All Things: Directors

I want to see one final movie starring Joe Pesci, Sean Connery, and Gene Hackman. Throw Rick Moranis in there for icing. I believe they've all pretty much retired. Nice to see Pesci again at least.
 
NastiMarvasti said:
This one's for JD. Re. Dunkirk.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/10/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-movie-reviews/
Click to expand...

what steaming pile of $%$^!

Around 12 minutes of dialogue in a 2-hr movie and the sound track is a constant hum from a cello or bass. - srsly -

My expectations really weren't that high, yet Dunkirk was much worse. After 45 minutes in, it was pure torture.

I was looking for something along the lines of Saving Private Ryan, but I got Stripes instead (which I should have just stayed at home and watched)

And the funny thing is I really didn't learn anything about Dunkirk that I didn't already know. No quick narrative / stats at the end of the movie.

Serious waste of time!
 
Butch 19 said:
what steaming pile of $%$^!

Around 12 minutes of dialogue in a 2-hr movie and the sound track is a constant hum from a cello or bass. - srsly -

My expectations really weren't that high, yet Dunkirk was much worse. After 45 minutes in, it was pure torture.

I was looking for something along the lines of Saving Private Ryan, but I got Stripes instead (which I should have just stayed at home and watched)

And the funny thing is I really didn't learn anything about Dunkirk that I didn't already know. No quick narrative / stats at the end of the movie.

Serious waste of time!
Click to expand...

My two cents (Nolan fanboy)

Saw it tonight in IMAX. I've said before that I'm not much of a war movie buff and this was the least I've ever looked forward to a Nolan film. Overall, it's not my favorite movie of his but I think as far as the filmmaking craft goes, this was top notch. The lack of dialogue and character development was the intent of the movie and totally different from what he normally does. It's borderline a silent movie. We've seen dozens of war movies where characters' back stories are told and we see their loved ones waiting for them at home but in this, you really get a sense of the lack of identity in a group of 400,000 soldiers. They are not individuals anymore and what we see on screen happening to one person, could be happening to any one of them at any given time. Even a relatively mundane task has a sort of tension to it because not only do you not know when the next attack will be, but that mundane task could also kill you in those conditions. There's a randomness to it that I think was done very well. And not knowing all the details and strategies of the battle itself puts you in the shoes of the soldiers. They would have had very little knowledge themselves. They're not in the war room, strategizing. Nolan wanted to make this an immersive experience and I think he did that.
 
Easily the best IMAX film in years... or possibly even ever? Technical question though... why was the remaining ~5% of the movie not shot in IMAX?
 
chaingunsofdoom said:
Easily the best IMAX film in years... or possibly even ever? Technical question though... why was the remaining ~5% of the movie not shot in IMAX?
Click to expand...

IMAX cameras are noisy so if there's a lot of dialogue in a scene, the camera noise will get in the way. With the exception of quick shouts and one or two word comments. Since there's so little dialogue in the movie, this is the first time Nolan was able to shoot nearly all of the movie that way.
 
I think immersive is a great description for Dunkirk. And IMAX is definitely the way to go to see it. Beautiful and gripping movie, though I don't think all of Nolan's devices work.

It falls short of being the best movie of the year by a wide berth, but I liked it.

And for me, Pacific Rim is still the most "must see in IMAX" movie of recent years. Although, Pac Rim I will still watch in any format. I don't necessarily need to see Dunkirk again.
 
I may have to start using the term 'Dunkirk loud' now, because it was definitely the loudest movie I've ever seen. As silly as it sounds, I felt shell-shocked for an hour or two afterwards and that was sitting in the back row at IMAX.
 
‘mother!’ Review: Resting WTF Face | Venice 2017
http://collider.com/mother-review-jennifer-lawrence/#poster

mother! isn’t quite as fascinating as it thinks it is, and the hellish setting perhaps goes too far, but it is relentless and it sure is something that needs to be experienced. The camera work and sound work alone is revelatory. It’s extremely adventurous and is willingly open to both praise and snickers. What was fascinating, for me, was how the audience I saw it with reacted so primal, not too different from the freakish audience in the movie. I was surrounded by shrieks, yawns, laughter, smiles and a man who yelled “**** you” at the screen as soon as the credits started. You’ll either get something you want from mother! or you’ll feel like you were robbed. You’ll leave the theater spit out into the world with a spinning head and an itch to assemble the puzzle. And I think that’s pretty exciting for the current studio climate. Nothing is safe about mother! And that’s thrilling for an artist like Aronofsky.

Rating: B
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top