What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
WW2 breaks out and the Germans are doing the blitz through France. There were a bunch of English troops stationed in France who were trying to retreat. Dunkirk is in France and was the battle where the English retreated but managed to get more troops and supplies out then was projected, making it a moral victory.
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
WW2 breaks out and the Germans are doing the blitz through France. There were a bunch of English troops stationed in France who were trying to retreat. Dunkirk is in France and was the battle where the English retreated but managed to get more troops and supplies out then was projected, making it a moral victory.
Thanks. I heard Nolan say this was one of the greatest stories few talk about. I am very interested.
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
or at least very 1 dimensional. Technically sound, but creatively he just isn't there as evidenced, among other things, by greenlighting Bane's voice in an overall catastrophe of a film. What was he thinking...
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
or at least very 1 dimensional. Technically sound, but creatively he just isn't there as evidenced, among other things, by greenlighting Bane's voice in an overall catastrophe of a film. What was he thinking...
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Uhh....agree to disagree here. Outside of the Batman films (will agree DK Rises is the weakest of the 3) You have 4 films that are, as far as I can tell, the farthest thing from one dimensional: Memento, The Prestige, Inception & Interstellar. Not a film industry person at all so I'm curious to hear how you would describe those films as one dimensional.
I can certainly understand taking issue with Returns and Interstellar, though I still think they're decent films. But he's made at least 5-6 really good films.
Lacking creativity? Inception may have had some faults, but it certainly didn't lack for creativity
Falls apart a bit toward the end, but that's a good film.
Shitty director was the wrong description, on second thought. He's pretty good in most respects (although, again, the Bane decision wtf...)
He's a shitty storyteller. The screenplays are blatantly subpar and it shows in the final product. Leave the screenplays to the pros and you make them into a film.
I just looked it up and was unsurprised to learn he did not write Insomnia. Inception and Interstellar? These films were an utter mess because of the scripts.
The non-fiction realm might provide beneficial confines for him. In other words we won't see motorcycles fly out of nowhere. So I will definitely enter this film open minded and, again, would love to see another long overdue battle heavy war film.
The films he wrote have some really interesting concepts and ideas, but do get a bit convuluted and difficult to track. Insterstellar more so than Inception, which I thought still stuck the landing pretty well.
I'll always see his movies though. He's immensely talented
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
the list of individuals who can consistently & competently both direct and create scripts with no source material is extremely short.
Woody Allen obviously the master. Coens, Tarantino.
I have no desire to watch a film with an original screenplay by Peter Jackson, but I'll sure watch one based on a Tolkien book.
I do think it's silly that he (Nolan) keeps writing them cause they're mostly horrendous, but when you're making hundreds of millions a film I guess it's hard to argue.
maybe 6 months back because my wife never saw it. Definitely not his best movie. Memento and the Prestige were both better, IMO. Then he resurrected Batman and while the 3rd was an abomination, I chalk that up to him not even wanting to do it in the first place.
Whether or not you like his style, its unfair to say he's a bad or even average director. The guy writes and produces most of his work, which is damn impressive when you think about the scale of his movies.
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
robbie, in addition to Giantsfan79's and Eric's comments, some striking aspects of this history (as Eric says, all true): Hitler's panzers and infantry were covering so much territory in France, coming SSW from Belgium and E from Alsace Lorraine that the British High Command did not have time or equipment to stage an orderly evacuation of the BEF, pretty much trapped with the Brittany (Normandy?) coast in the rear, and very outgunned and outnumbered vs. German ground forces and air support. There was no way to stage a counter.
Stunning as it turned out, as German forces were closing in through hilly but eminently passable terrain, German Generals contacted German High Command in Berlin for final orders, tactics, lines of approach/air support, etc. But Berlin Command dithered and delayed a day or three, and this was crucial for staging a most unorthodox and unpredicted evacuation.
I'm sure there are errors in the above, but as Eric said, without this result, Hitler may have been able to dictate Cease Fire/Truce terms to Churchill that would have been killers.
to this day, Dunkirk is not considered in a positive light by many French who felt like the English abandoned them to their fate (IMO, the English had no option, the Battle of France was decided as soon as the Germans broke through the Ardennes).
or at least very 1 dimensional. Technically sound, but creatively he just isn't there as evidenced, among other things, by greenlighting Bane's voice in an overall catastrophe of a film. What was he thinking...
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Nolan is a severely overrated filmmaker. His second Batman film needed Ledger to help it clear the mediocre threshold. His third Batman film was an overlong, confusing mess. Interstellar was dumbed-down crap which was, again, way too long.
I have no idea why there have been, like, 7 BBI threads about this movie over the last few months.
to this day, Dunkirk is not considered in a positive light by many French who felt like the English abandoned them to their fate (IMO, the English had no option, the Battle of France was decided as soon as the Germans broke through the Ardennes).
Yeah that's ridiculous. I guess the allies (Brits) should have just fallen on their sword? If they fight, they all die. The only thing to do was flee.
or at least very 1 dimensional. Technically sound, but creatively he just isn't there as evidenced, among other things, by greenlighting Bane's voice in an overall catastrophe of a film. What was he thinking...
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Nolan is a severely overrated filmmaker. His second Batman film needed Ledger to help it clear the mediocre threshold. His third Batman film was an overlong, confusing mess. Interstellar was dumbed-down crap which was, again, way too long.
I have no idea why there have been, like, 7 BBI threads about this movie over the last few months.
Because most people love Nolan's work. You and a few others are in the minority.
Interstellar is a brilliant film. Just about everyone I have talked to loves this movie. It could have been 2 hours longer and I would have wanted more. Loved everything about it.
is a bit overrated. It's a good or maybe even great summer batman movie. I have a hard time placing in the top 50 of all time movies but I don't think it's a disappointment by any stretch.
and disparagement on the part of the Brits (and US too, from afar of course) about how quickly French military "resistance" crumbled, and I think that's an element informing some part of the resentment.
I recently rewatched it. If you have Roku, get the XTV channel. It has the full World at War.
The piece on Dunkirk, I found it very interesting. Definitely bitterness from the French. Like Eric, I don't see how it could have gone any differently.
Amazing how the French folded so quickly in WWII. They were woefully unprepared. The Maginot line, goodness.
I thought Inception/Interstellar/Rises was a trifecta of convoluted shit...the last among the worst big budget films of all time. I was kinda on the Nolan train til then (although he lost me a bit with TDK but that film was sufficiently saved by Ledger).
As I mentioned earlier, he'd probably be better served (artistically, obviously $$$ wise he's set) to direct but not write. Because he really can't do the latter. With very few exceptions (and they're all legends) it's very tough to do both well.
Again, he may be also well served by a non-fiction storyline. I will go into Dunkirk open minded despite his losing streak.
Or are you getting defensive because I dislike a filmed you're gushing over? To be clear: I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking it. Subjectivity and all.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
"Interstellar" the craptastic film that after 2 hours of convoluted shit tried to wrap things up by having a spaceman pop up in a bookshelf, and then made us wade through another hour of convoluted shit?
"Interstellar" the craptastic film that after 2 hours of convoluted shit tried to wrap things up by having a spaceman pop up in a bookshelf, and then made us wade through another hour of convoluted shit?
interstellar wasn't his best. At times it was silly for sure, but I still found it entertaining. But when Nolan hits all his notes right, there aren't many better than him... all the early signs indicate he does just that in this film.
Or are you getting defensive because I dislike a filmed you're gushing over? To be clear: I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking it. Subjectivity and all.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
Gravity was such a beautiful technical achievement, but I didn't gush over it otherwise like many others did. I didn't care what happened to the characters. That to me is always the biggest dealbreaker. Still, the beauty of the film made up for whatever lack of connection I had. I'd recommend it without hestitation.
I think Nolan is the best storyteller in the world of cinema today. That doesn't always mean he tells the stories worth telling (i.e. Interstellar). But this movie sounds like a unique and captivating story and I wouldn't prefer anyone over Nolan for Dunkirk. It's gonna be awesome.
I like that he tries tackling big ideas. I also find his screenplays (and those with his brother) way too expository. His dialogue can mostly be broken down into three categories:
1. This is who I am.
2. This is what I'm doing.
3. This is my personal philosophy and moral code.
This works great in a film like Memento where the lead character is messed up in the head and has to keep explaining himself to everyone, less so in a film like Interstellar where we get shit like Ann Hathaway's scientist character proclaiming that love is the most important thing in the universe.
I do think that doing a war film like Dunkirk might help alleviate some of that weakness -- most of the dialogue will probably be declarations and imperatives, which of course is entirely appropriate for a war movie. I'm also intrigued by what I hear about the film's structure and its short running time. Looking forward to checking it out.
"Interstellar" the craptastic film that after 2 hours of convoluted shit tried to wrap things up by having a spaceman pop up in a bookshelf, and then made us wade through another hour of convoluted shit?
You didn't like the crew of astronauts explaining high school science concepts to each other on the spacecraft? You boor!
RE: I'll put it this way then I'll stop ranting. Â
I think Nolan is the best storyteller in the world of cinema today. That doesn't always mean he tells the stories worth telling (i.e. Interstellar). But this movie sounds like a unique and captivating story and I wouldn't prefer anyone over Nolan for Dunkirk. It's gonna be awesome.
Nolan's storytelling is among his very weakest qualities. He's good at framing shots, and there have been some good scenes in his films, when you view them as standalones. But, man, does he really struggle to bring everything together, especially when the scope is large.
He takes on very big ideas, and then halfway through production, the ideas clearly have become too big for him.
Or are you getting defensive because I dislike a filmed you're gushing over? To be clear: I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking it. Subjectivity and all.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
Not defensive at all. I just find it interesting when 3 people crush a movie that 10 people loved. To each his own, I don't blame you for hating it but it wasn't a terrible movie in the main stream. And it was better than Gravity. I enjoyed that too.
"Interstellar" the craptastic film that after 2 hours of convoluted shit tried to wrap things up by having a spaceman pop up in a bookshelf, and then made us wade through another hour of convoluted shit?
Lol yes that was it. It was great!
Ok I just checked RT and sure enough it wasn't universally praised like I thought. Generally good to great reviews but not a slam dunk. So I stand corrected.
war movies, and by most accounts, Dunkirk will be the real deal. I'm jazzed.
Just to raise expectations even more, I might watch "Fury" just before going to see Dunkirk so I can go from a real shitty war movie to a great one in one day!
Regarding the French, I think they get a bad rap. I am of the opinion that France fell not so much because the French couldn't/wouldn't fight but because the war was won by the strategy of both sides. Once the Germans punctured the front in the Ardennes and raced northward, the French were in an untenable situation. The British and French had instinctively moved into Belgium, falling right into the trap. At that point, only a miracle could have saved the French (and British...Dunkirk was a partial miracle).
The "Maginot spirit" is quite understandable. The Civil War (by 1864) and WWI had demonstrated that then modern technology had made offensive war extremely costly and perhaps forever unwinnable. Modern day trench warfare really started in the Civil War. The French were very heroic in WWI, but they got slaughtered. It wiped out almost an entire generation. So building super forts along the German frontier made complete sense at the time.
The French did not want to fight WWII (most of Europe didn't). And their leadership was living in terms of 1918 tactics. But had the Ardennes been defended, the outcome of the battle may have been different.
the last act was pretty horrid though when it becomes Brad Pitt's tank versus 1000 Germans and it's basically a push. I though the grime, horror and anger that the Germans were still fighting a hopeless war was well captured.
What I've read about Dunkirk is it's pretty bleak, and dialogue-light, which should assuage people who worry about Nolan's writing (for me his sound mixing is usually a far greater crime). Interstellar had some cool parts (the water planet where time passed much slower then in space, Matt Damon's desperation) but also fell apart in the last act, where turns out Love is the answer and zzzz. The Martian or even Gravity were the better recent space films.
were ready to come in guns blazing once a Dunkirk thread posted the week of the release lol
Not really
That’s my honest opinion of Nolan. He lost me with a horrid losing streak. I really did like him for a while (Insomnia you get to see a rare once again watchable Al Pacino, who had jumped the shark 5 years earlier).
Kinda like how I felt when, not long after Pinkerton and Blue Album, Weezer releases that monstrosity of a ‘Beverly Hills’ album Make Believe.
Don’t think he can fairly claim a magnum opus (maybe/hopefully Dunkirk will be it), but Memento through Prestige were reasonably good efforts. I suspect TDK’s kajillion dollars made his head balloon and he decided to step up the intricacy & ambition, but he just isn’t a talented enough writer to pull it off.
I think Nolan is the best storyteller in the world of cinema today. That doesn't always mean he tells the stories worth telling (i.e. Interstellar). But this movie sounds like a unique and captivating story and I wouldn't prefer anyone over Nolan for Dunkirk. It's gonna be awesome.
Nolan's storytelling is among his very weakest qualities. He's good at framing shots, and there have been some good scenes in his films, when you view them as standalones. But, man, does he really struggle to bring everything together, especially when the scope is large.
He takes on very big ideas, and then halfway through production, the ideas clearly have become too big for him.
This is incorrect. Interstellar is actually the best example. At different times we were with MM when his daughter was a kid, then when she was an adult, then when she was like 100... but all the while he seamlessly transitioned from scene to scene and from time period to time period without even a hint of confusion.
I agree that the idea as a whole was too ambitious and ultimately led to a film that lacked, but he told the story in front him as perfectly as you can.
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
Yeah, and them invading Russia. If that wouldn't have happened who knows what alternate history would've happened.
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.
WW2 breaks out and the Germans are doing the blitz through France. There were a bunch of English troops stationed in France who were trying to retreat. Dunkirk is in France and was the battle where the English retreated but managed to get more troops and supplies out then was projected, making it a moral victory.
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.
Because.. the embargo lifted today...
Sorry to put a damper on your night
Quote:
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
WW2 breaks out and the Germans are doing the blitz through France. There were a bunch of English troops stationed in France who were trying to retreat. Dunkirk is in France and was the battle where the English retreated but managed to get more troops and supplies out then was projected, making it a moral victory.
Thanks. I heard Nolan say this was one of the greatest stories few talk about. I am very interested.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Uhh....agree to disagree here. Outside of the Batman films (will agree DK Rises is the weakest of the 3) You have 4 films that are, as far as I can tell, the farthest thing from one dimensional: Memento, The Prestige, Inception & Interstellar. Not a film industry person at all so I'm curious to hear how you would describe those films as one dimensional.
Lacking creativity? Inception may have had some faults, but it certainly didn't lack for creativity
Major exaggeration there
Shitty director was the wrong description, on second thought. He's pretty good in most respects (although, again, the Bane decision wtf...)
He's a shitty storyteller. The screenplays are blatantly subpar and it shows in the final product. Leave the screenplays to the pros and you make them into a film.
I just looked it up and was unsurprised to learn he did not write Insomnia. Inception and Interstellar? These films were an utter mess because of the scripts.
The non-fiction realm might provide beneficial confines for him. In other words we won't see motorcycles fly out of nowhere. So I will definitely enter this film open minded and, again, would love to see another long overdue battle heavy war film.
I'll always see his movies though. He's immensely talented
Quote:
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
Political. Delete.
:)
Woody Allen obviously the master. Coens, Tarantino.
I have no desire to watch a film with an original screenplay by Peter Jackson, but I'll sure watch one based on a Tolkien book.
I do think it's silly that he (Nolan) keeps writing them cause they're mostly horrendous, but when you're making hundreds of millions a film I guess it's hard to argue.
Whether or not you like his style, its unfair to say he's a bad or even average director. The guy writes and produces most of his work, which is damn impressive when you think about the scale of his movies.
Stunning as it turned out, as German forces were closing in through hilly but eminently passable terrain, German Generals contacted German High Command in Berlin for final orders, tactics, lines of approach/air support, etc. But Berlin Command dithered and delayed a day or three, and this was crucial for staging a most unorthodox and unpredicted evacuation.
I'm sure there are errors in the above, but as Eric said, without this result, Hitler may have been able to dictate Cease Fire/Truce terms to Churchill that would have been killers.
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Nolan is a severely overrated filmmaker. His second Batman film needed Ledger to help it clear the mediocre threshold. His third Batman film was an overlong, confusing mess. Interstellar was dumbed-down crap which was, again, way too long.
I have no idea why there have been, like, 7 BBI threads about this movie over the last few months.
Yeah that's ridiculous. I guess the allies (Brits) should have just fallen on their sword? If they fight, they all die. The only thing to do was flee.
Quote:
or at least very 1 dimensional. Technically sound, but creatively he just isn't there as evidenced, among other things, by greenlighting Bane's voice in an overall catastrophe of a film. What was he thinking...
That said, it'll be interesting to see how he handles a grandly technical film like this. Not a good sign that he wrote the script, unfortunately.
Rental for me since the unbearably horrific Dark Knight Rises spoiled my desire to pay $15 for a Nolan film, but I'm mildly interested due to the subject matter. There hasn't been a solid battle heavy war film since Letters from Iwo Jima (although Mel's recent one wasn't awful).
Nolan is a severely overrated filmmaker. His second Batman film needed Ledger to help it clear the mediocre threshold. His third Batman film was an overlong, confusing mess. Interstellar was dumbed-down crap which was, again, way too long.
I have no idea why there have been, like, 7 BBI threads about this movie over the last few months.
Because most people love Nolan's work. You and a few others are in the minority.
Interstellar is a brilliant film. Just about everyone I have talked to loves this movie. It could have been 2 hours longer and I would have wanted more. Loved everything about it.
At that point, the only options were to escape or be annihilated.
I recently rewatched it. If you have Roku, get the XTV channel. It has the full World at War.
The piece on Dunkirk, I found it very interesting. Definitely bitterness from the French. Like Eric, I don't see how it could have gone any differently.
Amazing how the French folded so quickly in WWII. They were woefully unprepared. The Maginot line, goodness.
At that point, the only options were to escape or be annihilated.
I remember my dad watching that 35 years ago. I hated it then. Now I can't get enough....
I thought Inception/Interstellar/Rises was a trifecta of convoluted shit...the last among the worst big budget films of all time. I was kinda on the Nolan train til then (although he lost me a bit with TDK but that film was sufficiently saved by Ledger).
As I mentioned earlier, he'd probably be better served (artistically, obviously $$$ wise he's set) to direct but not write. Because he really can't do the latter. With very few exceptions (and they're all legends) it's very tough to do both well.
Again, he may be also well served by a non-fiction storyline. I will go into Dunkirk open minded despite his losing streak.
Now go ahead and poke logic holes in a sci-fi movie.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
This is gonna be a good one.
interstellar wasn't his best. At times it was silly for sure, but I still found it entertaining. But when Nolan hits all his notes right, there aren't many better than him... all the early signs indicate he does just that in this film.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
Gravity was such a beautiful technical achievement, but I didn't gush over it otherwise like many others did. I didn't care what happened to the characters. That to me is always the biggest dealbreaker. Still, the beauty of the film made up for whatever lack of connection I had. I'd recommend it without hestitation.
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.
1. This is who I am.
2. This is what I'm doing.
3. This is my personal philosophy and moral code.
This works great in a film like Memento where the lead character is messed up in the head and has to keep explaining himself to everyone, less so in a film like Interstellar where we get shit like Ann Hathaway's scientist character proclaiming that love is the most important thing in the universe.
I do think that doing a war film like Dunkirk might help alleviate some of that weakness -- most of the dialogue will probably be declarations and imperatives, which of course is entirely appropriate for a war movie. I'm also intrigued by what I hear about the film's structure and its short running time. Looking forward to checking it out.
You didn't like the crew of astronauts explaining high school science concepts to each other on the spacecraft? You boor!
Nolan's storytelling is among his very weakest qualities. He's good at framing shots, and there have been some good scenes in his films, when you view them as standalones. But, man, does he really struggle to bring everything together, especially when the scope is large.
He takes on very big ideas, and then halfway through production, the ideas clearly have become too big for him.
To say "most" thought it was "brilliant" is surely an overstatement though. The reviews were good, not great, and IIRC it was largely overshadowed by Gravity.
Not defensive at all. I just find it interesting when 3 people crush a movie that 10 people loved. To each his own, I don't blame you for hating it but it wasn't a terrible movie in the main stream. And it was better than Gravity. I enjoyed that too.
Lol yes that was it. It was great!
Ok I just checked RT and sure enough it wasn't universally praised like I thought. Generally good to great reviews but not a slam dunk. So I stand corrected.
I still loved it.
Just to raise expectations even more, I might watch "Fury" just before going to see Dunkirk so I can go from a real shitty war movie to a great one in one day!
Regarding the French, I think they get a bad rap. I am of the opinion that France fell not so much because the French couldn't/wouldn't fight but because the war was won by the strategy of both sides. Once the Germans punctured the front in the Ardennes and raced northward, the French were in an untenable situation. The British and French had instinctively moved into Belgium, falling right into the trap. At that point, only a miracle could have saved the French (and British...Dunkirk was a partial miracle).
The "Maginot spirit" is quite understandable. The Civil War (by 1864) and WWI had demonstrated that then modern technology had made offensive war extremely costly and perhaps forever unwinnable. Modern day trench warfare really started in the Civil War. The French were very heroic in WWI, but they got slaughtered. It wiped out almost an entire generation. So building super forts along the German frontier made complete sense at the time.
The French did not want to fight WWII (most of Europe didn't). And their leadership was living in terms of 1918 tactics. But had the Ardennes been defended, the outcome of the battle may have been different.
****comes to the realization that he may not be the best judge of movies once thought to be****
What I've read about Dunkirk is it's pretty bleak, and dialogue-light, which should assuage people who worry about Nolan's writing (for me his sound mixing is usually a far greater crime). Interstellar had some cool parts (the water planet where time passed much slower then in space, Matt Damon's desperation) but also fell apart in the last act, where turns out Love is the answer and zzzz. The Martian or even Gravity were the better recent space films.
****comes to the realization that he may not be the best judge of movies once thought to be****
Stand your ground...I like a lot of movies BBI doesn't, don't let them back you down. I liked Fury as well.
Quote:
lol...
****comes to the realization that he may not be the best judge of movies once thought to be****
Stand your ground...I like a lot of movies BBI doesn't, don't let them back you down. I liked Fury as well.
Ditto
...Tarantino.
Some help me I can't stop laughing.
Not really
That’s my honest opinion of Nolan. He lost me with a horrid losing streak. I really did like him for a while (Insomnia you get to see a rare once again watchable Al Pacino, who had jumped the shark 5 years earlier).
Kinda like how I felt when, not long after Pinkerton and Blue Album, Weezer releases that monstrosity of a ‘Beverly Hills’ album Make Believe.
Don’t think he can fairly claim a magnum opus (maybe/hopefully Dunkirk will be it), but Memento through Prestige were reasonably good efforts. I suspect TDK’s kajillion dollars made his head balloon and he decided to step up the intricacy & ambition, but he just isn’t a talented enough writer to pull it off.
Quote:
I think Nolan is the best storyteller in the world of cinema today. That doesn't always mean he tells the stories worth telling (i.e. Interstellar). But this movie sounds like a unique and captivating story and I wouldn't prefer anyone over Nolan for Dunkirk. It's gonna be awesome.
Nolan's storytelling is among his very weakest qualities. He's good at framing shots, and there have been some good scenes in his films, when you view them as standalones. But, man, does he really struggle to bring everything together, especially when the scope is large.
He takes on very big ideas, and then halfway through production, the ideas clearly have become too big for him.
This is incorrect. Interstellar is actually the best example. At different times we were with MM when his daughter was a kid, then when she was an adult, then when she was like 100... but all the while he seamlessly transitioned from scene to scene and from time period to time period without even a hint of confusion.
I agree that the idea as a whole was too ambitious and ultimately led to a film that lacked, but he told the story in front him as perfectly as you can.
Quote:
What is the story? Nolan has had his popular movies but they have all been fiction to my knowledge. It would be really cool to see how he adapts to non-fiction.
As stated above, it was not a "victory" but had the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) been annihilated as it should have been, Britain would probably have had to sue for peace with Hitler. The controversy rages to this day why Hitler halted the panzer divisions before Dunkirk.
Regardless, it is one of the most amazing historical feats of WWII.... it's an amazing TRUE story.
Yeah, and them invading Russia. If that wouldn't have happened who knows what alternate history would've happened.
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.