Vader182 wrote:

RIFA wrote:Weird coming from you given your lack of consistency. That's a good judgment but I wish you'd apply that reasoning for all movies.

what

-Vader

What what? You're very selective with your reasoning sometimes. Resulting in weird and inconsistent views.

Fourth viewing (Imax) this time with a regular audiences. Sold out screening. Clapping at the end. More clapping for Tom Hardy

Change my rating to 10/10. This movie is perennial.

Went with three friends and they loved it.

RIFA wrote:

Vader182 wrote:

RIFA wrote:Weird coming from you given your lack of consistency. That's a good judgment but I wish you'd apply that reasoning for all movies.

what

-Vader

What what? You're very selective with your reasoning sometimes. Resulting in weird and inconsistent views.

nope


-Vader

I agree with Cobb on the last shot. Where is he even looking? The momentum from that previous iconic shot is completely interrupted, such a weird choice. I mean sure you can sort of defend it as...
...but I don't like it after two viewings. It lasts for a couple of seconds and his expression is vague to comit to either theory fully.

Dogfights in this film are like watching a death ballet in the sky. Perfection.

It's of ambiguous complementation, which doubles (for the audience) as a dramatic exhale. The second to final image is too abstract as the final image of the movie.


-Vader

How is it abstract if it literally has narration stamped all over it, to amplify the cost and the sacrifice.

very?


-Vader

Is that your answer? I repeat: how is it visually ambiguous if the painter decided to write the irony right under the picture? Sure, the final shot might serve as protagonist, or me, the observer, contemplating on the fact, but it's a) way too short b) probably not the best take from the kid and c) ambiguous on itself since he's not focused on anything in particular, he just switches from one pov to another. In a way it reminds me of the laziness in TDKR, going from Caine's perfect delivery to Bale's 'here I am hanging out on the EW set with Anne Hathaway and, oh look the camera, smile/nod...' THE END.

It's not a big deal but I'd still like to hear his reasoning behind that particular take, the shortness of it, and therefore the lack of impact and point is pretty obvious.

Interstellar was weird like that in the finale as well. We're supposed to be completely elevated by the endless possibilities of human race, it is fantastically complimented by Zimmer, but we are watching miss Hathaway, who is crying, totally unaware of the fact that all is well on Earth, and beyond. Two contexts not matching.

m4st4, I've pointed to this before when there are conversations about the ending shot in Dunkirk, but I'm curious as to your thoughts...

Have you seen Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2? If so, do you like what they did with the very ending shot of that film, instead of ending on the shot before that one?

MuffinMcFluffin wrote:m4st4, I've pointed to this before when there are conversations about the ending shot in Dunkirk, but I'm curious as to your thoughts...

Have you seen Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2? If so, do you like what they did with the very ending shot of that film, instead of ending on the shot before that one?

I'm quite a big fan of that last shot actually, but the focus there is pretty clearly executed: MJ first says 'go get them Tiger' (she accepts her role as his partner in life, finally), we get an epic hero montage, only to go back to her worried face; we know at that point it's not going to be easy for either of them and it's what makes them human.

Going back to Dunkirk, in my opinion the execution is Nolan's biggest fault, not the intention per se. And I see it as a repeated mistake. Like, why wouldn't you finish with McC going for the stars? But no, he has to mess it up a bit. TDK is his best final shot, Inception right beside it.