- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dunkirk discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:02 pm to Fun Bunch
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:02 pm to Fun Bunch
It's terrific, but many will be lost in Nolans sequence. There is really no personality to hold onto since the 3 main characters are shot from a distance in the middle of survival. I think it was a daring film with some reward for the audience along with the viewers receiving a sobering reminder of the price of war/ freedom. I loved it so I'm 4.5 out of 5.
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:12 pm to Scoop
quote:
Do you believe that Nolan attempted to flesh out Hardy's pilot character and failed?
No
quote:
He didn't even attempt to and that was the point.
Yes, and the movie suffered because of it. Nolan went from way too much exposition in his past work to way too little. They don't need entire arcs of profound development, but you need some type of expository element so that the audience is vested in the narrative.
When you're watching a movie and the random henchmen get gunned down, you don't think twice. Dunkirk consisted entirely of random henchmen. When there's no character connection, there are no stakes. If anyone says they actually cared when the kid died, they're lying.
Like I said, it was a good movie and impressive in a lot of ways. Just didn't have much substance behind the sights and sounds.
And jeff, the setting is certainly a character, but it can't be the ONLY character.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:28 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
quote:
Zero character development...imax. So is this like one of those museum imax movies like volcano or rain forest or something? Just watch it because it's pretty and has good sound?
Good Lord. No. Just No.
Saw it for the second time today with my dad and cousin. It was just as good, maybe even a bit better than the first viewing. Didn't have to spend any time following the time differences, even tho I didn't find it that hard to follow the first time as some are saying
I understand some not likig the lack of dialogue/character development. But for me it didn't really take away from the movie as I was still very much invested in the characters and their survival
My main criticism, which my dad and cousin agreed, was the score was too constant. I liked it overall, but there were some instances where I felt zero music would have been more impactful
I think this is Nolan's best achievement as director and expect him to get an Oscar nom, but I'd say it's right behind Memento and The Prestige in my rankings
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:32 pm to jg8623
quote:
liked it overall, but there were some instances where I felt zero music would have been more impactful
100%. Way too overbearing.
quote:
I'd say it's right behind Memento and The Prestige in my rankings
Memento is in a whole different galaxy. Prestige, TDK, and Exposition were probably better as well. This comfortably makes the Top 5 in his filmography
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:42 pm to Carson123987
quote:
When you're watching a movie and the random henchmen get gunned down, you don't think twice. Dunkirk consisted entirely of random henchmen. When there's no character connection, there are no stakes.
That's not true. Under my breath I was cheering on Hardys character at the end. Same with Rylances character. The guys getting blown out on the mole, on the ships, etc are random henchmen, sure. I felt more dialogue/backstory between Harry Styles and the other kid could have helped that storyline but it didn't ruin it for me
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:47 pm to jg8623
Would you have cared about Tom Hardy if it wasn't Tom Hardy? Rylance's character is the only one that I remotely cared about.
Speaking of, what a tremendous waste of Cillian Murphy
Speaking of, what a tremendous waste of Cillian Murphy
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:51 pm to Carson123987
Agree on your Murphy point
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:53 pm to Carson123987
quote:
TDK, and Exposition were probably better as well.
Assuming Exposition is Inception, I wouldn't argue against someone for having those two higher. For me personally, I'm not a comic book guy even though I really enjoyed TDK mainly due to Ledgers ridiculous performance. I really like Inception as well, it would probably be a close 4th in my ranking, but felt it drug on a little too long at the end even though I loved the actual ending
Posted on 7/23/17 at 8:56 pm to Carson123987
quote:
Would you have cared about Tom Hardy if it wasn't Tom Hardy?
Good question, I honestly don't know. I'd think I would have simply because of the unselfish act of his character at the end and how he was a sort of the lone hero of the movie.
quote:
Speaking of, what a tremendous waste of Cillian Murphy
Definitely agree with that
Posted on 7/24/17 at 6:40 pm to Carson123987
quote:
And jeff, the setting is certainly a character, but it can't be the ONLY character.
I never said it was the only character and neither did you. You said characters were underdeveloped. The setting and themes for this movie allow for under developed characters. To have them, would have destroyed one of The major themes of the film.
With the chaos of being on that beach with over 400,000 men, do you think most of the people you would meet would give you their life story or would you experience a brief run in with RANDOM people whom you survive with and then watch them disappear in the crowd when you get home?
Do you think the pilots would See the "henchmen" as anything else other than just planes attacking?
I don't think Dunkirk was his best work, but this was not one of the downsides. It was very similar to how my grandfather said things were during WWII.
This post was edited on 7/24/17 at 7:33 pm
Posted on 7/24/17 at 10:20 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
What it is, essentially, is 106 clamorous minutes of big-screen bombast that’s so concerned with its own spectacle and scale
Honestly, I loved the hell out of the movie, but did walk away with a similar feeling. It felt as if the thought process was, "The Dunkirk Evacuation! That will be the topic of my next masterpiece." as opposed to "The Dunkirk Evacuation! That's a story that needs to be told."
I felt like the film was about Nolan first and Dunkirk second. This is coming from someone who was absolutely mesmerized by it and rated it 9/10. To be 10/10, it had to make the story bigger than any of its creators like SPR did. Dunkirk didn't quite get there for me.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 10:37 pm to cas4t
This movie is a goddamn masterpiece.
This guy...what a man.
If I ever get a boat I'm naming it Moonstone.
This guy...what a man.
If I ever get a boat I'm naming it Moonstone.
This post was edited on 8/1/17 at 10:50 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News