Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

[joels344]

I thought I had posted in this thread earlier, but I guess not.

I saw it once in 70mm, and was utterly blown away by its cinematic craft. Then I saw it again, this time in 35mm, and gained an ever greater appreciation for it in my second viewing. I'd say Dunkirk is the masterpiece Nolan has been wanting to direct since his career began.

[Tactful Cactus]

Then I saw it again, this time in 35mm, and gained an ever greater appreciation for it in my second viewing.

Kermode said the same thing. Is 35mm letterbox yes? Would it not feel restrictive after watching the 70mm version?

I might go see it again before it disappears from cinemas, delighted it made so much money - projected to gross $200m

[Dr Markus]

Then I saw it again, this time in 35mm, and gained an ever greater appreciation for it in my second viewing.

Kermode said the same thing. Is 35mm letterbox yes? Would it not feel restrictive after watching the 70mm version?

Some directors use that to create a claustrophobic or trapped feel, which considering the main-ish character wanted to escape home, would be a good device to use. Or maybe, and probably the real answer, he thought it looked cool.

[joels344]

Then I saw it again, this time in 35mm, and gained an ever greater appreciation for it in my second viewing.

Kermode said the same thing. Is 35mm letterbox yes? Would it not feel restrictive after watching the 70mm version?

I might go see it again before it disappears from cinemas, delighted it made so much money - projected to gross $200m

It felt restrictive after seeing it in 70mm, but I was mostly wanting to watch it in 35mm to see if the film still held up without its full grandeur.

[Dr Markus]

I'd say Dunkirk is the masterpiece Nolan has been wanting to direct since his career began.

I thought something like interstellar would be, but you could be right.

[Tactful Cactus]

It felt restrictive after seeing it in 70mm, but I was mostly wanting to watch it in 35mm to see if the film still held up without its full grandeur.

Thanks, I might skip the 35 and see it as 70mm again. Its certainly my favourite Nolan of the past 10 years.

[joels344]

I'd say Dunkirk is the masterpiece Nolan has been wanting to direct since his career began.

I thought something like interstellar would be, but you could be right.

I felt Interstellar had the scope and ambition to be a masterpiece, but ended up collapsing in own its ambition and ideas in the long run. There was even a cringe-worthy moment towards the end of the film. Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant film and among Nolan's finest achievements. However, I see Dunkirk as his most coherent, stripped-down, harrowing, visually stunning, and fluid film yet. I consider it a classic in the war cinema genre along with Come and See, Paths of Glory, Army of Shadows, The Thin Red Line, and Apocalypse Now. All those films are of course different in their approach to the genre, but that's one of the reasons why I'd place Dunkirk in that class of films.

[Butch Manly]

No real story, flimsy characters, a fractured timeline for absolutely no real reason whatsoever, fidnt add to the drama, and the cliched music at the end was unforgivable. Any other director would've been presented with his arse for that.

so an average film at best.

I thought the three timelines approach worked really well. It made sense to tell the story of the troops over a week, the boat over a day and the Spitfires over an hour and I loved the way it came together towards the end. I don't actually recall the music being cheesy at the end - I thought the music was largely magnificent and really added to the tension. As for flimsy characters, I thought it really worked making them seem so insignificant in the face of such adversity.

Loved it. I left the cinema feeling strangely moved, in fact.

[Jeemo]

No real story, flimsy characters, a fractured timeline for absolutely no real reason whatsoever, fidnt add to the drama, and the cliched music at the end was unforgivable. Any other director would've been presented with his arse for that.

so an average film at best.

I thought the three timelines approach worked really well. It made sense to tell the story of the troops over a week, the boat over a day and the Spitfires over an hour and I loved the way it came together towards the end. I don't actually recall the music being cheesy at the end - I thought the music was largely magnificent and really added to the tension. As for flimsy characters, I thought it really worked making them seem so insignificant in the face of such adversity.

Loved it. I left the cinema feeling strangely moved, in fact.

disagree with just about everything you said

[Toby]

Yeah me too. I was utterly unmoved by it.

It's no Come and See that's for sure.

[PENK]

And it isn't The Lady Vanishes, La Dolce Vita or Beethoven 2. So what?

[algroth]

I don't think it aims nearly for the same as Come and See - it's a story of survival in war, sure, but the intentions here are very different, much more about humanist transcendence in the face of impossible odds than the way war changes people and scars them for life. I don't think one approach is necessarily worse than the other either. It would be more accurate to compare this with A Man Escapes if you wish to head that way, as Nolan also cited Bresson as an influence, but really I don't see why we need to make these comparisons either. It's a damn good film that stands on its own.

[Butch Manly]

Yeah me too. I was utterly unmoved by it.

It's no Come and See that's for sure.

It's not a patch on Pinocchio, I'll give you that.