Dunkirk

I didn't ask you.

>>85677501
no one asked you and they never will

>>85677501
thanks for answering my question

>>85677501
I was actually just about to ask you this. Thanks OP

>>85677501
>>85677574

Was the movie good?

Nolan pls
enough shilling on /tv/

File: 1486350800488.png (185KB, 456x480px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 456x480px

>>85677551
>>85677574
>>85677615
>>85677675
>>85677712
i should have expected this

>>85677501
yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I

>>85677501
just saw this.

NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED.

and i am (unironically) a huge fan of nolan.

THIS SUCKED.

>>85677896
>provided literally nothing to talk about
>no interesting opinion or insight
>no uninteresting opinion or insight
>no controversial remark or talking point
>just an affirmation that you liked the movie
>I should have expected this

Yes, you should have

>>85677712
Yes. Just saw it today and I loved it. Plenty of emotional moments and a great sound track (those dive bombers were chilling). The three stories are well intertwined as long as you remember that they are happening on massively different timescales which can throw things off at first. I have some friends that haven't seen it but want to so I might go with them and recommend IMAX since I saw it in a normal theatre

Nothing happened the whole film

>>85684638
So you haven't seen it yet?

>>85684676
he's absolutely correct

>>85681843
Does it hurt being your level of stupid?

File: 1499740506024.jpg (49KB, 360x235px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 360x235px

>>85687163
name one thing that happened?

>kid dies from british soldier literally killing him
>confusing non-linear plot that doens't make sense until way later
>no information whatsoever about anything happening in the movie
>no overarching theme or message
>no characters who you can tell apart
>no germans in sight ever but random bullet holes in ships
>tom hardy barely in the movie, glides for like a half hour with no power
>tom hardy lands his plane nicely instaed of in the ocean, but then proceeds to blow it up anyway
>tom hardy captured by germans at the end


why didn't nolan choose a better fucking war story like the actual blitz on britain? anything but this boring waste.

>>85684676

there is really nothing much happening in the movie

>>85677501
I only went to see it for the sounds, my hearing is wrecked and now I'm deaf

10/10. Movie of the year, Nolan is the best

>>85677896
summer millenials prefered Rogue Juan over Nolan tensed war daddy kino. Nolan came in the wrong era, now populated by nihilistic manchildren that are the very contrary of his heroes.

summerfags get out, this movie was great

>>85688232
he set the plane on fire so the enemy would not get a hold of the technology, it's common procedure for crashing/landing in enemy territory.

Nolans first pleb filter imo

In the past he used to make films that all people could enjoy whip holding their hands and making them feel smart

This time he went full Kino. Zero exposition and pure visual cinema. Plebs can't handle this.

>muh plot
>muh can't sympathise with characters

Plebs

>>85689700
Pretty much this.

>>85689700
This

>>85689700
this

>>85689384
Are you a goddamn retard or something? Nolan makes the biggest blockbusters in the fucking world he's not some obscure auteur you child

>>85689700
>if something defies conventions it is automatically good/pleb filter

getting real tired of this meme

>>85689201
The whole film is non stop things happening without ever letting go, are you sure you saw the right film?

>>85677896
>posting infantile cartoons
You need to go back.
>>>/a/

>>85689971
It does not just defy conventions, it defies usual Nolan conventions also.
It's like he finally listened to all of the critiques (exposition filled dialogue, poor close quarter choreography, too complex story line) and made an almost flawless straightforward tension film. Certainly one of the best Nolan films ever, the "boring" and "nothing happens" comments only confirm that.

>>85689617
i'm aware of that, but why land it nicely on the sand instead of in the ocean?

>>85690239
I asked this somewhere else, I was told that the water landing is more risky because he has no power and the chance of crashing is high. And if he did attempt it and crash his plane , it could be recovered by the Enemy. By landing and burning it he ensures they do not get the tech.

File: file.png (112KB, 748x692px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 748x692px

wtf?

>>85690208
No, he is most hack in the business.
All his "no cgi" comes out because he mostly shots in closest places that even fucking Netflix's cheapest shows can afford, or just film on random landscape and call it "exotic planet". And then he takes most of the money himself as a director. Literally Robert Downey Jr of directing.
Compare him to Bay that not only explode things, but also makes sure car that he practically explode goes realistically where it should go when giant cgi robot in post production kick it.

Not only this, but Nolan's films also has shit tons of straight up plot holes, like Joker gary stuing and foreseeing how any situation will go exactly how he want it or how Cillian Murphy's character got on top of tanked submarine in Dunkirk.

He is a pleb filter. Guys that unironically appreciate him are plebs.

I liked the film but that fake as fuck white smoke coming off each plane was annoying

>>85677501
The only reason this was made was so nolan could impress retards like OP with HURR DURR this is how war should look like. But even then he should have used cgi to make the army look bigger.

>>85689700
That's cause there was no story retard.

The film suffers from jumping between narratives

For example, from the pilots perspective you see the Trawler sinking, and the protagonists soldiers jumping to safety. But then later on cut to them before they sink, all struggling to get out in time when we've already seen them escape.

All but one of them anyway

The scenes on the boat were mostly a waste of time, seeing the Officer going nuts was interesting though.

Would have been better to see more of other soldiers waiting at the beach, that whole situation is more interesting.

>>85691257
Damn this, no wings ripping, no flaps torn, no pilots getting penetrated multiple times, just the airshow smoke.

thisposters have to go back

>>85691612
And this jumping wasn't even a most important part of the plot, like it was in Meme-nto.

>>85691257

I went in assuming the planes were going to be real. But if they were, they looked fake as fuck.

Especially the shots of them flying in formation, they were so close and all moved at the exact same time.

It looked like they just animated one plane, and copy/pasted its movement onto the others.

>>85691192
>how Cillian Murphy's character got on top of tanked submarine in Dunkirk.
He was on top of a sunk boat part with the propeller up, not a fucking submarine. He is shown commanding a boat before getting torpedoed.
Where is the plot hole?

Also you didn't touch upon a single point in my post, you just said "no" and rambled on on a different subject.

>>85690208
this

>>85691698
How wasn't it important?
By seeing those moments again you get a bigger picture of the situation which is told extremely subjectively from every perspective and to form a coherent interconnected story with those moments.
The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week, how else would you do it? A linear representation of that whole week?
Then you would have Tom Hardy sitting in an airbase somewhere sipping tea and wanking off to pictures of dear old Marge, and Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.

>>85691782
They were real. Every plane was real, even the ones being shot down (though they mostly used replicas for those shots of them going down, can't just shot down an actual
Stuka/Spitfire)

>Especially the shots of them flying in formation, they were so close and all moved at the exact same time.
Yes, that's what pilots do my dear millenial friend.

>>85691801
>boat with propeller
Nolan fans, everyone.

>>85690338
Not to mention that landing in the sea would mean he'd eventually drown. England's fucking far.

>>85691953
There are no flying Stukas there are only two surviving planes in good condition, one at RAF Hendon and one in a US museum.

>>85692344
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/flies-planes-dunkirk-meet-warbird-restorers-make-christopher/
Google the full article.

>>85692460
Requires registration to read, the BF109 was a Spanish version, but as said there are no real Stukas, an American made a fake one that's pretty cool however.

>>85689700
Has an anon ever been more right in the history of /tv/?

BRAVO