Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk'

[momma]

Amazing movie but I feel like not everyone will appreciate it, its no Inception or Batman where its straight like a gut punch and follows the standard rhythms of storytelling. Its very experimental, and like experimental works in all forms of art you need to "get" certain things in order to first understand it, and then appreciate it. Like how the music is as much a storytelling device as the dialogue or an actor's facial expression is in this movie, constantly accompanying scenes with minimal action as a way of building momentum, chopping it, or de-escalating it, or the camera work and how its used to immerse you during drowning scenes where the screen literally goes all black for a few seconds with a peek of light coming in and out, or the sound mixing where the bombs and guns are loud as fukk but still distant and sometimes off screen as a way of showing the constant, sometimes faraway yet still very real threats war presents. There's no narrative arc per se and the only real character development we get is with the civilian family but the movie still works because its war and you're literally following soldiers in a desperate situation.

Only real complaints I have is the story gets lost a little bit sometimes due to the structuring, like you're not sure where the story is taking you at some parts and how pieces fit together. Also I had a really hard time understanding the dialogue partly because of the accents. So I probably missed some important exposition that explained some important stuff

 

[gluvnast]

Amazing movie but I feel like not everyone will appreciate it, its no Inception or Batman where its straight like a gut punch and follows the standard rhythms of storytelling. Its very experimental, and like experimental works in all forms of art you need to "get" certain things in order to first understand it, and then appreciate it. Like how the music is as much a storytelling device as the dialogue or an actor's facial expression is in this movie, constantly accompanying scenes with minimal action as a way of building momentum, chopping it, or de-escalating it, or the camera work and how its used to immerse you during drowning scenes where the screen literally goes all black for a few seconds with a peek of light coming in and out, or the sound mixing where the bombs and guns are loud as fukk but still distant and sometimes off screen as a way of showing the constant, sometimes faraway yet still very real threats war presents. There's no narrative arc per se and the only real character development we get is with the civilian family but the movie still works because its war and you're literally following soldiers in a desperate situation.

Only real complaints I have is the story gets lost a little bit sometimes due to the structuring, like you're not sure where the story is taking you at some parts and how pieces fit together. Also I had a really hard time understanding the dialogue partly because of the accents. So I probably missed some important exposition that explained some important stuff

Yea, about your last paragraph I can understand. Watch it a 2nd time and you see a lot of how it all is connected. As for the time line itself, here's a graph to make it easier how all of it converges up a pyamid scale to the peak where it's all going on at once and the separate storyline conclusions afterwards.

 

[TheGodling]

Yea, about your last paragraph I can understand. Watch it a 2nd time and you see a lot of how it all is connected. As for the time line itself, here's a graph to make it easier how all of it converges up a pyamid scale to the peak where it's all going on at once and the separate storyline conclusions afterwards.

I can't stop @ people creating these simple ass timeframes for Nolan's movies like he made Primer or some shyt.

 

[the cool]

This one shot was better and more exciting than the entire Dunkirk film

on point like a mother fukker

 

[OJ Simpsom]

The hype for this has come and gon it seems. Has Nolan decided on his next film yet?

 

[doublex]

Yea, about your last paragraph I can understand. Watch it a 2nd time and you see a lot of how it all is connected. As for the time line itself, here's a graph to make it easier how all of it converges up a pyamid scale to the peak where it's all going on at once and the separate storyline conclusions afterwards.

OK, I needed this.

I misread at the beginning of the film and thought that both the mole and the sea were one day.

Then when I realized it was one week for the mole, one day for the sea, and one hour for the air, I thought the last day and last hour were what was overlapped, not the middle day and middle hour.

That makes sense since

Spoiler

there was some time after the rescue for Tommy and his friend on the train. Although there was also some time for the men on the boat to get George's picture into the paper, which shouldn't have taken just one day to accomplish... so now I'm confused again.

Here's another question I still have:

Spoiler

Was Cillian Murphy's character the soldier who wouldn't let Tommy and his friend climb on the lifeboat? If so, which boat was he on that sank and that he was rescued from during that middle day?

Despite the confusing chronology, I did enjoy the movie. The immersiveness of the experience was worth the price of admission alone.

 

[FlyRy]

The hype for this has come and gon it seems. Has Nolan decided on his next film yet?

You detractors are the one's posting in here the most lately

 

[gluvnast]

OK, I needed this.

I misread at the beginning of the film and thought that both the mole and the sea were one day.

Then when I realized it was one week for the mole, one day for the sea, and one hour for the air, I thought the last day and last hour were what was overlapped, not the middle day and middle hour.

That makes sense since

Spoiler

there was some time after the rescue for Tommy and his friend on the train. Although there was also some time for the men on the boat to get George's picture into the paper, which shouldn't have taken just one day to accomplish... so now I'm confused again.

Here's another question I still have:

Spoiler

Was Cillian Murphy's character the soldier who wouldn't let Tommy and his friend climb on the lifeboat? If so, which boat was he on that sank and that he was rescued from during that middle day?

Despite the confusing chronology, I did enjoy the movie. The immersiveness of the experience was worth the price of admission alone.

In regards of the newspaper:

Spoiler

You are correct. Dawson's son submitted the picture of George that next day. Tommy and Alex received the paper a couple of days later assuming the time between returning from the shipping dock and getting on the train and the time traveling.

Also to answer about Cillian Murphy's character:

Spoiler

I initially had the same question. It was indeed Murphy on the boat the night before. Nobody really knows what happened and I presumed you had to read between the lines. Because that next day at the mole, the Navy and Army captain were talking about the tides were changing and saying you could tell by the bodies floating back shore. So my presumption was that the U-boat attacked the vessel and Cillian Murphy's character was the lone survivor.

 

[StraxStrax]

Great looking film with maybe 2 good characters. I think @MartyMcFly summed up my feelings pretty well with

Nolan made a beautiful looking house with almost no soul inside of it

 

[TheGodling]

Great looking film with maybe 2 good characters. I think @MartyMcFly summed up my feelings pretty well with

I feel like I remember three minimalistic movies a day that did what Nolan attempted here but better.

I also feel it's really time we start to seriously discuss that fukking ridiculous soap opera-ass development of the kid falling down the boat and going blind. Goodness gracious, that was bad.

 

[StraxStrax]

I feel like I remember three minimalistic movies a day that did what Nolan attempted here but better.

I also feel it's really time we start to seriously discuss that fukking ridiculous soap opera-ass development of the kid falling down the boat and going blind. Goodness gracious, that was bad.

Yeah, that wasn't needed at all but the only good characters are on that boat imo.

 

[TheGodling]

Yeah, that wasn't needed at all but the only good characters are on that boat imo.

That's because they are the only characters in the movie. :roflgosling:

 

[StraxStrax]

That's because they are the only characters in the movie. :roflgosling:

 

[FrederickDouglas]

I also feel it's really time we start to seriously discuss that fukking ridiculous soap opera-ass development of the kid falling down the boat and going blind.

He didn't just go blind, he was dying and losing all his perceptive abilities.

 

[FlyRy]

I feel like I remember three minimalistic movies a day that did what Nolan attempted here but better.

I also feel it's really time we start to seriously discuss that fukking ridiculous soap opera-ass development of the kid falling down the boat and going blind. Goodness gracious, that was bad.

George is a hero :Truth:

Spoiler

And a sweater vest GQ style Icon