Current Events > Nolan is my favorite director, so I was pretty surprised(Dunkirk spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

That I didn't like Dunkirk.

Why? Because Nolan is great at telling stories where you care about the plot, and with this one... you kinda don't because the entire film is structured like a 3rd act.

And that's not how movies work.

I think it's worth noting that Nolan movies have been betting longer and longer with time with Interstellar hitting nearly 3 hours, but Dunkirk clocks in at like 1h50m, and so it really feels like this is the 3rd act to a traditional Nolan movie where we just don't get to see the rest of the movie. Like if Inception had started in the big dream heist.

And yeah, doing that, skipping the part where you establish the world... it's bad movie making, it makes for bad movies, I kinda think this is a bad movie, but I guess I'm one of few people who care about narrative these days because this has like a 93% on RT and this wasn't a story, it was just some stuff that happened.

Also I heard somebody commend Zimmer's score and it was alright but for a Zimmer score in a Nolan movie it was also a bit of a letdown. Apes 3 had a much more iconic.

I'm really shocked how little I enjoyed this movie. It didn't help things that I was in one of the worst moods in my life, but the idea was that I'd see a movie from my favorite director and hopefully feel a lot better because I was happier, did not work at all.

Hey, Nolan, my favorite director ever, just because people give you shit for making long movies, don't cut out everything but your 3rd act, it really hurt your movies.

Am I crazy? Aren't movies supposed to be narratives?

If you'd have told me I'd like Spiderman Homecoming a lot more than Dunkirk I'd call you crazy... but fuck here we are. And how much can you really enjoy a movie without a first or second act?
---

I think it's implied that we already know the narrative because ww2
---

I heard it didn't have a main character either. Like none of the commercials touted "staring Leonardo DiCaprio". Which also makes me think it's a bad movie or just not a movie.

Was it two hours of gratuitous combat and contrived situations to pull on your heart strings?
---

You gotta be better at criticism. You're just kind of repeating "I didn't like it" over and over again. If you're afraid of spoilers, don't be. This is based on a historical event that everyone should probably have known about.

Ranting Nord posted...

I heard it didn't have a main character either. Like none of the commercials touted "staring Leonardo DiCaprio". Which also makes me think it's a bad movie or just not a movie.

Yeah, it's not a movie. Which makes it a bad movie. Nolan basically responded to everybody criticizing him for making huge overambitious over-thinking movies by making a short non-movie.

It still looks and sounds nice, but it's not a movie. I won't call a good looking car a good car if it doesn't drive.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

You gotta be better at criticism. You're just kind of repeating "I didn't like it" over and over again. If you're afraid of spoilers, don't be. This is based on a historical event that everyone should probably have known about.

I'm not that bad at criticism. Part of what makes this movie hard to criticize is that it's not really a movie. You can't criticize character choices because we don't get to know the narrative or the characters that way, stuff just happens and they react, this plays exactly like a 3rd act of a bigger movie and that should be enough evidence to clearly explain why it's bad.

This movie is just a 3rd act and that is why it is a bad movie. It is missing 2/3rds of what makes a movie a movie.
---

It's a series of short stories intertwined, and I personally thought Nolan pulled it off well
---

I thought it was interesting.

As for world building, the propoganda poster at the beginning was enough. We know the "good guys" are trapped and at the mercy of the Nazis. Seeing that, then the dash from enemy fire to the barricade tells you all you need to know about the setting and conflict.

There are no "main characters", but there doesnt need to be. We follow a number of protagonists throughout the incident, and it helps paint a picture of the larger war effort. And seeing a few of them cross paths when they do is satisfying.

Its not a traditional story structure, and it doesnt need to be. If anything, its a breath of fresh air to see a movie focus on one, particular aspect of a conflict the way it did. It fleshes out just how big and complex these conflicts are, instead of simplifying the entire thing behind one hero's journey or mission.

That said, I just thought it was decent. But it was definitely not bad.
---

joe40001 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

You gotta be better at criticism. You're just kind of repeating "I didn't like it" over and over again. If you're afraid of spoilers, don't be. This is based on a historical event that everyone should probably have known about.

I'm not that bad at criticism. Part of what makes this movie hard to criticize is that it's not really a movie. You can't criticize character choices because we don't get to know the narrative or the characters that way, stuff just happens and they react, this plays exactly like a 3rd act of a bigger movie and that should be enough evidence to clearly explain why it's bad.

This movie is just a 3rd act and that is why it is a bad movie. It is missing 2/3rds of what makes a movie a movie.

It sounds like you were expecting a traditional war movie and you didn't get it. Which only makes me want to see it more. Saying this as a fan, the World War 2 genre of films has been on recycle since Saving Private Ryan. It is quite difficult to tell a story that says anything new about that conflict. I think the last serious one that did this was Letters of Iwo Jima, which was interesting in that it portrayed the Japanese side of the conflict (which was never really done by a mainstream American film before). Inglorious Basterds also qualifies for just being so stylistically different than any other World War 2 film (although this is more of a Tarantino film).

Also Nolan has never really been good with the characters in his films. I still like his movies overall, he exists in a interesting space between being Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay, but the fact that you say the characters in the movie are non-existent only makes me more curious to watch it. Because this is typically a weakness of other WW2 films too, its tendency to have weak or stock characters that simplify a massive conflict to a personal story.

If I'm being totally honest, I wasn't that enamoured with it myself.

This review touches on some of my complaints, although even I think it's too harsh on the movie: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

I agree with them that the scale was a bit disappointing and that it could have benefited from more CGI. Movies often do overuse it, but there was a place for it here.

Also, I found this part of the review to be spot on and quite funny at the same time:

In the skies, fighter pilots conduct what seems like an endlessly repeated dogfight. One plane runs out of fuel, although not as quickly as audiences might have hoped. And that’s sort of it.

Ah, the good old British humour. :P

wah_wah_wah posted...

joe40001 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

You gotta be better at criticism. You're just kind of repeating "I didn't like it" over and over again. If you're afraid of spoilers, don't be. This is based on a historical event that everyone should probably have known about.

I'm not that bad at criticism. Part of what makes this movie hard to criticize is that it's not really a movie. You can't criticize character choices because we don't get to know the narrative or the characters that way, stuff just happens and they react, this plays exactly like a 3rd act of a bigger movie and that should be enough evidence to clearly explain why it's bad.

This movie is just a 3rd act and that is why it is a bad movie. It is missing 2/3rds of what makes a movie a movie.

It sounds like you were expecting a traditional war movie and you didn't get it. Which only makes me want to see it more. Saying this as a fan, the World War 2 genre of films has been on recycle since Saving Private Ryan. It is quite difficult to tell a story that says anything new about that conflict. I think the last serious one that did this was Letters of Iwo Jima, which was interesting in that it portrayed the Japanese side of the conflict (which was never really done by a mainstream American film before). Inglorious Basterds also qualifies for just being so stylistically different than any other World War 2 film (although this is more of a Tarantino film).

Also Nolan has never really been good with the characters in his films. I still like his movies overall, he exists in a interesting space between being Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay, but the fact that you say the characters in the movie are non-existent only makes me more curious to watch it. Because this is typically a weakness of other WW2 films too, its tendency to have weak or stock characters that simplify a massive conflict to a personal story.

"never been good with characters" / "created one of the most compelling on screen villains of all time"

Pick one

To the rest of what you said: I am not complaing that it is a non-traditional war movie. I'm complaining that it's not a movie. It is a 3rd act of a bigger movie, and movies have acts 1 and 2 because we need to care about what's going on which won't happen if you only have a 3rd act.

Without a 1st/2nd act the movie is inert.

I don't like cliches, I don't have a problem with a movie being different. I have a problem with a movie being not a movie, which this one was.
---

"Its not a movie"

CE
---

NadYobWoc posted...

"Its not a movie"

CE

It is pretty reasonable to call a movie who's first and second act were removed "no longer a movie" which is what I'm saying here.

It's like calling a car that's had it's engine removed "not a car". It's a pretty reasonable thing to do.
---

joe40001 posted...

"never been good with characters" / "created one of the most compelling on screen villains of all time"

Pick one

I can easily pick one. The former. Characters. There is also evidence that Heath Ledger crafted much of the dialogue for The Joker, but we'll never know the extent of that due to his passing.

joe40001 posted...

To the rest of what you said: I am not complaing that it is a non-traditional war movie. I'm complaining that it's not a movie. It is a 3rd act of a bigger movie, and movies have acts 1 and 2 because we need to care about what's going on which won't happen if you only have a 3rd act.

I'd honestly have to see it at this point because you're not doing a very good job explaining why this isn't a movie. It sounds like it has a non-linear structure, which is probably something that would be appealing about a film in a genre that usually follows A-B-C plot development, but yeah. I'll be watching it soon, maybe I'll agree with you.

joe40001 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

"Its not a movie"

CE

It is pretty reasonable to call a movie who's first and second act were removed "no longer a movie" which is what I'm saying here.

It's like calling a car that's had it's engine removed "not a car". It's a pretty reasonable thing to do.

It did have a first and second act, they just weren't up to your standards. It's a movie. What a bizarre argument.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

joe40001 posted...

"never been good with characters" / "created one of the most compelling on screen villains of all time"

Pick one

I can easily pick one. The former. Characters. There is also evidence that Heath Ledger crafted much of the dialogue for The Joker, but we'll never know the extent of that due to his passing.

joe40001 posted...

To the rest of what you said: I am not complaing that it is a non-traditional war movie. I'm complaining that it's not a movie. It is a 3rd act of a bigger movie, and movies have acts 1 and 2 because we need to care about what's going on which won't happen if you only have a 3rd act.

I'd honestly have to see it at this point because you're not doing a very good job explaining why this isn't a movie. It sounds like it has a non-linear structure, which is probably something that would be appealing about a film in a genre that usually follows A-B-C plot development, but yeah. I'll be watching it soon, maybe I'll agree with you.

Al Pacino and Robin Williams characters in Insomnia are also really good. Lead guy in Memento was definitely strong too.

He's not that bad at characters, he might be bad at certain human emotions but that's different.

Since you are going to see it you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

I've decided I'm just going to make a video essay about my feelings on the movie so I might hush up until then.
---

The thing that surprised me is that it had the same moral compass as the Dark Knight trilogy. Always select the option that is more noble regardless of the consequences.

In The Dark Knight trilogy, resisting evil brought victory whereas appeasement or compromise always ended in disaster. In Dunkirk, a pilot who was running low on fuel, and had already cleared all obstacles from his path, decided to press onward anyway and saved the lives of many people in the process.

I guess that must be something he believes strongly about. Even when it comes at a sacrifice to the person making the decision.

Skye Reynolds posted...

The thing that surprised me is that it had the same moral compass as the Dark Knight trilogy. Always select the option that is more noble regardless of the consequences.

In The Dark Knight trilogy, resisting evil brought victory whereas appeasement or compromise always ended in disaster. In Dunkirk, a pilot who was running low on fuel, and had already cleared all obstacles from his path, decided to press onward anyway and saved the lives of many people in the process.

I guess that must be something he believes strongly about. Even when it comes at a sacrifice to the person making the decision.

Oh sure, and I admire both Nolan's filmmaking craft and the thematic principles that seem to run through all his movies.
---

joe40001 posted...

Al Pacino and Robin Williams characters in Insomnia are also really good. Lead guy in Memento was definitely strong too.

I haven't seen Insomnia, but the lead guy in Memento? lol he was about as blank of a slate as is possible. No one watches Memento for the lead.

joe40001 posted...

He's not that bad at characters, he might be bad at certain human emotions but that's different.

It's not so bad that it makes the films unwatchable, and he definitely makes up for it in other areas. But yeah, many of his characters have a tendency of declaiming and talking about themselves in a way that is just a little too aware of who they are. I think a perfect example of Nolan screenwriting excess is the scene where Alfred is talking about the jewel thief in Dark Knight. It isn't awful, but no human being talks like that and always has a jewel thief anecdote to freely share. His characters don't sound natural.

joe40001 posted...

I've decided I'm just going to make a video essay about my feelings on the movie so I might hush up until then.

I'll have to watch Dunkirk first.

Lead guy in memento obviously had his condition but the guilt/fear eating away at his insides is what made his character great. And Nolan even helped push that with his directing. Memento is good evidence that Nolan is good at character, but Insomnia is too so I'd recommend you check that out.

Nobody talks like Alfred because Alfred is his own kind of super-hero, a super hero of wisdom. And that jewel speech is pretty great.

Movies would be more realistic if people farted more in serious films, but they don't and I'm ok with that because the farting wouldn't help the story being told, and similarly Alfred being less wise and having a shittier metaphorical anecdote wouldn't help the story being told.
---