Well, Ron, let me just chime in here and defend the film. I thought it was EXCEPTIONAL. What these other reviews (absolutely no disrespect, guys, just my opinion) seem to see as flaws, I saw as one of the film's greatest strengths. Dunkirk didn't need character development in the traditional sense to make you feel for the characters in the film, which is a testament to great film-making. It is tense from the very first shot to the last. Non-stop feeling like you can't take a breath. Nolan creates an ultra-realistic feeling like you are actually a part of this battle. He tells a story about the desperation of these soldiers and their one and only goal, to get the hell out of Dunkirk. It is the most realistic feeling war film that I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. It didn't bother me that we never saw the enemy. We constantly felt their presence. The feeling that at any moment, a U-boat or German bomber plane could come and there was almost nothing that could be done to prevent it kept me constantly on the edge of my seat. It is seriously one of the most thrilling experiences I've had in a theater in a very long time and a film that has stayed with me every day since. I'd recommend it to anyone. It's a 10/10 in my book.Ron Burgundy wrote:So, Nolan, will direct the next bond? In your dreams....
Im a little upset at the reviews here (yes i normally refer the reviews here rather than RottenTomatoes) for Dunkirk. I think i know six well enough to understand his POV but shryke 6/10?! Hmm, must be a fair few flaws in the film.
Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Moderators: Buscemi, BarcaRulz, Geezer, W
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
- Shrykespeare
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14273
- Joined: September 12th, 2009, 11:38 pm
- Location: Glendale, AZ
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
I don't begrudge you your opinion Geezer. At all. I'm glad you got more out of the film than I did.
Nolan directing Bond? That's .... a very intriguing idea. I think it would be a great marriage.
Nolan directing Bond? That's .... a very intriguing idea. I think it would be a great marriage.
Happy 60th birthday Jet Li! (4/26/23)
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
I haven't seen Dunkirk yet (seeing it tomorrow on IMAX). I was simply stating my feelings that 106 minutes might not be enough to tell the story.
And Nolan's stated that he'll only do a Bond film if it's a new start for the character (like GoldenEye or Casino Royale). Personally, I want one more Martin Campbell-directed Bond to finish the trilogy of Bond origin stories he's started.
And Nolan's stated that he'll only do a Bond film if it's a new start for the character (like GoldenEye or Casino Royale). Personally, I want one more Martin Campbell-directed Bond to finish the trilogy of Bond origin stories he's started.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.
- Shrykespeare
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14273
- Joined: September 12th, 2009, 11:38 pm
- Location: Glendale, AZ
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
I'm seeing Valerian with the wife tomorrow. Boosh, you are one of three people who have given it stellar recommendations, so I'm thinking I won't be disappointed.
Happy 60th birthday Jet Li! (4/26/23)
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Dunkirk 3/10
Basically, Christopher Nolan made a film for his detractors and we end up with him channeling his inner Michael Bay. The film barely has a plot and it's more or less one hour and forty-five minutes of explosions and boats sinking. In past, people have complained that Nolan puts too much exposition and character development in his films. Here, there's none of that. We end up with underwritten characters, no explanation of their actions, and nothing to really care about. And Hans Zimmer's score ranges from barely there (due to the loud sound mix) to laughable (his end theme lifts from both Batman v. Superman and Edward Elgar's Nimrod). It simply exists to show off the 65mm cameras (one of the few positives, though the switches from IMAX to standard 65mm can be jarring).
This probably would have been better off as a 45 minute film shown at museums and science centers with IMAX auditoriums, ending as the first boats arrive to rescue the soldiers. It would have been less tedious and demanding. But of course, Warner Bros. would have never made its $150 million back.
You're better off watching Their Finest, a far better film from this year involving the Dunkirk rescue in its premise.
Basically, Christopher Nolan made a film for his detractors and we end up with him channeling his inner Michael Bay. The film barely has a plot and it's more or less one hour and forty-five minutes of explosions and boats sinking. In past, people have complained that Nolan puts too much exposition and character development in his films. Here, there's none of that. We end up with underwritten characters, no explanation of their actions, and nothing to really care about. And Hans Zimmer's score ranges from barely there (due to the loud sound mix) to laughable (his end theme lifts from both Batman v. Superman and Edward Elgar's Nimrod). It simply exists to show off the 65mm cameras (one of the few positives, though the switches from IMAX to standard 65mm can be jarring).
This probably would have been better off as a 45 minute film shown at museums and science centers with IMAX auditoriums, ending as the first boats arrive to rescue the soldiers. It would have been less tedious and demanding. But of course, Warner Bros. would have never made its $150 million back.
You're better off watching Their Finest, a far better film from this year involving the Dunkirk rescue in its premise.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.
- Ron Burgundy
- Red Redding
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: November 23rd, 2009, 7:27 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
wow, didnt expect any of these reviews. Guess ill have to see it for myself, though i dont like the notion that Nolan just made it 1.5 hours of explosions, i know he's better than that
“One time I wrestled a giraffe to the ground with my bare hands.” — Dale
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Thinking about it, I would venture that the kind of people who loved Gravity will also enjoy Dunkirk. They're both essentially disaster movies with little else besides the endless barrage of obstacles, with little going on with character, and both play with the audience in order to keep that tension rolling.
- BanksIsDaFuture
- Jack Torrance
- Posts: 6513
- Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 4:09 pm
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Yep. Gravity was great, as was Dunkirk.
People complain that Nolan relies too much on expositional characters and technical explanations, but then he makes a film steeped in emotion and characters driven majorly by instincts and reactionary decisions and people still don't like it.
Obviously, every movie isn't for everyone, but I don't think the criticism of "no character building" or "no story arcs" are earned. Nolan drops the audience directly into the retreat of Dunkirk, and it works. He gives us what we need to know what's happening and that's it - exactly like the soldiers on the beach, in the air, and on ships.
Skipping the perfunctory war-movie conversations in between skirmishes makes the film work. It's short for that reason - Dunkirk doesn't stop from the first gunshot in those empty streets.
(this isn't directed mainly to you guys, I've seen those criticisms a lot online)
People complain that Nolan relies too much on expositional characters and technical explanations, but then he makes a film steeped in emotion and characters driven majorly by instincts and reactionary decisions and people still don't like it.
Obviously, every movie isn't for everyone, but I don't think the criticism of "no character building" or "no story arcs" are earned. Nolan drops the audience directly into the retreat of Dunkirk, and it works. He gives us what we need to know what's happening and that's it - exactly like the soldiers on the beach, in the air, and on ships.
Skipping the perfunctory war-movie conversations in between skirmishes makes the film work. It's short for that reason - Dunkirk doesn't stop from the first gunshot in those empty streets.
(this isn't directed mainly to you guys, I've seen those criticisms a lot online)
Last edited by BanksIsDaFuture on July 31st, 2017, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
- undeadmonkey
- Leon
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 1:39 pm
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
I enjoyed Gravity, but i've had no interest in revisiting it.
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Thanks Banks. For a minute their I felt very alone on this island.BanksIsDaFuture wrote:Yep. Gravity was great, as was Dunkirk.
People complain that Nolan relies too much on expositional characters and technical explanations, but then he makes a film steeped in emotion and characters driven majorly by instincts and reactionary decisions and people still don't like it.
Obviously, every movie isn't for everyone, but I don't think the criticism of "no character building" or "no story arcs" are earned. Nolan drops the audience directly into the retreat of Dunkirk, and it works. He gives us what we need to know what's happening and that's it - exactly like the soldiers on the beach, in the air, and on ships.
Skipping the perfunctory war-movie conversations in between skirmishes makes the film work. It's short for that reason - Dunkirk doesn't stop from the first gunshot in those empty streets.
(this isn't directed mainly to you guys, I've seen those criticisms a lot online)
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
You inserted a word that shouldn't be there: emotion. I saw very little emotion in the film. Lots of people struggling for survival, lots of one-note, one-dimensional characters, but that's not emotion. Just like making Matthew McConaughey cry for 10 minutes in Interstellar didn't address the criticism against Nolan being a "cold" director.BanksIsDaFuture wrote:
People complain that Nolan relies too much on expositional characters and technical explanations, but then he makes a film steeped in emotion and characters driven majorly by instincts and reactionary decisions and people still don't like it.
I don't buy this "that's what it was like" argument that just because it was a real war you can't have characters. You think these men didn't talk in the hours and days they spent waiting to get out? You think the poets and novellists who wrote great art about their experiences in WWII didn't think about their existence at all during events like this? That's the problem with this movie, it contrives a single timeline by cutting out everything human from the film outside of a single desire to survive. It's like making a feature-length version of Indiana Jones being chased by the boulder.
I appreciate Nolan didn't do his usual thing of having endless exposition, but in doing so he lost his characters and they are merely objects.
That said, I didn't hate the movie, but it's an exciting but shallow experience that I'll never watch again.
- Ron Burgundy
- Red Redding
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: November 23rd, 2009, 7:27 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Six, stop nitpicking on Interstellar. Not every film needs a box of tissues. If you're looking for emotion with Nolan, just look at TDK. That final 20 mins does nicely, especially the parts with Two-Face.
Though i suppose Saving Private Ryan gives us emotion? Sorry to go back to that as a comparison, obviously i haven't seen Dunkirk yet. Yeah the Jeremy Davies scenes show us there's very human people in war times, then again, there's also the Tom Sizemore types. Perhaps we dont want to tread on the same ground?
Im still sitting right on the fence about seeing Dunkirk.
What i think Nolan does well as a 'cold' director is that he gets a certain part of his audience ala Michael Bay and therefore he can make whatever film he chooses, with a nice budget. He entertains, rather than makes escapism type films. And not just blowing things up entertaining...
Though i suppose Saving Private Ryan gives us emotion? Sorry to go back to that as a comparison, obviously i haven't seen Dunkirk yet. Yeah the Jeremy Davies scenes show us there's very human people in war times, then again, there's also the Tom Sizemore types. Perhaps we dont want to tread on the same ground?
Im still sitting right on the fence about seeing Dunkirk.
What i think Nolan does well as a 'cold' director is that he gets a certain part of his audience ala Michael Bay and therefore he can make whatever film he chooses, with a nice budget. He entertains, rather than makes escapism type films. And not just blowing things up entertaining...
“One time I wrestled a giraffe to the ground with my bare hands.” — Dale
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
I'm beginning to wonder if Nolan will retire after this one. He hasn't announced any plans for future projects (outside of considering doing a Bond film somewhere down the line) and he's part of a dying breed of filmmakers. I know Tarantino (who's beginning to look like a cross between John Carpenter and the dad from Poltergeist) has announced he'll do two more projects (the first being his Manson Family project that we'll likely see next Christmas) before retiring to run his theatre and write novels. Dunkirk felt like Nolan was trying to prove something and based on the box office results, he seems to have done so. So where does he go now?
I'm thinking that if he doesn't retire, either he goes on a long hiatus (not Terrence Malick long, more like Peter Weir later in his career long) or becomes like Coppola and does smaller projects. He doesn't need to do a big tentpole to get people interested. He could return to the micro-budget territory of Following or make a film on a Blumhouse-sized budget like with Memento and it would still be popular. Maybe he'll give producing other people's projects another shot (just find more talented people with a story than Wally Pfister).
The possibilites are endless.
I'm thinking that if he doesn't retire, either he goes on a long hiatus (not Terrence Malick long, more like Peter Weir later in his career long) or becomes like Coppola and does smaller projects. He doesn't need to do a big tentpole to get people interested. He could return to the micro-budget territory of Following or make a film on a Blumhouse-sized budget like with Memento and it would still be popular. Maybe he'll give producing other people's projects another shot (just find more talented people with a story than Wally Pfister).
The possibilites are endless.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
Nitpicking? Dude, that film is so easily torn apart. I mean... space library, dude, SPACE LIBRARY!Ron Burgundy wrote:Six, stop nitpicking on Interstellar. Not every film needs a box of tissues. If you're looking for emotion with Nolan, just look at TDK. That final 20 mins does nicely, especially the parts with Two-Face.
But yeah, I think the only times Nolan has actually moved me are the boat sequence in TDK, that monologue in Memento, and maybe some of The Prestige? He's not a director of emotions, he likes high concepts and lots of exposition, and awesome visuals.
I'd love to see him direct someone else's script and see how he fares. Would be an interesting experiment.
Re: Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep
He actually did that with Insomnia. Of course, that was before he hit A-list status.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.