- 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: Caught Dunkirk on Paramount last night, why didn't he just land the
Posted on 2/15/21 at 9:00 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 2/15/21 at 9:00 pm to prplhze2000
Britain was the industrial power house of the world at that time.
0
Posted on 2/15/21 at 9:30 pm to nicholastiger
nolan had to be completely embarrassed when he watched 1917 and saw how much better it was
Posted on 2/15/21 at 9:56 pm to nicholastiger
Edit: Should have looked down. My point was made months ago.
This post was edited on 2/15/21 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 2/15/21 at 9:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I finally got around to seeing this film today, and I agree completely. It was the most overrated film I have seen in a LONG time.
Best Picture nominee? Please ....
It seems all a film needs these days to get critical acclaim is some hokey schtick like non-linear storytelling. Pulp Fiction did “non-linear” well. This crap was pointless.
You do know the battle actually happened, right?
Posted on 2/15/21 at 10:01 pm to Carson123987
quote:
nolan had to be completely embarrassed when he watched 1917 and saw how much better it was
I will agree that 1917 was better. I respect that Nolan is apprehensive on using non-digital effects, but he should have here. Dunkirk looked much smaller on screen than it was in real life. He should have put some more soldiers on the beach than were presented in the movie. It seriously looks like 10,000 people, and that’s because that’s what Nolan could on a small scale bring in.
Posted on 2/15/21 at 10:42 pm to OMLandshark
Nolan spends most of his time in Dunkirk exploring cowardice, and fear on a personal level. He purposefully avoids showing the Germans for example, so there's no enemy.
It doesn't make for a good movie.
It doesn't make for a good movie.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 1:15 am to Lima Whiskey
It seems to me his goal was cinematic
Just not enough of a storyline in addition to very little documentation of actual historical significance
No real German presence in the film
I did find it worth watching a second time for the cinematography
Just not enough of a storyline in addition to very little documentation of actual historical significance
No real German presence in the film
I did find it worth watching a second time for the cinematography
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:48 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
doesn't make for a good movie.
Dunkirk was one of the most disappointing movies I've seen considering the hype.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:29 am to OMLandshark
quote:Perhaps the most irrelevant comment I have seen on any thread today. The fact that a film reflects an historical event does not mean that the film must be awful.
You do know the battle actually happened, right?
D-Day happened, too, and SPR was a great film.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 9:37 am
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:38 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
It doesn't make for a good movie.
I think as an isolated film it is still pretty good. I think people just go in with the expectation of previous war movies/shows dictating what they want to see. Like it is not Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, but that doesn't mean it is bad by any means.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:53 am to RollTide1987
quote:
3) It took the United States until 1943 to really get shite moving
It took the US only 6 months after Pearl Harbour with a depleted Navy to basically destroy the Japanese Navy (the most powerful in the world at the time) at Midway.
We concentrated our efforts in the Pacific because that was our real enemy regarding interests despite Europe and Churchill wanting us in Europe first to save their interests just like in WW1.
The Pacific was our war and because we were fighting two fronts, we didn't put all our resources into Europe. It was more timing and importance than getting shite moving. We had a Carrier destroyed at the Battle of Coral Sea and it was back in action within 3 days for Midway. Europe had more to do with politics (Churchill and Stalin) as we couldn't act alone.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 10:57 am
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:14 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
We concentrated our efforts in the Pacific because that was our real enemy regarding interests despite Europe and Churchill wanting us in Europe first to save their interests just like in WW1.
Here's also the thing how fricking awesome and convincing Churchill was: we vowed to beat Germany before we beat Japan, and it was because that man was the son of America and Britain and had balls of fricking steel. He took a little jab at FDR during his December 26th speech saying regardless of which side of the pond he was born on, he'd still be addressing Congress today, joking he would have become President. Churchill is one of the most impressive human beings in world history, and like Alexander the Great, he did most of it shitfaced out of his mind. A true hero for drunks everywhere.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News