Hello /tv/, what's the verdict on Dunkirk? A good watch?

Just watched it. Liked it.
Its really tight, stressful but too much artificial (even if the soundtrack helps). Acting is at least good but can be excellent. We don't really know the characters, we're just following them trought their story, wich is not very complicated : (no spoil) the story is to get out of Dunkirk.
You have to go seeing it for the feelings, tension it gives, the airplanes scenes, micro-stories inside the movie, not for the action or bravery or even historical purpose... Even the 40k french holding Dunkirk for the English to escape is even barely showed for a minute all along the movie.
Its not the movie of the year, maybe not the best from Nolan, but definitely its most personal and good kino overhaul, just feel a bit not enough from Nolan, since the storyline isn't dense at all, just well directed.

>If you don't want to read, i would rate 7,5/10.

>>85342085
fuck off

>>85343002
Stressful, but not to much artificial*

>>85341781
Super boring. Nolan's Batman films were inferior to the MCU and now his war film is inferior to Saving Private Ryan.

>>85343002
Btw Nazis aren't even showed for a second, no Hitler sayed once you hear them called "enemies"... Wich is good...!

>>85343101
>I'm a pleb with no taste at all: the post

>>85341781
No, because you're an easily influenced idiot who thinks that Hitler wasn't a complete fuckwit that ruined everything.

I couldn't figure out what was going on half the movie.

>>85343345
oy vey he speaks the truth my fellow goyim

>>85341781
>Will I still enjoy it if I've taken the red pills from /pol/ on Hitler?

There's no way you can walk away from this movie without a pervading sadness that the European people are becoming minorities in their own homelands.

The connection the men at Dunkirk have for their country is blood and soil nationalism.

The theme of "home" throughout this movie is more than some civic space.

>rated PG 13
What a fucking joke

>>85343577
I liked that. The lack of gore meant that it didn't go down the route of being overly grisly, it wasn't the point of the film.

Plus it reminded me of films from the 60s where gore wasn't used.

File: nWcn2aF.jpg (55KB, 668x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 668x800px

>>85341781
As an aviation enthusiast this movie did not scratch my itch.

The "ace" did several egregious piloting sins for the sake of the movie.

1) Flying across the channel low. There is literally no reason to do this other than to show off the speed to the audience. Altitude is life insurance and flying low like that is suicide.

2) Performing a negative G maneuver. Are you fucking kidding me? The only reason this was in the movie was because some retard just recently made a super popular "engineering" video on the spitfire's "fatal" flaw. All spitfire pilots were well informed about this. No "ace" would get baited into a negative g.

3) Tailgating a bomber. This is how you die a very stupid and avoidable death. NEVER, fucking EVER, tailgate a plane with a machine gun mounted on the back. I don't think I need to explain this. In the movie he sits behind a bomber for like ten seconds as it shoots at him.

Overall, very disappointing. Didn't even feature deflection shooting, as if the audience couldn't wrap their minds around basic ballistics. Give me a fucking break.

>>85344216
>My autism is extreme and I can't enjoy something if it is not 100% in agreement with what I believe to be true

Ok. Enjoy never enjoying anything.

>>85344322
>user makes a constructed argument about why one particular movie is bad.
"WHY DO YOU HATE EVERYTHING"

ok

>>85341781
>taking /pol/ seriously

2/10 troll post

>>85344216
I noticed all of this too, the part where Bane shoots down the final Stuka before crashing his plane with one survivor. That was an RC right? Damn that effect was shit

File: Spitfire.jpg (234KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1920x1080px

>>85344565
yeah wtf was that, worst special effect