Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" (July 21, 2017) - Part 3

It was Avatar that started the trend

Makes sense now that you say it given how successful the film was companies probably felt it was the 3D aspect of the movie that took Avatar from being a very successful movie to biggest grossing movie ever.

Avatar and specifically Cameron convinced the theater owners to pay out the wazoo for 3D projection. As a result, they started shoving the 3D format down the general public's throat even on movies that the public preferred 2D.

It has led to a very strong rejection of the format when the two could have co-existed a lot better if the theater managers would have been more careful with their approach on 3D and 2D showtimes.

Agreed, there were sooo many films that have been in 3D that just didn't need to be in 3D at all IMO & even the ones that might have justifiably been in 3D weren't done very well.

I don't necessarily reject 3D completely, I feel it can be used, but just not for every blockbuster film, save it for the ones that really might benefit from it.
 
Finally caught this at my closest genuine 70mm IMAX in Denver (CO). I hate paying $20 for movie tickets but figured it would be worth it for a film that Nolan shot entirely in IMAX, unlike TDK/R where only a few scenes were shot in IMAX (although those scenes were undoubtedly awesome, I still remember that one on the plane with Bane in TDKR and feeling like I was actually in the plane with them!).

Not much to say that hasn't already been said, this was just incredible, especially on 70mm IMAX which added to the immersiveness. I didn't pay much attention to those title cards at first and was confused by the timeline, especially when day turned to night on the beach and was immediately followed by daytime scenes (at sea), but after a few minutes of that happening I understood what was going on.

I really have only two notable complaints with the film, one creative and the other technical: (1) I didn't like Cillian Murphy's character by the end of the film, even if we were supposed to sympathize with him for being a survivor. His [blackout]accidental injury of the boy with no verbal apology (which then turned into the boy ending up dead, even though he didn't find that out)[/blackout] really turned me off to the character. Most of the other characters had a shred of humanity but Cillian Murphy's character apparent lack of it just turned me off. (2) I've been complaining about Nolan's sound mixing on every film since TDK (TDK, TDKR, Inception, Interstellar, and now Dunkirk). I honestly don't get what he's trying to achieve by making music so LOUD that it becomes hard to hear characters talking over it. What the heck is his problem and why does he keep doing this?! If he keeps up with this I'm going to have to stop watching his films because it's making them damn near unwatchable for me. Yeah, I get the effect that he wanted from the clock-ticking sounds and other musical accents. But Dunkirk especially felt like a movie that didn't need music much, and I felt would've worked equally well with no music at all during certain scenes. Lots of other films do that, why can't Nolan?? Just the sound effects alone were loud enough, and then the music had to come in and drown that out. Totally annoying. I do like Nolan for his filmmaking style in general but his sound mixing style HAS to go, it's ruining his films for me.

Also, like a lot of others here I did find it difficult to understand what the characters were saying at times due to their British accents. Really wish the film had subtitles, but at least Nolan made up for it with his visual storytelling, so I didn't really need to hear what they said all the time.

9/10 for me, but out of Nolan's other films, I'd probably rate Batman Begins higher, just because it's Batman (and I liked it more than TDK and TDKR), so for me:

1. BB
2. Dunkirk
3. Interstellar
4. Inception
5. Memento
6. Insomnia
7. TDK > TDKR
8. The Prestige
 
Last edited:
I really have only two notable complaints with the film, one creative and the other technical: (1) I didn't like Cillian Murphy's character by the end of the film, even if we were supposed to sympathize with him for being a survivor. His [blackout]accidental injury of the boy with no verbal apology (which then turned into the boy ending up dead, even though he didn't find that out)[/blackout] really turned me off to the character. Most of the other characters had a shred of humanity but Cillian Murphy's character apparent lack of it just turned me off.

Oh wow...

He was suffering from PTSD. Nolan did a great job at showing how crippling and dangerous that is. And he repeatedly showed concern for the boy. Not to mention eventually getting up and helping pull others on the boat
 
Oh wow...

He was suffering from PTSD. Nolan did a great job at showing how crippling and dangerous that is. And he repeatedly showed concern for the boy. Not to mention eventually getting up and helping pull others on the boat

Yes, exactly. Murphy' character exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour people suffering from PTSD (or shellshock) would.

I'm hearing a lot of 'I don't like this characterisation' from people about this movie, when the characterisation is extremely accurate to the realities of the situation.

Hardy's pilot is cool, calm and unexcited because that's exactly how spitfire pilots were. Murphy's character is detached and unresponsive because that's how shell shocked soldiers were.

I do feel that a lot of the time, people have preconceived ideas of how characters should have acted in this film, and are surprised when they don't. Nolan isn't interested in war movie character tropes... which doesn't appeal to some of the audience.
 
Last edited:
I like less is more approach Nolan went with his movie instead of over writing like his previous movie TDKR.
 
Yes, exactly. Murphy' character exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour people suffering from PTSD (or shellshock) would.

I'm hearing a lot of 'I don't like this characterisation' from people about this movie, when the characterisation is extremely accurate to the realities of the situation.

Hardy's pilot is cool, calm and unexcited because that's exactly how spitfire pilots were. Murphy's character is detached and unresponsive because that's how shelooks shocked soldiers were.

I do feel that a lot of the time, people have preconceived ideas of how characters should have acted in this film, and are surprised when they don't. Nolan isn't interested in war movie character tropes... which doesn't appeal to some of the audience.

It really bothers me when people complain about characters in Dunkirk. The writing was brilliant - you provided some great examples of that. The casting was terrific - Murphy is the only character that shows up
'in two places'
and Nolan cast someone so distinctive for the part - his face is so memorable so even the audience who had issues with distinguishing the characters recognized him. And the performances were wonderful - Murphy did a great job especially not even looking at Peter when he was asking if
the boy was well
- not a sign of detachment but shame over what happened - and Hardy was delivering his lines in such nonchalant way, you could tell Farrier really loved what he was doing, flying his beloved airplane.
 
Finally caught this at my closest genuine 70mm IMAX in Denver (CO). I hate paying $20 for movie tickets but figured it would be worth it for a film that Nolan shot entirely in IMAX, unlike TDK/R where only a few scenes were shot in IMAX...

Not entirely. But it had a much higher ratio of IMAX usage. And whereas before Nolan alternated between IMAX and 35mm film stock, for Dunkirk it was IMAX and 5 perf 70mm.
 
I'm not sure if my soul could handle seeing The Emoji Movie topple it, so it damn well better be no. 1.
 
Got to hand it to the Emoji movie, it takes skill to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean look at all the really bad movies that at least got a few good reviews, or all the low budget animated films like the nut job, that at least got 10%. It has to take a concerted effort to get everyone to hate your movie. Respect!
 
Oh wow...

He was suffering from PTSD. Nolan did a great job at showing how crippling and dangerous that is. And he repeatedly showed concern for the boy. Not to mention eventually getting up and helping pull others on the boat


Agreed. If Murphy's character knew the boy died that would send him over the edge. Murphy's character was already unstable.


Minor nitpick- Would have helped if we got a clear line as to who some of the character's names were. I don't even know the main boy's name or Harry Styles.
 
Got to hand it to the Emoji movie, it takes skill to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean look at all the really bad movies that at least got a few good reviews, or all the low budget animated films like the nut job, that at least got 10%. It has to take a concerted effort to get everyone to hate your movie. Respect!

I doubt the movie itself is actually that bad, just that the fact that it exists at all is contemptible. It feels like a complete insult to myself as a movie-goer.
 
Agreed. If Murphy's character knew the boy died that would send him over the edge. Murphy's character was already unstable.


Minor nitpick- Would have helped if we got a clear line as to who some of the character's names were. I don't even know the main boy's name or Harry Styles.

Tommy and Alex
 
Murphy is Shivering Soldier. You can also call him John. Ladt name Crane.
 
I'm not sure if my soul could handle seeing The Emoji Movie topple it, so it damn well better be no. 1.

I would say there's no chance of this happening, as the American public can't possibly be that moronic, but then...

103666044-RTX2AQXH.530x298.jpg
 
Tommy and Alex


When did they mention their names? Everything was so fast paced and they barely spoke


-Running to the shore

-Meeting the french man

-Carrying that soldier on a stretcher

-Holding on to structure by the boat

-Meeting Alex and eating strawberry and jam
 
Got to hand it to the Emoji movie, it takes skill to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean look at all the really bad movies that at least got a few good reviews, or all the low budget animated films like the nut job, that at least got 10%. It has to take a concerted effort to get everyone to hate your movie. Respect!

Haha, agreed! It almost makes one curious to see the movie. Can it really be that bad? :woot:
 
When did they mention their names? Everything was so fast paced and they barely spoke


-Running to the shore

-Meeting the french man

-Carrying that soldier on a stretcher

-Holding on to structure by the boat

-Meeting Alex and eating strawberry and jam

I have no idea, but on imdb and in every review I read they are referring to them with those names. The stretcher scene was for sure without any dialogue. I think they used the names when they were arguing about
killing Gibson
but I'm not sure
 
Oh wow...

He was suffering from PTSD. Nolan did a great job at showing how crippling and dangerous that is. And he repeatedly showed concern for the boy. Not to mention eventually getting up and helping pull others on the boat

Yes it was obvious that Cillian's character had PTSD, and I also agree that Nolan did a great job showing how crippling/dangerous it could be, but at the same time, for me I just felt like he could have said sorry when that incident happened instead of just acting ashamed about it. Or he didn't need to say sorry then, but maybe later, like when all the soldiers were going back home.

Yes, exactly. Murphy' character exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour people suffering from PTSD (or shellshock) would.

I'm hearing a lot of 'I don't like this characterisation' from people about this movie, when the characterisation is extremely accurate to the realities of the situation.

Hardy's pilot is cool, calm and unexcited because that's exactly how spitfire pilots were. Murphy's character is detached and unresponsive because that's how shell shocked soldiers were.

I do feel that a lot of the time, people have preconceived ideas of how characters should have acted in this film, and are surprised when they don't. Nolan isn't interested in war movie character tropes... which doesn't appeal to some of the audience.

Expecting a character who accidentally injures another character to apologize is a war movie character trope? Really? All I was expecting for him was to say at least one word ("sorry") and he didn't even need to say it right there during that scene but could have said it at any point during the rest of the movie up until the end, but he never did.

In any case, because of that Cillian's character ended up being the only unlikeable character in the film for me, which felt weird because I wasn't expecting to feel that way about any of the British soldiers when they're supposed to be the "heroes" of the movie....
 
Yes it was obvious that Cillian's character had PTSD, and I also agree that Nolan did a great job showing how crippling/dangerous it could be, but at the same time, for me I just felt like he could have said sorry when that incident happened instead of just acting ashamed about it. Or he didn't need to say sorry then, but maybe later, like when all the soldiers were going back home.



Expecting a character who accidentally injures another character to apologize is a war movie character trope? Really? All I was expecting for him was to say at least one word ("sorry") and he didn't even need to say it right there during that scene but could have said it at any point during the rest of the movie up until the end, but he never did.

In any case, because of that Cillian's character ended up being the only unlikeable character in the film for me, which felt weird because I wasn't expecting to feel that way about any of the British soldiers when they're supposed to be the "heroes" of the movie....

I don't think he needs to say it...everything about him screamed such desperation, shock and disbelief over everything that happened to him. Also he probably didn't consider a
boy falling under there could be so tragic having just seen actual warfare.

It's interesting you had those thoughts though as for me the most unlikable characters though you could understand why they were doing what they were doing were those
trapped in the boat. Especially Alex - Gibson saved his life and Alex was willing to kill him.
 
Got to hand it to the Emoji movie, it takes skill to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean look at all the really bad movies that at least got a few good reviews, or all the low budget animated films like the nut job, that at least got 10%. It has to take a concerted effort to get everyone to hate your movie. Respect!

It has risen to 3%! i guess it's time to book my tickets.
 
Expecting a character who accidentally injures another character to apologize is a war movie character trope? Really? All I was expecting for him was to say at least one word ("sorry") and he didn't even need to say it right there during that scene but could have said it at any point during the rest of the movie up until the end, but he never did.

In any case, because of that Cillian's character ended up being the only unlikeable character in the film for me, which felt weird because I wasn't expecting to feel that way about any of the British soldiers when they're supposed to be the "heroes" of the movie....

My point about war movie tropes is that people in real warfare situations do not act like the people in war films. One of the most common mistakes made in war movies is to largely ignore the lack of emotional connection that occurs when someone has seen that much horror.

Your point that you didn't like Cillian's character because of the way he was about the boy is precisely the reason why war films don't usually feature a realistic interpretation of how soldiers are on the battlefield. Most movies want you to empathise, so 'soften' character emotions somewhat. They make them more palatable by making them seem more humane. Often though, in reality, soldiers would seem callous, hard and unlikeable to anyone not in combat - because that's the way they either had to be to survive, or because they had seen so much death they had become desensitised to it.

What I loved about Cillian's character, and Nolan's story telling, is that he does not care about making you empathise with the character. It is more important to him to show the 'truth' of war.

Nolan doesn't want you to see "heroes" ... he wants you to see "survivors", and he does a brilliant job of it.
 
The whole point of the scene was to highlight the maturity of the boy to spare a deeply shellshocked man more heartbreak and tragedy. It wasn't about demanding the truth or demanding an apology.

It goes back to what Gordon said in TDK, "sometimes the truth ain't good nuff, sometimes peeps deserve something moar".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,395
Messages
22,096,927
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"