MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > if it wasent a christopher nolan film ev...

if it wasent a christopher nolan film everyone would have bashed it

posted 7 years ago by god_of_war (77)
26 replies | jump to latest

this is NOT a good movie at all. there is bearly any dialouge and no actual charecters. this is not a real stroy but more of a history channel documentry. the akward silences. like soldiers who are friends and serve together would be that quiet while staying on a beach for weeks. the charecters dosent even have names. nor any personality. there is less dialouge in this movie then a quiet film. this is a modern quiet film. its terrible and boring. instead of re-creating a real soldiers units who actually talks to each other and share expiriences he choosed this crappy atitude. why? because its less hard to make just visuals rather then an actual story and hes probably so smug because he knows people worship him so he can make bad movies and get away with it. this is nolan.

this movie is garbage. this is the truth

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I wouldn't say it was garbage, but it was odd. It was more of an impression of the battle rather than the actual battle.

😎

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

Dunkirk is a good war movie, just not a typical war movie. Nolan likes to experiment and he did it in this movie as well.

Characters in the movie don't have names or a backstory because the movie is more about the whole experience of Dunkirk than about perspective of individual soldiers, even though we follow a few intermingling individual stories.

Enemy soldiers are not shown in the movie at all. We only know they exist because we see the consequences of their actions (explosions, bullet holes, sinking of the ships). The closest we come to seeing the enemy is his planes, but the pilots are not shown.

Soundtrack which some people find annoying, serves a purpose. It makes the atmosphere of the movie more uneasy and raw.

I agree that it has a documentary feel to it, but I didn't consider it a bad thing... just different.

[–] god_of_war (77) 7 years ago

off course you dident considerd it bad. because of nolan. thats how misrable the nolanists are. a terrible movie is suddenly just ''diffrent'' because all mighty nolan directed it

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

I'm not a nolanist. I didn't like Batman trilogy, and I found Inception too complicated. But this movie I liked.

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 7 years ago

I didn't know it was Nolan until the credits. I really liked the movie, though. I don't think it was supposed to be historically accurate, but rather impress upon the viewer the feeling of isolation and hopelessness.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

I have to agree in some ways.

Not having dialogue on the beach is not realistic. People didn't just stand around in cue.

The film doesn't really show how harrowing the events on the beach were or how heroic the French were at keeping the pocket from collapsing.

Being non-linear is fine as long as the audience is told that.

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 7 years ago

You're not gonna convince anyone when you can't spell.

[–] jareduf (48) 7 years ago

I thought the movie was good if I saw it on the history channel as you stated, but only decent as a movie. I like the history channel, but will watch TV instead of going to the movies if I wanted to see this. Definitely over-rated and I'm surprised by the love fest for this movie. Love Prestige, Momento, Inception and Interstellar but didn't love this one.

[–] tinycatpenis (132) 7 years ago

Even the dogfights were garbage. Wow, you didn't use green screen...still a boring piece of shit

[–] estocade (87) 7 years ago

The movie is not garbage but it would've went under the radar if not for the Christopher Nolan™ above the title.