|
Just got back from seeing this at the theater. Was a pretty enjoyable viewing, though as an American I kinda thought it needed subtitles. I understood most and could hear just about all of the dialogue, but the accents mixed with the loudness made me miss a few lines. Nothing that hurt the experience too much, though, as the sound was amazing. I just wish "Gibson" made it, though.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
that was quite the movie. obviously this strikes a chord more with the british, but there's no reason this won't strike a chord with americans. when you see the fleet of civilian boats arrive...drat. the kid reciting the speech was something else too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:I think this movie is going to be divisive and I wonder if seeing it in IMAX is going to be a contributing factor to whether someone loves it or hates it. I saw it at a regular theater and I didn't have any of the problems you did. Maybe your theater has lovely projectors/screens/theaters?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:I saw it at a regular theater and I didn't have any of the problems you did. Maybe your theater has lovely projectors/screens/theaters? Didn't say there were any problems, just that it didn't forever change me with crystal clear visuals or deafening audio like a lot of reviews are talking about because to me it looked and sounded exactly like a normal movie would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Seeing this in IMAX is an absolute necessity IMO. You will really miss out if you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Sometimes you just want to enjoy 2 hours watching Nazis get loving owned and there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Seeing this in IMAX is an absolute necessity IMO. You will really miss out if you don't. There's no imax in my city but there was one theatre with the 70mm print. I thought it looked and sounded awesome so I think that's a decent substitute if you can't get full imax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Don't think I've been that bored in a cinema for quite awhile. It was impressive in some respects. The score did a great job of building tension but then if I broke concentration for a moment I remembered I ultimately didn't care about any of these characters or what happened to them and it made it hard to regain that tension. So the whole film felt a bit like a tug-of-war in that regard as far as pulling me in and then pulling me out. But at the same time, I can't fault the movie too much for that because it was set up in a very deliberate way and its more that it didn't suit my taste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
thepokey posted:Don't think I've been that bored in a cinema for quite awhile. It was impressive in some respects. The score did a great job of building tension but then if I broke concentration for a moment I remembered I ultimately didn't care about any of these characters or what happened to them and it made it hard to regain that tension. So the whole film felt a bit like a tug-of-war in that regard as far as pulling me in and then pulling me out. But at the same time, I can't fault the movie too much for that because it was set up in a very deliberate way and its more that it didn't suit my taste. This is actually one of the most fair reviews I've read in this forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
So apparently that 5 minute single-take shot of Dunkirk that was floating around was from a completely different movie. That... actually explains a lot. I was going into it thinking it would be like a more apocalyptic First Station from Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now on a massive scale - utter confusion, waste, nihilism, punctuated by brief explosions of violence and a pending sense of dread that it would all end catastrophically. I left the theater very, very confused why that shot wasn't in there. I think I'll have to recalibrate a bit to process it fairly, but 'distant' is probably a good way to sum it up. I saw it on the real-deal giganto film IMAX but I think the sound system was pretty bad in that theater. The gunshots mainly sounded like drum hits (I couldn't tell if this was intentional, especially in the first scene) and most of the movie had a constant flabby background bass rumble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
david_a posted:I saw it on the real-deal giganto film IMAX but I think the sound system was pretty bad in that theater. The gunshots mainly sounded like drum hits (I couldn't tell if this was intentional, especially in the first scene) and most of the movie had a constant flabby background bass rumble. Christopher Nolan movies consistently have bad mixing in them. It shouldn't be a surprise anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Christopher Nolan movies consistently have bad mixing in them. It shouldn't be a surprise anymore. the mixing is the best part
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
david_a posted:So apparently that 5 minute single-take shot of Dunkirk that was floating around was from a completely different movie. That... actually explains a lot. I was going into it thinking it would be like a more apocalyptic First Station from Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now on a massive scale - utter confusion, waste, nihilism, punctuated by brief explosions of violence and a pending sense of dread that it would all end catastrophically. I left the theater very, very confused why that shot wasn't in there. I think I'll have to recalibrate a bit to process it fairly, but 'distant' is probably a good way to sum it up. Wasn't that Atonement?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Wasn't that Atonement? Yes, it is indeed from that movie. Dunkirk was pretty great actually, if a bit "cold" as noted before. Sound was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Wasn't that Atonement? I don't know where I saw the clip linked but it was a few months ago and I figured it was from this movie (I haven't payed attention at all to who was supposed to be in Dunkirk). Didn't watch any trailers either. From thinking about it some more I think Kenneth Branagh's character was my least favorite. He just seemed to be there for the teary-eyed exclamation of surprise/relief when all the small boats showed up. That felt a bit hokey when the movie did a good job of avoiding normal war movie cliche characters. The boat scenes were the most harrowing by far, especially when everyone was trapped in the flooding boat in near darkness. That really brought home how terrifying some of the big naval battles must have been for the crew as their ships suddenly became death traps. You really felt like all the sinking ships had it out for the crew as they tried to crush or tangle up as many of them as possible. The shot of Cillian Murphy sitting on a nearly sunk ship in the middle of the canal was by far my favorite too. I really liked the flying scenes too, although the sound didn't blow me away (I think the sound wasn't very good in the theater). I think there should have been a lot of noise even when he was gliding forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Christopher Nolan movies consistently have bad mixing in them. It shouldn't be a surprise anymore. the mixing in this movie is very good which is surprising because all of the other Nolan movies don't, especially Interstellar, which had people questioning if there was some sort of error made during production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:the mixing in this movie is very good which is surprising because all of the other Nolan movies don't, especially Interstellar, which had people questioning if there was some sort of error made during production. I don't know if it was my theater but I felt the mixing was terrible and the soundtrack completely unnecessary. I've seen several reviews say the film was minimalistic, if it hadn't had the constant 'THWOOOM' in the background it could've been. I feel like it was just there to tell us how to feel because the plot/characters couldn't cut it. I also couldn't hear what little dialogue there was because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
It was one of the most intense movies I've seen in theaters in a long time. As other people have said, most of the "action" takes place off screen but the entire movie is filled with a sense of danger and foreboding. The constant ticking in the soundtrack and the loudness of every gunshot kept me on edge. The target practice scene, in particular, had me holding my breath. I did have some difficulty hearing some of the dialogue over all the other sound in the movie. I'm not sure if that was a sound mixing issue or an accent issue, but I wish the film had subtitles. Also, the toast and jam looked absolutely delicious. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Saw it in 70mm this evening. The score was ruinous. Loudly overdone, overused, and always pushing, even through the least interesting scenes of the movie. I understand it was meant to convey tension, but there were only a handful of moments that the score wasn't pushing, pressing, ticking ever harder and faster. I felt tense during scenes that would have entirely lacked tension without the score, and I was tired out from constant tension during scenes that were (cinematically) full of tension. Also on the topic of sound, the mixing was off again, making the rare spoken line difficult to hear over the score or sound effects. Half the lines spoken in a Spitfire were inaudible. Blah blah "your theatre had bad speakers" doesn't cut it when many people are reporting the same problem in reviews, and when Nolan has a history of this. ...not that it matters much what was said, because the characters are an afterthought. Intentional, I get it. But as someone who enjoys the characters in Christoper Nolan movies, Dunkirk lacked. I also disliked the timeline manipulation, and Tom Hardy's arc ranged from heroic, to incompetent (did I really need multiple scenes of a seasoned pilot not understanding the concept of leading a target?), to fantastical, to needlessly nihilistic at the end. I did like the visuals and the sound effects. But the score grated on me in a huge way, and the story was dissappointing. We already know war is hell, but I guess now I've seen Nolan's version of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
I legitimately think the sound was off in my theater because no way was it supposed to sound that bad. I don't mean just the mixing; the actual sound quality was bad in parts. I'm not in a hurry to see the movie again so I guess it'll be hard for me to confirm that. Someone mentioned earlier that the three different timescales didn't pay off that well and I agree. I assume the main reason it was done was so that the airplanes could feature throughout the movie while giving more narrative breathing room to the other stories, but it felt like maybe there could have been a bigger payoff. That could easily have come off as way too clever, though. Now that I think about it, where did time advance in The Mole story? It felt like there were two days there, not a week. Try to sneak on the ship with the stretcher, get on the torpedoed ship, join up with the crew going for the beached trawler.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
bobfather posted:The score was ruinous. Loudly overdone, overused, and always pushing, even through the least interesting scenes of the movie. I understand it was meant to convey tension, but there were only a handful of moments that the score wasn't pushing, pressing, ticking ever harder and faster. I felt tense during scenes that would have entirely lacked tension without the score, and I was tired out from constant tension during scenes that were (cinematically) full of tension. *sustained note crescendoing for 10 minutes straight* Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this. It was the most un-earned extreme tension ever. Yet they did a great job with keeping you on edge with random gunfire. The more I think about this movie the more torn I am. I both equally think it's a great spectacle of filmmaking and hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
I liked it, but was kind of glum after it finished. Bums me out seeing boats fill with water while there's people inside them. Still better than Interstellar though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't want to fight in World War II
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
This might be one of the loudest movie ever shown in theaters. Christ. This movie is the anti-nolan Nolan film. It's not a Blockbuster in anyway. It's very stripped of any conventional storytelling methods he often uses. It avoids explaining everything and practices "show don't tell" exclusively almost to the point of detriment for the average movie goer. This is clearly going to be received as one of if not the best movie he's ever done. The main thing I got from this is that drat things sink fast and the Brits needed better boat design in the 1930s because any little thing would carve through them like Swiss cheese.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
sweetmercifulcrap posted:*sustained note crescendoing for 10 minutes straight* Me three. It got very tiresome after awhile, and towards the end I was getting a head-ache from the soundtrack and had to cover my ears. (This in a cinema that has an excellent sound system.) I also got really irritated by the constant jumping back and forth in time and between different scenes. I suppose it was meant to create tension. AND I found the sickly green colour-scheme of the film extremely ugly. I sort of admire the minimalism of the film, I just don't think it's any good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:This might be one of the loudest movie ever shown in theaters. Christ. I'm interested in seeing this in imax, but from what you guys in this thread have been saying about the sound, is it worth it? I have some hearing issues and if a movie is too loud, sometimes it's like SFX/dialogue just becomes this weird fuzzy/incomprehensible 'white noise' to me. Is it still worth checking out in theaters even if I'm missing dialogue at points? It's kind of lousy having to ask my friends/boyfriend 'what were they saying during X?' after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
The dialog (intentionally) adds nothing to the movie and only pops up every once in a while to avoid having the movie overtly appear to be a weird mashup of an art house war movie with well-known actors whose scripts were each a couple pages long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Saw the movie Tom Hardy killing krauts in a spit (the best plane in the world for you laypeople) was easily the best part. otoh the civilian fleet part fell kinda flat, can't really explain why. Maybe the scale was off, it was like 8 boats per shot? You knew our pretty boy lead would have at least two boats sunk from under him when he boarded the first boat 15 minutes into the movie
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Dunkirk was great but there is one scene i had a question about, when they are trying to board an overcrowded paddle boat and one of the captains tells them to sit tight and they'd come back for them, is that the same guy who was shell shocked?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Philosopher King posted:Dunkirk was great but there is one scene i had a question about, when they are trying to board an overcrowded paddle boat and one of the captains tells them to sit tight and they'd come back for them, is that the same guy who was shell shocked? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's implied that the old captain is Tom Hardy's character's Father and the boy who dies is Tom Hardy's little brother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I'm pretty sure it's implied that the old captain is Tom Hardy's character's Father and the boy who dies is Tom Hardy's little brother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Saw it in IMAX. This movie felt like a fine dish, prepared by an expert chef using all the freshest ingredients.... except that the chef forgot one of the major ones. Would it have killed the movie, titled "Dunkirk", to explain the viewers not intimately familiar with the Western front, what the heck was the evacuation even all about? Why did it happen. Why do they have to leave. Why do they have so little support. What was the reasoning in the upper echelons. Even, what year it took place? I expected the movie to at least take the time to frame the events historically, rather than "here's a whole lot of soldiers being shot and drowned". It's fine if they wanted to keep it low key and through the eyes of a common soldier, but in that case I would've liked to see some character development. I'm not sure we even learned the main character's name. Since there was also little guts or action, then I couldn't help but feel a bit indifferent about the whole thing. It was like an extremely well made generic TV movie. Little to remember this movie by, other than some cool IMAX moments and sound mix. Certainly the weakest film by Nolan that I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Would it have killed the movie, titled "Dunkirk", to explain the viewers not intimately familiar with the Western front, what the heck was the evacuation even all about? Why did it happen. Why do they have to leave. Why do they have so little support. What was the reasoning in the upper echelons. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
The movie had all of that stuff in it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
This movie is Nolan seeing how much fat he can possibly cut. It's the plane that's running out of gas, he's thrown out all the seats, the parachute, the control knobs, everything. It's Tom Hardy's Spitfire just gliding over the beach. It's a really cool experiment, even if it doesn't totally work. Hopefully we might look back at this as an inflection point in his career that led on to some really great stuff, sort of like PT Anderson before and after Punch Drunk Love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
This is a stupid nitpick but about the old boatman's elder son. He says he died 3 weeks into the war. But the British were not engaged anywhere that early into the war. It was called the Phony War for a reason until the Germans invaded Norway. So... what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:This is a stupid nitpick but about the old boatman's elder son. He says he died 3 weeks into the war. But the British were not engaged anywhere that early into the war. It was called the Phony War for a reason until the Germans invaded Norway. So... what happened? Wouldn't he likely count the beginning of British involvement as the beginning of the war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Training accidents happen. Flying was very dangerous back then even if it had improved tremendously from WWI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
General Dog posted:Wouldn't he likely count the beginning of British involvement as the beginning of the war? The British were involved from Day 2, they started shipping troops across the Channel almost immediately. The RAF started dropping leaflets over German cities. No combat though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 22:03
|
|