Dunkirk

Is it not available online? I only see regular length trailers

File: 61E0KmBxxsL.jpg (88KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1000x1500px

Saw this, prob the same

>>84105152
Isn't this movie 2 hours of retreat?

>>84105274
I don't think it's online

Some excerpts from an extensive Dunkirk interview:

>(Smile.) Do not repeat it to the studio: it will be my most experimental film. By far. I preferred to make a sensory, almost experimental movie. Without dialogue. The soldiers have no history - at least I don’t tell it. Most of the crew didn’t understand why I was screening them The Wages of Fear. But it was the one that made the most sense. Which talks about mechanics, procedure and physical difficulties. I rewatched Pickpoket and Un condamné à mort s’est échappé, just for that. Bresson details everything, creates suspense with details.

>[Saving Private] Ryan is a film about the body, blood, fear of being dismembered. Fear is physical. Steven was able to create a visceral intensity of the experience of war. Dunkirk doesn’t play in the same category. It’s a movie with suspense and a race against time.

>It isn’t by accident that Heart of Darkness by Conrad is one of my favorite novels. It’s the purest form of geography and storytelling. Conrad never repeats himself, he sinks gradually into the depths of the human mind. Is it an inward journey or a trip out of oneself ? That’s the real question Conrad is asking. And 2001! And Dante! How to tell the trip ? This is the main question of cinema.

Basically the film is about transporting a fuckload of people from point A to point B, not about the usual "war is hell" narrative.

>>84105292
From the preview it looked like a desperate clusterfuck. It seemed really intense with the pacing and a ton of things were happening at once. Also there was some great dogfighting.

But yeah it's about the evacuation / retreat from Dunkirk

Is this a British movie? Hopefully they don't just do the overplayed evil Nazis thing like most movies from here in America

>>84105539
Yes it's british.
The nazis themselves are totally irrelevant, all the soldiers will just be no names with zero history, ans I'm pretty sure there won't be the usual LE ANGRY SCREAMING EVIL NAZI GENERAL character.

The nazis could be interdimensional aliens in this narrative for all it matters.

>"Nolan reconditioned actual warships for the shoot, including the French Navy destroyer Maillé-Brézé, and reportedly spent $5 million of the budget on a vintage aircraft so as to attach it with IMAX cameras before crashing it on-screen"
>aircraft
>crashing it on-screen

NOLAN THE MEMEGOD DELIVERS YET AGAIN, WHOEVER ISN'T HYPED FOR THIS IS A FILTHY TOURIST REDDITOR

>>84105539
It seemed to just portray the Germans as the distant, ominous enemy raiding from their airplanes. I bet it will be exclusively from the perspective of the British forces. I doubt it will even show the faces of the German soldiers / pilots, let alone have scenes of the committing war crimes

>>84105152
I saw it. The sound effects were awesome and loud as fuck when the planes shot their guns. It looked like they were using real WW2 aircraft. The 70mm / Imax film picture looked great too

>>84105152
Wow sure it WWII in here. We definitely need to explore this area of history more...
Blow it out your asshole, Batman ruiner.

>>84105634

Why would you restore an aircrsft before crashing it?

this is going to be another one of those saving private ryan movies where everyone tries to copy it's success and we get ass blasted with ww2 movie after ww2 movie

>>84106297
See >>84105412
Nolan specifically says it will not be a yet another Saving Private Ryan and it doesn't try to be.

File: 3487D9B500000578-3604876-image-a-82_1464012065940.jpg (134KB, 962x541px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 962x541px

>Using cardboard cut-out armies instead of CGI armies
when will Nolan learn??

>>84106458

They probably saved shit ton of money doing that. Instead of using manpower, money and time to render CGI crowds, you have practical cardboard cutouts. No one will notice in the final movie. They will be very far in the background, out of focus, especially considering what kind of depth of field Nolan usually prefers in his films.

They did shit like this all the time in the old Hollywood days as well.

>>84105152
>excited for a Nolan movie

It will be the same dour mess as always

>>84105539
Go outside, drumpfkin

Yes! I too am excited to experience Dunkirk in stunning IMAX© at participating theaters, in Dolby Digital Sound©. But before I do, you better believe i'lll be stopping by the concession stand! See you at the movies.

>>84106458
You haven't thought that the cardboard could be used just as a reference of the perspective to add in the CGI later more precisely?

>>84106513

It looks like he's going for that old school epic war movie feel, like the Battle of Britain. Cardboard cutouts, multiple narratives, ensemble casts, WW2 kit used in the filming (though I'll bet it was a lot cheaper and easier to come by in the 50s and 60s). Might actually be kino.

>>84105634
did he really destroy a priceless Luftwaffe WW2 aircraft just for his movie?

Why doesn't he just use real bullets and show real people dying if he's going for that level of realism?

>>84105152
>Nolan wrote the 98 page screenplay
>His screenplays average 150-170 pages typically
Bravo!

>>84106766
there's not much dialog; it's all action. And that's a good thing because let's face it, Nolan's dialog is not very good.

>>84105634
No way did they destroy a WW2 fighter, restored or not.
Probably a realistic mock up attached to a drone.
109s and spitfires are worth tens of millions for a single plane.

File: 1415187744942.jpg (24KB, 250x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x259px

>>84106809
>Nolan's dialog is not very good

>>84106522

wew lad

>>84106809
>Nolan's dialog is not very good.
Nor as his actions scenes

the most unnecessary film in the history of the world ever

>>84106924
they are good when they are not martial arts fight scenes. I thought the action parts in Interstellar were good

>>84106956
Shut up nerd

saw the preview in kong. definitely seeing it in imax but sitting further back than i usually do (i usually sit halfway but here i think i'll sit 2/3rds the way) cus they they seem to do a lot of rapid cuts.

also the final scene was so loud i covered my ears. It was physically painful.

kind of bummed about the pg13 rating though. I'm sure it will still be visceral but it sounds like it's limiting it's potential to be a great war movie so it can get a bigger audience. or maybe nolan has a phobia of gore.

>>84107635
What, the sound of the German dive bombers? Yeah that was loud. So were the guns on Tom Hardy's airplane

So is there a cam rip of this trailer?

>>84105634
what's the next step of his master-plan?

>tom hardy
>cillian murphy
oh im hyped alright

How long has Nolan been working on this?

>>84109130
his entire life
this WILL be kino

>>84106458
reference point for cgi

File: inflated.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>84106522

>>84107620
Refugee Armada II was axed before the pilot was even in the can :/

File: fury_my_shit.jpg (384KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1000x1000px

>>84109248
>tfw i believed that was real at first glance

So what're the odds Nolan walks off with a Best Director Oscar for Dunkirk?

>>84105152
NO.

>>84106257
At least you can talk

>>84105152
Not really it's a remake of the Richard Attenborough film

it's going to be shit.

>muh caricature evil germans
>muh stoic and brave english
>Error 404, French Army fighting an an incredible delaying action to allow the British to escape, not found.

>>84109248
God this looks so fake. This movie is going to be retarded. Fuck practical effects.

>>84112072
Hahaha, well baited my friend