OVERMAN wrote:I love the predictable vindication of bullshit some people are vomiting out of their cult-like behaviour. Beyond the conspicuous notion that almost everyone here are going to twist and adapt their perception and criticism in order to justify Nolan's artistic choices, I would really recommend everyone to actually watch what are considered to be the greatest war films of all time. Just find an article or one of those IMDB lists, you'll find examples that iterate constantly on these opinion pieces. Take some time to explore these (R-Rated) movies so when you go watch Dunkirk you have the bases to understand why what Chris Nolan is doing here is wrong and borderline unethical.

I truly admire his efforts and creativity when it comes to his two major stages as director, these being the psychological, crime thriller period where he explored the psychology of morally ambiguous characters and the Sci-Fi, action period where he took advantage of the resources he was given to tell ambitious stories with high production values, that was great, really. But now he has the initiative to tell a biographical "war" drama story and he choses to execute it in the most cowardly, wimpy way possible, he's doing a war film for his bloody kids... What in the first teaser looked quite auspicious: The pledge of a thoughtful film with bleak photography and a grim tone that inspired tension and promised horrible things to strike the characters is now so obviously revealed to be a weak summer attempt to cash in on the Nolan war movie with IMAX cameras and nice looking celebrities.

The point some of these vomiting dumb people don't seem to understand is that a war film doesn't need gore and violence for aesthetic reasons, gore and graphic violence are NOT the elements that make a war film good but are elements that are paramount when you are actually dealing with a biographical war picture. They just need to be present, the reason being: You do not want to ignore and scorn the very reason why soldiers, like the ones in the Dunkirk evacuation, couldn't wait to leave the bloody beach and go back home, the awful anguish that is war, the terror of knowing the army coming after you can mutilate and blow the shit out of you without hesitation, this didn't happen because they read it in a letter or saw it in a picture but because they have seen it with their own eyes, done to their friends and brothers, this is part of the context of these events and the people involved in them, real fucking people. Now simply imagine the scenario where you are a war veteran, imagine the act of watching a film where all sense of realism has been washed away by these dodgy, coward, hollywood staging where all substance (in a movie based on real events) is fictionalized and not represented, what would you feel? Here's a clue: It might not be the same reaction the WW2 veterans had while watching Saving Private Ryan.

So you see, that stupid, dumb, simple rating isn't as meaningless when you can figure out an American, summer, PG-13 movie about the Dunkirk evacuation might be more about how much money the producers can make out of the gimmick and the people involved than actually telling the story and finding a way to accurately represent the war event, this means neglecting core elements of the subject in favor of selling more tickets, that's what's unethical in case the argument seemed exaggerated before. So instead of just spitting the "I don't care about the PG-13" crap why don't you just go out of your way and simply say: I'll simply love everything Nolan does no matter what.

ACR7 wrote:There seem to be two private videos under Warner Bros. playlist. Hope it is something related to Dunkirk

Just looked up the Dunkirk movie Trailer on YouTube and the ad before it was the Dunkirk movie Trailer #Inception

Michaelf2225 wrote:war movies have to be R to ethically portray the harrowing, terrifying reality of war



whoops

Vader182 wrote: """themes""" whatever those are


-Vader

MyCocaine wrote:Always a pleasure reading these well read Americans take on historic events.

Also, labeling Hacksaw Ridge as a realistic depiction of war says it all.

okungnyo wrote:That's all it takes for a war movie to get a 87% on Rotten Tomatoes?