*blocks your bombing raid*

>>85728892
that's a big squad

>>85728892
>tfw empty on this precious fuel

File: hardy.jpg (37KB, 600x316px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x316px

Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1VJ39nVIBk

>>85729165
sounds like a boring the rock OST fuck off
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vo9pPP8-Fc

>>85729023
FOR YOU

>>85729379

Cause Hans Zimmer is a fucking hack.

>>85728892
was getting caught without fuel part of your plan?

>>85728892
I think this was the worst movie I have ever seen.
>>85729165
horrendous

File: King_Julien_(All_Hail_King_Julien).png (242KB, 433x515px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 433x515px

>>85728892
>>85729023
>>85729127
>>85729165
>>85729379
>>85729472
>>85730389
>>85731413
>>85731766
I LIKE TO

>>85731766
I know this is a troll, very low quality at that, but honestly if this is the worst movie you've ever seen then you need to watch more movies

How many fighters did they have? They showed three first in the movie but really they started with five? I couldnt keep tracked of all the masked men.

File: 1501136540422.png (271KB, 647x340px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 647x340px

is the masketta man alright?

>>85731809
PARTY WITH MY PEEPS

>>85731862
not trolling but I can't respond because you don't seem to have an argument there.

>>85731867
Nolan can't direct a good shot with more than 4 distinct objects in it

>>85731891
DEATH
BY EXILE

File: crashingYOURplane.jpg (282KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 620x349px

>>85728892
>You're a big plane...

File: sheev1.jpg (12KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x480px

>>85731891
It seems in your anger... you killed him.

>>85732079
Why is this so much better than Dunshit? Nolan gets raped by a 1940s documentarian.

>>85731967
Ok then.
I don't believe Dunkirk is the worst movie you've ever seen, because there are a load of movies far worse than this objectively. Even good you didn't like Dunkirk, there are hundreds movies that aren't as good as it. So, it makes sense to me that you have seen very few movies in your life.
Again, I assume you're trolling or a normalfag who says his favourite/ least favourite movie is the last one he saw.

>>85732202
Nolan is a hack

File: Junkers-Ju-87-Stuka1.jpg (238KB, 667x909px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 667x909px

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY MAINLAND YOU FILTHY FUCKING BRIT AND FROG NORMIES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>85732233
I hate bad films and avoid them. I also don't go to the theater often. However, I've probably seen at least 200 films beginning to end, and Dunkirk stood out in several ways.
-it had characters, but no characterization.
I've seen some films that deliberately lack characterization, but none that also tried to portray a large and varied cast. The air and sea casts were static, welded into their vehicles. George was introduced as he jumped aboard, and Bane already at his plane. Kenneth Branagh standing still on his pier. The soldiers were the only cast to actually be in three sets, beach, sinking ship, and final scene. That frozen plotting would be ok with a little story thrown in. However, the only characters who had arcs were George and Cilian Murphy. George's arc was that he died, (main character?) while Cilian Murphy came to regret being a cowardly piece of shit.

I can go on because I was mainly upset about the revolting production, oppressive score, rape of history, and many other bad decisions. If this thread is still here when I'm done with other things, I'll continue.

>>85733706
Didn't you enjoy it on a purely visual, cinematic level?

>>85732079
Whenever I watch these old clips I wonder if any of them made it through the war.
Outcome is extremely low.

File: doitagain2.jpg (57KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 498x498px

DO

IT

AGAIN

>>85728892
What does lc mean

>>85732079
Stukas and heinkels pretty badass

>>85733819
do it again Bomber Harris

>>85733771
I don't want to be too much of a grinch, but the effects were pretty low grade and the vision totally lacking. Budget constraints were everywhere. I expected them to shell out for at least one of the following:

_a crowded beach to make the claim of 400,000 men believable
_a fleet of ships similar to the one that really attended Dunkirk
_intense cgi air wing battles.
_ship scenes or a ship set including main deck and bridge.
_a historically rendered town

-The beach looked very empty
-The sea was empty except right in front of the beach (absolutely murders credibility, seems more like a stupid mistake than a budget problem)
-Air battles were very empty and boring with almost no planes on screen at a time, few tired angles and guncam, (not a patch on >>85732079) and looked like a game.
-The practical ships looked like trash as if they originally planned to CG over them. the decision to film mostly in a family yacht and piece of shit hulk, rather than any military boat, is not just a creative choice but a sign they didn't really have a good ship set.
-They just filmed the modern town

The divebomber scenes were more BRAAAAP than stuka engines, and I mention the sound because barely anything was shown. I enjoyed the shot where bombs are approaching Nameless Protag although it was nothing special.

File: teaching you.jpg (61KB, 416x620px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 416x620px

>>85734055
>Heinkels
Nigga that's a Ju-88

>>85735331
>wants a CGI hacktion flick
It's so dense. Every single frame has so many things going on.

Go watch Pearl Harbor or Red Tails.

>>85735611
It's funny you mention Pearl Harbor because they're similar movies to me, but the sinking of the Arizona in that movie made me feel more deeply than any of the hundreds of deaths shown on screen in Dunkirk.

Anyway, the whole movie is still a CGI fest it's just a shit one. Where did all the money go?

File: 1473923048393.jpg (58KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x400px

>>85729165
fuck this score is so good

BRAVO HANS
BRAVO NOLAN

KINO
I
N
O

‘Dunkirk’: A Historian Reveals What Christopher Nolan Got Right, and It’s Almost Everything


>The French might be miffed, but World War II expert Michael Korda was very impressed with "Dunkirk" — and he didn't much care for "Saving Private Ryan."

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/dunkirk-historian-everything-christopher-nolan-got-right-1201861872/

>>85735331
I think you misunderstand the scale of dunkirk. It wasn't just one beach where everyone was in vision of each other. You are just copy pasting the same old ignorant complaints.

File: 1411435942123.jpg (124KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1920x1080px

Dunkirk is Bane's origin story

After being captured by the Wehrmacht he was sent to that underground prison in the desert in Nazi controlled North Africa that you see in TDKR

>>85735956
The pocket was 30 miles across I believe. 400000 in one shot would look like Hobbit levels of shit CGI.

File: 1467609297189.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>85732192
underrated

File: 109.jpg (290KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1200x800px

>>85731867
>They showed three first in

They only had 3 spits available for filming (from Duxford airfield I think). The bf109 was an italian knock-off for filming.

I think RAF fighter squadrons broke into groups of 3 for patrols anyway, so it's historically accurate.

>>85735956
Bad example. Scale was quite possibly the most fucked up thing about the movie, with almost no ships on the sea. Even if I was ignorant of how it's supposed to look, all they did was talk about the fleet and the 400,000 men, there was no impact and no indication of other beaches. If you think the "civilian flotilla arrival" was scaled properly, I'm guessing this is your first war film.

>>85735485
Heinkel is in the clip aswell

>>85735611
The realism was absolutely beautiful, it's been a while since I've watched a film that took so much care and passion to produce. Reading about the lengths Nolan went through to ensure authenticity have only made me appreciate it more.

>IMAX cameras allow for only three-and-a-half minutes of film shooting at one time, so the process was drawn out — each short shoot required a landing, review and film reloading. "There were literally hundreds of take-off and landings. Up and down. Reload and shoot," says Hosking

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/28/how-christopher-nolan-shot-those-amazing-aerial-dunkirk-dogfights/513407001/

>>85736238
those fucking things are real? why did they cover them in filters and completely fuck the sound up? Literally the hobbit all over again.

>>85736215
There is no way to capture things 30 miles away in one shot. The movie showed what happened at one stretch of beach.

You are asking for Battle of the Five Armies CGI scaling and that's not something that should be inflicted on viewera ever again.

>>85733706
>waaah the movie didn't focus on characters so it's bad
>i didn't like the music and it wasn't historically accurate
You are a manchild. An actual, honest to god manchild. Please off yourself. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor movie will be waiting for you in hell.

>>85736323
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't like anything about the movie.

>>85736238
First man to put an IMAX camera on a plane wing. And an authentic WW2 plane at that.

>>85733706
>rape of history
Actual historians have credited Nolan as getting almost everything right, not fucking losers on 4chan. Get over yourself.

>>85736215
The funny thing is, as bad as the scale was I didn't notice it. What was there was real and felt real. To CGI in a fleet or more men wouldn't have added anything to the story and really only distract from what was there. Bigger is certainly not always better, a lesson many filmmakers seem to have forgotten.

>>85736359
>Don't put words in my mouth.
You're already doing a good job of that.
>I didn't like anything about the movie.
You're trying too hard to be contrarian for really idiotic reasons.

>>85736381
>Get over yourself.
You're the one appealing to authority, try having your own opinion. There's plenty of details that are right and plenty that are wrong. Some of the wrong ones are important to the plot like the total absence of Army officers or discipline, the film depicts desertion as the norm. That nonsense with the beached tub is not accurate, history or no.

>>85736382
I viewed it as impressionistic. Not full of exact detail but more atmospheric. It didn't show the viewer what happened but it made the viewer feel what is was like to be there.

Heck the 98 year old Canadian veteran said he felt like he was there again when he watched it.

That's why I didn't mind the toned down violence and gore. If I a guy gets blown away by a bomb, the survivors will just see his body vanish in the smoke and then put their heads back down for cover. Only in a gtitty war movie movie does the camera go right up to his exploded corpse and show all the detail.

Again not showing literally what happened but what it felt like to be there, confused and ducking bombs.

>>85736442
>You're trying too hard to be contrarian
I'm not trying to be contrary to whatever normie circle jerk you're referring to, in my opinion Dunkirk doesn't rank as a war movie.

>>85736568
>individual plot points are a "rape of history"
You are actually delusional.

File: 115241120114.jpg (155KB, 879x703px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 879x703px

Christopher Nolan's new movie gets high marks from one of the world's foremost experts on the evacuation of Dunkirk.

GQ: You were in the Air Force for two years, so I have to ask, what did you make of the arial sequences with Tom Hardy's character?

>I think more important to me, is that they were overwhelmingly visually amazing. It's just that dramatic expanse of sky and the smallness of the aircraft. I've not seen aerial or photography of aerial fighting done that well ever before. The overriding concern of the Spitfire pilot with his piece of chalk and so forth—the amount of fuel he has left. [Nolan] makes you understand that perfectly well that the very basic thing is how much fuel you have left because it determines how long you can stay over the beach and if you decide to stay longer, then you're committing yourself to not being able to return to England. He does that without any tedious explanation at all. I also think his handling of the small boats is absolutely wonderful. You have a complete sense of what it was like to be in the English Channel with a 25-foot long motor boat going to Dunkirk.

http://www.gq.com/story/dunkirk-according-to-a-dunkirk-historian

>>85736654
It's not an action movie. It's a modernist style historical based drama of an event in a war.

Sorry it didn'thit all the requisite cliches you crave.

>>85736638
>It didn't show the viewer what happened but it made the viewer feel what is was like to be there.

What was all that junk with generals and admirals discussing the grand plan, churchill's speech, and bringing a whole fleet of civilian boats instead of focusing on the one with our heroes aboard?

>>85736674
again not what I said, you are literally frothing at the mouth
>>85736727
shit style, degraded substance. What else makes a good war film? I don't think this is good education for the youth either. Just my opinion.

File: 1500349090416.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>85733706
>I was mainly upset about the revolting production, oppressive score, rape of history

THERE WERE 10 GERMAN BOMBERS IN THE AIR

>>85736763
Nothing you said refuted my point. It doesn't individual character focus. Anonymity is part of what it felt like to be there.

The 5 second mini scene with the admiral was expository for ignorant viewers such as yourself. The ending sequence was again impressionistic and dreamlike as the men felt defeated but witnessed the country was not in great turmoil as they feared.

The most glaring mistake was the modern town and the modern railway cars with fluorescent lights. Nearly ruined the ending for me. Tom Hardy saved it.

>>85736889
A Bridge Too Far is a shit movie but still better in all those areas than Dump

>>85736905
At any one time that is accurate. How many planes do you think were needed? A plane could traverse the whole Dunkirk pocket in less than one minute of flight.

>>85728892
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3yrJP24-I
I'm on him

>>85736938
Right, it has an individual feel, but not character based, to clear the way for the real individual . . you! It's an impressionistic experience where you feel yourself touched by the bright lights and loud noises, without having to worry about confusing unknowns or people with complex motivations. Monologues frame the battle and the viewer experiences it. Bravo Nolan! I still think it fell flat.