Come anticipate (I guess?) Christopher Nolan's Batman/One Direction prequel DUNKIRK oh wait I have that wrong

Here you go: http://pov.international/en-impressionistisk-filmoplevelse/

lol i thought that was a joke but no u really did give it 6 stars

Of course.

slant gave it 1.5 and are getting predictably pilloried for it, I've seen a few less than glowing writeups elsewhere as well

I have a fairly idiosyncratic rating system, probably, but Dunkirk is so much better than it needs to be, and also hits that spot where even the weird stuff that might be seen as flaws adds to my enjoyment of it. So... could hardly be better. Although I don't really like Hans Zimmer.

xp. the wrath of the empire magazine reader

which aspect of it did you compare to beyonce? (my danish is a little rusty) xp

That it's very very good pop-art.

lol i thought that was a joke but no u really did give it 6 stars

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S11E03/688760.jpg?b64lines=IAogIk5JTkUgVEhVTUJTIFVQIj8gV0hBVAogVEhFIEhFTEwgSVMgVEhBVD8g

Most of Danish media uses six stars, so it's not that crazy :)

i like six starpoints on my raspberry danish

if I ever see this I suspect I will give it six thumbs down lol

xxp

mostly cuz Nolan hasn't made a half-decent movie since the 2nd Batman movie and I'm not sure what would be different about this project to elevate it above his other recent garbage. but idk I can't read Danish either...

You guys do know that google translate exists, right? And Duolingo.

The WWII film Dunkirk lasts less than two hours. The heroic rescue mission went on for days - The Washington Post [More: Dunkirk]

I'm not going to stick up for this movie, but this is some real pathetically premised Newsnow clickbait. Goodness me, Shoah only 9 hours long etc..!

For the record I think Paths Of Glory is the greatest war film ever, and the temerity of Kubrick to make it 88 mins long!

Yeah, but that was like three hours in 1950s minutes.

(Actually, for the '50s that's relatively short, too!)

thanks Google Translate!

"Calling Dunkirk for a perfect blockbuster hits by, because it would hide how many artistic templates the big movie breaks. Frederik Bojer Bové gives full six POV stars for a truly unique film experience from a culture on the top of his ability: Visually lavish, narratively ambitious, and generous with emotions and experimental images.

It is quite difficult to report Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk without destroying the reader experience. Perhaps a bit surprising considering that the film is about the evacuation from Dunkerque, and although it may not be all who know the historical event in detail, most people know that the mission succeeded and that Nazi country did not win the battle. But two things mean that you should go to the cinema without knowing too much about the movie.

First, Nolan has created an incredible impressionist experience; He captures the horror, adrenaline, absurd and heroic in the scenario with 400,000 men fighting for survival.

Second, Christopher Nolan is by far the closest we come to an author in the original sense of the word; An instructor working within the study system - within the rules of the current genres - yet it is almost always possible to do something 100% personal and self-contained. Dunkirk is amazingly a Nolan movie, on so many plans and with so many details that I do not have to flush the surprises."

Uh can a mod get that voldemort

I thought this was very good. It's the best Nolan movie of the ones I've seen. I didn't always like the nonlinear editing, but it isn't bewildering in the way the Slant reviewer says, and it allows the film to maintain an exciting pace. Seeing the same events from the ground's point of view and from the air gives a unique spatial sense, where I felt like the camera was ranging over a big and coherent expanse of space. The fact that we hardly see the German army adds something to the sense of scale. The heroics are moderate and appropriate, especially in the subplot following the civilian rescue boats.

this was indeed loud.

whenever someone picks a historical setting for a film i wonder why, and despite being light on cliche plotting & having a some unheroic activities & meaningless death, idk what this tried to achieve

I really liked it. Incredibly taut, relentless and tense all the way through. I liked the unconventional plot and the fact you never see the enemy. The only problem I had was Hans Zimmer's jackhammering score tbh.

Is the narrative structure meant to resemble a clock? Three different plots, like clock hands - one sweeping across a week, one a day, and one an hour - and converging at a certain point. There's a ticking clock in the score.

An exciting movie that left me pummeled and bored.

if I had a nickel for every time....

I loved this. (Though I actually like most of Nolan's movies so I'm definitely in the minority around here.) The eerie and beautiful ballet of the air combat was the highlight for me.

Peter Hitchens review: "It is just noise and action."

haha good review.

This was also 'good'. Take note 'noise and action' fanboys and girls, this is how its playing:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/it-is-not-our-finest-hour-but-brexit-must-stand-tlmkhkrdp

oh good I needed a post-lunch digestif

94% rating on Metacritic? really?!

for that - all technique and nothing much else - movie?!

overrated is an understatement.

the 1 hour/day/week is nothing but a gimmick. could've been also 2 hours/36 hours/week etc and no one could tell the difference.
it is not an "abstract film about fear/survival", just a shallow well made hollywood action movie.

on the other hand, Boyhood got 100 on metacritic, so it's not that a surprise..

I can't get that story to last a week. Seems about 24 hours to me.

shallow/deep is, as ever, kind of a worthless distinction with art. but people do love to prove how much smarter than nolan they are.

i was often quite lost as to the "when" of certain scenes, which could be intentional or im just bad at following this sort of thing. I'll watch this again and see if i do better.

as i said before, i like Nolan's movies, but this movie is his best because it takes his tendencies for portent and bombast and, paradoxically, makes them work because of how streamlined and simple the core narrative is (if not the structure of the narrative). the time stuff struck me as a necessary choice to address the experience the film is attempting to depict--a kind of constriction or dilation of lived experience.

as an action movie this kind of put me in mind of certain passage of Fury Road more than anything else, but im not quite sure how far i'd take that comparison.

"shallow/deep is, as ever, kind of a worthless distinction with art"

why?

if it is a worthless distinction, then any other opinion/distinction about art is worthless

sorry, worthless is too strong. my point is that i dont find it an enlightening or useful distinction in figuring out what's interesting or appealing about art. You can too easily flip them: "deep" becomes "pretentious," "shallow" becomes "stylish."

ok i hear you.

well, i should have explained why i think it is shallow, but i don't want to bore people here with a long rant..

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

This guy's opinions are often shit, but a stopped clock etc...

I urge every youngster to go out and watch #Dunkirk pic.twitter.com/wxqap6a2dP

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) July 25, 2017

Have you seen the film?

oof this did NOT work for me, by and large

(and not because of the breathless fawning from UK conservatives)

in more words:

- The temporal device was intriguing at first but quickly grew tiresome for me. One of the beautiful things about film editing is that effective crosscutting across physical planes automatically "corrects" temporal schisms when done well, making the impossible or illogical "feel" right in a bit of what you might call (if you hated yourself and others) "movie magic." Instead, Nolan decides on the most didactic puzzle-box structuring device possible, which both served to annihilate tension and needlessly call attention to itself, over and over
- The desire to create a "grunt-level", even what you might call "modest" experience of war was repeatedly overshadowed by the aesthetic flash, with the worst offenders being the portions of Zimmer's score that consisted mostly of electronic buzzes slowly ramping up in tempo (the war-movie equivalent of a cheap jump scare in a horror film) and the *three* consecutive shots of sideways water a la Inception
- Speaking of spell-breaking, the expository dialogue from Rylance and especially Branagh was a huge problem for me
- Anyone who could tell all the young Brit brunettes with identical hair apart from each other has far greater facial recognition than I
- The most interesting portion of the movie is actually the closing five minutes, in which there are competing notions of failure and victory competing for space. But then it just ends.
- Those opening intertitles were a disgrace.

Fred - No. And like I said on the other thread I am not going to.

We can say its fawning by hard right politicians but how many times do you get these different constituencies in the same room? It's not nothing.

There’s a moment early in the brisk 100 minutes of Christopher Nolan’s DUNKIRK that struck me as rather false, and it kind of took me out of the movie, although in fact I stayed in the movie and saw all of it. Newcomer Fionn Whitehead, having reached Dunkerque beach, pauses to take a dump in the sand. But we don’t get a strenuous, epic Wim Wenders type defecation. It’s just a quick drop-trou, look nobly into the distance, and then pants up again jobbie. No troublesome, uncinematic wiping or anything like that. This made me worry for our hero’s comfort during the rest of the film, and I wished he’d waded into the cleansing English Channel to do his business.

I suppose you could argue that maybe Mr. Whitehead’s poo was hygienically solid, tough and tightly assembled, like MEMENTO. But I fear that after the foreign environment, army food and the stress of battle, it would be more likely to be splashy, explosive and incredibly protracted, like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

(I could take this comparison further. After days of tension and combat, Mr. Fionn Whitehead’s pooing would resemble THE DARK KNIGHT RISES in the way it would drown out dialogue, cause people to put on masks, and bring tears to Sir Michael Caine’s eyes.)

Worse, Mr. Whitehead defecates on a sand dune, gazing out to see, with the likely result that anything emerging from his bottom would roll downhill and end up in his trousers.

https://dcairns.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/beach-front/

Iirc the point of that scene is that he can't shit because he notices a guy burying a body nearby. I guess it's foreshadowing for Harry Styles' monologue on shitting at the climax of the film.

I also like that that guy doesn't know what a mole is. Clearly he should read the vox explainer.

Yeah, that's how I interpreted the moment.

It was an embarrassed and undelivered poo, like INCEPTION.

lol

Harry Piles