shot that clearly involved CGI, and it may not stick out in a showing other than IMAX.

John K.

 

I count more than 111 people listed in the Visual Effects department credits for Dunkirk on IMDB, including the staff of Double Negative (a rare film where a single VFX house did all the work, in London, Mumbai, Vancouver, and LA), plus there's some animation credits, plus 12 people in the digital editing department. Even the IMAX prints went through DMR (digital media rendering). That doesn't take away from how well-regarded the film is or how effective it is as entertainment. Nolan and WB are being very quiet as to how much of the film used digital VFX and how much was real, but I don't doubt a lot of it was real or at least had real humans and real props in front of the camera. A great movie can be a combination of analog and digital and not necessarily be all one or all the other.

You got a WWII soldier sloshing off a boat through ocean water on a beach with wind and sand and all that... it's going to be trying under any circumstances. It's as if it's a bad idea for actors to have a lot of tattoos.

 

Which would be better to see it in, Imax or 70mm?
There are no combo Imax 70mm theaters near me.

 

They are doing 70mm in Langley it turns out...

 

I'm just going to call it a masterpiece. Visually, musically, and structurally. I saw in on a Cinemark XD screen (2.4:1) and am really interested in seeing it full frame IMAX, I imagine the aerial scenes especially would be incredible.

 

Christopher Nolan is getting compared to Stanley Kubrick...and maybe there's something in it; making movies in every genre; thriller/costume drama in The Prestige, Science Fiction in Interstallar, etc..
And: so far all great movies. I'm going to Dunkirk next Wednesday and if the reviews don't lie it's going to be a great experience!

 

I think this article does a really good job explaining the best formats to see it in
1) 70mm Imax
2) 70mm Imax Laser
3) 70mm
In that order
Dunkirk review: The best film of 2017, so far


And here is the IMAX list:
EXPERIENCE DUNKIRK IN IMAX 70MM FILM AND IMAX WITH LASER

 

Peter Howell's review from today's Toronto Star....Dunkirk’s disorienting brilliance is a victory for Christopher Nolan: review.

Stars: Four/Four.

 

Philadelphia paper today loved it, except he warned people to not sit near the speakers.

 

Yes, I've read that in a few places. The two other things some critics are complaining about are: (1) you never get to know the characters, so you're not emotionally invested in the action; and (2) Nolan employs his trademark time-dislocation editing, which is a turnoff for some.

 

FWIW I may be in the minority but I believe he has already surpassed Kubrik, who I think is quite overrated. Where Nolan's directorial choices really click with me more often than not, Kubrick's really don't. I think it boils down to both being formulaic in their own ways. But Nolan's formula works better. Can't wait to see Dunkirk.