Agreed, very distracting during those scenes. I drove almost 2 hours round trip to go see it in 70mm and was really let down but I had some high expectations based on this thread and other research. Maybe I'll give 70mm another shot down the road but if the projector/projectionist was as bad as it was a Dunkirk, it's not worth it IMO.
***Dunkirk***
114,989 Views |
830 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by 42799862
I think Nolan was perfect on his casting for this movie as well. Rylance, Branagh were astounding without needing much dialogue.
Hardy was awesome in his portrayal of a pilot just doing his job and a bit more. No over the top or cheese moments.
Hardy was awesome in his portrayal of a pilot just doing his job and a bit more. No over the top or cheese moments.
Omnimax was awesome, especially on the dog fight scenes.
I can't remember the last movie I walked out of (maybe two or three), but this one is it now. I walked out after the torpedo scene as I just couldn't take the non-stop plucking of violin strings any longer. What was the point of the music? To let us know how we should be feeling? Music during dialog is distracting and annoying and I just couldn't take the incessant plucking anymore. Context was never developed nor were characters. From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. So, disappointed in this movie. Dunkirk is such a great story and, well, they just didn't tell it. That movie is an ass whip. This is why you shouldn't see movies on opening weekend.
I did enjoy the Spitfires.
I did enjoy the Spitfires.
Umm none of the movie was the opening scene of SPR. Unless your only comparison is that they occur on a beach in FranceQuote:
From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.
Did anyone else jump every time that 20mm cannon turret on the the bomber fired?
"Thunk thunk thunk..."
That would be terrifying to hear that firing at me. I thought fire sure that was going to nail Hardy's spitfire.
"Thunk thunk thunk..."
That would be terrifying to hear that firing at me. I thought fire sure that was going to nail Hardy's spitfire.
Between watching Lion Saturday night and Dunkirk Sunday night I think I'm all out of feelings now.
Such a tense, powerful, and physical (as in it was physical to me - like exhausting) movie. I saw it at the Bob Bullock museum - laser IMAX - and it was an incredible experience. Sound and visuals were intense but it was a bit distracting when they cut to a non IMAX scene.
(Sad face emoji because I feel beat up, not because I didn't like it.)
Such a tense, powerful, and physical (as in it was physical to me - like exhausting) movie. I saw it at the Bob Bullock museum - laser IMAX - and it was an incredible experience. Sound and visuals were intense but it was a bit distracting when they cut to a non IMAX scene.
(Sad face emoji because I feel beat up, not because I didn't like it.)
I jumped every time any gun was fired. The sound effects were paranoia inducing.
I know everyone has their own opinions, but I really don't think anyone could type something about this movie that I disagree with more. I may have just fallen for an obvious troll, but still . . .stetson said:
I can't remember the last movie I walked out of (maybe two or three), but this one is it now. I walked out after the torpedo scene as I just couldn't take the non-stop plucking of violin strings any longer. What was the point of the music? To let us know how we should be feeling? Music during dialog is distracting and annoying and I just couldn't take the incessant plucking anymore. Context was never developed nor were characters. From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. So, disappointed in this movie. Dunkirk is such a great story and, well, they just didn't tell it. That movie is an ass whip. This is why you shouldn't see movies on opening weekend.
I did enjoy the Spitfires.
it just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste.MASAXET said:I know everyone has their own opinions, but I really don't think anyone could type something about this movie that I disagree with more. I may have just fallen for an obvious troll, but still . . .stetson said:
I can't remember the last movie I walked out of (maybe two or three), but this one is it now. I walked out after the torpedo scene as I just couldn't take the non-stop plucking of violin strings any longer. What was the point of the music? To let us know how we should be feeling? Music during dialog is distracting and annoying and I just couldn't take the incessant plucking anymore. Context was never developed nor were characters. From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. So, disappointed in this movie. Dunkirk is such a great story and, well, they just didn't tell it. That movie is an ass whip. This is why you shouldn't see movies on opening weekend.
I did enjoy the Spitfires.
agreed.
wangus12 said:Umm none of the movie was the opening scene of SPR. Unless your only comparison is that they occur on a beach in FranceQuote:
From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.
That's exactly what he meant. I've described this movie the same way (Saving Private Ryan). Just intense and it never seemed to let up. Never a dull moment
Plus he had zero 20mm ammo as I don't think he switched guns once.
My biggest gripe was the music was over the top, I wish they would have let the sound effects tell the story as they were quite good. The obnoxious buzzing and soundtrack that tried too hard to ratchet up the tension detracted from the total effort.
My biggest gripe was the music was over the top, I wish they would have let the sound effects tell the story as they were quite good. The obnoxious buzzing and soundtrack that tried too hard to ratchet up the tension detracted from the total effort.
Oh and Hardy needed to go back to flight school, his deflection shooting was horrendous, good thing he had that unlimited ammo cheat 
wangus12 said:Umm none of the movie was the opening scene of SPR. Unless your only comparison is that they occur on a beach in FranceQuote:
From what I saw of the movie (and I'm assuming the rest of it was the same), the entire movie was basically the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.
Ignore him. He just wants to know what Lt. Hanks did before the war.
I didn't think he used that much ammo? it was all short bursts. it seemed judicious to me.
The aerial views of the ships looked real also.
liked how fast the boats sunk
war is horrible
war is horrible
schmendeler said:
I didn't think he used that much ammo? it was all short bursts. it seemed judicious to me.
I don't know how much ammo those planes could carry, and I was ok with letting that little bit having some creative license, but I sort of thought the same. It wasn't like he was mashing the gun for thousands of rounds.
Found this on a very quick search:
Quote:
About ten to twenty seconds in total, though in reality it would be the total of several bursts.
The first Spitfires had the 'A' wing, with eight Browning machine guns firing 1,200 .303" bullets a minute. Each gun had three hundred and fifty rounds, so the Spitfire could fire for about seventeen or eighteen seconds.
The 'B' wing replaced four machine guns with two Hispano 20mm cannon, firing at about 600rpm (but throwing explosive shells, so much more lethal). Originally the cannon were fed from 60-round drums giving six seconds of firing time, but this was quickly changed to a 120-round belt feed - so you had ~12 seconds total with everything firing, with a few seconds more of four machine guns alone.
The 'C' wing had four cannon with 120rpg so twelve seconds of firing, but the weight of this installation meant it was rarely used until the very last Spitfires (the 22 and 24) where they also got a little more ammunition.
Finally, the 'E' wing had two cannon and two M2 Browning .50" machine guns with 250 rounds each: this gave them twelve seconds of everything firing, and about the same again with just the machine guns. This was a good installation (the 20mm and .50" had reasonably close ballistics and the .50" was still lethal against tougher targets, while the .303" had struggled with armour and self-sealing tanks) and was common on the Griffon-engined Spitfires.
So if this is the case, then I think they stuck pretty close to reality.
about 17 seconds worth of firing
350 rounds per gun at 1200 rpm
it's just the number of bursts per plane required and the number of planes he shot down. shot down two bombers and two bf-109s and one stuka? was it 5 total?
350 rounds per gun at 1200 rpm
it's just the number of bursts per plane required and the number of planes he shot down. shot down two bombers and two bf-109s and one stuka? was it 5 total?
cone said:
about 17 seconds worth of firing
350 rounds per gun at 1200 rpm
it's just the number of bursts per plane required and the number of planes he shot down. shot down two bombers and two bf-109s and one stuka? was it 5 total?
I agree with you on that end. I think the creative license was less about the rounds he used, and more about how effective his kill rate was during a leisurely hour in the sky.
it's no big deal. i just was wondering if he was gonna run out after he kept going for kills.
as mentioned again and again, the knocking out of a diving stuka by a gliding spitfire that previously took a while to knock out bombers (that were seemingly both fixed on a run) was the only thing where i thought this is some stupid spielberg bs, come on now
as mentioned again and again, the knocking out of a diving stuka by a gliding spitfire that previously took a while to knock out bombers (that were seemingly both fixed on a run) was the only thing where i thought this is some stupid spielberg bs, come on now
Anyone use to play this?
Hell yesisraeliag said:
Anyone use to play this?
Every time Tom Hardy missed because he didn't lead his target enough made me wince like I was playing again.
Second great Nolan movie I've seen with Hardy spending his whole time in a mask.
Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.
Jeez, you people are doing your damndest to put a damper on a fantastic film.
Nit-pickin' mother****ers.
Nit-pickin' mother****ers.
love this music so much
Saw the movie twice over the weekend. Best part of the movie was Tom Hardy's performance. Hardy should win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that he deserved for his performance as Bane. The lack of character development really hurt how I felt about the movie. It wasn't as suspenseful as it could have been, simply because I didn't know the characters well enough to care if they survived or not. I thought the story itself was amazing, but I did not walk out of the theater feeling I had seen a Top 5 Nolan Film. Maybe my mind will change after more viewings.
Listened to Nolan on a podcast and this was actually not an accident. He mentioned how in previous fighter plane movies, the pilot always removes is mask when they need him to show facial emotion but he didn't want to do that since it was completely wrong in the middle of a battle. He knew Hardy was a great actor with only his eyes because of the Bane role, so he figured he'd put those skills to use again.rasher said:
Second great Nolan movie I've seen with Hardy spending his whole time in a mask.
White Liberals=The Worst
Joined:
Nov 9, 2016
Posts:
10,783
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But you saw it twice in one weekend?Living Legend said:
Saw the movie twice over the weekend. Best part of the movie was Tom Hardy's performance. Hardy should win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that he deserved for his performance as Bane. The lack of character development really hurt how I felt about the movie. It wasn't as suspenseful as it could have been, simply because I didn't know the characters well enough to care if they survived or not. I thought the story itself was amazing, but I did not walk out of the theater feeling I had seen a Top 5 Nolan Film. Maybe my mind will change after more viewings.
I watched this movie yesterday morning and then yesterday evening caught part of Hacksaw Ridge on tv.
A movie like Hacksaw Ridge is supposed to have character development because it's about one man's experience in the hell of war. Its important to see the persons background and motivations and reactions through the event. And you do see the effect of that one event on the person. But almost at the expense of seeing the effect of the event in the grand scheme of things - i.e. the entire war and the nation fighting that war. In fact, many times in these type of movies, because of the focus on one or two individuals, you don't even see the scope of the entire event to its fullest extent.
A movie like Dunkirk is about an event - in this case a large group of people, in fact an entire nation. Not the individuals involved in it. Focusing on one or two individuals would have shifted the focus from where it was supposed to be - i.e. the British nation reeling from the Axis onslaught, some considering surrender, but then catching its breath, deciding that they weren't going to give up that easily, and fighting on. The "lead character" was the British army/nation, and there was plenty of development of that "character" if you watched the movie and grasped the point of the movie.
A movie like Hacksaw Ridge is supposed to have character development because it's about one man's experience in the hell of war. Its important to see the persons background and motivations and reactions through the event. And you do see the effect of that one event on the person. But almost at the expense of seeing the effect of the event in the grand scheme of things - i.e. the entire war and the nation fighting that war. In fact, many times in these type of movies, because of the focus on one or two individuals, you don't even see the scope of the entire event to its fullest extent.
A movie like Dunkirk is about an event - in this case a large group of people, in fact an entire nation. Not the individuals involved in it. Focusing on one or two individuals would have shifted the focus from where it was supposed to be - i.e. the British nation reeling from the Axis onslaught, some considering surrender, but then catching its breath, deciding that they weren't going to give up that easily, and fighting on. The "lead character" was the British army/nation, and there was plenty of development of that "character" if you watched the movie and grasped the point of the movie.
I can't say I jumped ever, but I did notice that my wife jumped every freaking time! And this movie was just one incredible anxiety-inducing film that ended only when the music told you it was over (very near the end).Quote:
I jumped every time any gun was fired. The sound effects were paranoia inducing.
FlAg_1998
Consider this - what if Nolan was to apply this technique to a supposed remake of the movie Midway? We would lose that dopey and irrelevant "romance" between Charleston Heston's son and the Japanese girl, and we would likely get some real warbird activity and a far better telling of that particular story.
Thank you! This is exactly right. I get that people will take from a movie what they will (I for one have been ridiculed on this site when I have stated that I don't subscribe to the TexAgs group think that the prequels suck, for instance). It's fine if someone leaves the theater with a different understanding of what they just watched (or in the case of one poster, what they just walked out of prior to its ending). But yes, this was not a movie about any one individual like a Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge. Any individually-focused story was just going to get in the way of what Nolan was trying to do, which was to give an overall glimpse of a massively heroic story from the Second World War.Quote:
A movie like Dunkirk is about an event - in this case a large group of people, in fact an entire nation. Not the individuals involved in it. Focusing on one or two individuals would have shifted the focus from where it was supposed to be - i.e. the British nation reeling from the Axis onslaught, some considering surrender, but then catching its breath, deciding that they weren't going to give up that easily, and fighting on. The "lead character" was the British army/nation, and there was plenty of development of that "character" if you watched the movie and grasped the point of the movie.
Consider this - what if Nolan was to apply this technique to a supposed remake of the movie Midway? We would lose that dopey and irrelevant "romance" between Charleston Heston's son and the Japanese girl, and we would likely get some real warbird activity and a far better telling of that particular story.
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
10h ago
1.6k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.6k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
35:14
7h ago
634
Reed Report: Catching up with Boots as A&M hoops is underway
by Luke Evangelist