Dunkirk vs Ghostbusters 2016 >Visuals Dunkirk: drab, blue

I thought dunkirk was incredible. It kind of makes me sad that some people think it is so terrible. I am realizing that there are people who are almost fundamentally different from me. the things that I thought were great about the movie and really resonated with me are completely meaningless to alot of people

>>86231159
nolan fanboy normalfag who couldn't make a good argument on film if their life depended on it resorts too talking about his bitch boi emotions

>oh no guys I'm making him SAD :(

Haven't seen either of them but it baffles me that someone would spend the time writing all this out for the purpose of getting attention on an Afghanistani flower-arranging forum.
At least tell me it's a copy-pasta and you didn't come up with it yourself OP

File: 20634979_1999735530257694_1141182006072180736_n.jpg (204KB, 1080x1282px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1080x1282px

>>86230888
>Ghostbusters gets a 4/10, some good jokes

>>86231280
You wrote that out to get attention. Literally no other purpose to post what you did.

My post generates discussion, yours is only attention whoring virtue signalling garbage, then you project your attention whoring on me?

You are a ridicolous little man

>>86231426
Well yeah but I wrote like a couple of lines you actually had to spend time typing up a bunch of points you don't even believe to get (you)s

>>86231483
I'm not being insincere. Dunkirk sucked balls, Nolans a pretentious twat.

I ironically enjoyed ghostbusters though

Friendly reminded that the tripfag KILLKID !!dwWfiBE+ah5 is an actual diagnosed mentally disabled autist, if this thread isn't clear about it already.

File: 1472899790136.png (72KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 900x900px

>>86231576
Ad hominem, try harder nolan fag

>>86231327
I get this post now lol

>>86231787
You are aware that most "nolanfags" didn't like Dunkirk or found it maybe mediocre?
It's a hard turn from his usual exposition filled overly complex shitfests, a great turn that is.

>>86230888
>>inb4 nolan fanboy normalfags who couldn't make a good argument on film if their life depended on it
No, both films are shit.

>>86231875
He had three stories that could be told seperately but decided to intertwine them just because that's what nolan does. That's overcomplicating things, you can't honestly tell me that all the cutting between them was necessary.

File: qt.jpg (33KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x425px

>>86230888
this, ghostkino is here to stay.

>>86232194
>boom mic reflecting off her goggles

LOL

>>86232139
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.
And 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, also even more tension bulilding (that Spitfire pilot crash landing on water, looks like he's giving a thumbs up that he's okay to Hardy - cut later - he's actually struggling to get out of the Spitfire so he doesn't drown and the cockpit is stuck because of the hard impact on water)

Try again with actual arguments.

>>86232236
that's a ghost kiddo

>>86232236
holy fuck lmao, such attention to detail

Are you a woman

>>86232264
It was not about being thrown into the event itself. The movie is way too stylized for that with constant aerial shots.

I would have it as a three part movie.Also I think if you are gonna cut between different stories they need to have the same level of tension, otherwise you are left with cliffhangers.

My main critizism on this movie is how every scene was trying to make me anxious/tense, without slower scenes you just stop caring about what's happening. And the constant bombardment of the "tense" music.

>>86233114
>It was not about being thrown into the event itself.
Yes it was, you literally never leave the event throughout the entire runtime (except for the ending obviously). The "aerial shots" are the event also, you know.

>My main critizism on this movie is how every scene was trying to make me anxious/tense, without slower scenes you just stop caring about what's happening
Now you're just switching subjects after I clearly explained the non-linear representation of the film. The boat scenes were fairly "slower" than people being burned alive and drowning on the other side I would say.
I agree that Zimmer could've toned down a bit in some scenes, even though the whole point was for the ticking to be constant until the ending point of each of the three narratives.