My Dad was part of the British rearguard, in the 51st Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. He was captured at Saint Valery on 12 June 1940 and spent the rest of the war as a prisoner.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
What was you hoping he would include that we have not seen or read before? That doesn't leave much does it?
As Jimmy said , it's not a documentary.
If someone came to me and asked for millions to make a film about Dunkirk I would expect that the film was going to offer a new insight, a new revelation or new angle on what we already know.
Which I guess is why you don't make films, and Dunkirk just took $235m in two weeks!
Dunkirk is a thriller. A survival story juxtaposed against the backdrop of a true war story. If you're disappointed that it's not what you expected or hoped for, well then for want of a less argumentative phrase, that's kinda your problem. It shouldn't detract from the film because you want to see something else.
Or shot in a new way or using a new technology that conveyed the sense of what happened in a different or better way than we had ever seen before.
Have you ever seen a WW2 movie in full IMAX before?!
Nolan managed to strap a ginormous IMAX camera to a real Spitfire, amongst other things. The practical effects on this movie were incredible. There was next to no-CGI in it (I think they may have bolstered an explosion or two and maybe expanded the beach shots somewhat). It was a hell of an achievement to pull it off that way.
And the edit was unique - the relentless build of tension was something I've not seen before. As war movies go, I don't know any others like it.
It seems to me you're so familiar with the story that you wanted more out of what's effectively a (very high quality) popcorn thriller. A bit like how musicians hate Whiplash. You might enjoy it more if you appreciate it for what it is!
I was really looking forward to it but I'm afraid I join the 'didn't like it' camp re. Dunkirk. At no point was I engaged, found it difficult to follow at times and didn't care about any of the characters. I absolutely hated the bludgeoning musical score which thrummed and sawed away deafeningly in an attempt to whip up tension that I found singularly lacking on screen. Ho hum - how we all see things differently, eh?
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
Why not?
Storytelling, structure or pacing. Take your pick. It's effectively one action sequence writ large. There's no more reason to do that than there is to bring Rambo, Gordon Gecko or Fievel the mouse into the mix.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
Why not?
Storytelling, structure or pacing. Take your pick. It's effectively one action sequence writ large. There's no more reason to do that than there is to bring Rambo, Gordon Gecko or Fievel the mouse into the mix.
Well I am no film maker but without meaning to be confrontational, those comments seem a little silly. The rear guard action was vial to the success of the evacuation. As far as I know, Gordon Gecko wasn't, but then I don't know who Gordon Gecko is so what do I know?
The rear guard action wasn't part of, let alone vital to the story Nolan was telling. Just because you want him to tell more aspects of the true story, doesn't mean he has to, nor does it mean his movie isn't as good.
The rear guard action wasn't part of, let alone vital to the story Nolan was telling. Just because you want him to tell more aspects of the true story, doesn't mean he has to, nor does it mean his movie isn't as good.
Agreed - There are so many parts of Dunkirk that could have been mentioned though... the rearguard action and the defence of Calais down the road that slowed the German Army and so gave the Navy more time to get the men off Dunkirk itself.
The only way the whole Evacuation can truly be represented is in a Band of Brothers style mini series which I doubt will happen
People saying Dunkirk offered nothing new.. were we watching the same film?!
Have you ever seen dogfights shot in the same way? No. Have you ever seen a film with 3 separate timelines integrate seamlessly with each other? Especially in a ww2 film? Nope. The film is an absolute triumph in that respect. People talk about "if I had millions to spend on a ww2 Dunkirk film.." have you ever even attempted to make a short film yourself? It's a bloody ball ache, logistically and storytelling wise, even with a good budget.
The film touched on the French repeatedly, in fact I felt the British were being a bit cunty to the French during the entire film. I felt sorry for the French who were fighting to defend the beaches at the beginning of the film. Then later on in the film I felt awful for them as well.
Anything else told in the story would've made it simply disjointed. This was an incredibly slick, well made and well paced film. I watched it again last night and it blew me away with how it cuts between the different stories to maintain tension right to the very end of the film.
People saying they would kodi it.. id highly reccomend seeing in the cinema, for the sound design alone.
I saw it yesterday and whilst some of the superlatives thrown at it were over the top I thought it was brilliant
The realness of the things like the dog fights and how the pilots were interacting, Mark Rylance was really good, as were the boys on the boat with him. Was it wallander playing the admiral? He was solid too
The film touched on the French repeatedly, in fact I felt the British were being a bit cunty to the French during the entire film. I felt sorry for the French who were fighting to defend the beaches at the beginning of the film. Then later on in the film I felt awful for them as well.
I think that was another good sign from the film though... Most wouldnt show the bad behaviour between allies yet unlike World War One by this stage there wasn't much camaraderie between the two forces.
i.e. at the Siege of Calais (days prior to Dunkirk), the Germans forced us into surrender and captured over 20,000 men... of which only 3,000 of them were British, the rest were French, Belgian and Dutch who'd been locked in cellars because they'd stopped fighting - That probably happened throughout the Battle of France leaving a feeling of mistrust between Britons and French on both sides.
People saying Dunkirk offered nothing new.. were we watching the same film?!
Have you ever seen dogfights shot in the same way? No. Have you ever seen a film with 3 separate timelines integrate seamlessly with each other? Especially in a ww2 film? Nope. The film is an absolute triumph in that respect. People talk about "if I had millions to spend on a ww2 Dunkirk film.." have you ever even attempted to make a short film yourself? It's a bloody ball ache, logistically and storytelling wise, even with a good budget.
The film touched on the French repeatedly, in fact I felt the British were being a bit cunty to the French during the entire film. I felt sorry for the French who were fighting to defend the beaches at the beginning of the film. Then later on in the film I felt awful for them as well.
Anything else told in the story would've made it simply disjointed. This was an incredibly slick, well made and well paced film. I watched it again last night and it blew me away with how it cuts between the different stories to maintain tension right to the very end of the film.
People saying they would kodi it.. id highly reccomend seeing in the cinema, for the sound design alone.
I feel like I have stumbled into a Tuesday night film club Nolan Appreciation Society meeting, offered the view I don't think his films are that great, and as I was leaving, muttered, ' and by the way I think Godfather 1 was shit!'
Such anger! So much pretentious shit!
I found the dog fights scenes in this film boring. Very realistic (because I have seen real footage of dog fights from the pilots view) but boring.
I have seen many films that played around with timelines.....I don't think he was breaking any new ground here and it wasn't an aspect of the film that I had a problem with.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
Are you saying unless you have attempted to shoot a film yourself and understand the logistics involved you have no right to offer an opinion on a film?
I made the effort to watch the film in the format the director wanted the film to be viewed. And I paid 3 times what I normally pay to watch a film at the cinema to do so. And yet I still found the film tedious and boring and the sound track silly and intrusive.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
Obviously I have missed something with this film so I have researched other reviews and interviews with the Director to try and understand what I have missed and what the Director was trying to do. Not really succeeded yet but I came across the gem that the basis for the film score was an old watch that Nolan had lying around that had a ticking noise he felt captured the sound he wanted conveyed so he sent it to the guy who was tasked with writing the music.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
A lot of people slagged off and questioned Ed Sherren's (spelling) appearance in Game of Thrones. How is this different? I am not going to check the thread but did you get on your high horse about that?
I can't comment on Vantage Point. Never seen it, didn't know it was a film and haven't got a clue what it is about. I don't know the difference between dialogue and narrative! Clearly I should not be allowed to watch and comment on a grown up film again. I shall return my Greenwich Picturehouse card today and tell them to not let me enter any of their cinemas again until I have gained a Phd in the art of film production and direction.
If Harry styles started singing and then just about every shot in the scene he was in had him grinning at the side of the frame then I would've got just as pissed off at Harry styles as I did with ed Sheeran in game of thrones.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I think the point is a lot was made of a kid from a pop band featuring in the film which maybe detracted from the bigger picture.
My only criticism of this is I was fearful the cinema would have been full of birds screaming when he came on screen. Which I admit is a silly one and whilst I wouldn't have picked him out in a lineup before my missus pointed him out to me and I thought he acted well. Put it like this, had I not known he was not a professional actor I wouldn't have guessed.
Anyway, I loved the film and appreciated the realism and whilst it was done differently to a film like saving private ryan I enjoyed it
I don't want to jump into someone else's argument but can I just point out that not everyone knows the story in great detail.
I consider myself to be reasonabley well read but all I know about Dunkirk is that our troops were trapped on a beach and were rescued by many boats that were, technically, civilian.
I am, very much, looking forward to watching it. I have no idea how accurate it is going to be but I think it will 'educate' me and be an enjoyable film to watch, despite it being based on a true story with many of our past heros losing their lives.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I think the point is a lot was made of a kid from a pop band featuring in the film which maybe detracted from the bigger picture.
That was certainly the case for me with Ed Sheeran in Thrones, 'cos he was shoe-horned in, but it doesn't seem to be the case for many people with Styles and Dunkirk.
But seeing as Red In SE8 doesn't know which one Styles was, I don't see how it was posisbly an issue.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I was responding to another poster who seemed to be suggesting I was not being truthful and that I probably did know who Harry Styles was. The fact is that it was not until several days after I saw the film that I remembered that a famous boy band member had a part in the film.
You don't think he was shoehorned into the film? Any known or unknown actor who has been to acting school and has acting experience could have played that role (I am still assuming it was the role I described earlier). What did having a famous boy band member play the role add to the film? Genuinely interested in the answer to that question. Has Nolan expressed his reason for casting Styles?
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I was responding to another poster who seemed to be suggesting I was not being truthful and that I probably did know who Harry Styles was. The fact is that it was not until several days after I saw the film that I remembered that a famous boy band member had a part in the film.
You don't think he was shoehorned into the film? Any known or unknown actor who has been to acting school and has acting experience could have played that role (I am still assuming it was the role I described earlier). What did having a famous boy band member play the role add to the film? Genuinely interested in the answer to that question. Has Nolan expressed his reason for casting Styles?
He might have just had an audition and pulled whatever Christopher Nolan wanted out of the bag, I do understand where you are coming from and I'm not being confrontational.
The comparison with Ed Sheeren in Game of thrones is a valid one as I felt the scene was not needed and it detracted from the show whereas I think Harry Styles acted well and passed as a proper actor
Ed Sheeran played a part that was written for (or to suit) him. It was a small cameo, yes, but he sang (nobody in GoT really has a singing role like that) and the edit of the scene literally pivoted around him as a central figure - despite his character not being the most important in the scene, indeed, he was the fourth most important figure in it. It was a really bizarre thing for them to do IMO, and I wonder why it was done the way it was, I would love to hear from the director of the episode on that point.
The role Styles played was written without any actor in mind. Styles auditioned for it, and got the part. Nolan says he didn't know Styles was a pop star until after he cast him in the role. So no, he absolutely was not shoehorned into the movie, there's literally no chance Nolan would do that. Him being famous vs unknowns, again, I don't understand the point. Being famous and having a top agent probably helps him get a foot in the door above the unknowns, but I am still unsure what the objection is.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
That's not narrative. That's dialogue. And that has been criticised by, as you describe us, the pretentious people in this discussion. Even still, I think much of the audience did get it - he turned the boat after the plane had committed to its run, so it missed.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future...
I have seen many films that played around with timelines... I don't think he was breaking any new ground here
Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
If Harry Styles walked into the room now I still would not know who he is. My only knowledge of him is seeing his name in headlines on newspaper stands over the last few years and hearing his name referenced on TV.
What has that got to do with him being in the movie? Honestly, what is your point here, cos I haven't got the foggiest idea.
I was responding to another poster who seemed to be suggesting I was not being truthful and that I probably did know who Harry Styles was. The fact is that it was not until several days after I saw the film that I remembered that a famous boy band member had a part in the film.
You don't think he was shoehorned into the film? Any known or unknown actor who has been to acting school and has acting experience could have played that role (I am still assuming it was the role I described earlier). What did having a famous boy band member play the role add to the film? Genuinely interested in the answer to that question. Has Nolan expressed his reason for casting Styles?
He might have just had an audition and pulled whatever Christopher Nolan wanted out of the bag, I do understand where you are coming from and I'm not being confrontational.
The comparison with Ed Sheeren in Game of thrones is a valid one as I felt the scene was not needed and it detracted from the show whereas I think Harry Styles acted well and passed as a proper actor
I must admit I didn't come away from the film thinking that any of the main acting roles were badly acted.....so fair play to Styles for that. It was only after I remembered that a famous boy band member had a role in the film and I worked out which role it was and realised it was one of the 2 or 3 biggest roles in the film that I asked myself why was he cast.
Ed Sheeran played a part that was written for (or to suit) him. It was a small cameo, yes, but he sang (nobody in GoT really has a singing role like that) and the edit of the scene literally pivoted around him as a central figure - despite his character not being the most important in the scene, indeed, he was the fourth most important figure in it. It was a really bizarre thing for them to do IMO, and I wonder why it was done the way it was, I would love to hear from the director of the episode on that point.
The role Styles played was written without any actor in mind. Styles auditioned for it, and got the part. Nolan says he didn't know Styles was a pop star until after he cast him in the role. So no, he absolutely was not shoehorned into the movie, there's literally no chance Nolan would do that. Him being famous vs unknowns, again, I don't understand the point. Being famous and having a top agent probably helps him get a foot in the door above the unknowns, but I am still unsure what the objection is.
The suspicion is, based on Hollywood movies I have watched that are based on Hollywood film production, that the backers of the film insisted that a famous pop star be cast in the film in order to widen the demographic appeal.
But, as you pointed out, Nolan has addressed that question and given his reasons for the casting.
Allegedly a very famous pop star in the 40s was cast in a major role because of pressure from the mafia or, as you say, maybe he just had a very good agent. He went on to become a very good actor, and even won an Oscar. He was always a much better singer though.
You're spot on that Hollywood movies require a big name actor or actress in order for the guys with the money to be interested in investing. Traditionally, star talent has guaranteed box office returns, although we have seen that falter somewhat over the last 20 years. Movie marketing has changed a lot in that time. Fortunately, Nolan is in a position where Warners will give him a blank cheque to make whatever film he likes (he's made them a huge amount of money with Batman/ Inception/ Interstellar etc).
Comments
I've not been to see Dunkirk yet...
Dunkirk is a thriller. A survival story juxtaposed against the backdrop of a true war story. If you're disappointed that it's not what you expected or hoped for, well then for want of a less argumentative phrase, that's kinda your problem. It shouldn't detract from the film because you want to see something else. Have you ever seen a WW2 movie in full IMAX before?!
Nolan managed to strap a ginormous IMAX camera to a real Spitfire, amongst other things. The practical effects on this movie were incredible. There was next to no-CGI in it (I think they may have bolstered an explosion or two and maybe expanded the beach shots somewhat). It was a hell of an achievement to pull it off that way.
And the edit was unique - the relentless build of tension was something I've not seen before. As war movies go, I don't know any others like it.
It seems to me you're so familiar with the story that you wanted more out of what's effectively a (very high quality) popcorn thriller. A bit like how musicians hate Whiplash. You might enjoy it more if you appreciate it for what it is!
The only way the whole Evacuation can truly be represented is in a Band of Brothers style mini series which I doubt will happen
Have you ever seen dogfights shot in the same way? No. Have you ever seen a film with 3 separate timelines integrate seamlessly with each other? Especially in a ww2 film? Nope. The film is an absolute triumph in that respect. People talk about "if I had millions to spend on a ww2 Dunkirk film.." have you ever even attempted to make a short film yourself? It's a bloody ball ache, logistically and storytelling wise, even with a good budget.
The film touched on the French repeatedly, in fact I felt the British were being a bit cunty to the French during the entire film. I felt sorry for the French who were fighting to defend the beaches at the beginning of the film. Then later on in the film I felt awful for them as well.
Anything else told in the story would've made it simply disjointed. This was an incredibly slick, well made and well paced film. I watched it again last night and it blew me away with how it cuts between the different stories to maintain tension right to the very end of the film.
People saying they would kodi it.. id highly reccomend seeing in the cinema, for the sound design alone.
The realness of the things like the dog fights and how the pilots were interacting, Mark Rylance was really good, as were the boys on the boat with him. Was it wallander playing the admiral? He was solid too
And I appreciated the music score
i.e. at the Siege of Calais (days prior to Dunkirk), the Germans forced us into surrender and captured over 20,000 men... of which only 3,000 of them were British, the rest were French, Belgian and Dutch who'd been locked in cellars because they'd stopped fighting - That probably happened throughout the Battle of France leaving a feeling of mistrust between Britons and French on both sides.
Such anger! So much pretentious shit!
I found the dog fights scenes in this film boring. Very realistic (because I have seen real footage of dog fights from the pilots view) but boring.
I have seen many films that played around with timelines.....I don't think he was breaking any new ground here and it wasn't an aspect of the film that I had a problem with.
I thought some of the narrative was clunky and clumsy. For example, the scene where Rylance was giving directions to his son about when to turn the boat to avoid being bombed/shot by a diving Nazi plane and the British pilot asked the son where did he learn to do that (didn't understand what Rylance actually did because the scene didn't make that clear) and the son replied that his elder brother was killed flying Hurricanes. So it was a bit of a back story to help understand the motives of the Rylance character but so clunky and contrived.
Are you saying unless you have attempted to shoot a film yourself and understand the logistics involved you have no right to offer an opinion on a film?
I made the effort to watch the film in the format the director wanted the film to be viewed. And I paid 3 times what I normally pay to watch a film at the cinema to do so. And yet I still found the film tedious and boring and the sound track silly and intrusive.
I still don't know who Harry Styles is. I assume it was the soldier who helped the French soldier bury the British soldier on the beach. If it was it is another reason why I disliked this film; I resent paying over £20 to watch an aging boy band member with no acting experience (I don't know, maybe he started in an Australian soap?) pretend to be a film actor.
Your criticisms are based mostly on your own pre-determined expectations of what you thought you were seeing, or what you wanted to see. And this film wasn't supposed to provide that. It's like me going to see the Muppets and calling it shit because it wasn't Fraggle Rock. You don't know who he is, yet you're annoyed you had to watch him? If you don't know who he is why are you bothered? And what difference does it make what acting experience he has? If Cillian Murphy was in a punk band at college, would you ban him too? Do you hate all films that have first-time actors? Hollywood is going to really struggle to please you in the future... Could you name one movie where a sequence of fairly short events were successfully told from multiple perspectives to great effect? Cos I can only think of Vantage Point, and that was bloody awful.
A lot of people slagged off and questioned Ed Sherren's (spelling) appearance in Game of Thrones. How is this different? I am not going to check the thread but did you get on your high horse about that?
I can't comment on Vantage Point. Never seen it, didn't know it was a film and haven't got a clue what it is about. I don't know the difference between dialogue and narrative! Clearly I should not be allowed to watch and comment on a grown up film again. I shall return my Greenwich Picturehouse card today and tell them to not let me enter any of their cinemas again until I have gained a Phd in the art of film production and direction.
Harry styles was really good btw.
My only criticism of this is I was fearful the cinema would have been full of birds screaming when he came on screen. Which I admit is a silly one and whilst I wouldn't have picked him out in a lineup before my missus pointed him out to me and I thought he acted well. Put it like this, had I not known he was not a professional actor I wouldn't have guessed.
Anyway, I loved the film and appreciated the realism and whilst it was done differently to a film like saving private ryan I enjoyed it
I consider myself to be reasonabley well read but all I know about Dunkirk is that our troops were trapped on a beach and were rescued by many boats that were, technically, civilian.
I am, very much, looking forward to watching it. I have no idea how accurate it is going to be but I think it will 'educate' me and be an enjoyable film to watch, despite it being based on a true story with many of our past heros losing their lives.
But seeing as Red In SE8 doesn't know which one Styles was, I don't see how it was posisbly an issue.
You don't think he was shoehorned into the film? Any known or unknown actor who has been to acting school and has acting experience could have played that role (I am still assuming it was the role I described earlier). What did having a famous boy band member play the role add to the film? Genuinely interested in the answer to that question. Has Nolan expressed his reason for casting Styles?
The comparison with Ed Sheeren in Game of thrones is a valid one as I felt the scene was not needed and it detracted from the show whereas I think Harry Styles acted well and passed as a proper actor
The role Styles played was written without any actor in mind. Styles auditioned for it, and got the part. Nolan says he didn't know Styles was a pop star until after he cast him in the role. So no, he absolutely was not shoehorned into the movie, there's literally no chance Nolan would do that. Him being famous vs unknowns, again, I don't understand the point. Being famous and having a top agent probably helps him get a foot in the door above the unknowns, but I am still unsure what the objection is.
But, as you pointed out, Nolan has addressed that question and given his reasons for the casting.
Allegedly a very famous pop star in the 40s was cast in a major role because of pressure from the mafia or, as you say, maybe he just had a very good agent. He went on to become a very good actor, and even won an Oscar. He was always a much better singer though.