Serious inquiry... was this his first full-length film based on a true event?
All his best films... all his films?... were relatively original and fiction.
Maybe that's the "problem".
Even the trailer for Dunkirk bored me to tears. Although I'm not a big fan of the war genre anyway.
The event is really interesting, but... let the History Channel cover it.
Watched Kong: Skull Island last night.
So torn on this one. I'm a huge fan of the giant monster genre, and it is a fun movie. But man, it was not nearly as good as it could've been. I wish it had been treated a little more seriously. It gets downright silly at times, e.g. Tom Hiddleston gas mask scene (you'll know when you see it). And John C. Reilly, while he steals the show as usual, that particular character being the comic relief feels odd considering his lot in life.
But the biggest misstep imo is the fact that there was very little build up to or mystery surrounding Kong himself. He literally shows up right away and pretty much never goes away. Even the original '33 film did a better job on that front.
All that said, it is still a pretty entertaining movie. The initial Kong encounter as well as the big final showdown were both pretty badass.
So torn on this one. I'm a huge fan of the giant monster genre, and it is a fun movie. But man, it was not nearly as good as it could've been. I wish it had been treated a little more seriously. It gets downright silly at times, e.g. Tom Hiddleston gas mask scene (you'll know when you see it). And John C. Reilly, while he steals the show as usual, that particular character being the comic relief feels odd considering his lot in life.
But the biggest misstep imo is the fact that there was very little build up to or mystery surrounding Kong himself. He literally shows up right away and pretty much never goes away. Even the original '33 film did a better job on that front.
All that said, it is still a pretty entertaining movie. The initial Kong encounter as well as the big final showdown were both pretty badass.
I'm just so over pretty much anything WW2. I know there are probably a million tales to tell about it, but that doesn't mean you have to make a movie about every one of them. Like I said though, not a big fan of the genre in general though.
"Alien" in a much smaller space?
A couple friends of mine saw it and went wild over it, but it helps to be fascinated with WWII stuff...and they recently moved to Honolulu, so....Pearl Harbor, etc.
I am well over WWII stuff also. I went to a film made by Ken Watanabe about the 442nd Battalion, and that was great (and Ken was there to present it, which was cool), but outside of that my only interaction with it is restoring Walter Lamb furniture pieces (originally made with bronze tubing dredged from Pearl Harbor wreckage). I REFUSE to watch anything at all that has to do with the German conflict or anything at all related to the Holocaust. I have seen and heard all I ever care to.
They have something for that.... it is called testosterone.
Lol as soon as I watched Dunkirk, I knew you would sh*t over this movie. But not because you didn't like it, but because everyone else liked it and the movie has pretty shots, so pretty much a perfect movie for Deuce to criticize...because you know, that's what you do.
Dunkirk is probably the best movie of the year and should dominate the Oscars if the Oscars get it right. What made Dunkirk so great was because of all the things you listed and criticized. It was a epic project, not a Hollywood movie, that made you feel like you were right in the middle of the battle.
The way the movie opened up was genius and right from the start, I was on the edge of my seat. What did you want from the movie anyway? Did you want all the cliches you seen in every other war movie? A 20 minute prologue of soldiers saying farewell to their family how they're going to make their daddy proud before something interesting happens? A campfire scene where all the soldiers talk about their girlfriends waiting for them back home? An epic speech before everyone faces inevitable death? Or perhaps a hero going Rambo mode and gunning down 50 Nazis?
You completely missed the point of the film, Dunkirk wasn't about the characters and subplots about their wives, the film was about 400,000 soldiers trying to survive on Dunkirk, their names and background stories didn't matter, their common goal of surviving for the moment did. You were meant to feel their fear and desperation, and Nolan did exactly that. Which is why the movie was so brilliant considering it had very little dialogue, you could just feel their fear and desperation from all the actors with practically no script. Hell, who would have known Harry Styles could act with the elites. It was genius to cast him, it draws interest from the fangirls and Nolan gets to puff out his chest and say he can do anything. The standout performances were from Tom Hardy and the SPOILERS.... the French kid pretending to be British, every time they were on screen, you were really rooting for them to make it. Pretty damn good considering they had about 6 lines combined.
You're completely off about the music. The music was a big part of why this type of film worked, it really intensified the peril in every scene, the ticking bomb sound that was constantly playing in and out that blended in with the rest of the score really made you feel like survival was a race against time.
Maybe Pearl Harbor is more your type of war movie? A lot of character development, Hollywood heroism, speeches, and sub drama that had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
What Nolan did with Dunkirk was made a Terrance Malick film, but actually made it interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
i get the feeling DW probably didnt know much about Dunkirk going into the film.
Could have stopped right there.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will say Dunkirk is overhyped though, it's a great movie, and as much as I loved it, it's not a masterpiece by any means, I can see why if some people were bored by it. It's a great one and done movie, and that's because it's more of a project than movie, it's a great experience if you watch it in IMAX, but a second viewing on DVD will be forgettable.
I thought pearl harbor was horrible. It was one of the most forgettable movies that I have ever watched.
I know. Thinking for myself is a rarity. Everyone else sees hype- decides to go with the hype... then watches the movie with an already pre-conceived notion. Sorry, I can't do that.
Dominate the Oscars? In what? Best screenplay? The story is non-existent. Best actor? By who? No one remotely interesting or had enough meat to give an interesting performance. Soundtrack? Honestly one of Zimmer's worst and it's being criticized heavily for just being a lot of "noise". Best picture? Probably. The academy loves boring forgettable films that merely look good. Best Direction? Nope. Lazy and too many awkward/stale moments.
"Genius" from the start? haha Up your standards. The opening scene was great.... and then there was literally nothing to follow it. It set the table for no feast.
What did I want from the movie? Um. I don't know... maybe a story? Maybe characters someone would care about? Maybe a HINT of action? Maybe non-repetitive scenes? Maybe a plot? Maybe something more than merely pretty backdrops that got stale due to no aesthetic changes within 20 minutes? Maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe I want more than a screensaver.... My bad.
My favorite thing you say- noting all the "cliches" of war films. But war films ARE cliche bro. This one was just cliche without the bits of interesting story. That's not an upgrade. Merely being "different" doesn't make something good. And that's where you guys get conned by hype. Every. Year. And the next year, you hardly even remember the film you "loved" so much while it was being praised by pretentious sellouts.
You say "it's not about characters"... sorry bro. ANY story is about characters or else we don't care about the story. You say "it's not about characters (a dumb statement) it's about 400,000 men blah blah".... well. Here's an issue: it didn't look like 400,000 men. It looked like a couple thousand.
Another issue? It NEVER looked like any of those men were in any significant danger. Not once. The men on the beach merely stood around looking up from time to time... none looked scared... none got hurt... it was a joke. There was no suspense because NOTHING happened. Something has to happen. Watching Doug Christie on the beach on the 4th of July was more risky than this garbage.
And then... to further point out how your "not about characters" goofy take is-- then why did we follow around a certain boater and his stupid kids for most the film while they bored us to tears? I'll wait.
Wait wait... the standout performances were from Tom Hardy.... are you fcking kidding me???? They could have gotten literally ANYONE to play that role and it would have been no different- and I love Tom Hardy. Have for over a decade. But acting like he did anything notable? You're a salesman, dude. Mostly to your own emotions, but you're trying to force something that doesn't exist.
The french kid? That said all of 2 words and just stood around like the rest was a "stand out performance"? Goddamn I hope you're around when I'm on a feature. I'll hire you to make up sh** about how great I am. Rooting for them to make it? We knew absolutely nothing about them. They were no different than any of the other clones on the boats.
And you further do it praising the scoring. Which is mediocre at best. "It intensified the scenes"... no. It TRIED to... many of the times while nothing at all was happening- which made no sense. Makes you wait for something that never comes.
The editing was horrific and extremely choppy too. Was hard to tell characters apart.
By the way- the "target practice" scene was absolute trash. Oh sure. Target practice. That makes sense. GTFOH with that poopy.
The plane sequences? Repetitive boring trash.
The very last plane action? So ridiculously stupid that it didn't fit with the more realistic approach the rest of the film took. Well... realistic in that being a war-based film where the opposition is apparently using one torpedo and a bunch of water balloons...
Last edited by a moderator:
Summary: The History channel could have made a far more entertaining film on Dunkirk..... something the viewer STILL has no knowledge about once the film ends. Hell, you can't even tell what happened because the editing is that bad.
I shouldn't have to.
That's what this movie requires. Someone to care about Dunkirk and then PRETEND that this is a decent telling of the event.
It isn't.
It's pretty though. Which'll entertain you for all of about 10 minutes.... then the same scenes of the same atmosphere over and over and over again wear a bit thin.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
