How was the presentation at King of Prussia? Everything go okay with the projector I'm assuming?dormouse7 wrote:I just saw it in 70mm IMAX.
In general I loved the experience, but I found some things confusing, didn't really connect with the characters as much as I hoped, and also wished for more of some parts, so for now I am going with 8.5/10
Some things that confused me...Some things I wanted more ofI loved the intensity of it. I thought the air scenes were perfect - not too much nor too little.And btw - Churchill's speech needed to be at the end because he did not make that speech until the last day of the (British part of the?) evacuation.
Dunkirk Nolan Fans Member Reviews (NFometer)
I don't know if my viewpoint is valid because as a Styles fan, I was often watching Alex in scenes with both Tommy & Alex, but I felt the same way. I feel like Tommy appeared fairly evenly throughout as on edge/wary and a bit lost, but I did not ever get panic from his face.GeniusNolan wrote:[...]
I felt Fionn didn't act well. He had the same expression throughout and the dialogue delivery in certain scenes paled in comparison to Styles. I know he was trying to show fear and how scared he was, but there was something about him that didn't come through for me. That was my only gripe about the movie. [...]
Here's my post about the presentation at King of Prussia.The Taxman wrote: How was the presentation at King of Prussia? Everything go okay with the projector I'm assuming?
http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 0#p1123021
And based on some other peoples' problems with sound, I was say King of Prussia had excellent sound.
Posts: 15
Joined:
July 2012
Watched it last night in IMAX 70mm.
It was Nolan's most experimental film. This was his unique way of presenting a movie, and it was just Amazing!! It is very different compared to other WWII movies, and you cannot compare this to any of his other movies, it's just in a different category.
I have to watch it a few more times before I give it a rating. But this is definitely one of his best work, and it will grow on you the more you watch it.
It was Nolan's most experimental film. This was his unique way of presenting a movie, and it was just Amazing!! It is very different compared to other WWII movies, and you cannot compare this to any of his other movies, it's just in a different category.
I have to watch it a few more times before I give it a rating. But this is definitely one of his best work, and it will grow on you the more you watch it.
Posts: 180
Joined:
March 2013
My entire theatre applauded when we saw Whitecliff in Poole. That's where we are. Immediate 10/10 because of that alone.
Posts: 127
Joined:
May 2014
10/10.
In terms of the formal elements of film, the cinematography, production design, sound design, and editing... these are such orders of magnitude beyond any film that has come out this year.
The innovation in approach to storytelling, the boldness of the vision, and the scale and spectacle demand to be seen in IMAX. The film does not concede to the Hollywood practices that have become agonizingly familiar. It is clear that there are no studio notes interfering with the vision of the film and its execution. My god, there were actual Spitfires in the air. The grandeur of the images, especially in the IMAX theater...
Now, the element that defines DUNKIRK to me as a true masterpiece of cinema, as something that adds do the cinematic canon--the film holds itself to storytelling by visual means. Images chained together to tell a story. That is pure cinema. That is the art form. That is what we are in danger of losing when filmmakers cannot, or will not, put bold images on screen in service of the story. When you see just how far Nolan goes to tell story visually, you realize how deprived we are, how barren the landscape of cinema is.
Given the uniqueness of the subject matter, the absolute brilliance of the filmmaking, and the deft touch of "less is more" with the story, I can only conclude that this is Nolan's best film to date, which by default makes it one of the greatest of all time.
I can state with confidence that it was the best film of the year. With similar assuredness I can say that it is the best film of the decade.
Of the century? More viewings will answer the question.
In terms of the formal elements of film, the cinematography, production design, sound design, and editing... these are such orders of magnitude beyond any film that has come out this year.
The innovation in approach to storytelling, the boldness of the vision, and the scale and spectacle demand to be seen in IMAX. The film does not concede to the Hollywood practices that have become agonizingly familiar. It is clear that there are no studio notes interfering with the vision of the film and its execution. My god, there were actual Spitfires in the air. The grandeur of the images, especially in the IMAX theater...
Now, the element that defines DUNKIRK to me as a true masterpiece of cinema, as something that adds do the cinematic canon--the film holds itself to storytelling by visual means. Images chained together to tell a story. That is pure cinema. That is the art form. That is what we are in danger of losing when filmmakers cannot, or will not, put bold images on screen in service of the story. When you see just how far Nolan goes to tell story visually, you realize how deprived we are, how barren the landscape of cinema is.
Given the uniqueness of the subject matter, the absolute brilliance of the filmmaking, and the deft touch of "less is more" with the story, I can only conclude that this is Nolan's best film to date, which by default makes it one of the greatest of all time.
I can state with confidence that it was the best film of the year. With similar assuredness I can say that it is the best film of the decade.
Of the century? More viewings will answer the question.
Posts: 4
Joined:
July 2017
it's a war movie but it's more of a movie about the expression and the definition of what a point of view is... I think it's great to make that kind of movie nowadays especially in our society where everything is scrutinized thru the prism of one or multiple point of view or perspective.
so if nolan is taking fire from France (and I'm frech myself) it's just non sensical... it's exactly not understanding the meaning and the purpose of the movie multiple pov on a topic and you choose your angle on it. Nolan's angle was the brits evacuation not how the french protected the brits or whatever...
Plus I haven't seen a french war movie recently (except Indigènes) depicting african soldiers during WW2... Nolan did and just for that respect to him. so screw the french false pride.
so if nolan is taking fire from France (and I'm frech myself) it's just non sensical... it's exactly not understanding the meaning and the purpose of the movie multiple pov on a topic and you choose your angle on it. Nolan's angle was the brits evacuation not how the french protected the brits or whatever...
Plus I haven't seen a french war movie recently (except Indigènes) depicting african soldiers during WW2... Nolan did and just for that respect to him. so screw the french false pride.
French have nothing to complain about. For a movie that stayed away from the front lines, Dunkirk still managed to showed what French want to see
a. French doing the work, defending the town (the French soldiers behind the sandbag wall)
b. French getting screwed over by British who abandoned them (or at the very least made the evacuation of French soldiers only a priority after all British they could evacuate were out)
a. French doing the work, defending the town (the French soldiers behind the sandbag wall)
b. French getting screwed over by British who abandoned them (or at the very least made the evacuation of French soldiers only a priority after all British they could evacuate were out)
Posts: 327
Joined:
May 2016
9.5/10 for me. Saw the film in a SOLD OUT IMAX theater - was a bit of a bummer to be honest because we were packed in like sardines and it was a bit too warm, and the biggest disappointment that the occupancy was 366, and there were only THREE cute fangirls in there, and my buddies and I were chagrined at this. Lots of older couples and mostly younger dudes my age, and not exaggerating when I say I've never been in a "sold out" anything where the crowd was as still and quiet as this one. People were riveted. Lots of popcorn and M&M's went uneaten due to the fact you didn't want to look down even once fearing you might miss something.
The standout for me was, Hoyte Van Hoytema, without whom this brilliant picture would have never come together. Honestly I'm still stunned by the cinematography and I can't wait to see it again.
Good things:
Not so good things:
All things being said, it was a brilliant film. I loved the Spitfires and dogfights and I LOVED seeing this in IMAX as the sound was incredible (saw some complaints from others, but the theater I was in was PERFECT). I love the way you could feel the sound in your heartbeat. It was THAT intense and immense. Back for another viewing tomorrow night and I can't wait!!
The standout for me was, Hoyte Van Hoytema, without whom this brilliant picture would have never come together. Honestly I'm still stunned by the cinematography and I can't wait to see it again.
Good things:
Virgo. 8.3
Anyone ever been in a film where you heard so many more whisperings of "Oh shit..." around you than from any other audience?