Trailer #2

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
Posts: 18910
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1500s England
Image

Posts: 3839
Joined: May 2014
Location: [insert non-spoilery location here, that wasn't a spoiler to begin with]
Oh sweet christ. It's really happening isn't it?

Posts: 18910
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1500s England
Image

Posts: 3268
Joined: June 2010

Posts: 1095
Joined: September 2014
Holy dogshit! My body is ready!

Posts: 3180
Joined: April 2010
Location: We can't stop here, this is Bat Country!
I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.

Posts: 337
Joined: May 2010
OVERMAN wrote:I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.
No way it will be Rated R.

Posts: 230
Joined: January 2014
Patton was rated PG - does that make it any lesser of a war movie than the rated R ones? What matters is the story - not the rating. Plus, Patton told the story from a higher perspective - the level of the generals, with some battle footage thrown in. George C. Scott's performance was one of the greats of all time - and it didn't have to be rated R.

User avatar
Law
Posts: 16500
Joined: July 2010
Location: Moonlight Motel
OVERMAN wrote:I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.
Image

Posts: 1958
Joined: April 2013
This specific war story is one that doesn't need to be R. And to think that only on screen violence can articulate the horrors of war is a pretty limited view of film language/storytelling. Expect a David Lean-esque war film.

Post Reply