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

pedant! everyone says "drones" meaning uav. I hate it but that's where we are.

mh the u in uav stands for UNMANNED

tell that to the poor air force people guiding them and watching the video, buddy

maybe "manning the uav control board" is what I'm getting at

imo it's similar to "manning the torpedoes" which may or may not be a malapropism

Speaking of which, I bet Eye In The Sky is a better movie than this.

Human torpedoes or manned torpedoes are a type of rideable submarine used as secret naval weapons in World War II. The basic design is still in use today as a type of diver propulsion vehicle.

wise critic

There will never come a time that i will scroll down on this page pic.twitter.com/QbendaBHRK

— Jake Cole (@notjustmovies) July 19, 2017

Slant critic otmfm!

http://www.thestranger.com/film/2017/07/19/25297266/my-father-who-survived-dunkirk-would-not-have-recognized-christopher-nolans-dunkirk

lol I read the comments on jake's review earlier, good reminder that the internet was a mistake

weird obsession with his review coming out later than the rest of the mudslide, apparently that's a sign of bad faith

also a sign of bad faith: getting your negative review in too early, like all the DKR critics that got death threats on RT

Haven't seen this yet but really enjoyed that Stranger piece. I'd like to see Atonement again.

really liked this. there really isn't much of conventional plot (which I thought was a wise choice), mostly just depictions of the evacuation from three different (non-linear) angles. much of the dialogue is hard to make out and is little more than commands or shouted reactions to a deteriorating situation.

the 70mm print was beautiful too. wasn't really overdramatized either, I mean many intense scenes but not really due to the pathos of any character, more POV war sequences.

was kinda weird when Batman showed up and destroyed a few planes tho

much of the dialogue is hard to make out

Did he do his usual trick of giving the most important dialogue to the least intelligible actors?

War is hell (on the ears). Is there a shot where a loud noise blows out someone's ear drums, and the rest of the scene plays out in a muffled haze with a high-pitched ringing?

nope

does chris nolan's insistence on casting tom hardy then covering most of hardy's face with a mask have a basis in sexual fetish y/n

Lol, I thought about that as well. I love how many weird Nolanesque details that are in this film. It's not wrong that he always has had way too much exposition in his films, and in general way too much focus on legitimizing everything he does, which probably has obscured how weird and personal his films are. This time it's just all there, without bothering to explain why.

how weird and personal his films are

the weird thing for me is how impersonal his films are - i can't really think of any standout characters from any of his films, they've always just seemed more like pieces to be manipulated in service of the plot, never more so than in the infamously impersonal unemotional reunion at the end of interstellar

the only exception i can think of is the joker, but even then he's not really a 'character' per se, more a memorable performance which doubles as a device for driving the story

Not to danesplain the English language, but that's not usually why something is described as a 'personal' film. Everything he does seems more informed by his own weird obsessions than anything else. It's personal the same way the use of blonde women in Hitchcock films seems like a personal thing for Hitchcock to work through.

You better believe Hitchcock's preference for blondes was personal.

lol

Not to danesplain the English language, but that's not usually why something is described as a 'personal' film.

phew, good thing my response wasn't related to your basically unverifiable assertion about how 'personal' nolan's films are to him then

Hitchcock had a strong authorial voice... and that voice was saying, "heck yeah, blondes"

having a set of obsessions/recurring themes counts as personal, I guess?

personally I'm finding this a tedious detour

I won't believe it's really personal until you make 4 films about it

hauteur theory

I've yet to read a review that hasn't given this movie 5 stars

Well obv you haven't read Fred's then, cos he's give it 6 stars!

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!)