How do we solve the dishonesty problem in filmmaking

>Literally no plot
Stopped reading right there. I hope this is bait and you're not just a fucking child.

>How do we solve the dishonesty problem in filmmaking
>none of the points are about a lack of honesty

???

How do we solve the brainlet problem with people like OP?

>>85305545
eugenics

>>85305545
Please try to address my criticisms. Ad hominem attack is unwarranted.

>>85305375
What about the sound design? What about the set pieces? What about the performances (especially from Rylance)? What about the practical effects? What about the pacing? What about the production design? What about the costume design?

>>85305375
>literally no plot
The plot is clearly there and it's pretty straightforward and simple, yes the focus is on the visual storytelling but it is a visual medium, isn't it?
Also stop misusing the word "literally"

>One dimensional characters
Because it's almost like the audience here is the character. It's told completely subjectively from the POV of the soldiers, it's almost like a virtual reality experience of that day without the 3D. Showing some absurd "scared young britboi turned to absolute fearless hero" character development in that short amount of time would be ridiculous.
And I would say this film has far more impact than most war films out there. In Dunkirk a single bullet feels absolutely real and has weight to it, where in other films there are thousands of bullets left and right and you don't feel a thing.

>The non-linear storyline
Most, if not all Nolan films have a non-linear storyline and they are never uncoherent. Lee Smith is a great editor and he did a fine job here.

>The score sucked. It was the same tunes everywhere and felt monotonous.
That was the point, amping up the tension with the same rhythm that constantly progresses, complimenting the written narrative. Look up "Shepard note"

And you don't mention sound mixing and sound editing at all, which is the biggest part of this film.
I agree for about the George character, felt unnecessary.

>>85305832
>sound design?
average
>set pieces
the whole movie felt like one set piece. Not particularly novel or interesting.
>Rylance
One of the better parts of this borefest
>practical effects
meh
>costume design
Everyone literally wears the same costume. There is no "costume design"

>>85305375
> one dimensional characters

The audience is told almost nothing about any of the characters. This was intentional in order to avoid the bombastic lamentations that come with other war films. Especially considering that the entire movie played on dread, depression, and the impending next attack, when would you have liked a character to give a trite monologue about "Sally" back home? The film drives for the authentic notion that all soldiers had someone or something waiting for them back home, thus signaling one out would lesson the importance of another in this film. If this is not bait, then you are one goddamn dense individual, and I pity your caretakers.

> score sucked
Now I know this is bait.

>>85305375
Lmao. I was going to call it dishonest too. BRAVO

>>85306599
>sound design was average
Okay now I'm sure you're just baiting. You can't be serious.

>>85306674
>in order to avoid character cliches, let's just forgo character all together
>in order to avoid BIG GUY 4 U, let's remove dialogue
>in order to avoid recycled Hans Zimmer score, lets recycle it but make it minimalist and remove the actual good parts of a Zimmer score
BRAVO NOLAN BRAVO

>>85306832
>assblasted brainlet
Next time, stick to capeshit.

>>85306921
Why do you guys always assume that when someone doesnt like a nolan film, they didnt understand it. we did understand it, but found it to be quite unremarkable

>>85305375
Movies are not art faggot
An as cultural artefacts are shit, get use to it fucker

>>85305375
>merely adopted the narrative

4U

>>85307581

Brainlet detected. Hope you enjoy homeflopping.

>>85307581
>Complaining for objectively good things in the movie
thats why

>>85308263
kek

>>85306832
>>85307581
Fuck you fags and fuck OP

>>85305375
You're using faux-patrician memes like "dishonest filmmaking" and "pretend epic" but you criticisms are the most pleb criticism imaginable. This has to be bait.

Do you care about plot and story above all else in your precious video games OP?

>>85310801
so no counterarguments to my criticisms. hmmm.

>>85306674
It does the opposite. If there's no immediate, pressing concern for any of these characters, they're a faceless mob that the viewer has difficulty sympathizing or even just relating with. Unless you're an aspie that can make up some connection, I guess.

War movies are difficult because either the struggles are one note and one dimensional (as you said, if some character monologues about Sally) or they're bland and hard to relate to. This movie falls into the latter department, and it feels like no soldiers, hell, the entire evacuation of Dunkirk itself is unimportant. We're given no history and discussion of the biggest issue of Dunkirk (how 'running away' is still surviving and winniny) except for the very beginning and very ending. For the rest, it's a survival story where everybody is expendable.

>>85305375
>3. The non-linear storyline. I feel that the director merely adopted this narrative to confuse the audience and feel smarter about himself.
Or maybe because it was to make the audience being confused to make them feel as if they were in the battlefield, just like the characters in the movie.

>>85313239
I get what it tried to do. It didn't do it in a way that was compelling or interesting to watch, though, just felt pointless. The action scenes were chaotic enough, one doesn't need POV-swapping like some teen girl's fanfiction

>>85305375
>1. Literally no plot. Looked like they just shot some scenes documentary style and mashed them up together.
Only a shits for brain would say there is no plot or dramatic structure, all three plots had the standard intro- > rising action -> Climax -> resolution that standard for plots since Marlowe.


>2. One dimensional characters. The film gives us no reason to care about the characters. So when someone dies on the screen, it doesn't make an impact. Emotional attachment to the characters is one of the important aspects in a film. This film has none.
Most people who are not autist seem to care about the troopers and pilots and boat crew at least.


>3. The non-linear storyline. I feel that the director merely adopted this narrative to confuse the audience and feel smarter about himself.
If it was told in order, you would not see the small boat till 4/5 of the movie was over, and the planes till the last 1/8th of the movie.


>4. The score sucked. It was the same tunes everywhere and felt monotonous.
Bait
>5. Superfluous characters. The George character was completely unnecessary to the film.

No, he is the one who helped develop The father and son on the boat you limp wrist faggot

>>85305375
>1. Literally no plot. Looked like they just shot some scenes documentary style and mashed them up together.
Such bait.

Sea:
Intro (Meet the three crew, boat being requisitioned) = exposition

find shivering trooper - > he shellshocked - > He demands to turn around - > gets locked in - > Excapes = Rising action
fight - > George get mortally wounded = Climax
dealing with George and doing there action, telling the trooper he okay = Falling action
George gets his wish of being in paper = Denument

Can do the same with the land and air sequences. It not a complex plot, but it a simple story of patriotism, surviving to fight another day is everything, and doing your duty.

But that might be too hard for you.

>veteran who was actually at Dunkirk sees the movie
>says it essentially was like going back there and reliving it
Absolutely, unequivocally BTFO with no survivors.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/calgary-veteran-who-survived-dunkirk-causes-a-stir-at-movie-premiere/

>>85314073
If that was the whole movie it'd be fine. That was actually one of the better parts since it was coherent and you could understand what was going on.

Sadly it was interspersed with bullshit where you could barely understand who was who or what was going on, or who to care about. Like that scene with the guys sitting in the boat, could barely understand any of them until German infantry starts tearing through the hull (which is pretty fucking historically inaccurate, no infantry ever carried armor piercing shells of that degree) and then they started to shout at each other and drown instead of getting to safety. Barely anything was explained, like the lack of Air Force or even the basic premise of the evac, because it's assumed casuals who want to see Harry Styles and explosions are the target audience.

>patriotism
Where? The real issue of Dunkirk is whether or not it was truly brave, whether running to win was truly courageous. This was never touched upon. This movie is a disgrace to the soldiers who died at Dunkirk by making them a faceless mass and never really explaining their struggle and making it as needlessly disjointed as possible.

>>85305375
the whole point was to not hollywood a fucking war movie you fucking brainlet

>>85314672
And yet there were a ton of explosions, lots of gruesome deaths, some faggot kid who wants to do something in the world, a cliche ending with big triumphant music, and every soldier looks like they were in a boy band outside of Branagh (who the camera facefucks for 90% of the time he's onscreen) and Rylance.

Seems pretty Hollywood to me. Plus the only people who enjoy Nolan movies are actual brainlets, so...

>>85314582
>Like that scene with the guys sitting in the boat, could barely understand any of them
How did you not understand what they where saying? I am not being rude but the Polish girl I went with who English is her third language understood everything they said?

>>85314582
>ich is pretty fucking historically inaccurate, no infantry ever carried armor piercing shells of that degree)
8mm Mauser will easily go into 1/4 inch plate which is what most haul plates would be made of. Remember that the main armor of tanks of the era was 7 inches of plate.

> each other and drown instead of getting to safety.

They had to get off shore so the Germans were not shoot at them, as going above before then would get your head shot off.

>>85314582
>like the lack of Air Force or even the basic premise of the evac,
If you where paying attention, it was clearly explained.

The lack of airforce was explained in the opening of the air section that they only had minutes of combat time before turning around and how far Dunkirk was from the airforce bases.

The evacuation was explained by the commander and army officer - that the beach was too shallow for the big ships, so they had to use the Mole to get off, and then when the little ships where coming the commander explained that the little boats can get the boys off the beach without the mole.

They even explained that tides come in and out every six hours.

>>85315000
> yet there were a ton of explosions, lots of gruesome deaths, some faggot kid who wants to do something in the world

except there really was those things???

I cant believe /tv/ is defending a reddit movie.
And what the fuck was the deal with pg-13. so stupid. beach is bombed, no blood, no dismembered bodies, they looked like they were sleeping. completely ruined the movie

>>85311470
>The noun is adjective
>The nouns are very adjective
>Every noun is extremely adjective

Wow, those are some indepth criticisms.

>>85305375

t. reddit

>>85306185
>. Showing some absurd "scared young britboi turned to absolute fearless hero"

You don't need to have that, but the least you can do is give your characters an actual personality. Nobody in the movie had any sort of personality.

>In Dunkirk a single bullet feels absolutely real and has weight to it,

mainly due to sound design. But that alone can't make a movie good.
>>85314672

You do realize there have been plenty of non-hollywood war movies that actually had actual characters with personalities right?

>>85315295
>actual characters with personalities

A film that only seeks to capture the atmosphere and visuals of a historical event needs this because?

>>85305375
i'll bet you love capeshit

>>85315295
>Nobody in the movie had any sort of personality.
Bait, and not even good one at that. I guess you don't know many brits, but there was all sorts of british personalities

>>85315000
>there were a ton of explosions, lots of gruesome deaths
HOW 'BOUT THAT SHIT HUH? Death and explosions in a WAR movie?!

>>85315442
Atleast "capeshit" is honest in its intentions. It is not packaged as some high cinema. It is pure popcorn entertainment and delivers on it. Nothing wrong with that. I respect and enjoy that.

>>85315416
>A film that only seeks to capture the atmosphere and visuals of a historical event needs this because?

>The movie INTENTIONALLY had shitty boring characters with no personality therefore it's okay.

Because it's basic storytelling that if you have characters that the movie focuses on, the movie should at least try to make you care about them to some extent? If it fails to do that then why the hell should I care about what happens to any of them?

>>85315465

It's not bait, the characters literally outside of perhaps Mark Rylance had zero personality at all. None. You couldn't pick out a single actual character trait of any of the people the movie focused on.

Anyone else think the captions in the opening scene were fairly pointless?

The flier communicated all the information in one succinct visual, minus the vacuous lines about miracles and deliverance (sentiments that are obvious to the audience once applecheeks arrives at the beach).

>>85315705
t. brainlet

go watch American Sniper, I bet that has enough drama koolaid for you to drink.

>>85315705
So did the opening scene of SPR have no effect on you because the main characters hadn't yet had any banter together?

>>85305375
Because the focus wasnt to present you a generic war film cliches, it was to create the atmosphere of Dunkirk disaster by using cinematography and music.
You are either a child or an illiterate redneck if you didnt understand the obvious premise

>>85305375
Stupid pleb, not all films most followed your archaic rules of cinema.

>>85306599
You are retarded

>>85316000
>it was to create the atmosphere of Dunkirk disaster by using cinematography and music
and non-linear narrative?
keep defending this piece of garbage.

>>85306599
you didn't see the movie, please stop posting

>>85315705
>character trait of any of the people the movie focused on.
George - Earnest, intelligent
Peter - Intelligent, inquisitive
Collins (Pilot who got shot down) - natural leader, upper class,

and so on.

Yes, Tommy and Alex had the same personality and haircut, and Gibson didn't say a word since he a frenchman pretending to be a english trooper But let not pretend that if you paying attention that the actors gave you a ton of hints. You are just pissed off since it not american style with outrageous personalities and most of the actors had 10 lines or so.

Also, lets be blunt, the story really could have been told as a silent movie and still worked.

>>85315705
Way to dodge the question Nolanfag. Explain why fleshed out characters are nessecary in a film that isn't about characters.

>>85315968
Well put

>>85316082
The purpose of the non-linear narrative has already been explained to you. I know animes typically don't contain pacing, but your English teacher must've told you about it before you flunked.

>>85306599
>the whole movie felt like one set piece. Not particularly novel or interesting.

literally filmed in part at dunkirk

>Everyone literally wears the same costume. There is no "costume design"

Uniformed services wear the same uniforms, who would've thought! And they used actual ships and planes for special effects, it's so boring!

Such a fucking brainlet it's literally entertaining

File: 1496631361888.gif (654KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 245x245px

>>85306599
>Everyone literally wears the same costume. There is no "costume design"

I haven't been this entertained by someone pretending to go full retard since Tropic Thunder

>all these buttmad Americans ITT

>>85315968
That scenery works because we learn about the people after the event, emotionally recontextualizing the opening scene from a intense action set piece into a somber a harrowing experience. The pacing the film informs the audience with information that changes their perception of previous scenes, like with Upham and the German soldier. Nolan expects the audience to soak in the moment for what it is, not even attempting to create complexity to the scenarios.

>>85316500
>assuming the butthurt are americans and not shitty /tv/ shitposting virgins from all countries

Hi, I have an issue with the movie. In the beginning Fionn Whitehead has to poop and is interrupted by the French soldier. He pulls his pants up but then never poops in the movie. Why did Nolan overlook this poop detail? It really frustrated me. Anyone else?

Was the real Dunkirk evacuation nothing but nonstop action? I kinda agree with the review that compared the movie to Call of Duty. A few more quirt, contemplative scenes couldn't have hurt.

>>85316610
He was an american spy and just shit his pants instead, we do it all the time.

>>85316665
We never saw him shit his pants

>>85316582
Yeah, outside of /tv/ posters being /tv/ posters the only person i know who didn't like it does the whole character of "There was not enough woman and minorities in it, and the Germans where not shown to be evil enough!!" which I would think was a joke except this is seriously how warped her mind is, so I disregard her views on most things.

>>85316610
The mole plotline takes place over the course of a week, plenty of off-screen shitting for the sequel. Which raises the question of how Gibbons got away with not speaking in all that time.

>>85316745
I just don't like how on-screen the shit dilemma was. It was really unsatisfying for me not to see the shit.

Tom Hardy didn't have to act in this movie and that sucked. Let Tom Hardy act.

>>85316656
well the mole plotline is a week compressed into two hours. The loss of ships over that week was 32 ships a day. So it wasn't really that off. when a ship is being sink every 45 minutes

I loved Hacksaw Ridge, will I like this movie?

It's his only good movie

>>85316866
What did you like about Hacksaw Ridge?

>>85305375
I didn't like the post credits scene where all you see is the bottom half of some guy in a wheel chair and the phone rings on a desk and he picks it up and some guy who sounds like Samuel L Jackson says "Mr. President, we've been attack" then he hangs up the phone and says " Commence the Allies Initiative"

You won't emotionally invested because there was no Americans in the battle, why would you care about some Brits and Frenchies?

>tfw no British Band of Brothers series directed by Nolan

What would be called?
Lot O' Lads?
Gang of Gents?
War of Wankers?

>>85317115
League of Limeys

>>85305500
It's just a buzzword. They don't even know what they mean by that, and the funniest thing is that they're absolutely dishonest viewers, who go into a movie with an agenda.
You can't be honest on purpose, that's paradoxically dishonest.

>>85317115
War and Tea

>>85315260
all movie/art criticism is exactly that, you fucking retard

>>85306599
>Everyone literally wears the same costume. There is no "costume design"
lol

>>85305793
I will ad hominem the fuck out of you

>>85316111
Are you retarded? I'm a Nolanfag for shitting on a Nolan movie?

>ITS NOT ABOUT THE CHARACTERS THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SHIT

If it's not about the characters then why should I give a shit what happens to them?

> Explain why fleshed out characters are nessecary in a film that isn't about characters.

except it is about the characters, you just want to pretend like it isn't because they were all shit characters.

>>85317115
Rooty-tooty point and shooty

in all seriousness it should be about the Eighth Army in North Africa

>>85313027
>they're a faceless mob that the viewer has difficulty sympathizing or even just relating with.
Except most of the audience seems to be liking the film and feel affected by it. So I guess that means it's doing something else in order to get that, not the usual sappy backstory shortcut

>>85313239
>I feel that the director merely adopted this narrative to confuse the audience and feel smarter about himself.
Are we talking about BvS all of a sudden?

File: battle_of_britain_ver2_xlg.jpg (253KB, 985x1500px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 985x1500px

>>85305375

>its an "underage faggot contrarian desperatly attempts to sound intelligent" thread

lol fucking underage pleb doesnt even realize this is in the same vain as Battle of Britain or Tora Tora Tora

>>85315050
Why did you respond to me three times?

>how did you not understand
I just can't understand Britbongs for the life of me, I guess, and English is my first language.

>8mm mauser
I'll take your word for it. I've never heard of infantry carrying that type of ammo, but all right.

>go offshore
By the time that one guy was yelling at the French guy (Gibson, I think) the hull was filling with tons of water. And then it didn't even matter because five minutes later everybody was clambering out of the ship anyway. You even had that one dumbass still blocking the hole and then drowning because he didn't get out in time.

You're also not getting what I'm saying on that last bit. I know what had to actually go down at the evac. It's just that the history of the Dunkirk evac is barely gone over. You're not told why Dunkirk is an important event, its significance is just sort of lost (or worse, assumed, like we're just supposed to instantly care about a faceless mass). All the chaos and terror and great atmosphere doesn't explain why any of this is happening. It is sort of talked about at the very end with the newspaper but it's just not enough. What little bit of explanation there is is glossed over, especially concerning the RAF. I came in for a movie about the intricacies of Dunkirk and the philosophy and pain and struggle at home and at the evac and just got about half. I like the ambition but the execution is mediocre.

>>85317435
I dunno, I guess people got attached. My audience was completely disinterested, half the people were on their phones.

I mean the critics will like it since its artsy and unique and there's sad music playing at the end but everybody I've seen so far is praising the visuals and experience but the only people wanking over characters seem to be /tv/. The only character anybody seems to really remember is George and he was pretty damn cliche.

Then again you're pulling the good ol' argumentum ad populum on me, so fuck you.

>>85316103
>George
>intelligent

in what way? He got pushed down the stairs at the very beginning and spend the rest of the movie quietly dying.

>peter
> Intelligent
in what way?
> Inquisitive
in what way?

>Collins (Pilot who got shot down)
>natural leader
in what way? The only thing i remember him actually doing in the movie aside from crashing is telling Mark Rylance to go because he knew the oil was going to catch fire.

>Also, lets be blunt, the story really could have been told as a silent movie and still worked.

Most silent movies have actual characters.

>You are just pissed off since it not american style with outrageous personalities and most of the actors had 10 lines or so

No, there are plenty of awesome non-american WWII movies with actual characters that have personalities. By your standard The Ascent and The Human Condition are "american-style" You're trying to imply that I'm a pleb when in reality you're just a Nolan apologist who's just trying to come up with shitty excuses as to why he couldn't bother to craft actual characters.

>>85305375
I just came back from watching Dunkirk

>1. Literally no plot. Looked like they just shot some scenes documentary style and mashed them up together.

t. brainlet

>2. One dimensional characters. The film gives us no reason to care about the characters. So when someone dies on the screen, it doesn't make an impact. Emotional attachment to the characters is one of the important aspects in a film. This film has none.

I can name a few emotional scenes, in particular, The Admiral yearning to return home; the scene were Hardy watches his flame burn as he's taken by SS.

>4. The score sucked. It was the same tunes everywhere and felt monotonous.

I agree. ZImmerman's rumbling farts are annoying as fuck. made me appreciate silence tbqh.

>3. The non-linear storyline. I feel that the director merely adopted this narrative to confuse the audience and feel smarter about himself.

t. Brainlet

>>85317663
>argumentum ad populum on me
No, you brought that on yourself by saying "the viewer has difficulty sympathizing or even just relating with" when it's obvious that most viewers do not. It's not an argumentum ad populum but simply proving your claims are incorrect.

>>85317688
>in what way? The only thing i remember him actually doing in the movie aside from crashing is telling Mark Rylance to go because he knew the oil was going to catch fire.

What the fuck did you expect? A fucking soiree in the middle of war?

>>85317512
>I've never heard of infantry carrying that type of ammo, but all right.
standard ammo for german troops carrying the K98 rifle, which was almost every german trooper till later in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k

> It is sort of talked about at the very end with the newspaper but it's just not enough.

It was fine for me. I don't need a movie telling me why Dunkirk, Midway, Kursk, Stalingrad, the Normandy landings, and so on are important in the big picture. That is basic grade school history.

Now if it was about Battle off Samar, I could see why people might need a big picture thing.

I still say the RAF was clear, but it was told over the radio in the first five minutes of meeting the three pilots before the first dogfight, and it may be easy to forget that after 2 hours of heavy action since there is no breadcrumb to explain it.


>>85317688
>in what way?
Peter was very smart in understanding to tell the shivering soldier George was fine, and also shows his smarts elsewhere.

>>85317688
>in what way? The only thing i remember him actually doing in the movie aside from crashing is telling Mark Rylance to go because he knew the oil was going to catch fire.
He was also leading the whole pulling out the men and warned Rylance about the oil as soon as he spotted it, and also had the head to tell him as you said for them to get out when they had the chance. As soon as he was on the boat he took over.

And yes, you are a pleb. and for the record this is only the third Nolan film I liked, and by far his best, and the best war movie since 1998.

It didn't use the narrative style you prefered, that a opinion, but the narrative worked and produced a compelling story that is well told that got across the concepts that the director wanted. I get you would prefer the actors to talk more about home, and that they have sally at home waiting for them with apple pie. Would say more but I am at the limit.

>>85307581
You are the same people who think his other works are genius because it makes you feel intelligent. But when he comes out with a genuinely good movie, you hate it because he doesn't spoonfeed you and wipe your ass with an easy-to-follow storyline.

>>85306599
>Everyone literally wears the same costume. There is no "costume design"

Now you're just baiting.

>>85305375
>Characters
The soldiers weren't one-dimensional, as seen during the boat sequence. It's just that aside from Alex, they weren't really developed past their characterization.

>>85305375
Cuckirk

>>85315000
>cliche ending with big triumphant music
Seems you really didn't understand the movie, then. Rewatch it before making this criticism.

Dunkirk is a bad movie.
I almost drove 3 hours to see it in 70mm like all the shilling has been suggesting, but I decided to see it locally instead.
I found myself passively engaged in what was happening without any feeling of tension. Since no character was developed, I didn't care who died. If they did die, I would have felt like it was meant to happen to them as much as stuntman would.
I did appreciate the practical effects and was wowed by some of the shots, but other than that, it feels more like a showcase than a story; the difference being seeing something and being told about how/why it came to be.

It's a context-absent film, and to assume the audience knows the source material is like asking a japanese girl what she thinks of that stool you built in woodshop class in highschool with the hockey team logo.

It's not bad at being a showcase either, it just really shouldn't be called a movie any more than this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3bRy2x44

>>85318185
>Peter was very smart in understanding to tell the shivering soldier George was fine

after he already told the soldier he wasn't fine. I don't see how that displays intelligence.

>and also shows his smarts elsewhere.

[citation needed]

>>85318185

>It didn't use the narrative style you prefered, that a opinion,

No, it failed at any sort of narrative. Narratives have characters. Characters are supposed to have actual character. These are fundamentals of storytelling.

>but the narrative worked and produced a compelling story

no it didn't. Nothing about it was compelling. You don't give a shit what happens to anybody because Nolan didn't bother giving them actual character traits. Nolan never establishes any sort of connection between the audience and any of the characters in this movie.

> I get you would prefer the actors to talk more about home, and that they have sally at home waiting for them with apple pie.

I would prefer they talk about SOMETHING that gives you a feel for their actual personalities rather than them simply being human props that bad stuff happens to.

Try watching an actual GOOD WWII movie rather than riding Nolan's cock.

>>85320359
All Quiet On The Western Front

im 100% with you OP

the first quarter was amazing, but the same shit kept happening over and over and made the overall film a big dull spectacle

imo it could have been great if it were simmered down to an hour and 20 minutes with an explosive ending

Is....this bait? God I hope so

All these Dunkirk threads are created and populated by shills. Anyone with half a brain knows that Nolan is a hack who can't tell a story without explaining everything to death. Literally nobody gives a shit about this movie other than people being paid to shill it on reddit and 4chan.

>>85305375

>>1. Literally no plot.

I think you're confusing plot with dialogue.

The entire plot in this movie was visual.

If you can't watch a movie that isn't crammed with exposition maybe you shouldn't be here.

>>85320784
Shill.

>>85305375
>> no plot
You're confusing plot with dialogue.

The entire movie was a perfect example of showing and not telling.

If you need a movie to be crammed with exposition for you to watch it, maybe you shouldn't be here.

>>85320844
Shill.

>>85320834
>>85320893

Fair cop,

Thanks lads.

>>85320893

>shill

Shill

>>85320928
Did you know that shills (actual paid shills) are given notes on how to deal with a situation. So for example if somebody calls you out for being a jew, just dismiss with a sarcastic comment.
>yeah you got me I'm a shill haha

God I hate this fucking board

>>85321012
Hey I get you,
Fair enough.

>>85320844
this

and it seems like Nolan finally learned from his mistakes regarding spoonfeeding the audience with constant exposition

bravo

>>85305375
So which are you?
Frenchman and mad at the accurate depiction of your cowardice? An SJW mad at the lack of 'diversity'?
Or an American who's not feeling it because it wasn't about him?

File: alwaysbrushyourteeth.jpg (39KB, 731x393px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 731x393px

>yfw you remember Dawson freaking out about wanting to try to save the downed pilot even though he could be dead after you learn his son was a pilot that died
>yfw you realize that's literally the reason he went personally instead of letting the navy use his boat
>yfw Dawson didn't want George to come because of his dead son

>>85321173
>>85321213
>>85321309
Kill yourself samefag.

File: fag.png (4KB, 357x132px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 357x132px

>>85321390
fag

>>85305375
FYI
Dishonest Filmmaking: (Tarantino, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, Alex Garland, Paul Thomas Anderson, Nicholas Refn, Tom Hooper, Tyler Perry, Rian Johnson, Alfonso Cuaron, Noah Baumbach, Andrea Arnold, David Yates, Denis Vilenueve, James Franco, Steve McQueen) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonising.

THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking.

They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say.
They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.

These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time.

Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:
>Mike Leigh
>The Coen Brothers
>Werner Herzog
>James Cameron
>Mel Gibson
>Terrence Malick
>Gaspar Noe
>Clint Eastwood

>>85321458
Nice photoshop jew.

>>85305375
>no plot

plot is for plebs that can't enjoy art without a "story" or "narrative" being rammed down their throats because they can't maintain any interest in anything without petty human drama being smeared all over the place

>>85321580
keep drinking the kool aid anon

File: Screenshot_20170723-164643-01.jpg (186KB, 1431x616px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1431x616px

>>85321390
Nutsack

>>85305375

Do you retards even know what dishonesty means?

>>85321469
Fair call, don't completely agree, but I respect the rant.

>>85321713
Lel. Newfag

File: nope.png (57KB, 1034x640px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1034x640px

>>85321390
Yeah nah

File: 1496725767783.jpg (26KB, 480x378px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x378px

>>85305375
Holy shit this movie makes me so mad. Not because of how bad it is, but because it's got so many pseudo intellectual "film buff" virgins thinking that just because something is stripped down, that allows it automatically makes it genius. And that because they like it, it MAKES them geniuses.

Just because you choose to have minimal dialogue/plot does mean that you can't show character motivations, theme, or proper story structure. This movie was literally just mindless "violence" for 2 hours. It hasn't done anything other war movies haven't done. This was "christopher nolan's: war movie" with the same drab color tones as all his other movies.

>but the movie was about observing the horror of war, we were like flies on the wall

Fuck off. Thin red line did it way better.

Go watch literally any silent movie and you'll quickly understand how much plot, character development, and story you can "show" with no sound. Hell, there are scenes in the walking dead that are "silent" but still tell more of a story than this 2 hour piece of crap.

If you like this movie, you probably have a really smooth brain.

Guys YMS gave it an 8/10
I - is it kino?

>>85305375
The plot is pretty simple.

The film gives us stripped down characters without sentimentality (mostly) so that we can empathize more easily with each character.

The plot structure is fairly clever, but to each his own.

Same with the score, though it's a pretty effective part of the sound design.

You want someone to care about, but George is superfluous? Which is it?

>>85316267
>>85305832
What good are practical effects(or any effects for that matter) to a film when the filmsmaker cant properly illuminated them and used them?
They are shit simply due to the fact that nolan cant hold a shot in his films for more than five seconds so nothing, including the effects, can yield anything that can leave some sort of an impact on the viewer
The only purpose of the effects is to give r*****ors who foolishy believe they are somehow above the average popcorn crowd somehting to feel special about

Nolan's entire carreer has been him hiding behind an on slaught of loudness, large scale nonsense, and "confusing" storylines only he and his folllowers believe are complex.
Dunkirk is no different from the rest of his embarassing filmography

>>85322162
that pretty much solidifies it as pvre rebbit garbage

File: 1490159570343.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>85321623
>>85321655
>>85321854
Panjeets all look alike.

>>85322589
>filmsmaker cant properly illuminated them and used them?

t.brainlet