last few minutes flagged, "beaches" speech was gay
final shot of burning plane was not kino >why did the whole film fade to black and then come back for one second and then go black again
Honestly it was the most forgetabble movie i have ever seen.
Not a single good scene in the whole movie, no characters, no nothing.
When the end credits rolled and i stood up i already forgot the whole movie, like somebody flashed the men in black gadget into my eyes.
Are people not capable of processing things collectively? The characters were the *groups* of people. Like, frick, homie, you never experienced the merging of your identity into a larger crew as part of - say - working in a kitchen?
Actually, if many of the posters here don't hivemind, I can see how the concept of the movie (selflessly risking oneself to help others from one's country, simply because) would make no sense. The point wouldn't be "I should help these people because they are I". It would only make sense if you'd all been trauma bonded by an NCO and were being shot by people who are evil.
>What went wrong?
Christopher Nolan wrote and directed it. Also, Nolan a lot of the time seems to have the idea to have "trendy" sort of things that are happening as he's making a film inserted into his own movie >2008: The Dark Knight and Terrorism that was all the rage back then in real life >2012: The Dark Knight Rises and Occupy Wall Street >2014: Interstellar and the black science guy + HOLY HECKIN SCIENCE becoming popular >2017: Dunkirk and Brexit
I feel like I'm the only person that's at least noticed this, right? Anyone else?
This right here is unironically Nolan's only good film, I roll my eyes everytime I see him write actual characters, his idea of adding depth is basically just adding a woman &/or a child in the man's life and having his motivation be based around either protecting them or getting revenge.
the only good Nolan film is one where there's no characters.
>400,000 soldiers all armed >running away like scared pussies waiting for boats that are just going to get divebombed by a couple bombers
All this movie made me do was realize the English were even bigger pussies than the French. At least one small regiment of French soldiers still kept fighting and defending Dunkirk. All the English ran away. Just honestly pathetic, they would have all died if not for the US's intervention.
>its a random moron tries to enter geopolitics/history episode
france was lost and your spectacular moronation wouldve just led to more death and destruction which would have put the brits and french in an even weaker position after it was inevitably lost. britain did what it had always done during war: frick up the seas and wait till the land was more favourable to them. same shit happened with napoleon
It takes incredible skill to somehow have the british and french lose the entire continent to the germans in 3 days.
I mean, frick, didnt Poland hold out for a month, alone, while being fricked in the ass by russia on the opposite side?
Dunkirk is literally and unironically the best Nolan film since Memento.
It's the first Nolan film without the usual Nolan flaws (no constant shoved exposition, no overwritten dialogue, no too complex storyline, no poor close quarter choreography) seems like he finally listened to all of the critiques.
Pure visual storytelling, The Wages of Fear in a war setting. Also one of the better theater experiences of recent times.
But it doesnt say jack shit through visual storytelling.
The one 5 min scene from the other Dunkirk movie shows more through its visual storytelling than this whole entire shitty nolan movie.
Watching Dunkirk felt more like watching a shitty fanmade YouTube clip - tiny, shitty scale due to low budget (1 plane, 1 ship, lmao) no characters or dialogues.
>But it doesnt say jack shit through visual storytelling.
It absolutely does. The first 20 minutes or so of Dunkirk is probably the best storytelling bit Nolan has done in a film, ever.
It sets the tone and the narrative right away, establishes the character, you know what he is doing and why, you are given historical context with the french and all that without a single line of dialogue, purely by visuals. Visual storytelling.
You can watch that all on mute and get the narrative completely, the silent film inspiration meme Nolan always mentions is actually pretty clear here. >The one 5 min scene from the other Dunkirk movie shows more through its visual storytelling than this whole entire shitty nolan movie.
Shoving 500 things in one frame to make a le epic one take isn't visual storytelling. It's Inarritu tier masturbation, not actual storytelling. >no characters or dialogues.
Ahhh I see, so you are just a plot point mental midget. Makes sense now.
Butthurt boo boo, did the actually good scene from the other movie overwhelm your tiny brain?
Oh no, so many things shown at once, i cant handle it, ahhh!
>literally confirming that he's an adhd zoomer
Thanks for playing. Tarkovsky should've inserted 2000 extras running left to right of the frame at all times, what a bad visual storyteller am i rite
Nolan is such a hack, the first 20 minutes of the movie might as well be against giant ants or teletubbies, thats how fricking awful his skills at visual storytelling are.
I know I know, Dunkirk should've started with a scene of a German Nazi with a monocle and a cartoon tier Austrian accent cackling and rubbing his hands all the time kicking dogs and executing cancer patients yelling sieg heil before cut to Stuka attack in order for you to know who you should not be rooting for, am i rite
>I need to know the enemy are the Nazis in my WW2 film
Horrible movie, i know.
Poor hack of a director has no idea how to make an actually good movie.
He should just stick to his good old random ass sleeping or time traveling nonsense, and leave directing war movies and dramas to people who know what theyre doing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
enjoy your spielberg hollyisraelite flicks bro
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Holyisraelite flicks
I already told you Dunkirk is awful, man.
I get that it's Cinemaphile or whatever, but I have developed more peace from accepting that most people are moronic, and if I read a blatantly wrong opinion, it might be worth elaborating my own opinion to improve the rest of the audience's understanding, but I doubt that insulting the person who isn't getting it will do much other than hurt their feelings.
I do wonder if part of what makes the film hard to parse for some people here is that 'coid culture tends to focus on "goodies" and "baddies". The sense of the tragic is removed. They need "bad" and "good" characters/teams. Or at least teams clearly recognisable as the good guys and the bad guys, and then the good guys fight the bad guys to win. And Dunkirk is more about escaping from cruelty and wretchedness and war themselves than trying to "win".
Nolan is such a hack, the first 20 minutes of the movie might as well be against giant ants or teletubbies, thats how fricking awful his skills at visual storytelling are.
Wait, this was a WW2 movie?
Holy shit i thought it was mad max style postapocalytpic flick, and people were using old tech.
Are you sure it was a ww2 movie?
What scene makes it a ww2 movie?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The name of the film is called Dunkirk you fricking idiot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So what?
I can go make a romantic movie taking place there in 2022 and call it Dunkirk, too.
Its the name of a city, not an event.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>being unable to take context and visual clues from a WW2 film know it’s about WW2
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dunkirk has as much visual clues its taking place in WW2 as Waterworld od Mad Max.
One of the worst historical war movies i have ever seen.
Truly awful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Dunkirk has as much visual clues
I don't know, anon. The entire world including non-Brits could see it's set in ww2. Pretentious homosexuals like you are funny, honestly. You overthink cinema so much you end up getting confused by elements that the audience understands almost intuitively.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The most often repeated criticism of the movie is that it doesnt even look like its in WW2.
Lmao.
>But it doesnt say jack shit through visual storytelling.
It absolutely does. The first 20 minutes or so of Dunkirk is probably the best storytelling bit Nolan has done in a film, ever.
It sets the tone and the narrative right away, establishes the character, you know what he is doing and why, you are given historical context with the french and all that without a single line of dialogue, purely by visuals. Visual storytelling.
You can watch that all on mute and get the narrative completely, the silent film inspiration meme Nolan always mentions is actually pretty clear here. >The one 5 min scene from the other Dunkirk movie shows more through its visual storytelling than this whole entire shitty nolan movie.
Shoving 500 things in one frame to make a le epic one take isn't visual storytelling. It's Inarritu tier masturbation, not actual storytelling. >no characters or dialogues.
Ahhh I see, so you are just a plot point mental midget. Makes sense now.
If that homosexual is talking about the Atonement long take then I'll back you up by saying it's pure plebbit meant to trick mental midgets who think "le ebic long takes" is high brow filmmaking. It was so pointless even critics who usually swallow shit like this as a whole called it out. >In one long shot, the camera holds on Robbie as he trudges past soldiers who shoot their horses (so the Nazis won’t get them), sundry bonfires, a man working out on a pommel horse, and a corpse. Then the camera leaves him and picks its way among other bedraggled soldiers, lingers for a bit with a choir in a gazebo, finds Robbie again atop a hill, and pulls back to show the whole beach littered with men and debris and even a distant Ferris wheel. It probably took days to rehearse and was celebrated with crates of beer and lots of backslapping, but it has nothing to do with what the movie’s about. It stops a show that needed to keep going. >Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be 'My God, what a horrible experience that must have been >For instance, everyone spent that year talking about the famous tracking shot in atonement, but to hulk it's the perfect example of not understanding the larger point. The shot is beautiful. It swoons with grace. It shows off an incredibly complex environment. But there's, like, no real meaning to the story and characters beyond what we get in the first five seconds.
It's literal dishonest filmmaking. The worst part is it makes the soldiers look undisciplined. All those long queues in Dunkirk while not "epic" is what Dunkirk more or less looked like. In Atonement, during the opening shot of the beach the soldiers are organized but in the long take all that is thrown in the garbage because they wanted to emphasize the "chaos".
I liked it - as a Britbong I can't pretend I didn't get tingles when Elgar started playing as the boats came in. My main gripe was with the storyline about the moron who bashed his head in the boat and died - it just seemed unnecessary and out of place
Nolan used his character to show the juxtaposition of a senseless and pointless death of the boy with the senseless and pointless deaths of the soldiers on the other side. To show what stoicism is with the Rylance's son saying to the shellshocked soldier that the boy is alright. To show that in war old men get young men to die for them.
To show that not all "war heroes" are the usual true heroes we all imagine them to be because more people will remember George who didn't even see the war, while all those soldiers bombed/torpedoed on the other side just became a mere statistic.
Also without George, Cillian Murphy would've overtaken the boat and all those boys would never be saved from the oil spill fire.
dunkirk is pretty overrated but hacksaw ridge is easily the worst and corniest war film i've ever laid eyes on, and i love mel but he really dropped the ball on this one. watch windtalkers instead, that's real fun WW2 cheese kino and it doesn't take a massive shit on a very brave man's legacy.
you have zero taste then, both are cheesy war films but windtalkers is much much more fun than hacksaw ridge could ever hope to be, i'd rather watch nic cage running around blasting japs in the pacific with john woo's direction than garfield poorly acting like a melodramatic gay with some of the worst most dated CG action scenes i've seen in a movie.
It's in a way admirable decision imo. His reasons were. >Director Christopher Nolan said he didn't want to make "something that wasn't relevant to today's audiences." He not only didn't want to show generals and admirals pushing toy armies around a large table, but he didn't want to get "bogged down in the politics of the situation," either.
I'm a foreigner. So here's my perspective on the whole matter. Hollywood has made the Nazis the eternal threat. They're easy hateable villains in movies and the audience and western society is constantly kept in fear of their return. It's constantly reminded of the horros they caused. So much so their presence easily overwhelms whatever other themes the movies themselves might have.
>It's not a basic war movie
It was, you're just a basic b***h who was tricked by Nolan's dishonest film making. Stick to capeshit, that's more on your level.
How can anybody defend this movie is beyond me.
Not a single memorable scene, or a line of dialogue.
People in it seemed more like lifeless dolls, or props, than people, zero attachment to anybody through the whole film.
Kinds fell flat
Memento inception interstellar and tdk bb are kino rest are gimmicks and outside of the stunt scenes tenet was terrible.
I hope Oppenheimer is kino I'd love to see a flick of his in imax again
I fell asleep
Rebooting Dunkaccino with a gritty spin was nevee going to work and setting it in WW2 broke the dunkatimeline
Cinemaphile leaking
last few minutes flagged, "beaches" speech was gay
final shot of burning plane was not kino
>why did the whole film fade to black and then come back for one second and then go black again
kek
Keyed
Nothing. It was great except the beaches looked a bit too empty.
Also, you could see all the modern Dunkirk buildings in the background.
It needed a black lesbian Churchill and an animated rat name Anne Frank. Other than that it was historically accurate.
what was the point of casting harry styles?
get the girls to watch
I liked the plane scenes
I didnt like that it was out of order but I can concede that might be my being a brainlet.
Not nearly enough men on screen and I woulf have liked some aerial shots it tanks and the big picture but thats just personal taste.
It was a narratively interesting gimmick but once you get past that you realize the movie has no characters.
It's too short, otherwise it's a masterpiece
nothing, it's a great film
there should have been more members of 1D cast
Honestly it was the most forgetabble movie i have ever seen.
Not a single good scene in the whole movie, no characters, no nothing.
When the end credits rolled and i stood up i already forgot the whole movie, like somebody flashed the men in black gadget into my eyes.
Honestly just trash and a complete waste of time.
Are people not capable of processing things collectively? The characters were the *groups* of people. Like, frick, homie, you never experienced the merging of your identity into a larger crew as part of - say - working in a kitchen?
No anon, i never merged into a fricking hive mind with other people when making dinner in the kitchen.
I mean in a professional setting. Like, you're part of the team more than you're an individual?
Or even in a team sport?
Or watching a team sport?
No.
Well, now you know why you're on Cinemaphile.
>kek
>You don't even hivemind bro?
Actually, if many of the posters here don't hivemind, I can see how the concept of the movie (selflessly risking oneself to help others from one's country, simply because) would make no sense. The point wouldn't be "I should help these people because they are I". It would only make sense if you'd all been trauma bonded by an NCO and were being shot by people who are evil.
only flaw is that it looked like they had only 500 men on the beach.
400,000 soldiers would look like the LOTR army approaching Minas Tirith for war
>What went wrong?
Christopher Nolan wrote and directed it. Also, Nolan a lot of the time seems to have the idea to have "trendy" sort of things that are happening as he's making a film inserted into his own movie
>2008: The Dark Knight and Terrorism that was all the rage back then in real life
>2012: The Dark Knight Rises and Occupy Wall Street
>2014: Interstellar and the black science guy + HOLY HECKIN SCIENCE becoming popular
>2017: Dunkirk and Brexit
I feel like I'm the only person that's at least noticed this, right? Anyone else?
what does tennet have?
The French.
This right here is unironically Nolan's only good film, I roll my eyes everytime I see him write actual characters, his idea of adding depth is basically just adding a woman &/or a child in the man's life and having his motivation be based around either protecting them or getting revenge.
the only good Nolan film is one where there's no characters.
I'm not a fan of the "Hey let's not show the enemy" gimmick in movies
What enemy? The enemy was the war.
Well, it's true to life
They did show the enemy.
>400,000 soldiers all armed
>running away like scared pussies waiting for boats that are just going to get divebombed by a couple bombers
All this movie made me do was realize the English were even bigger pussies than the French. At least one small regiment of French soldiers still kept fighting and defending Dunkirk. All the English ran away. Just honestly pathetic, they would have all died if not for the US's intervention.
>its a random moron tries to enter geopolitics/history episode
france was lost and your spectacular moronation wouldve just led to more death and destruction which would have put the brits and french in an even weaker position after it was inevitably lost. britain did what it had always done during war: frick up the seas and wait till the land was more favourable to them. same shit happened with napoleon
It takes incredible skill to somehow have the british and french lose the entire continent to the germans in 3 days.
I mean, frick, didnt Poland hold out for a month, alone, while being fricked in the ass by russia on the opposite side?
How the FRICK did they lose it, lmao.
Germany wasn’t ethnically cleansed after WWI
Dunkirk is literally and unironically the best Nolan film since Memento.
It's the first Nolan film without the usual Nolan flaws (no constant shoved exposition, no overwritten dialogue, no too complex storyline, no poor close quarter choreography) seems like he finally listened to all of the critiques.
Pure visual storytelling, The Wages of Fear in a war setting. Also one of the better theater experiences of recent times.
But it doesnt say jack shit through visual storytelling.
The one 5 min scene from the other Dunkirk movie shows more through its visual storytelling than this whole entire shitty nolan movie.
Watching Dunkirk felt more like watching a shitty fanmade YouTube clip - tiny, shitty scale due to low budget (1 plane, 1 ship, lmao) no characters or dialogues.
Literally YouTube tier trash.
>But it doesnt say jack shit through visual storytelling.
It absolutely does. The first 20 minutes or so of Dunkirk is probably the best storytelling bit Nolan has done in a film, ever.
It sets the tone and the narrative right away, establishes the character, you know what he is doing and why, you are given historical context with the french and all that without a single line of dialogue, purely by visuals. Visual storytelling.
You can watch that all on mute and get the narrative completely, the silent film inspiration meme Nolan always mentions is actually pretty clear here.
>The one 5 min scene from the other Dunkirk movie shows more through its visual storytelling than this whole entire shitty nolan movie.
Shoving 500 things in one frame to make a le epic one take isn't visual storytelling. It's Inarritu tier masturbation, not actual storytelling.
>no characters or dialogues.
Ahhh I see, so you are just a plot point mental midget. Makes sense now.
>Mental midget
Butthurt boo boo, did the actually good scene from the other movie overwhelm your tiny brain?
Oh no, so many things shown at once, i cant handle it, ahhh!
Man, what a homosexual.
>literally confirming that he's an adhd zoomer
Thanks for playing. Tarkovsky should've inserted 2000 extras running left to right of the frame at all times, what a bad visual storyteller am i rite
I know I know, Dunkirk should've started with a scene of a German Nazi with a monocle and a cartoon tier Austrian accent cackling and rubbing his hands all the time kicking dogs and executing cancer patients yelling sieg heil before cut to Stuka attack in order for you to know who you should not be rooting for, am i rite
Horrible movie, i know.
Poor hack of a director has no idea how to make an actually good movie.
He should just stick to his good old random ass sleeping or time traveling nonsense, and leave directing war movies and dramas to people who know what theyre doing.
enjoy your spielberg hollyisraelite flicks bro
>Holyisraelite flicks
I already told you Dunkirk is awful, man.
I get that it's Cinemaphile or whatever, but I have developed more peace from accepting that most people are moronic, and if I read a blatantly wrong opinion, it might be worth elaborating my own opinion to improve the rest of the audience's understanding, but I doubt that insulting the person who isn't getting it will do much other than hurt their feelings.
I do wonder if part of what makes the film hard to parse for some people here is that 'coid culture tends to focus on "goodies" and "baddies". The sense of the tragic is removed. They need "bad" and "good" characters/teams. Or at least teams clearly recognisable as the good guys and the bad guys, and then the good guys fight the bad guys to win. And Dunkirk is more about escaping from cruelty and wretchedness and war themselves than trying to "win".
Nolan is such a hack, the first 20 minutes of the movie might as well be against giant ants or teletubbies, thats how fricking awful his skills at visual storytelling are.
>I need to know the enemy are the Nazis in my WW2 film
Wait, this was a WW2 movie?
Holy shit i thought it was mad max style postapocalytpic flick, and people were using old tech.
Are you sure it was a ww2 movie?
What scene makes it a ww2 movie?
The name of the film is called Dunkirk you fricking idiot.
So what?
I can go make a romantic movie taking place there in 2022 and call it Dunkirk, too.
Its the name of a city, not an event.
>being unable to take context and visual clues from a WW2 film know it’s about WW2
Dunkirk has as much visual clues its taking place in WW2 as Waterworld od Mad Max.
One of the worst historical war movies i have ever seen.
Truly awful.
>Dunkirk has as much visual clues
I don't know, anon. The entire world including non-Brits could see it's set in ww2. Pretentious homosexuals like you are funny, honestly. You overthink cinema so much you end up getting confused by elements that the audience understands almost intuitively.
The most often repeated criticism of the movie is that it doesnt even look like its in WW2.
Lmao.
The voices in your head aren't real people.
Kek.
Seriously, look it up, its right on the spot : )
If that homosexual is talking about the Atonement long take then I'll back you up by saying it's pure plebbit meant to trick mental midgets who think "le ebic long takes" is high brow filmmaking. It was so pointless even critics who usually swallow shit like this as a whole called it out.
>In one long shot, the camera holds on Robbie as he trudges past soldiers who shoot their horses (so the Nazis won’t get them), sundry bonfires, a man working out on a pommel horse, and a corpse. Then the camera leaves him and picks its way among other bedraggled soldiers, lingers for a bit with a choir in a gazebo, finds Robbie again atop a hill, and pulls back to show the whole beach littered with men and debris and even a distant Ferris wheel. It probably took days to rehearse and was celebrated with crates of beer and lots of backslapping, but it has nothing to do with what the movie’s about. It stops a show that needed to keep going.
>Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be 'My God, what a horrible experience that must have been
>For instance, everyone spent that year talking about the famous tracking shot in atonement, but to hulk it's the perfect example of not understanding the larger point. The shot is beautiful. It swoons with grace. It shows off an incredibly complex environment. But there's, like, no real meaning to the story and characters beyond what we get in the first five seconds.
It's literal dishonest filmmaking. The worst part is it makes the soldiers look undisciplined. All those long queues in Dunkirk while not "epic" is what Dunkirk more or less looked like. In Atonement, during the opening shot of the beach the soldiers are organized but in the long take all that is thrown in the garbage because they wanted to emphasize the "chaos".
I dont think even 1 scene from that half-assed movie resembles actual events of the evacuation in the slightest.
I'm surprised there are people who dickride that scene even today. I thought it was universally agreed it was done to show off.
Normal people recognise there is nothing redeemable about that film
>too complex storyline
He shitted Tenet and sort of Inception with these.
Kinda shitted Tenet with meaningless explosions also.
I liked parts of HR.
Unironically yes. Although I guess Cinemaphile will select for people who *don't* mindhive.
I liked it - as a Britbong I can't pretend I didn't get tingles when Elgar started playing as the boats came in. My main gripe was with the storyline about the moron who bashed his head in the boat and died - it just seemed unnecessary and out of place
Nolan used his character to show the juxtaposition of a senseless and pointless death of the boy with the senseless and pointless deaths of the soldiers on the other side. To show what stoicism is with the Rylance's son saying to the shellshocked soldier that the boy is alright. To show that in war old men get young men to die for them.
To show that not all "war heroes" are the usual true heroes we all imagine them to be because more people will remember George who didn't even see the war, while all those soldiers bombed/torpedoed on the other side just became a mere statistic.
Also without George, Cillian Murphy would've overtaken the boat and all those boys would never be saved from the oil spill fire.
I don't know. I gave up after first 10 minutes. Without doubt worst Nolan movie ever.
/Thread
Nolangays on suicide watch.
dunkirk is pretty overrated but hacksaw ridge is easily the worst and corniest war film i've ever laid eyes on, and i love mel but he really dropped the ball on this one. watch windtalkers instead, that's real fun WW2 cheese kino and it doesn't take a massive shit on a very brave man's legacy.
windtalkers is trash
you have zero taste then, both are cheesy war films but windtalkers is much much more fun than hacksaw ridge could ever hope to be, i'd rather watch nic cage running around blasting japs in the pacific with john woo's direction than garfield poorly acting like a melodramatic gay with some of the worst most dated CG action scenes i've seen in a movie.
This is what you get for trying to Woo a Gibsoncel instead of NolanGods. Hopefully you won't repeat this mistake in the future.
>trying to Woo a Gibsoncel
>Woo
lmao nice one
The actions scenes save it, it's a John Woo movie so it's a very fun watch despite how moronic it is.
Holy mother of cope, Dunkirk is merely overrated and full of classic BRAVO NOLAN shit but Hacksaw is fricking garbage through and through.
Nothing; it's Nolan's best film.
they didnt read his book, guderian did
Impossible to understand a single line of dialogue the pilots are saying
It's a meme of a historical event. Only a pleb who thinks they are smart would give a shit.
nolan
nolan's invisible enemies shit is moronic
It's in a way admirable decision imo. His reasons were.
>Director Christopher Nolan said he didn't want to make "something that wasn't relevant to today's audiences." He not only didn't want to show generals and admirals pushing toy armies around a large table, but he didn't want to get "bogged down in the politics of the situation," either.
I'm a foreigner. So here's my perspective on the whole matter. Hollywood has made the Nazis the eternal threat. They're easy hateable villains in movies and the audience and western society is constantly kept in fear of their return. It's constantly reminded of the horros they caused. So much so their presence easily overwhelms whatever other themes the movies themselves might have.
Has noone seen Atonement? It's 20 minute Dunkirk sequence kicks the frick out of Dunkirk's
Yeah i noticed that too, awesome scene.
Dunkirk really was pure trash.
Watch it back to back with his Churchill film along with Dunkirk. Some dude on YT did an edit of the speech.
Nothing, it was based
>"These Nazi bastards have killed over six million israelites and we're next if we don't get the HELL out of here, Private!"
That line really took me out of the movie honestly
>When he points at the audience after saying that and then holds his stare for more than 20 seconds.
Thought that was a bit much
When some of the Americans and the israelites decided to hold their posts to give the French time to retreat, that was heartbreaking.
it doesn't feel authentic to me. It feels like massive theater play instead of a warzone. Everything feels fake and plastic.
The three timelines were unnecessary and convoluted for what is a basic war movie.
Nolan was high on his own farts.
It's not a basic war movie
Stuff happens immediately and until the end
Give an example
>It's not a basic war movie
It was, you're just a basic b***h who was tricked by Nolan's dishonest film making. Stick to capeshit, that's more on your level.
Damn you're dumb. The film has more in common with your average thriller, more like a heist film, than a war movie.
example of what?
>average thriller, more like a heist film, than a war movie
perfect example of dishonest film making then
It was boring as shit and felt like it was 3+ hours long. Interesting choice to make a war movie where nothing happens.
#
How can anybody defend this movie is beyond me.
Not a single memorable scene, or a line of dialogue.
People in it seemed more like lifeless dolls, or props, than people, zero attachment to anybody through the whole film.
>lifeless dolls, or props, than people, zero attachment to anybody
Doesn't sound like Brits at all.
Britons are based, Britain is not. Don't get confused man.
Kinds fell flat
Memento inception interstellar and tdk bb are kino rest are gimmicks and outside of the stunt scenes tenet was terrible.
I hope Oppenheimer is kino I'd love to see a flick of his in imax again
Nothing. It's one of Nolan's best, if not his best.
>What went wrong?
Germany lost the war.
I went to see this movie with my dad in theaters... We joked that because it was a british movie we would need subtitles...
I didn't understand a fricking word in that movie.
Worst movie Nolan ever shit out.
Last good Nolan film was Insomnia, let's forget this guy.
Tom Hardy finally taking off the mask (did he die?) is literally the most kino moment Nolan has ever filmed
Nothing, it is a masterpiece. Cinemaphile has shit taste, and hates Nolan for no reason.
Nothing. It was Nolan's best flick since TDK.