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.
They clearly didn't listen at School during history lessons... I think we spent a couple of weeks of a term where WW2 was the main feature on Dunkirk... It was well worth it.
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).
Bingo. There's very few directors who have had the consistent massive critical and commercial success that Nolan had enjoyed.
Plus it's not like there weren't any stars, Tom Hardy hits the exact same demographic as styles, Kenneth Branagh and Mark rylance are hugely popular and well respected actors with a big history of awards.
I read an interview which Nolan said hundreds auditioned and styles was genuinely the best for that role and he had no idea he was a pop star. Nolan went out of his way to cast young unknowns as the soldiers in this film.
Can I just make a polite request to those that have seen Dunkirk (or any other film for that matter) to be careful when they discuss their views not to give too much away please. I enjoy this thread and always find others views on movies interesting even if I don't always agree, which as we have different tastes and expectations is natural.
But I don't really need to know that so & so does this or that at the end of the film when part of the narrative is whether they live or die.
You'll be telling me next the boat sinks in Titanic!
Can I just make a polite request to those that have seen Dunkirk (or any other film for that matter) to be careful when they discuss their views not to give too much away please. I enjoy this thread and always find others views on movies interesting even if I don't always agree, which as we have different tastes and expectations is natural.
But I don't really need to know that so & so does this or that at the end of the film when part of the narrative is whether they live or die.
You'll be telling me next the boat sinks in Titanic!
Saw Dunkirk in 2D IMAX yesterday. It was my first trip to the cinema in about three years. I couldn't believe it was 16quid a ticket!!!! I enjoyed the film but I think the imax experience helped. I don't know whether I enjoyed the soundtrack or not but the immersive deafening experience certainly added to the atmosphere. Right at the start of the film there is almost silence followed by a single gunshot that starts the action. Well I nearly shat myself! I thought someone had opened fire in the cinema! To be honest though, had I settled down to watch this at home on the telly, I might not have made it the whole way through although I did enjoy it at the cinema. I didn't find any of the acting or sub plots very inspirational and, like someone said before, I didn't quite get an idea of the overall scale/enormity of the events. A good afternoon out but not quite up to all the hype.
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.
Maybe if Nolan has learned one thing from all this hullabaloo, it's that he could have pleased more people for more of the time by adding a simple, descriptive tag line to the title,
I watched the Prestige recently thanks to rave reviews on here. When I read another review elsewhere, it said that one of Nolan's major attribute's is thst he makes films which keep the audience talking long after they've left the theatre. Reading back the last few pages, I can attest that is the case. I'll be trying to see itnon IMAX this week.
Making the film about people and the small actions they take rather than big action sequences was an interesting idea. Having three interwoven stories that gradually come together over different time frames worked really well.
However, the film was nearly ruined for me by completely lacking a sense of scale - very few people on the beach, one smoke pall over the town, etc.
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.
They clearly didn't listen at School during history lessons... I think we spent a couple of weeks of a term where WW2 was the main feature on Dunkirk... It was well worth it.
Not every school does WW2 in history - we did Britain from 1750ish to the late 1800s - and not everyone was required to take history when I was at school and I suspect it's similar now once GCSE choices come up.
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
I haven't even seen the movie but I'm fairly sure that scene isn't in the film.
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
Saw Dunkirk last night, thought it was... OK. I was disappointed..
Thought it was a shame none of the characters had enough of a story to make you root for them (except Mark Rylance and his son, and just about Tom Hardy), the time jumping around wasn't needed and was confusing for a while at the start, and to be honest the 'war' aspect was quite scaled down - presumably partly to make it a 12A, but we saw what, 4, 5 planes? There would have been so many more.
Would have liked a lot more focus on the small boats flotilla too, I think they are the most interesting stories of Dunkirk.
I don't think it was a bad film, just nowhere near as good as I was hoping and others seem to have found it.
Sometimes I think all the reviews and comments have such a big influence on what you are expecting it can override your feelings after the film and you need a while to assess better.
For example, Baywatch got nothing but bad reviews, so I watched it expecting a 1/10 or 2/10 film. My immediate reaction at the end was 'that was alright actually'. Thinking about it later, I remember how shite it really was, but my immediate reaction was positive because I had expected the worst.
Similar thing with Wonder Woman, everyone raved about it, I thought it was ok but nothing special. Now thinking back it was a very good film, but I was expecting excellence so my immediate reaction was slightly negative.
I watched the Prestige recently thanks to rave reviews on here. When I read another review elsewhere, it said that one of Nolan's major attribute's is thst he makes films which keep the audience talking long after they've left the theatre. Reading back the last few pages, I can attest that is the case. I'll be trying to see itnon IMAX this week.
Sometimes I think all the reviews and comments have such a big influence on what you are expecting it can override your feelings after the film and you need a while to assess better.
For example, Baywatch got nothing but bad reviews, so I watched it expecting a 1/10 or 2/10 film. My immediate reaction at the end was 'that was alright actually'. Thinking about it later, I remember how shite it really was, but my immediate reaction was positive because I had expected the worst.
Similar thing with Wonder Woman, everyone raved about it, I thought it was ok but nothing special. Now thinking back it was a very good film, but I was expecting excellence so my immediate reaction was slightly negative.
I completely agree with this. I always try to avoid reading reviews until I've seen a film. I don't watch any trailers either as I feel like that can spoil a film sometimes.
I've spent years in film promotion of sorts, and now I find myself in a position where I can avoid trailers and buzz, and watch movies without spoiling them massively first and I really like it. Expectation is a huge factor.
Dunkirk is a thrilling action movie set in WW2, and most of the criticism here seem to be around it not providing what the viewers were hoping to see. That's not a fair criticism of the movie, which pretty much achieves what it sets out to do.
I've spent years in film promotion of sorts, and now I find myself in a position where I can avoid trailers and buzz, and watch movies without spoiling them massively first and I really like it. Expectation is a huge factor.
Dunkirk is a thrilling action movie set in WW2, and most of the criticism here seem to be around it not providing what the viewers were hoping to see. That's not a fair criticism of the movie, which pretty much achieves what it sets out to do.
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
I liked the bit with the Stormtroopers.
And Harry Styles spent the whole movie dying for a shit.
I've spent years in film promotion of sorts, and now I find myself in a position where I can avoid trailers and buzz, and watch movies without spoiling them massively first and I really like it. Expectation is a huge factor.
Dunkirk is a thrilling action movie set in WW2, and most of the criticism here seem to be around it not providing what the viewers were hoping to see. That's not a fair criticism of the movie, which pretty much achieves what it sets out to do.
Comments
(Sorry I can't link it, i'm not on a PC)
Plus it's not like there weren't any stars, Tom Hardy hits the exact same demographic as styles, Kenneth Branagh and Mark rylance are hugely popular and well respected actors with a big history of awards.
I read an interview which Nolan said hundreds auditioned and styles was genuinely the best for that role and he had no idea he was a pop star. Nolan went out of his way to cast young unknowns as the soldiers in this film.
But I don't really need to know that so & so does this or that at the end of the film when part of the narrative is whether they live or die.
You'll be telling me next the boat sinks in Titanic!
Cheers BA.
:-)
Dunkirk: Dance your cares away
Reading back the last few pages, I can attest that is the case. I'll be trying to see itnon IMAX this week.
Making the film about people and the small actions they take rather than big action sequences was an interesting idea. Having three interwoven stories that gradually come together over different time frames worked really well.
However, the film was nearly ruined for me by completely lacking a sense of scale - very few people on the beach, one smoke pall over the town, etc.
No characters (well, one maybe) , no plot (except the basic outline we already know) , no historical credibility and how did the RAF get 300,000 troops off a beach with three Spitfires ?
Beautiful photography but why not read a couple of history books before embarking on an expensive movie ?
Thought it was a shame none of the characters had enough of a story to make you root for them (except Mark Rylance and his son, and just about Tom Hardy), the time jumping around wasn't needed and was confusing for a while at the start, and to be honest the 'war' aspect was quite scaled down - presumably partly to make it a 12A, but we saw what, 4, 5 planes? There would have been so many more.
Would have liked a lot more focus on the small boats flotilla too, I think they are the most interesting stories of Dunkirk.
I don't think it was a bad film, just nowhere near as good as I was hoping and others seem to have found it.
For example,
Baywatch got nothing but bad reviews, so I watched it expecting a 1/10 or 2/10 film. My immediate reaction at the end was 'that was alright actually'.
Thinking about it later, I remember how shite it really was, but my immediate reaction was positive because I had expected the worst.
Similar thing with Wonder Woman, everyone raved about it, I thought it was ok but nothing special. Now thinking back it was a very good film, but I was expecting excellence so my immediate reaction was slightly negative.
Dunkirk is a thrilling action movie set in WW2, and most of the criticism here seem to be around it not providing what the viewers were hoping to see. That's not a fair criticism of the movie, which pretty much achieves what it sets out to do. That was the entire point of the movie!!