Originally Posted by 007:
Regarding the sound. I'm wondering if that was completely dependent upon which format you watch it in. I watched in 70mm and very disappointed with the sound. Never really seemed that loud to me.
Entirely possible. I'm sure theaters are different too. Nolan usually pushes these things as far as he can go. I saw in IMAX... but not a real one. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AndChiefs:
I really don't get it. I'm a history buff who minored in history in college because there's no jobs for a history major. I love the story and thought this could be a great movie focusing on a little known but crucial event in the war.
Not only was I underwhelmed but this was, in my opinion, one of the worst movies I've ever seen in theaters (I try to only go to movies in theaters when I'm really interested in them).
Visually, it was great. But, I never felt like the immense scale of a 300,000 man evacuation was evident. The story was disjointed and I felt no personal connection to any of the characters. Even the kid in the boat elicited no response. The events were repetitive, partly because it was showing the same event from different viewpoints but also because the same guy kept seeming to be in the middle of 17 different sinking boats. Overall, I have never been more disappointed at the end of a movie.
Additionally, when I turned to my wife (who isn't a history nerd like me) at the end of the movie and said, "Well, that was pretty terrible." she replied with relief that it wasn't just her. It took a rather incredible event and made it boring and reductive.
If Nolan would quit trying to make each movie more twisted and convoluted than the last one, he could do some truly great work. [Reply]
I'll take Interstellar and Insomnia over this. Decent movie, but probably my least favorite Nolan. Agree with what a lot of you guys have said. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
I'll take Interstellar and Insomnia over this. Decent movie, but probably my least favorite Nolan. Agree with what a lot of you guys have said.
My favorites of his are Batman Begins and The Prestige; liked Insomnia a lot, as well. I honestly didn't realize he directed those last two. But beginning with Dark Knight, IMO he just went off the rails.
And the more I think about Dunkirk the less I like it. Should have been called Dunkirk Flashbacks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fairplay:
I loved the sound of the Stukas, they struck fear into the opposing enemy troops and was designed intentionally by the Germans to do just that.
They had a small propeller on the landing gear. So the Stuka Siren was designed for that. [Reply]
I thought it was pretty good. That approaching-plane whining noise that was ubiquitous throughout the movie did a great job of mounting tension.
It didn't have the hard-hitting emotional aspect of Saving Private Ryan but the movie made you feel low basically throughout and had some nice highs,
Spoiler!
particularly the naval captain seeing the civilian boats approaching, Hardy taking out the final fighter on his return, and the warm greeting back in Britain.
I saw it on the 3rd biggest screen in the country at the IMAX Science Center in Seattle. So maybe that colored my impression of it given the resources they had for sound and the insanely large screen.
I thought it was amazing. Probably the most entertaining theater experience I've ever had. The screen was so damn big that it was essentially a POV movie and that made the whole experience gripping as hell. The sound rumbled in your chest and the strain was immense throughout.
Must depend entirely on the venue in many ways. Because I came away from that movie in awe of the level of detail and cinematography. That was clearly its designed purpose. Perhaps I was predisposed to liking the story structure because I was so engaged by the visuals, but I thought it was outstanding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I saw it on the 3rd biggest screen in the country at the IMAX Science Center in Seattle. So maybe that colored my impression of it given the resources they had for sound and the insanely large screen.
I thought it was amazing. Probably the most entertaining theater experience I've ever had. The screen was so damn big that it was essentially a POV movie and that made the whole experience gripping as hell. The sound rumbled in your chest and the strain was immense throughout.
Must depend entirely on the venue in many ways. Because I came away from that movie in awe of the level of detail and cinematography. That was clearly its designed purpose. Perhaps I was predisposed to liking the story structure because I was so engaged by the visuals, but I thought it was outstanding.
I imagine seeing saving private Ryan or band of brothers on that screen would be jizz worthy [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
IMO, this is nowhere near as bleak as other WWII film/television of recent vintage.
I can't argue against that assessment. It's really not my favorite genre. Off the top of my head, the only WWII flicks I can say I've seen are Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Basterds and Pearl Harbor. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
It was bleak as all hell. I can't imagine wanting to watch it several times over.
Really? I never got that impression.
Once my !@#$ing television gets delivered (a month later) and I get my surround set up, I think I'll spend a few bucks on it just for the visuals. I may Red Box it first to see how it holds up to a home theater instead of the giant IMAX screen but if it is still as visually stunning, I'll probably buy it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RobBlake:
I imagine seeing saving private Ryan or band of brothers on that screen would be jizz worthy
I don't know that it would be any better.
Those IMAX cameras are able to do panoramic stuff that's just remarkable. The overhead views during the flight sequences may be the most impressive thing I've ever seen on film. [Reply]