Dunkirk (2017) - Nolan does it again

[UKTexans]

On 26/07/2017 at 10:13 AM, RollEagles said:

For large parts of the movie, it's a silent film. To me, it was more about capturing the fear and scale of the event.

Exactly.

It was brilliant for me. Felt like standing for the national anthem when it finished. 

[Bianconero]

I'm not going to lie

I didn't really enjoy it

Respect though!

[khodder]

12 hours ago, Bianconero said:

I'm not going to lie

I didn't really enjoy it

Respect though!

I'm in the same boat. While technically it was amazing, and very well shot. Story wise I felt it was very lacking. I guess he was letting the event do the talking, but there was no character development at all, the crux of the film is the same event repeated four or five times from different vantage points. The issue with that is the details don't change, it is the same thing over and over.

Didn't really grab me. Don't see the hype.

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, khodder said:

I'm in the same boat. While technically it was amazing, and very well shot. Story wise I felt it was very lacking. I guess he was letting the event do the talking, but there was no character development at all, the crux of the film is the same event repeated four or five times from different vantage points. The issue with that is the details don't change, it is the same thing over and over.

Didn't really grab me. Don't see the hype.

Yeah, I saw it tonight, and this is pretty much how I felt. The whole thing was just kind of okay for me.

[THE DUKE]

I can get why it's not for everyone, but for the life of me I can't get why people are complaining about the lack of character development.  The entire point of the movie is being a prisoner of the moment.  The anxiety, fear, and stress of the situation.  I loved it, but I get people not being able to get into it.

[MacReady]

Just now, THE DUKE said:

I can get why it's not for everyone, but for the life of me I can't get why people are complaining about the lack of character development.  The entire point of the movie is being a prisoner of the moment.  The anxiety, fear, and stress of the situation.  I loved it, but I get people not being able to get into it.

A lot of times people judge movies by what they wanted it to be, not by what it is.  Also, you have to expect a lot of people sometimes just can't pick up on what a movie is meant to be because so many people have so many preconceived notions about what they want to see in a movie. 

[UKTexans]

52 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

I can get why it's not for everyone, but for the life of me I can't get why people are complaining about the lack of character development.  The entire point of the movie is being a prisoner of the moment.  The anxiety, fear, and stress of the situation.  I loved it, but I get people not being able to get into it.

I guess so many modern war movies have a subplot (love interest, plot twist etc.), that it's become the norm for moviegoers.

This is a brilliant adaptation of a true story.

[khodder]

On 8/4/2017 at 2:58 AM, THE DUKE said:

I can get why it's not for everyone, but for the life of me I can't get why people are complaining about the lack of character development.  The entire point of the movie is being a prisoner of the moment.  The anxiety, fear, and stress of the situation.  I loved it, but I get people not being able to get into it.

I get that; but how do I get invested into the plot if I really don't care about any of the characters? The only guy I really liked was the older man captaining the civ boat.

I don't think the anxiety, fear and stress of the situation was well communicated, or maybe it was just me that felt this way because of a lack of connection to the characters. Or maybe it worked the first time, but not the 3rd, 4th or 5th time we were seeing the same information, it didn't make the situation any more stressful, it didn't build any more suspense, it didn't create any further benefit.

It was good, I enjoyed it, it was well worth the trip to the cinema. Does it deserve the hype. I'm not sure.

I'm no film or movie expert though.

Maybe this is why I much prefer a documentary over a dramatization when looking to accurately portray historical events.

[Jakuvious]

5 hours ago, khodder said:

I get that; but how do I get invested into the plot if I really don't care about any of the characters? The only guy I really liked was the older man captaining the civ boat.

I don't think the anxiety, fear and stress of the situation was well communicated, or maybe it was just me that felt this way because of a lack of connection to the characters. Or maybe it worked the first time, but not the 3rd, 4th or 5th time we were seeing the same information, it didn't make the situation any more stressful, it didn't build any more suspense, it didn't create any further benefit.

It was good, I enjoyed it, it was well worth the trip to the cinema. Does it deserve the hype. I'm not sure.

I'm no film or movie expert though.

Maybe this is why I much prefer a documentary over a dramatization when looking to accurately portray historical events.

Agreed, again, here.

I was discussing this with a friend and had a similar issue. It clearly wanted an emotional reaction, but given that there was no real reason to care about the characters themselves, I have no more reason to have an emotional stake in the lives of the two young soldiers, or the spitfire pilot, than I do to have an emotional stake in the guys in the background on the beach that die in the first bombing run, that the movie just ignores. And I'm sure that's intentional, to some degree, to show just regular individuals on the ground. But if you're going to follow a few specific characters throughout the movie, there should be some attachment to them specifically, and I never got that.

[UKTexans]

I don't understand why people need character development? 

This was a true story of British and French soldiers, ordinary men, fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, who were effectively sitting ducks trying to get home safely. 

[Jakuvious]

11 hours ago, texans_uk said:

I don't understand why people need character development? 

This was a true story of British and French soldiers, ordinary men, fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, who were effectively sitting ducks trying to get home safely. 

It really isn't, though. It's a true story in the same way that Pearl Harbor or the Titanic were true stories. Yes, it is an overarching event that actually happened, yes, it used real places and a relatively real timeline, but none of the actual characters we saw were anyone real, and the specific details of what occurred to them came out of a screenplay. Those things all were, in this case, invented by Nolan.

Again, if the point was just to make an accurate portrayal, than make a genuinely accurate portrayal and just show me a documentary (and I don't mean that insultingly or sarcastically, I can totally get behind a good war documentary.) But what the goal actually was, was to go with a "based on true events" level of accuracy, with hand-crafted characters, at which point, I would expect there to be something to make me give a damn about those characters. It's a movie. It doing some good things about portraying war doesn't mean I don't still expect it to do what a movie does.