Finally got round to seeing War for the planet of the apes last night. A truly brilliant, moving film. A fitting conclusion to the best film trilogy ever and that is saying something. It both astounded me with the CGI and moved me with the narrative.
I couldn't disagree more Mutts. I was really disappointed with it.
The CGI is of course stunning as we are coming to take for granted perhaps but I thought the characterisation and plot were very poor. For a film about a "war" there was very little action other than the initial sequence and the denouement.
In between you were left with a mish mash of a movie that wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a prison escape, a quest, a story about loyalty and sacrifice or a Vietnam war movie (complete with Colonel Kurtz for heaven's sake!). The plot had more holes than a Millwall fan's vest and I found the characters all too pantomime for my liking, especially the Jar Jar Binks style attempt at introducing some humour.
I came out feeling that the series had ended on a dud unfortunately.
Finally got round to seeing War for the planet of the apes last night. A truly brilliant, moving film. A fitting conclusion to the best film trilogy ever and that is saying something. It both astounded me with the CGI and moved me with the narrative.
I couldn't disagree more Mutts. I was really disappointed with it.
The CGI is of course stunning as we are coming to take for granted perhaps but I thought the characterisation and plot were very poor. For a film about a "war" there was very little action other than the initial sequence and the denouement.
In between you were left with a mish mash of a movie that wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a prison escape, a quest, a story about loyalty and sacrifice or a Vietnam war movie (complete with Colonel Kurtz for heaven's sake!). The plot had more holes than a Millwall fan's vest and I found the characters all too pantomime for my liking, especially the Jar Jar Binks style attempt at introducing some humour.
I came out feeling that the series had ended on a dud unfortunately.
Same here. We've just got home from the Odeon and while my son liked it I was totally underwhelmed.
Dunkirk is a masterpiece. Think many of nolan's films think they're cleverer than they are but this has the greatest combination of clever and subtlety.
The storytelling is remarkable, combining3 different timelines (one week, one day and one hour) to intertwine into a thrilling finale was breathtakingly smart writing. Brilliantly paced and the sound track and sound design is phenomenal.
There's basically no backstories to most of the characters but it doesn't matter, it's absolutely thrilling.
I loved the way the dogfights were shot, tense instead of the top gun style of fast cuts, machine guns etc, a lot like it must've been for real, a lot of patience waiting to get that right shot off and making decisions on what fighter or bomber to go after.
Just brilliant, best war film since saving private Ryan, and I'd say this exceeds that.
Shell Shock is one of those causes of War (especially from WW1 and WW2) that no one really understood back then and was seen as cowardice, felt that Cillian Murphy played that out brilliantly.
None of the actors will get Oscars but the film alone surely should
Another thing about Dunkirk. If your expecting blood and gore as we saw in Saving Private Ryan - there isn't any. Just goes to show that it's not always needed.
Another thing about Dunkirk. If your expecting blood and gore as we saw him Saving Private Ryan - there isn't any. Just goes to show that it's not always needed.
Was telling my wife this... there were about three instances where it could have been expected but nothing
Watched the Times review of Dunkirk and one of the reviewers said you have to watch it on IMAX. I assume this means 3D. My local cinema, Greenwich Picturehouse, shows 3D films so I checked out the times. Could not see any 3D screenings. Saw reference to some screenings in 35mm format. Not sure what this means so I did a bit of google research and came across this http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket.
Does this mean that if it is not a 35mm screening it is a 70mm screening which means it is 3D? But if that is the case why not just list the film screening as 3D?
Watched the Times review of Dunkirk and one of the reviewers said you have to watch it on IMAX. I assume this means 3D. My local cinema, Greenwich Picturehouse, shows 3D films so I checked out the times. Could not see any 3D screenings. Saw reference to some screenings in 35mm format. Not sure what this means so I did a bit of google research and came across this http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket.
Does this mean that if it is not a 35mm screening it is a 70mm screening which means it is 3D? But if that is the case why not just list the film screening as 3D?
Watched the Times review of Dunkirk and one of the reviewers said you have to watch it on IMAX. I assume this means 3D. My local cinema, Greenwich Picturehouse, shows 3D films so I checked out the times. Could not see any 3D screenings. Saw reference to some screenings in 35mm format. Not sure what this means so I did a bit of google research and came across this http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket.
Does this mean that if it is not a 35mm screening it is a 70mm screening which means it is 3D? But if that is the case why not just list the film screening as 3D?
I am completely confused.
70mm IMAX print - go to Waterloo and see it in its full glory. There aren't many places that screen the proper version.
Digital IMAX version - avaialable in your local multiplex. Decent but not quite as good as the Waterloo style.
IMAX 3D - Nolan doesn't make 3D movies so I don't think you'll find Dunkirk in this format but I might be wrong.
3D and IMAX are not mutually exclusive. IMAX means it was shot on a special camera that displays in a giant, ridiculous high definition format.
Watched the Times review of Dunkirk and one of the reviewers said you have to watch it on IMAX. I assume this means 3D. My local cinema, Greenwich Picturehouse, shows 3D films so I checked out the times. Could not see any 3D screenings. Saw reference to some screenings in 35mm format. Not sure what this means so I did a bit of google research and came across this http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket.
Does this mean that if it is not a 35mm screening it is a 70mm screening which means it is 3D? But if that is the case why not just list the film screening as 3D?
I am completely confused.
70mm IMAX print - go to Waterloo and see it in its full glory. There aren't many places that screen the proper version.
Digital IMAX version - avaialable in your local multiplex. Decent but not quite as good as the Waterloo style.
IMAX 3D - Nolan doesn't make 3D movies so I don't think you'll find Dunkirk in this format but I might be wrong.
3D and IMAX are not mutually exclusive. IMAX means it was shot on a special camera that displays in a giant, ridiculous high definition format.
Thanks for that explanation. So when the Greenwich Picture house web page shows the screening as 35mm does this mean the screenings that don't indicate a format are been shown in 70mm? Or are they been shown in bog standard 2D digital format?
35mm is what most movies are shot on traditionally. Although most cinemas now show movies digitally, so it's not like projectors are actually showing this.
Anyway, I think that listing is basically saying, this movie is showing in a standard format with no bells or whistles. EDIT - I think they're cropping the imax version to 35mm
The studios/ cinemas would like to show it in 3D to charge more and avoid piracy, but Nolan is (rightly) anti-3D so they don't have that option.
Finally got round to seeing War for the planet of the apes last night. A truly brilliant, moving film. A fitting conclusion to the best film trilogy ever and that is saying something. It both astounded me with the CGI and moved me with the narrative.
I couldn't disagree more Mutts. I was really disappointed with it.
The CGI is of course stunning as we are coming to take for granted perhaps but I thought the characterisation and plot were very poor. For a film about a "war" there was very little action other than the initial sequence and the denouement.
In between you were left with a mish mash of a movie that wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a prison escape, a quest, a story about loyalty and sacrifice or a Vietnam war movie (complete with Colonel Kurtz for heaven's sake!). The plot had more holes than a Millwall fan's vest and I found the characters all too pantomime for my liking, especially the Jar Jar Binks style attempt at introducing some humour.
I came out feeling that the series had ended on a dud unfortunately.
I am surprised - I thought it was the best and the previous two were terrific. I think it was all of the things you describe, but didn't get a sense that was because it didn't know what to be. I like the way that the audience identifies with the apes from the off rather than the humans. I thought the humour from Bad Ape worked - a film like that needs some humour and he had a reason to be there, showing that other apes were intelligent.
The Colonel was ultimately right about the illness and that apes would inherit the earth, but you wanted them to. I like this sort of film - where you side against your instincts, a bit like Avatar and the human weaknesses and human strengths shown within the apes ensured you identified with them. The donkey apes really added something to the film also. I suppose another terrific film - Starship Troopers which really got you identifying with the humans whilst feeding you information that they were a bunch of nazis was more subtle and clever in that respect. But this was the tidy closing of a terrific trilogy for me.
The Big Sick, which I saw this morning courtesy of a Picturehouse free preview. If Romcoms are your thing I'd say this is a decent example, the lead characters have a certain charm and there is some amusing fast paced back and forth at the start of the film as their relationship gets going. The bloke is an undevout muslim and the girl a white student, cue family disapproval on his side. She then is put into a coma and he tries to forge a relationship with her parents. It's a fairly predictable narrative arc, but pretty well done, though the background of his trying to make it in stand up features some truly dreadful comedy. Overall a pleasant enough film, but not groundbreaking. 6.5.
The Big Sick, which I saw this morning courtesy of a Picturehouse free preview. If Romcoms are your thing I'd say this is a decent example, the lead characters have a certain charm and there is some amusing fast paced back and forth at the start of the film as their relationship gets going. The bloke is an undevout muslim and the girl a white student, cue family disapproval on his side. She then is put into a coma and he tries to forge a relationship with her parents. It's a fairly predictable narrative arc, but pretty well done, though the background of his trying to make it in stand up features some truly dreadful comedy. Overall a pleasant enough film, but not groundbreaking. 6.5.
I think it's a bit better than you. I'd give it 7. Did you see it in Greenwich? I did and was surprised how full the cinema was - there's usually fewer for the free films there.
The Big Sick, which I saw this morning courtesy of a Picturehouse free preview. If Romcoms are your thing I'd say this is a decent example, the lead characters have a certain charm and there is some amusing fast paced back and forth at the start of the film as their relationship gets going. The bloke is an undevout muslim and the girl a white student, cue family disapproval on his side. She then is put into a coma and he tries to forge a relationship with her parents. It's a fairly predictable narrative arc, but pretty well done, though the background of his trying to make it in stand up features some truly dreadful comedy. Overall a pleasant enough film, but not groundbreaking. 6.5.
I think it's a bit better than you. I'd give it 7. Did you see it in Greenwich? I did and was surprised how full the cinema was - there's usually fewer for the free films there.
I could stretch to a seven. Henley's my local. Pretty well attended but the freebies there always are. I picked up the 11am email at about 12 and there were maybe 6 tickets left. Not everyone turns up, but that's one for the things that annoy you thread. You have to be super quick to get the tickets. Seen some cracking films that way though. And the audiences for them tend to be less irritating than the regular crowd of popcorn munchers and wrapper rustlers.
I trust in director Denis Villeneuve. He is an exceptional storyteller and he's on an incredible run - Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario and Arrival. Enemy is an odd one, but the others are all five star films.
I found Sicario a disappointment. The first scene really drew me in, but after that I thought it was weak and the main character annoyed me massively.
Fuck! It's in my top five movies of all time!
I do remember thinking, Blunt's character was a bit too naive, I accept that. But I love the way Villeneuve tells the story. Not only are we not privy to anything that Blunt doesn't know, but we can't even see stuff unless she can see it too (the Texan hitmen are the best example, we never really see their faces cos she doesn't). At least until Del Toro takes over the narrative (which is around the time we find out what Josh Brolin is up to now I think about it, huh, it really does shift focus then).
I also love that the evil is bubbling under the surface. We rarely see any of the cartel types, we just see the bodies they leave behind. Like in a monster movie. The groaning soundtrack is a major factor for this too - those long aerial shots with the score underneath... reminded me of Jaws when Brody finds the driftwood and stares at the sea, it's so ominous.
And there's a car chase with no cars moving. That was a hell of a sequence. Like the night vision tunnel bit (again, we don't see the killing, just what Emily Blunt sees on her way down).
I would suggest blazing before watching it next time, I found it cranks the tension!
I was in Nogales a couple of weeks ago - turned out to be far less exciting in real nice and actually quite nice!
Just back from Dunkirk - thought it was absolutely incredible. Certainly the best war film I've ever seen and one of the best films I've seen full stop.
As above the story telling is just amazing - to combine three separate storylines across different times should be challenging but they've managed to do it seamlessly.
Hardy and Murphy are great, Harry Styles isn't too bad either !
Saw Dunkirk this evening - very powerful film and found it very moving. The soundtrack and spartan dialogue really make the atmosphere and it's a great piece of storytelling.
Not normally a fan of war films but this was excellent....
THE PRESTIGE I never knew this existed until it turned up on here. I've just watched it for the third time this weekend. Wow. Came out the same year as the Illusionist, which was also fantastic. 10/10
You can prattle on about which film is the best quality to use for shooting on but I'm still waiting for the director ambitious enough to shoot a film on Kelloggs Fruitwinders.
Finally got round to seeing War for the planet of the apes last night. A truly brilliant, moving film. A fitting conclusion to the best film trilogy ever and that is saying something. It both astounded me with the CGI and moved me with the narrative.
Finally got round to seeing War for the planet of the apes last night. A truly brilliant, moving film. A fitting conclusion to the best film trilogy ever and that is saying something. It both astounded me with the CGI and moved me with the narrative.
Comments
The CGI is of course stunning as we are coming to take for granted perhaps but I thought the characterisation and plot were very poor. For a film about a "war" there was very little action other than the initial sequence and the denouement.
In between you were left with a mish mash of a movie that wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a prison escape, a quest, a story about loyalty and sacrifice or a Vietnam war movie (complete with Colonel Kurtz for heaven's sake!). The plot had more holes than a Millwall fan's vest and I found the characters all too pantomime for my liking, especially the Jar Jar Binks style attempt at introducing some humour.
I came out feeling that the series had ended on a dud unfortunately.
The storytelling is remarkable, combining3 different timelines (one week, one day and one hour) to intertwine into a thrilling finale was breathtakingly smart writing. Brilliantly paced and the sound track and sound design is phenomenal.
There's basically no backstories to most of the characters but it doesn't matter, it's absolutely thrilling.
I loved the way the dogfights were shot, tense instead of the top gun style of fast cuts, machine guns etc, a lot like it must've been for real, a lot of patience waiting to get that right shot off and making decisions on what fighter or bomber to go after.
Just brilliant, best war film since saving private Ryan, and I'd say this exceeds that.
Shell Shock is one of those causes of War (especially from WW1 and WW2) that no one really understood back then and was seen as cowardice, felt that Cillian Murphy played that out brilliantly.
None of the actors will get Oscars but the film alone surely should
Does this mean that if it is not a 35mm screening it is a 70mm screening which means it is 3D? But if that is the case why not just list the film screening as 3D?
I am completely confused.
I avoid 3D whenever I can. I hate it.
Digital IMAX version - avaialable in your local multiplex. Decent but not quite as good as the Waterloo style.
IMAX 3D - Nolan doesn't make 3D movies so I don't think you'll find Dunkirk in this format but I might be wrong.
3D and IMAX are not mutually exclusive. IMAX means it was shot on a special camera that displays in a giant, ridiculous high definition format.
Anyway, I think that listing is basically saying, this movie is showing in a standard format with no bells or whistles. EDIT - I think they're cropping the imax version to 35mm
The studios/ cinemas would like to show it in 3D to charge more and avoid piracy, but Nolan is (rightly) anti-3D so they don't have that option.
The Colonel was ultimately right about the illness and that apes would inherit the earth, but you wanted them to. I like this sort of film - where you side against your instincts, a bit like Avatar and the human weaknesses and human strengths shown within the apes ensured you identified with them. The donkey apes really added something to the film also. I suppose another terrific film - Starship Troopers which really got you identifying with the humans whilst feeding you information that they were a bunch of nazis was more subtle and clever in that respect. But this was the tidy closing of a terrific trilogy for me.
If Romcoms are your thing I'd say this is a decent example, the lead characters have a certain charm and there is some amusing fast paced back and forth at the start of the film as their relationship gets going.
The bloke is an undevout muslim and the girl a white student, cue family disapproval on his side. She then is put into a coma and he tries to forge a relationship with her parents.
It's a fairly predictable narrative arc, but pretty well done, though the background of his trying to make it in stand up features some truly dreadful comedy.
Overall a pleasant enough film, but not groundbreaking.
6.5.
Henley's my local. Pretty well attended but the freebies there always are. I picked up the 11am email at about 12 and there were maybe 6 tickets left. Not everyone turns up, but that's one for the things that annoy you thread. You have to be super quick to get the tickets. Seen some cracking films that way though.
And the audiences for them tend to be less irritating than the regular crowd of popcorn munchers and wrapper rustlers.
As above the story telling is just amazing - to combine three separate storylines across different times should be challenging but they've managed to do it seamlessly.
Hardy and Murphy are great, Harry Styles isn't too bad either !
Not normally a fan of war films but this was excellent....
I never knew this existed until it turned up on here. I've just watched it for the third time this weekend. Wow. Came out the same year as the Illusionist, which was also fantastic.
10/10
Actually feel drained from how intense it was.
Incredible.
Ok, I was favourably biased before I went: Christopher Nolan, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy is a recommendation in itself.
But what a film! Great acting but no acting Oscars here, this is all about the story. And it is handled so well by Nolan.
Keeps you on the edge of your seat and all emotions are exposed.
Would happily see it again soon. Must be contender for best film of the year and hopefully Nolan can finally get the Oscar he so fully deserves.
8.5/10