Haha. Nolan made Vins 3 favorite movies of all time...
I want to see Dunkirk, Nolan needed a movie like this under his belt. I'm actually planning on seeing Valerian first though.
I want to like Valerian, but I think I'm going to hate the leads.
I cruelly like the leads in this role. Dehaan was good in Chronicle. But this movie is about Luc Besson. One review is that its Star Wars on crystal meth and the most visually impressive since avatar. I can't wait until Thursday night.
and anyone concerned with a drawn out ending should be happy with the sub 110 minute runtime. There's also limited dialogue for those worried about that as well.
and anyone concerned with a drawn out ending should be happy with the sub 110 minute runtime. There's also limited dialogue for those worried about that as well.
As Alfred Hitchcock said:
"The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
and anyone concerned with a drawn out ending should be happy with the sub 110 minute runtime. There's also limited dialogue for those worried about that as well.
As Alfred Hitchcock said:
"The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
I love long movies, doesn't bother me one bit. Some get bothered by them and Nolans usually top 2 hours.
McConeghey goes to see his daughter who is an old lady and then heads off with Anne Hathaway to continue his life?
Quote:
RE: I really like..
leatherneck570 : 7/19/2017 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13531126 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Nolan's films, sans Interstellar.
Just a brutal film to have to endure and the payoff after 3 hours was meeting an old lady in a retirement home in space.
Wasn't he dead in the end? Isn't that what that whole last scene was about?
if you think everything that happened after ejecting into space were visions/dreams/etc right before dying. I guess its open to interpretation but there is nothing definitive that I can remember and I left the theater thinking he lived.
He isn't afraid to take chances and try something different. Always been a huge fan of IMAX and I love that he's fighting to keep shooting in film over digital
He isn't afraid to take chances and try something different. Always been a huge fan of IMAX and I love that he's fighting to keep shooting in film over digital
Same. I feel the same about Tarantino. Unconventional, likes filming in odd styles as well as 70mm, writes/directs, and strangely enough claims all his movies are tied to the same universe. With his next film confirmed as a take on the Charles Manson murders, i'm super pumped to see what he has in store.
Nolan admits he “rarely” uses Netflix when watching movies at home Â
The brief comment on Netflix came the same day a Nolan interview dropped on IndieWire in which he said he wouldn’t work with the streaming giant if given the chance because, “Well, why would you? If you make a theatrical film, it’s to be played in theaters,” he said. He added that Netflix rival Amazon, which gives theaters a window for its fare, is “a perfectly usable model.”
going to splice in the humor aspects to this new movie of his? He never shies away from the dark humor thing but cold blooded murder...won't be easy. Granted, the guy found a way to generate laughs during "Bastards" and "Django" so anything is possible.
Love Tarantino but he could scale things back at times and shortening or dulling down some of those endings wouldn't hurt as well. He's still probably my favorite director of this era.
Tarantino was much better when he was more restrained Â
Reservoir Dogs is at its core pretty straightforward. It's a mystery crime thriller. Sure, it has many of his signature touches with the dialogue and the nonlinear plot, but there's nothing goofy about it. Same thing with Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. He started getting more and more self-indulgent with Kill Bill, and the trend has continued (I have not seen The Hateful Eight). I think he could make a fantastic movie about Charles Manson if he controls himself.
Hateful 8 in 70mm was such a cool experience. And to that point, I agree with Nolan in that certain movies are made for theaters. Watching Interstellar at home is pointless. That movie was made to be fully engrossed in its scale and sound. Wathcing the Hateful 8 at home was far different too. 70mm added so much depth to the cabin where it felt much bigger than it was.
it started off so damn good. That first scene in the log cabin is movie making at its very best. The scene in the basement/bar is as well. But the movie takes on a weird comical tone as it progresses. I thought that movie could have been an absolute classic but it loses a lot of its fastball. Still a very good movie but one that underachieves, in my view. Same with Django. The relationship between Waltz and Foxx is so good--watching Foxx drink the beer for the first time--so many great subtle moments --but then the movie devolves into slapstick or tongue in cheek crap...it's still enjoyable but could have been more. Don't start a serious movie like that and then twist it into something comedic. It doesn't kill it but it doesn't validate the movie at all.
Django doesn't really go comedic except for the scene with Don Johnson and his clan members. The ending wasn't really aiming to be funny as much as cartoonish. Regardless, those scenes sort of dull the overall impact of the movie.
Dunkirk feels dispassionate; it caters to pampered Boomers who never fought for or believed in a war or military service.
Note the civilian armada approaching their countrymen: Each face is expressionless. Is this because Nolan rejects emotion, or does patriotic fervor embarrass him?
It’s possible that Nolan, having created an audience of Millennial pessimists, is uninterested in the fellow feeling that Ang Lee made so intimate and that Clint Eastwood’s Sully and Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge made affecting as well as spectacular. Nolan misuses the big screen the same way Paul Thomas Anderson did in The Master — as a fanboy selling tool but not for aesthetic exploration.
A war movie that celebrates victory can offer idealized fun. Dunkirk doesn’t, but Luc Besson’s futuristic sci-fi movie Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets offers lots of fun; its story of extragalactic warfare is all victory.
but I do think rotten tomatoes is fellating Nolan here, it's not an earth-shattering film.
RT just aggregates, just like Metacritic (where its a 94). The only different is RT doesn't score, its just fresh or rotten. You also have to consider what's being measured. For full time critics, they weight camera work, cinematography, etc. The average movie-goer, IMO, would score something more generally (was it good, was it boring, was it too long, etc.).
My point is that the sites serve a purpose, it just may not be a purpose that jives with everyone's POV.
Saw Valerian lastnight, mind-boggling special effects. The first half was such a cool throw back to 5th element. The move is fucking weird, one of the weirdest movies i've ever seen. Wouldn't recommend it unless you either want to see amazing visuals, or are super into sci fi/really weird movies.
The first 10 minutes made me dizzy. I'm not used to such shaky motion.
After that, it was great. The movie really makes you feel like you're there. We saw it in the IMAX, the sound was so strong it vibrated the seats. VERY realistic.
It's an important aspect of the war that's not usually covered. Although there wasn't much dialog, it was very effective.
I appreciate the "you are there" aspect and the cinematography was superlative. That being said, I guess since I am more of a reader I am hung up on narrative and dialogue. So, this was not particularly my cup of tea. But the use of original craft (both air and sea) was visually stunning and overall I enjoyed it with my son, an aspiring model fficer, who being of his generation is more visually oriented, and loved it.
I thought Basterds was great as was Django. Loved Resevior Dogs. Never really cared much for Pulp Fiction. The Kill Bill movies and Hateful 8 were all snooze fests.
I appreciate the "you are there" aspect and the cinematography was superlative. That being said, I guess since I am more of a reader I am hung up on narrative and dialogue. So, this was not particularly my cup of tea. But the use of original craft (both air and sea) was visually stunning and overall I enjoyed it with my son, an aspiring model fficer, who being of his generation is more visually oriented, and loved it.
Saw it last night - pretty much agree with your review. Visually some amazing moments, especially the aircraft scenes. And nice to see a movie without a BS contrived love story.
But it's not some legendary movie as many critics are making it out to be.
McConeghey goes to see his daughter who is an old lady and then heads off with Anne Hathaway to continue his life?
Quote:
RE: I really like..
leatherneck570 : 7/19/2017 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13531126 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Nolan's films, sans Interstellar.
Just a brutal film to have to endure and the payoff after 3 hours was meeting an old lady in a retirement home in space.
Wasn't he dead in the end? Isn't that what that whole last scene was about?
My take is he died after being ejected and his daughter arriving was her dying. Notice how none of the people in the "hospital room" seemed to care if he was there or not. Also, much of the scenery was straight from his memories (baseball field, farmland etc...)
but nothing I'd see again. For me, there wasn't enough background to the movie. I'm not going to give anything away,there was some "good" in the movie. I liked how some things were done, especially the fighter planes, but overall it's about 3 out of 5.
I was a little disappointed about the scale of the scenes. With today's CGI, I never felt like there were 300,000 men on that beach more like 2,500.
The flotilla of small boats also lacked scale, we only ever saw 15-20 boats? Instead of the 700 that were there.
For the film to be an "epic" it's important that this scale is portrayed on the screen. It wasn't and the magnitude of the whole episode was therefore missing.
The story about George is bizarre. For some reason his life is less important than a sailors pride.
The Germans, they only exist as airplanes. Why didn't the film show any of the fighting at the perimeter? Sure this was where the heroic story was unfolding? As the Germans were held off the beaches by the French. A glaring omission there.
The film didn't really capture the urgency to get off the beach. Mainly because there were no scenes of amphetamine fuelled Nazis blazing about in panzer tanks.
The aircraft scenes were fantastic. But the refloating trawler? Why put that in?
The film should have opened with 15 minutes of Blitzkreig with the Germans tearing through French fields and villages and racing towards the coast.
In order to create the urgency on the beach the film must establish the German military supremacy of the 800,000 strong mechanised Nazi army.
It didn't do this. All we had was a couple of Luftwaffe bombing runs that killed <1% of the target.
The stretcher bit needed more editing down as did the hospital ship sinking. Many of the scenes seemed a bit too long as if they were over shot.
We didn't actually see any small boats running into the beaches. We didn't see men who couldn't swim drowning in shallow water.
I think it's possible to shoot a far better Dunkirk movie.
1). Illustrate the military power of Blitzkrieg
2). Germans v French urban warfare at perimeter of Dunkirk (Rommel v General Molinie)
3). Airforce v Luftwaffe
4). German artillery v Royal Navy artillery
5). 300,000 men trapped in the middle of it all
6). 700 small civilian vessels (teachers, fishermen et al) with shallow draft actually sail directly into the heart of the war zone literally landing in France where they are boarded by panicking soldiers many of whom drown because they cannot swim.
7). The BEF retreats back to Britain to regroup as the Nazi's overrun France taking many of our French protectors as POW's. It's bitter sweet.
In other words do they take the time to explain the history here or do they assume that the audience is intimately familiar with the battles of World War II ? I've got mixed feelings about Nolan, however the subject matter here is so different than anything he's done I don't know what to expect.
RE: Does one have to be a WW II buff to appreciate this movie ? Â
In other words do they take the time to explain the history here or do they assume that the audience is intimately familiar with the battles of World War II ? I've got mixed feelings about Nolan, however the subject matter here is so different than anything he's done I don't know what to expect.
They give very little of the history or surrounding events. Only a passing line regarding the Nazis halting their tank advance, almost zero reference to the French effort to hold the line.
Worth still seeing for the visuals IMO. I've been reading up on the battle since seeing it to learn more of the backstory
I didn't cite the writer because it was a comment made in the Guardian by someone who did not leave their name. I posted it so that others might read it.
I think it's very well done and worth seeing. The bigger context of the war is assumed and not covered - which not only saves time but allows the story to be a more universal and existential one of survival. Great action scenes with the planes and boats.
RE: saw it last night (non-IMAX, unfortunately) - Â
I think it's very well done and worth seeing. The bigger context of the war is assumed and not covered - which not only saves time but allows the story to be a more universal and existential one of survival. Great action scenes with the planes and boats.
Del - I just saw an interview with Nolan who said the same thing; this isn't a war movie but a movie about survival.
Quote:
Why do you start so many threads about it?
Haha. Nolan made Vins 3 favorite movies of all time...
I want to see Dunkirk, Nolan needed a movie like this under his belt. I'm actually planning on seeing Valerian first though.
I want to like Valerian, but I think I'm going to hate the leads.
Quote:
In comment 13530598 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
Why do you start so many threads about it?
Haha. Nolan made Vins 3 favorite movies of all time...
I want to see Dunkirk, Nolan needed a movie like this under his belt. I'm actually planning on seeing Valerian first though.
I want to like Valerian, but I think I'm going to hate the leads.
I cruelly like the leads in this role. Dehaan was good in Chronicle. But this movie is about Luc Besson. One review is that its Star Wars on crystal meth and the most visually impressive since avatar. I can't wait until Thursday night.
(although they also gave The Dark Knight Rises an A-? Shit, never mind).
Dunkirk review - ( New Window )
Just a brutal film to have to endure and the payoff after 3 hours was meeting an old lady in a retirement home in space.
Wasn't he dead in the end? Isn't that what that whole last scene was about?
As Alfred Hitchcock said:
"The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
Quote:
and anyone concerned with a drawn out ending should be happy with the sub 110 minute runtime. There's also limited dialogue for those worried about that as well.
As Alfred Hitchcock said:
"The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
I love long movies, doesn't bother me one bit. Some get bothered by them and Nolans usually top 2 hours.
leatherneck570 : 7/19/2017 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13531126 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Nolan's films, sans Interstellar.
Just a brutal film to have to endure and the payoff after 3 hours was meeting an old lady in a retirement home in space.
Wasn't he dead in the end? Isn't that what that whole last scene was about?
Same. I feel the same about Tarantino. Unconventional, likes filming in odd styles as well as 70mm, writes/directs, and strangely enough claims all his movies are tied to the same universe. With his next film confirmed as a take on the Charles Manson murders, i'm super pumped to see what he has in store.
link - ( New Window )
Love Tarantino but he could scale things back at times and shortening or dulling down some of those endings wouldn't hurt as well. He's still probably my favorite director of this era.
"David Ayer on BRIGHT: "This isn't some studio, PG 13 shit...I was able to do my shit, I was able to do my thing!"
This was from today at SDCC.
Note the civilian armada approaching their countrymen: Each face is expressionless. Is this because Nolan rejects emotion, or does patriotic fervor embarrass him?
It’s possible that Nolan, having created an audience of Millennial pessimists, is uninterested in the fellow feeling that Ang Lee made so intimate and that Clint Eastwood’s Sully and Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge made affecting as well as spectacular. Nolan misuses the big screen the same way Paul Thomas Anderson did in The Master — as a fanboy selling tool but not for aesthetic exploration.
A war movie that celebrates victory can offer idealized fun. Dunkirk doesn’t, but Luc Besson’s futuristic sci-fi movie Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets offers lots of fun; its story of extragalactic warfare is all victory.
RT just aggregates, just like Metacritic (where its a 94). The only different is RT doesn't score, its just fresh or rotten. You also have to consider what's being measured. For full time critics, they weight camera work, cinematography, etc. The average movie-goer, IMO, would score something more generally (was it good, was it boring, was it too long, etc.).
My point is that the sites serve a purpose, it just may not be a purpose that jives with everyone's POV.
Saw Valerian lastnight, mind-boggling special effects. The first half was such a cool throw back to 5th element. The move is fucking weird, one of the weirdest movies i've ever seen. Wouldn't recommend it unless you either want to see amazing visuals, or are super into sci fi/really weird movies.
After that, it was great. The movie really makes you feel like you're there. We saw it in the IMAX, the sound was so strong it vibrated the seats. VERY realistic.
It's an important aspect of the war that's not usually covered. Although there wasn't much dialog, it was very effective.
Saw it last night - pretty much agree with your review. Visually some amazing moments, especially the aircraft scenes. And nice to see a movie without a BS contrived love story.
But it's not some legendary movie as many critics are making it out to be.
Quote:
RE: I really like..
leatherneck570 : 7/19/2017 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13531126 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Nolan's films, sans Interstellar.
Just a brutal film to have to endure and the payoff after 3 hours was meeting an old lady in a retirement home in space.
Wasn't he dead in the end? Isn't that what that whole last scene was about?
My take is he died after being ejected and his daughter arriving was her dying. Notice how none of the people in the "hospital room" seemed to care if he was there or not. Also, much of the scenery was straight from his memories (baseball field, farmland etc...)
I've just seen this film.
I was a little disappointed about the scale of the scenes. With today's CGI, I never felt like there were 300,000 men on that beach more like 2,500.
The flotilla of small boats also lacked scale, we only ever saw 15-20 boats? Instead of the 700 that were there.
For the film to be an "epic" it's important that this scale is portrayed on the screen. It wasn't and the magnitude of the whole episode was therefore missing.
The story about George is bizarre. For some reason his life is less important than a sailors pride.
The Germans, they only exist as airplanes. Why didn't the film show any of the fighting at the perimeter? Sure this was where the heroic story was unfolding? As the Germans were held off the beaches by the French. A glaring omission there.
The film didn't really capture the urgency to get off the beach. Mainly because there were no scenes of amphetamine fuelled Nazis blazing about in panzer tanks.
The aircraft scenes were fantastic. But the refloating trawler? Why put that in?
The film should have opened with 15 minutes of Blitzkreig with the Germans tearing through French fields and villages and racing towards the coast.
In order to create the urgency on the beach the film must establish the German military supremacy of the 800,000 strong mechanised Nazi army.
It didn't do this. All we had was a couple of Luftwaffe bombing runs that killed <1% of the target.
The stretcher bit needed more editing down as did the hospital ship sinking. Many of the scenes seemed a bit too long as if they were over shot.
We didn't actually see any small boats running into the beaches. We didn't see men who couldn't swim drowning in shallow water.
I think it's possible to shoot a far better Dunkirk movie.
1). Illustrate the military power of Blitzkrieg
2). Germans v French urban warfare at perimeter of Dunkirk (Rommel v General Molinie)
3). Airforce v Luftwaffe
4). German artillery v Royal Navy artillery
5). 300,000 men trapped in the middle of it all
6). 700 small civilian vessels (teachers, fishermen et al) with shallow draft actually sail directly into the heart of the war zone literally landing in France where they are boarded by panicking soldiers many of whom drown because they cannot swim.
7). The BEF retreats back to Britain to regroup as the Nazi's overrun France taking many of our French protectors as POW's. It's bitter sweet.
Who did write it. Cite your source please.
They give very little of the history or surrounding events. Only a passing line regarding the Nazis halting their tank advance, almost zero reference to the French effort to hold the line.
Worth still seeing for the visuals IMO. I've been reading up on the battle since seeing it to learn more of the backstory
And without a ton of dialogue. Really well done by Nolan. And wonderfully acted all around.