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

[Gold Samurai]

I'm sure Michael Caine was involved somehow, which was probably awkward.

Caine- At this point, I'd set you up with a chimpanzee if it'd brought you back to the world!

 

[James.B]

Farrier still found time to take a couple of selfies...

Image from the ending-

Spoiler

 

[harlequinade]

I just love those Tom photos so cool for him to share those (I think his people send stuff to that site)

 

[TheVileOne]

What the heck, is he smoking in his cockpit?

 

[harlequinade]

What the heck, is he smoking in his cockpit?

It's Hardy so probably

 

[Schlosser85]

Hardy gives no ****s. He was vaping at the Oscars.

 

[kguillou]

I finally got to see this. I was pretty excited about this movie of course with all the wild praise and loving....most of Nolan's movies. Plus I have had Hans Zimmer's "Supermarine" on constant rotation since they released the track a month ago, so I was ready for this. And....just like with Inception, my feelings on this are complicated.

I feel like on a technical level, this is a 10/10 movie. Easily. From cinematography, to the practical effecs, to the tension building, to the gravitas of the characters to the AWESOME score. On a film level, Nolan knocks it out. But as for how it made ME feel as a movie experience, I walked out of the theater...feeling like a 6/10. I'll just say this, like most of Nolan's movies, it's very unconventional, this is essentially one long long scene in a hypothetical 4 hour war film. And you cannot go into this expecting and anticipating a war movie in the way we've become used to them.

There are characters and yet there are no characters. These guys are just faces to guide us along and move the story forward and I feel like a lot of people would have problems with that, including myself. Now, I knew about this aspect going into the movie so I was prepared for it. This movie is all about atmosphere, visually and musically. Going into this expecting character building/ dialogue and a three act movie structure will taint your experience.

All in all. I can't see myself wanting to see this movie again. I'm glad I saw it and was hoping to get more out of it but alas, it may have been a bit too unconventional for me. Also, I personally am fairly familiar with WWII but know next to nothing about the evacuation of Dunkirk so, I think people who have more knowledge, and/or connection with those events will get much, much more mileage out of this film.

This is going to sound like an odd comparison, but I feel the same way about this movie as I did with Atomic Blonde. A visually, technically, and sonically astonishing movie, but also one that left me feeling cold due to lack of character and story depth.

 

[rashad]

Domestic: $142,307,551 42.3%
+ Foreign: $194,100,000 57.7%
= Worldwide: $336,407,551

 

[Mysteryman]

Domestic: $142,307,551 42.3%
+ Foreign: $194,100,000 57.7%
= Worldwide: $336,407,551

What do you think the worldwide ceiling for this will be?

 

[Schlosser85]

I finally got to see this. I was pretty excited about this movie of course with all the wild praise and loving....most of Nolan's movies. Plus I have had Hans Zimmer's "Supermarine" on constant rotation since they released the track a month ago, so I was ready for this. And....just like with Inception, my feelings on this are complicated.

I feel like on a technical level, this is a 10/10 movie. Easily. From cinematography, to the practical effecs, to the tension building, to the gravitas of the characters to the AWESOME score. On a film level, Nolan knocks it out. But as for how it made ME feel as a movie experience, I walked out of the theater...feeling like a 6/10. I'll just say this, like most of Nolan's movies, it's very unconventional, this is essentially one long long scene in a hypothetical 4 hour war film. And you cannot go into this expecting and anticipating a war movie in the way we've become used to them.

There are characters and yet there are no characters. These guys are just faces to guide us along and move the story forward and I feel like a lot of people would have problems with that, including myself. Now, I knew about this aspect going into the movie so I was prepared for it. This movie is all about atmosphere, visually and musically. Going into this expecting character building/ dialogue and a three act movie structure will taint your experience.

All in all. I can't see myself wanting to see this movie again. I'm glad I saw it and was hoping to get more out of it but alas, it may have been a bit too unconventional for me. Also, I personally am fairly familiar with WWII but know next to nothing about the evacuation of Dunkirk so, I think people who have more knowledge, and/or connection with those events will get much, much more mileage out of this film.

This is going to sound like an odd comparison, but I feel the same way about this movie as I did with Atomic Blonde. A visually, technically, and sonically astonishing movie, but also one that left me feeling cold due to lack of character and story depth.

This sums up my feelings exactly.

 

[Dr.]

FYI... a link to David Bordwell’s latest blog entry -

DUNKIRK: The art film as event movie

Definitely not to everyone’s taste. Bordwell is an academic (PhD, professor emeritus, text book author, etc.) - not a movie reviewer. But if you’re into this sort of deeper analysis, you might like. (Also a link to a Dunkirk article by Kristin Thompson - Bordwell’s longtime partner/co-author. Anyone who's studied cinema in school probably had Film Art: An Introduction by Bordwell and Thompson as a required text.)

 

[rashad]

Christopher Nolan's DUNKIRK dipped -33% in its 4th mission, taking home $11M, $153M total.

https://***********/ERCboxoffice/status/896740594269077504

Domestic: $153,712,551 42.3%
+ Foreign: $210,000,000 57.7%
= Worldwide: $363,712,551

 

[Blitzkrieg]

https://www.thecinemaholic.com/many-oscars-will-dunkirk-win-can-also-win-best-picture/

Best Picture: With the ridiculous number of nominations for Best Picture, it seems likely Dunkirk will be among them. It is too big a film, and far too good, not to be nominated.

Best Director: Dunkirk should get Nolan his first nomination as Best Director, but there are a lot of films to be seen yet, and more than one are generating Oscar buzz.

Acting categories: I doubt the film will receive any acting nominations because there is just not enough dialogue from any single character.

Screenplay: Not enough dialogue, sorry, though the Academy nominated The Artist (2011) for Original Screenplay and it was a silent film! It could sneak in here based on the love for Nolan and/or the historical content.

Best Cinematography: The best bet. A no brainer given the films magnificent look and feel.

Sound mixing and Sound editing: Very likely to win given the film’s startling recreation of combat.

Best Original Score: Has Zimmer score builds tension and certainly deserves a nod.

Best Film Editing: Very likely to win, given the win for Hacksaw Ridge (2016) last year.

Best Visual Effects: Again, very likely to win. Though they tend to go with sci-fi or fantasy films for this one.

Production design: Possibly, a win. Nomination, certain.

Costume design: Would get nominated but won’t win.

At the end of the day Dunkirk is such a massive undertaking it could lead all nominees with as many as eleven nominations. No acting nominations will hurt its Best Picture chances, but then again, it did not hurt Braveheart (1995)

My overall take is that ‘Dunkirk’ will do as well as ‘Gravity’ in 2013, ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ in 2015. Basically, it will be a technical juggernaut and will sweep almost all below the line categories.

Best Picture: It will certainly get nominated. No question about it. Will it win? Difficult to say as of now since we haven’t seen most of the contenders yet. On top of that, Best Picture prize over last couple of years have become political. So, it may sway in the direction political wind blows.

Best Director: The Academy won’t be able to ignore Nolan this time and he will get his first Oscar nomination. I am going to stick my head out and say he is very likely to win.

Acting categories: Agree with John. It won’t get any nomination. Mark Rylance is its best shot. Having said that, the film might actually win SAG Best Ensemble.

Screenplay: It will get nominated, but not enough in the screenplay to warrant a win.

Best Cinematography: It will win.

Sound mixing and Sound editing: 100%. It will win both the categories.

Best Original Score: Will get nominated. Win, not certain.

Best Film Editing: Likely to win.

Best Visual Effects: Likely to win.

Production design: Nomination guaranteed. But win not certain.

Costume design: Nomination guaranteed. But win not certain.

Overall, it will receive anywhere between 10-12 nominations and may end up winning 6 to 7.

 

[Dr.]

Nowadays, the "best visual effects" category seems to be about achievement in CGI. Very little of that in Dunkirk.

 

[Boom]

I'd say it has a great shot as Best Special Effects. Never underestimate the Academy's love for practical work.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I'd say it has a great shot as Best Special Effects. Never underestimate the Academy's love for practical work.

WB is so f**king stacked with Tech players for next years Oscar. I mean apart from Dunkirk they also have BR 2049 which will be strong in the Production Design and Visual Effects category.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

What do you think the worldwide ceiling for this will be?

Dunkirk made a solid 14.5 million from it's existing OS markets. It dropped just 42.4% this weekend in OS markets without any major new opening. From the existing markets Dunkirk can pull around 30 million.

The big markets that are yet to open are China, Japan, Italy and Greece.

Assuming at least 40 million for Dunkirk in those markets we get (210+30+40)=280 million. (Last years Hacksaw Ridge combined 68.6 million from those markets so Dunkirk may as well do as much or even more but I'm being cautious)

So far Dunkirk is closely following Rogue Nation's BO run in domestic markets. MI:RN had a 5 million head start on OW but Dunkirk has lowered it to 3.8 million. If Dunkirk manages the multiplier of RN, it collects 178 million. I think Dunkirk will do slightly better and do 180 million+.

So world wide totals should at least be around (180+280)=460 million.

 

[DeadPresident]

The "no character development" criticism mystifies me a lot. For the most part, many great war epics don't have much character development, and I think it would be obvious that it was likely intentional from Nolan to put across that these specific characters aren't the point, because there were 399,990 other soldiers on that beach who it could just as easily have been about and indeed actually was about. Tommy wasn't the point, and neither were any of the others, it was exploring a common experience shared by a faceless group of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

This notion that there are certain components every good movie must include and they must be executed in precisely the same way seems extremely ignorant. "You're not allowed to do things differently to achieve a specific effect!"…Hmm

 

[Kreem Pi]

Nowadays, the "best visual effects" category seems to be about achievement in CGI. Very little of that in Dunkirk.

And yet both inception and interstellar won.

 

[Dr.]

And yet both inception and interstellar won.

Fair enough. Though… both Inception and Interstellar had significant levels of SFX (a combination of old-school “mechanical” effects + “visual” effects) that were deemed innovative enough for awards.

OTOH, consider the aerial sequences in Dunkirk. We might agree that these were astonishingly good and deserve many accolades for (e.g.) cinematography, editing, sound, music, etc. But inasmuch as actual planes and actual photography were used, in what sense is this an achievement in “visual effects”?

Up against, say, Spider-Man or Planet of the Apes, it seems like an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[kguillou]

The "no character development" criticism mystifies me a lot. For the most part, many great war epics don't have much character development, and I think it would be obvious that it was likely intentional from Nolan to put across that these specific characters aren't the point, because there were 399,990 other soldiers on that beach who it could just as easily have been about and indeed actually was about. Tommy wasn't the point, and neither were any of the others, it was exploring a common experience shared by a faceless group of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

This notion that there are certain components every good movie must include and they must be executed in precisely the same way seems extremely ignorant. "You're not allowed to do things differently to achieve a specific effect!"…Hmm

I dont think anyone's saying that. Anyone with two eyes can see what a tremendous technical acheivement this film is. The issue is that most people will find it very hard to become emotionally invested in the story because we dont have our protagonist or avatar to guide us through the story. Thats how most people become invested in a story, they care about the character or characters that is being affected by the events surrounding it.

Not only that, this movie doesn't have a three act story structure, it is a long 85 minute scene. I can definitely see why critics would eat this up, but I cant think of anyone I personally know that wouldn't walk out of this movie scratching their heads and feeling cold.

 

[titansupes]

I dont think anyone's saying that. Anyone with two eyes can see what a tremendous technical acheivement this film is. The issue is that most people will find it very hard to become emotionally invested in the story because we dont have our protagonist or avatar to guide us through the story. Thats how most people become invested in a story, they care about the character or characters that is being affected by the events surrounding it.

Tommy (the main kid) is our POV character for the beach, and I think Mr. Dawson and Farrier (along with Collins etc) for the other lines. I get that the way it's done might not be enough for people, though (I wanted more out of Tommy, personally).

Not only that, this movie doesn't have a three act story structure, it is a long 85 minute scene. I can definitely see why critics would eat this up, but I cant think of anyone I personally know that wouldn't walk out of this movie scratching their heads and feeling cold.

Of course it still has a three act structure. Even a single scene in and of itself has that, and this movie is not obviously single scene. Approximately (only seen it once so far) Act II begins when the boys sneak onto the destroyer, and Act III around when they're fighting amongst themselves (and taking fire) on the grounded trawler.

 

[BatLobster]

I saw it for a third time on Saturday, second time in IMAX.

I have to say, the IMAX experience was just as intense and breathless as my first viewing. The movie overall has not weakened one bit on subsequent viewings for me.

Have to say, hearing "we will fight on the beaches" at the end landed with even more poignancy for me seeing on Saturday just hours after hearing about what was going on in VA.

 

[DeadPresident]

I dont think anyone's saying that. Anyone with two eyes can see what a tremendous technical acheivement this film is. The issue is that most people will find it very hard to become emotionally invested in the story because we dont have our protagonist or avatar to guide us through the story. Thats how most people become invested in a story, they care about the character or characters that is being affected by the events surrounding it.

Not only that, this movie doesn't have a three act story structure, it is a long 85 minute scene. I can definitely see why critics would eat this up, but I cant think of anyone I personally know that wouldn't walk out of this movie scratching their heads and feeling cold.

Some people seem to be saying that. While I completely agree about those storytelling conventions normally I'd say for specific topical or non-fiction material they can be ignored or altered. Looking at something like the evacuation of Dunkirk I don't think a 3 act structure necessarily works, and I think having specific characters you bond with makes even less sense. The entire idea is that those characters that are followed are just allegories for every man and boy on that beach. You shouldn't care specifically about Tommy, or the French guy, or Tom Hardy's character, because they're just analogues for thousands of others just like them. When film convention dilutes the relevance of solemnity of certain material it seems acceptable to ignore the convention. I'd also say there was enough done to make us care about all the characters, at least for me.

Critics that want to slavishly dictate how a movie is or isn't allowed to look do a disservice to the diversity of approach and execution, particularly when the divergence from the norm is used to achieve a specific effect, something I think Dunkirk clearly did and managed to implement while still making the movie engaging and good.

 

[kguillou]

True. I dont disagree with anything you said. Again, i recognize that this film is an achievement on a pure technical level, I think Nolan should win best director. But as for how it made me feel as a cinematic experience, especially one being advertized as a big "IMAX 40mm summer movie event" I felt a little indifferent. But my indifference doesnt blind me from the fact that Nolan did something good here...it just maybe have been a little too off kilter for me to get into, is all.