TCTTS said:

---

---

For some reason I can't get excited about another monkey movie. The talking ape thing is just creepy. Can't wait to see Dunkirk.

I don't feel the same about Apes - it's one of my most anticipated of the year - but there's just no way Dunkirk debuts that low. Even with all that competition.

I think it's also that war movies come along quite frequently, so it may lack the typical Nolan "hook" in a way. Like, it may be an amazing true story but so was Hacksaw Ridge and I didn't see it.

Personally, I'm interested, but I can see how it might perhaps pass the general public by. Plus, it's in the wake of a major trilogy finale and a Spider-Man film.

JABQ04 said:

---

Less than a month to go! Other than Star Wars this is the only movie I've wanted to see this year.

---

I'm with you. These are the only two that I will have to see in the theater.

Also, Dunkirk has a 1:47 runtime, Nolan's shortest since his very first movie, by a wide margin. A shorter runtime equals more showings in a day, which obviously equals more money opening weekend. That sub-two-hour runtime is going to appeal to A LOT of people.

ViralAg said:

---

The Dark Knight Rises was a miss on a number of levels, and Interstellar was a smaller miss but still a miss. The Nolan mystique from the era of Inception and The Dark Knight has worn off for a lot of people, myself included. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dunkirk debuted low.

Personally, the most recent trailers did nothing for me, and I don't understand the comical fanboyish reaction to them in this thread. If Dunkirk gets good marks and people I trust tell me it's worth seeing, I might check it out after a couple of weeks.

---

I'm not sure how it could do nothing for you, unless you generally don't enjoy good war movies.

ViralAg said:

---

The Dark Knight Rises was a miss on a number of levels, and Interstellar was a smaller miss but still a miss. The Nolan mystique from the era of Inception and The Dark Knight has worn off for a lot of people, myself included. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dunkirk debuted low.

Personally, the most recent trailers did nothing for me, and I don't understand the comical fanboyish reaction to them in this thread. If Dunkirk gets good marks and people I trust tell me it's worth seeing, I might check it out after a couple of weeks.

---

TDKR was only a miss because Heath Ledger could not reprise his Joker role, at least that's my opinion. I thought it was a great movie, and still enjoy watching it. I consider Interstellar to be among the 3-4 greatest science fiction movies I have ever seen. To each his own, I guess.

Dunkirk is my most anticipated movie of the year, ahead of The Last Jedi. I am a nut about WWII in general, the warbirds in particular, and while the Messerschmitts depicted in Dunkirk are flat-out inaccurate (they are Spanish-built "Buchons" that were built under contract well after the war and therefore never engaged Spitfires in combat), I'm not letting that minor detail bother me.

Having said that, I will be surprised if Dunkirk makes a boat load of money during its theatrical run. This seems to be kinda a limited appeal movie, although I think Chris Nolan's name alone is sufficient to help it to a solid box office opening weekend. I won't go out on any limb to suggest that it will outdraw War of the Planet of the Apes (which I am likely waiting for Redbox to see, just not interested enough in that franchise) or even Spider-Man.

Interesting - I would have assumed a 2:47 runtime before 1:47.

I'm a huge WWII buff as well so Dunkirk is my can't miss summer movie. Star Wars is still #1 on my list.

The Ape movies are fantastic, but it always seems to sit weird with me that in this trilogy, we seem to be rooting for Caesar and against humanity (at least to me) and that doesn't feel right.

Dunkirk 70 mm tickets link not working.

I think all 3 Dark Knights were good, and that Interstellar was Nolan's only miss. It had too many big plot loopholes and the whole library in the black hole thing was awkward.

I worry a little bit about Dunkirk being boring. But I'll watch it in the theaters nevertheless.

aTmAg said:

---

I think all 3 Dark Knights were good, and that Interstellar was Nolan's only miss. It had too many big plot loopholes and the whole library in the black hole thing was awkward.

I worry a little bit about Dunkirk being boring. But I'll watch it in the theaters nevertheless.

---

Prepare for Nolan fanboy rage.

1:47 for a WWII movie directed by Nolan makes me very nervous.

As someone else said above, I was expecting 2:47, not sub-2 hours. Hell, that's shorter than almost every Marvel movie. There has to be a good explanation for that, because all I can think of are not good: nervous studio demanding cuts, nervous studio worried about box office (showings per day), not a strong enough script, etc. I would think that Nolan could get pretty much any length he wanted from a studio...especially a prestige WWII movie like this.

I'll give Nolan the benefit of the doubt, but this short run time is very, very unusual and a little worrisome.

The positive spin I guess is the story just doesn't take 2 hours to tell. But, yea, I see that duration and think WTF.

I"m a little surprised at that short run time, but find it appealing. I'm kind of surprised that it took this long for someone to make a movie about Dunkirk. This material seems right in line with the Longest Day/ Tora, Tora , Tora / A Bridge too Far run of war epics. The fact this was an Allied defeat fits right in with a lot of those epics. It's problem (if there is one), is that it is a movie that may have missed it's era.

I wouldn't be surprised by a sub 40 mil opening for Dunkirk or even less.

We've had tons of war movies. There's no star power really. The marketing has been very lackluster. And it's a story that doesn't really resonate with Americans.

Now, I'm saying this from your average moviegoer's view... not Nolan fans, or WW2 fans. For a casual moviegoer, this movie looks fairly uninteresting.

Quote:

---

There has to be a good explanation for that, because all I can think of are not good: nervous studio demanding cuts, nervous studio worried about box office (showings per day), not a strong enough script, etc. I would think that Nolan could get pretty much any length he wanted from a studio...especially a prestige WWII movie like this.

I'll give Nolan the benefit of the doubt, but this short run time is very, very unusual and a little worrisome.

---

Nolan has final cut, so rest assured that the runtime has nothing to do with studio meddling.

Also, it's worth noting again the apparent unconventional structure, with the beach story, the ocean story, and the air story each taking place over different time lengths (the air story, for instance, apparently takes place only over a couple hours, while the beach story I think takes place over a week and the ocean story just a day - but I may not have that exactly right). Point is, not only is the story somewhat experimental / not quite linear, but pacing = tension, and the ticking-clock nature of the movie will likely lend itself far better to just under two hours than a 2:47-minute movie of relatively contained high-tension. I just can't see the latter being that effective in that regard.

That said, I do agree that this is one of my least anticipated Nolan movies, and have conceded for months that the marketing has never felt quite right. Still, I trust Nolan, and I think most audiences recognize this to be a cut above the other recent war movies, especially with his name attached.

Quad Dog said:

---

Why is this movie opening in the summer surrounded by huge event movies? Just feels like it could easily get lost. I think it would do much better opening in November.

---

I wouldn't quite call it "surrounded." Yes, Spidey and Apes will no doubt overshadow it in the lead-up, but after/on the 21st (Dunkirk's release date), there's really not a whole lot of competition. It's basically Valerian, Atomic Blonde, The Dark Tower, and Detroit in the two weeks after, and then the rest of August is pretty dry. If Dunkirk is good - or hopefully even great - it will have legs through all of August and likely even into September (another relatively dry month). If I were Warner Bros. I'd definitely want to release at the tail end of summer with a couple months to coast rather than try to compete amongst the Thor - Justice League - Last Jedi trifecta strategically scattered over the final two months of the year, not to mention all the Oscar fare that will be hitting during those months as well.

What's weird is that the marketing for this hooked me from the beginning, as opposed to Interstellar, which never did. I still have yet to see it and don't really care to.

Furlock Bones said:

---

Dunkirk 70 mm tickets link not working.

---

Anyone get this to work for Imax digital Edwards MarqE?

TCTTS said:

---

---

No stars? Not sure I agree with that.

Yeah, would definitely say Hardy has starpower, and Cillian Murphy is awesome in just about everything he has been in, even terrible movies like Red Eye.

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

1:47 for a WWII movie directed by Nolan makes me very nervous.

As someone else said above, I was expecting 2:47, not sub-2 hours. Hell, that's shorter than almost every Marvel movie. There has to be a good explanation for that, because all I can think of are not good: nervous studio demanding cuts, nervous studio worried about box office (showings per day), not a strong enough script, etc. I would think that Nolan could get pretty much any length he wanted from a studio...especially a prestige WWII movie like this.

I'll give Nolan the benefit of the doubt, but this short run time is very, very unusual and a little worrisome.

---

A shorter run time for this story is a good thing. If it was 2.5-3 hours, he's stretching a story that already doesn't have a lot to begin with.