Truly a remarkable audio/visual experience. Don't listen to the people spouting wrong opinions such as not enough gore, not enough this or that. This such a beautiful film, not only cinematography wise but as a whole it's just flat out remarkable. Next level stuff here.
I'll go see Dunkirk next week, along with one other movie: War for the Planet of Apes, Baby Driver or Spidey: Homecoming. Leaning towards one of the first two, but haven't decided yet.
Which one benefits more from a theatrical experience?
Dunkirk - It was a great movie that had me tense the entire time. I had different thoughts about what it would be and that has always made me view movies as worse the first time (Imitation Game being a big example). See it in 70mm if you can, it's a great experience. Also, be ready for everything to be loud: gunshots, explosions, planes, etc.
War for the Planet of the Apes - I loved the reboot back in 2011 and was left a bit disappointed by Dawn (I haven't rewatched it so maybe I'd like it more, see above post about expectations) so I wasn't sure how much I'd like War. I liked the movie but still felt Rise was the best but I haven't watched that since right before Dawn came out.
I'll go see Dunkirk next week, along with one other movie: War for the Planet of Apes, Baby Driver or Spidey: Homecoming. Leaning towards one of the first two, but haven't decided yet.
Which one benefits more from a theatrical experience?
I'd say they both do in their own way, Apes more for the scale and the visuals, and Baby Driver for the cool as hell soundtrack. Plus they're both worth seeing sooner than later. But of the two, I'd personally pick Apes.
(Everyone else is going to pick Baby Driver, though, haha.)
Local theatre doesn't have IMAX anymore, per se; they have something called UltraAVX now, so I guess that's how I'm watching Dunkirk. Does anyone have any prior experience with UltraAVX?
Local theatre doesn't have IMAX anymore, per se; they have something called UltraAVX now, so I guess that's how I'm watching Dunkirk. Does anyone have any prior experience with UltraAVX?
Still big and really good screens, still great sound, but just smaller than your usual IMAX setup. It's like the middle spot between regular and IMAX, I'd say. Plus you get really nice, cushy chairs!
I'm curious how much a difference 70mm makes. I saw Hateful Eight in 70mm a couple years ago and thought it looked good but wasn't blown away by it. Sadly the closest 70mm IMAX theater is over an hour away, but there's a laser IMAX theater about 20 minutes from me so I'm gonna go to that. It's been years since I've seen anything in IMAX so I'm definitely excited.
Still big and really good screens, still great sound, but just smaller than your usual IMAX setup. It's like the middle spot between regular and IMAX, I'd say. Plus you get really nice, cushy chairs!
Inside the planes? Shooting at the boat and at the soldier at the beginning? I love seeing the enemy in movies, especially ones that concern war...I understand his choice because it focused on Dunkrik specifically, but it didn't work for me. Was really immersion breaking.
If anything, focusing solely on what the British personnel can see would ground you further in their perspective. They can't see into the cockpits of the enemy planes or the figures shooting at them in the distance.
Midnight Special: finally got around to watching it. Excellent little SF film with strong performances. Basic idea has been covered lots but f times but it felt fresh enough nonetheless.
I found this movie fascinating and mesmerizing. Kristen Stewart really stands out here. I couldn't take my eyes off of her. They way she naturally shifts her body from boyish to feminine is something to behold and I found it hot haha.
Really excellent work here by Assayas, with I think a lot to discuss the themes he was aiming for. The commitment by everyone throughout the tone shifts is what sells it to me. And I love the fade to black transitions.
When the movie ended I immediately felt something, but it didn't really hit me how excellent that final scene is until I simmered on it throughout the night.
I usually judge a movie based on my emotional reaction and that is; I loved it. I understand it is not for everyone, but I'm glad that I enjoyed it.
Spiderman : Homecoming
Didn't like this at all. With the exception of Parker and Vulture (and the char played by Glover), the majority of the other characters were annoying. Much prefer Raimis 1 & 2. Felt like a kids movie without any tension at all.
Dunkirk
Brilliant. Precision filmmaking from Nolan. Pure thrill.
It comes at night
Somewhat entertaining and tense, but overall a disappointment and not remotely frightening.
Wonder Woman
Very entertaining and fun. Loved the WW1 setting. Gal Dadot was fantastic, and loved the supporting cast. Hope for more of this.
If anything, focusing solely on what the British personnel can see would ground you further in their perspective. They can't see into the cockpits of the enemy planes or the figures shooting at them in the distance.
Dunkirk: This might need some kind of surgeon general's warning, since people with heart conditions may not be able to handle so much nerve-shredding tension and desperation for even half its duration. Clocking in at well under 2 hours long with nary a wasted moment in sight, the film makes its intentions known right from the get-go and digs in harder and harder with each passing scene. The central narrative conceit of how each of the theaters relate to one another temporally is a bit jarring at first, but it becomes clear soon that it's designed to keep the pressure up at all times, and it pays off handsomely as the focus of the film winds up getting tighter and tighter once the timelines converge, as perspectives shift so that we get a clearer idea of the danger of each scenario. There's also a rather bold move in presenting the danger as something more elemental than flesh and blood: outside of a few planes and the roar of gunfire, the German army is more heard than seen, to frequently chilling effect as it makes clear that nowhere is safe for the British and French troops to exist. This all leads to absolutely thrilling sequences of suspense and action, representing the best that Nolan has ever directed in his career and are some of the best you'll see in any war film, small or big. Bolstered by the presence of Hoyte van Hoytema's stunning photography, Hans Zimmer's intense score and what I can only imagine as live combat sound recordings for the overall sound design, Nolan doesn't so much recreate the experience of surviving an ordeal as much as he puts you smack dab in the middle of it as it transpires, making you want to duck down onto the ground as soon as you hear the whine of a Stuka off in the distance. It's nothing like Nolan's previous films, yet it's unmistakably his signature the whole way through, and it's not hard to be overwhelmed by how much he has taken his craft as a director to a higher level. It's also great to see something this incredibly non-conforming in the blockbuster tier, as the film keeps the motivations of the characters rather simple (i.e not die), without needing to give them much more than that, leading to a film that for as loud as it can get, feels rather quiet with how little dialogue there winds up being. The actors get plenty to do, and they're all rather good from top to bottom, but expecting something more conventional for them to grasp is not the aim of the film at all. This is something new and rather exciting, and Nolan pulls it off in a way that makes it seem like this was his purpose for being a director in the first place. I don't know if it's my favorite film from Nolan, as that's a conversation that includes The Prestige, which I love to dear bits, but that this is a conversation at all shows just how much of an impact this film has and how unlikely it is to be replicated anytime soon.
Dunkirk (2017) - saw this in IMAX today. As mentioned before, if you plan on seeing it in IMAX, plan for it to be loud. The intent is to immerse you in the movie. You're not watching 300K+ troops try to survive Dunkirk... you are one of the troops trying to survive Dunkirk. Guns are going off quite near you, bombs are dropping on the beach practically right on top of you, planes are zinging by, ships are sinking. And you are inside every single scene, as though it's happening to you.
And yet, it's not happening to you, and that's part of the movie's one fault. It feels as though there's little connection to any one character or set of characters. Yes, there are a few who stand out as central to the setting -- the beach, the sea, the air -- but none of them necessarily stick with you, or their fates are not necessarily as important to you. This was the point someone else made about this being a plot-driven movie rather than a character-driven one.
It's a great film. An intense film. The cinematography is amazing. The soundtrack is amazing. The shots Nolan is able to get are amazing.
And yet, as much as Nolan wanted me to be there, to be at Dunkirk, I never felt the despair those men must've felt, because I was never connected to any of them to feel it.
Still ... a stunning movie, and I'm glad I went to see it in IMAX. I wonder whether some of what Nolan is hoping to get across is not lost outside of the IMAX experience.
4.5 / 5
P.S. this is the second movie (Baby Driver is the other), where the soundtrack isn't just something playing in the background to emphasize tension. In BD, Wright used it as a rhythm to the action. Here, Nolan uses the constant ticking of the clock to underscore the need for urgency. I like seeing (or hearing in these cases) directors utilizing all the tools at their disposal to heighten the value of the experience.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017): Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is a deeply unusual movie, in that when it is trying to be distinctive (mainly in regard to its setting), it largely succeeds, and when it is trying to be formulaic (mainly in regard to its story and characters), it largely fails.
Much of the oxygen in the contemporary debate about blockbuster cinema is expended on the virtues and flaws of Marvel Studios, which has hammered out a solid/predictable formula that it applies ruthlessly to everything it works on (even if it has perhaps shown signs of giving a bit more leeway to directors in the last year or so and in regard to upcoming projects). Undeniably, this makes a standard Marvel Studios film less distinctive for auteur theorists. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets blows even the most extravagant Marvels Studios film out of the water on a visual level -- James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy films are the obvious comparison point here, and they're not even half as flashy and fresh in the worlds and species created. This film cost a ton, and it's all there on screen.
Conversely, Marvel Studios damn well knows how to work a formula. They are meticulous in setting up all the beats and paying them off; predictable, but it gets the job done. This film is a mess on a writing level. The climax of this movie depends on
Valerian being a fastidious career lawman who cannot imagine breaking protocol
, a character trait that is never established or explored in any preceding scene in the film. Indeed, if anything,
I had up until that point regarded him as more of a loose cannon
. We're introduced to our lead duo in a confusing expository scene that never really clarifies how long they've known each other or what the status quo of their relationship is; at times they seem like new partners just coming to terms with each other, at times they're played like people who are very used to each other.
The issue of formula extends even into the matter of casting, and more specifically, one of the most disastrous and baffling miscastings I have seen in a number of years: Dane DeHaan as Valerian. The opening scene with Valerian and Laureline is essentially an exposition dump about what a roguish, commitmentphobic playboy Valerian is, and...no. No. Dane DeHaan is not the guy you get to play the roguish, commitmentphobic playboy male lead. Dane DeHaan is the guy you get to play a supporting character who ineffectually or creepily hits on the female lead in order to reinforce by contrast how dashing the male lead is and how crackling the leads' dynamic comes across. There's nothing wrong with making your lead characters types, but that means you have to cast to type; it's not that hard. This role is clearly written for a Chris Pratt or Ryan Reynolds type.
On the positive side, the movie is joyous to look at, as previously discussed. And Luc Besson has officially sold me on the idea of Cara Delevingne as a movie star, finally showcasing a nice screen charisma and a mix of humour and sensitivity as the situation calls for (Delevingne is handed a rather overwrought climactic monologue that she almost manages to make work, but for how lacking the buildup for the scene is, and that's obviously not her fault).
Amazing horror film and showcases a mastery of visual art and cinematography. While the story, acting, and characters are nothing to write home about, the film makes up for it in it's atmosphere. This film should be seen by everyone for the visual and audio spectacle alone.
I don't know how you walk away from Dunkirk thinking anyone but Nolan is the king of modern day blockbusters. Yeah he's missed here and there, but damn the man tries like few others. He's not my favorite director by a long shot, but he's a master at what he does.
I hated interstellar but i was totally enraptured with Dunkirk.. had my complete and undivided attention the whole way and actually breathed sighs of relief during the quieter moments
I totally get the complaints against it but it just really worked for me
Dunkirk represents something of a reversal for Christopher Nolan. Where his last two films, Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises, were swollen behemoths harkening back to road show epics of old Hollywood that ended up sagging under the weight of Nolan's expansive sweep and hefty screenplays that over explain concepts and emotions alike, Dunkirk is a shrinking down of his scope, despite the larger frame. Even its Russian nesting doll narrative conceit of three converging stories that unravel over tighter and tighter intervals of time, serves not only to heighten the tension (ala the action packed Inception climax that plays out over several layers of dreams) but to reign in the scope of the film from epic beach scenes filled with thousands of extras, to a small civilian vessel, and finally all the way down to the cockpit of a spitfire. It's epic in content, but personal in execution.
The whole film we are never afforded anything other than the perspective of the characters we follow, which immerses you in the action at all time. We never even see the opposing German forces outside of their anxiety inducing bombers, fighters, and the deafeningly loud gunshots they volley at our characters at the most unexpected times. They aren't portrayed as a human threat to be combated, hated, or understood--they are existential, a force that needs to be survived. And after sitting through Dunkrirk you will feel like you've survived as well.
Dunkirk draws from The Dark Knight's unusual structuring in that the film feels like it's in a constant state of climax. From the minute you are dropped in to the film your senses and psyche are under assault. Despite clocking in at not much more than 90 minutes, Dunkrirk feels like it lasts for an eternity thanks to the ever present sense of anxiety it induces. Clearly drawing more from the likes of Hitchcock than David Lean this time around, Nolan puts his best foot forward and focuses on razor sharp sequences of suspense rather than bouts of expository dialogue he's infamous for. There are still some bad habits he has carried over that do rear their heads at times, like on-the-nose cornball lines that clumsily express the theme, or yet another hokey moral dilemma set on a boat, but thankfully they are few and far between.
While the spare script doesn't leave a lot of room for the actors to show their chops in a way they're used to, they nevertheless make the most of what they are given. Tom Hardy in particular is the standout of the cast, as he so often is. Already a proven actor at being able to express himself with just body language, vocal inflection, and his eyes in other films in which he is encased in a mask like Fury Road or Nolan's own Dark Knight Rises, here he is entrusted with carrying scenes in which only his eyes are visible (as he is shrouded in a fighter pilot's mask), is given only about 10 lines of dialogue, and is filmed entirely in close up. And with just his eyes alone, he is able to sell an entire story.
Coupled with the brilliant IMAX photography and nail-biting editing, Dunkirk represents an anomaly of nearly pure visual storytelling in the modern blockbuster landscape. Hopefully this film won't be an anomaly in Nolan's own filmography going forward however, since this is one of his finest films and a confident new direction for him.
Dunkirk (2017) - 3/5
Just came out of the cinema and probably have to sleep on it. In the first 5 minutes I was immediately taken out of the experience and felt like I was watching sets instead of actual war which was a strange feeling. It went away though, but holy shit did it feel like a long movie. It was a bad film honestly. But a thrilling experience certainly. It was intense in many places but sometimes you wanted to just turn it off, I guess that comes down to it being a heavy experience in large parts to the sound design. One consistent sound througout the movie which was to elevate fear pissed me off to no ends at the end of it, but other sounds like gunshots, airplane motors, the waves and all the small details were a delight to listen to. The end was emotional and impactful and I felt the three different pointviews made the movie work.
1. Insomnia
2. Inception
3. Batman Begins
4. The Prestige
5. The Dark Knight
6. Interstellar
7. Dunkirk
8. Memento
9. The Dark Knight Rises
I don't want to repeat the same post I did in the OT. Just wanted to mention how impressive is Nolan's ability as a filmmaker. Dude is on fucking point throughout the whole movie. His imprints are all over the thing. Both in visual form and narrative structure. Might lack that empathy most of his films have (usually built through characters) but, as a directorial effort, it's a very imposing picture.
edit: I forgot to add. Tom Hardy's eyebrows are something else. His expressiveness reminded me of Norton in Kingdom of Heaven.
When I heard from reviews and around that The Internship was a big advertisement for google, I thought it was meant along the lines of Amazing Spider-Man, where it had a lot of advertising and a big action scene that was a Sony advert, or transformers or something.
Turns out the internship is a 2 hour long advert for google! All the character wants to work at google, thats the plot of the film. Google is described as being good for and advancing humanity (thats a direct quote) Google HQ is shown as being clean and perfect and accommodating of individuality while encourgaing cooperation, and every employee of google is perfect and smart and great, right? Kindly skips over the tax dodging and sketchier parts of google, of course.
The film is also grossly unfunny, badly performed, all the actors doing their laziest performances possible, and the google propaganda plot doesn't help. Still its somewhat interesting right? Wonder how much input google had on this? Or did some screenwriter or company just have a thing for google? I don't know, films is terrible though.
Dunkirk: 8/10. Always hard to initially rate Nolan's movies since they're always at least ambitious and wildly entertaining (except TDKR). I'm always walking out going well clearly this is the best movie ever made. I was gonna sleep on it but I'm pretty comfortable with 8. Smaller scope than I was anticipating, which was nice. Saw it on a regular ass screen and it was still great (only have LieMax around here). Those dogfights must have been something in 70mm though. Old dude 2 seats over broke the fuck down at the end. I think he was like one of those guys that wears a battleship hat from some ship he never even served on.
Can we talk about how terrible all upcoming movies are? What is this fucking firefighter movie, please kill me. Great cast but good lord does this look like some focus tested extremely narrowly demographically targeted bullshit. It's like Bring It On but for guys with mustaches. As long as all the firefighters, guys who wish they were firefighters, and their families go see it it makes bank. Let me save you some time: a guy's gonna become a firefighter and bond with his fellow firefighters and then there's going to be a big fire and then his friends are going to die in the fire, the end.
Re-Animator - eh..I can see why it's a cult classic, but it's certainly not for me 2/5
Here Alone - Brilliant, exactly my kind of zombie movie. Almost as good as that one with the dude who plays captain kirk in those new star wars movies (Chris Pine? too lazy to look it up) 4.5/5
Steins Gate the Movie - Story was a bit simple.. but so beautiful. Yeah, I cried at the end 4/5
Charade - Man Audrey Hepburn was so freaking beautiful. Fun movie, and a surprisingly great script and lots of twists 4/5
Snowpiercer - Not bad at all, love Captain America, very underrated actor imho 4/5
Tour de Pharmacy - will someone please give Andy Samberg an Oscar? I mean sure, he might not be the best actor but I've never seen him in a movie I didn't enjoy. 4/5
Boone - Perfect action flick, hope Johnny Nitro at least made his money back. 4/5
All about the money - Gaf will hate this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it 3.5/5
The Neighbor - Brilliant thriller. Simple story, not unnecessary bloody or disgusting (like that one scene in the otherwise superb 'Don't Breathe') Especially loved that the 'heroes' are complete assholes themselves. 4.5/5
Get out - Goddammit.. if this movies doesn't get like a trillion oscars I'm gonna throw a tantrum. 4.5/5
Zodiac - No need to praise it, I think everyone already knows how good it is 4.5
and tons of other stuff but I have to get back to Xenogears.
I normally have a problem with movies as unrelentingly paced as Dunkirk, I've written about it before. Intense, nonstop forward momentum can be exhilarating, but a lot of the time it has the opposite effect on me and I end up tuning out. I like quiet moments in films, small moments. I like movies that know when to breathe, movies that feel free to be lazy for a bit--in tone, not craft obviously. Dunkirk is not like that. It's singular focus is to disarm and disorient you, to put you front and center with the mad scramble that is war. It's in a constant state of climax, land, air, sea all segueing into one another, and it looks astonishing throughout. I know it's kind of a strange comparison considering they're attempting wildly different things and aren't even really in the same genre, but a recent movie comes to mind that I liked a lot, but wasn't totally enraptured by: Mad Max: Fury Road. I bring it up because it's another high octane movie, and is clearly beloved by many. I think Dunkirk for me was what Fury Road was for a lot of you guys: constant, edge of your seat forward progression filtered through the eyes of a director at the height of his craft.
Overlying meta points to a commentary on snuff not shock. Oh okay. Well, this may shock people, but it's at least professionally made and shot, and performed very convincingly. Now one question it raises is one of reality vs. fiction, particularly the kind of realities that art cannot justify without style, or without texture, and in one sweep it dares to demonstrate it, partially. The other question is of whether trauma can remove one's right to be selfless. Well, who knows (it's yes). There is a possibly great scene in the final 5 or so seconds, which almost serves to remind you this is a film and you fell for it, and is either the picture's most human or most resentful moment. Do you think if someone made a movie that just featured long, single-take shots of normal people being cut open by knives, with as little editing and cutaways as possible, and as realistic-seeming as could be, it would be considered going too far? ...nah. You just ain't desensitized enough. Here, watch some cartel torture vids.
Christopher Nolan does it again. Astonishing visuals and music, powerful moments aplenty, and some of the most tense and uncomfortable moments of any film in recent memory; Nolan's ability to capture one's attention from the get-go and never letting it slip is here in full force. Plus, unlike others, I actually did connect with many of the characters, despite the lack of dialogue and backstory. Solid performances all around, with Mark Rylance being the standout for me.
Hoping to rewatch this in IMAX 70mm in the near future, at which point it very well could solidify itself as my favourite film by Christopher Nolan, and my favourite film of 2017. Loved it.
That was pretty great, though not at all what I expected. Was thinking this was gonna be a romantic comedy, but nope! Really loved the scene towards the end when
she just tossed ol dude away. It was hilarious and deserved, though it too was not what I was expecting to happen
Didn't like Dunkirk. Nolan is not a good enough action director to make a film largely comprised of action sequences, and he overcompensates for the tension and energy he can't build organically by layering incessant pounding horror music over everything, to the point that the score loses all potency. The editing style kept me at a remove from the emotions of the soldiers, and I don't think there's anything interesting going on thematically.
Went to Dunkirk last night (the DCP version). Really enjoyed the film. Loved that it didn't have any character back story or create any alternative motivation to get off the beach. It was just simple narrative. Really felt a silent film at times and I feel this is a master class in "show don't tell" filmmaking.
Rope: A rather interesting visual experiment, and I did like that despite the top billing of Jimmy Stewart, the film belonged to both John Dall and Farley Granger as our villains, giving them a lot of screen time to develop their relationship in the aftermath of their crime. The not-so-ambiguous nature of their relationship gets pushed about as far as one might expect for 1948, leading to an interesting dynamic that boasts a strong psychological depth while also avoiding some unfortunate connotations. That being said, Hitchcock doesn't quite nail the tension he sets out for, as it feels like it's too often that the focus gets put on the supporting cast that aren't contributing much than adding a bit of color to a rather dark story, so even at it's short length of barely 80 minutes long, it can feel rather slow. It's possible with the story's origins being based on a play that it picked up elements that play better on the stage than they do on screen, but I have to wonder if the single take conceit here was more Hitchcock trying to jazz up a story that's not really conducive to a great deal of visual storytelling than finding the right approach to tell it. It is a fascinating story to think about in the end, especially with the ending that this one has where it implicates more than just our killers, but I wish it was just a bit more sure of itself on how to tell it better.
Ratatouille (2007): I don't think this is quite in Pixar's top tier, for a variety of reasons -- the communication barrier between Remy and Linguini kind of limits how effective their dynamic can possibly be, the whole "stealing" issue between them makes little sense, there are a bunch of supporting kitchen staff who never really register as characters despite fitful attempts to make them otherwise -- but it's probably Pixar's most sophisticated piece of work to date. The movie genuinely engages with its haute cuisine subject matter, in a way that would be notable even for a film aimed at adults, let alone for a family film. And it manages to successfully mix this with a lot of high-grade slapstick, which you wouldn't think would necessarily mix.
Trilogy of Terror 2 Had this one suggested to me and it was a so so made for tv thing with three stories told which really feels like the Crypt Keeper should have narrated these.
I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House Can someone explain the point of this? I mean it was a boring slog to get through and was pretty needless if you ask me.
The Alchemist Cookbook I had hoped that this would be some tale about alchemy but it really didn't go where I'd have liked it to. Not a terrible movie but one and done for me. Not worth revisiting.
Kuso Its rare I stop a movie but this is just some sick fucks wet dream. You get boils, semen smears, goop soup...just nothing I care to see. Saw some other reviews that basically said it didn't get any better. I almost didn't review it but in case I ever forget what this was...
Here Alone - Brilliant, exactly my kind of zombie movie. Almost as good as that one with the dude who plays captain kirk in those new star wars movies (Chris Pine? too lazy to look it up) 4.5/5
4/5