overvaluing """""story'"""" and """"""plot""""" is cancer


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:overvaluing """""story'"""" and """"""plot""""" is cancer


-Vader

You misunderstood my post, then. Try and read it again.

And off-topic from my post, no it is not. If it weren't for story and plot, I wouldn't be a fan of Nolan's to begin with. I'm not saying all films need it (see Dunkirk), but it should be the exception and not the rule.

Once again, it is his least complete film from a story/plot perspective. I never once took away the value of your precious film. I was just saying of all great adjectives I'd use to describe the film, "complete" is ironically one of the last ones I would use.

When can we expect your review, Vader?

Anytime soon I hope. You have seen it four times already.

...movies (and the arts in general) are more than a list of checkboxes.

And you'll get something from me by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:...movies (and the arts in general) are more than a list of checkboxes.

You're still misunderstanding my post. Obviously I didn't make my point complete enough.

See what I did there? I just played on that term that was being used. My point, in my opinion, was sufficient enough by my first post. You, however, undervalued it because it wasn't substantial enough for you to grasp. I don't feel that way with Dunkirk. I find its value just fine.

If you can entertain me for a moment, why don't you then rank all of Nolan's films from most complete to least, with your definition on that word, hmm?

MuffinMcFluffin wrote:

cooldude wrote:I wish I had the free time to see it again on IMAX 1570 as it was one the most incredible cinematic experience of my life. As of now, my rating is a solid 9. The realism of the sounds of war was beyond horrifying. Probably Nolan's most complete film.

Hmm, strange. I thought that adjective least describes this film from a story/plot perspective alone.

If you're describing something different than I am when using that word, then I understand. Otherwise, I feel it's his least complete film since Doodlebug.

It sure sounds like it based on your last couple of comments. I’m not looking at the film from any single perspective but rather on a whole cinematic experience as Nolan intended it to be.

As for the story, I thought Dunkirk was perfectly told. The minimal dialogue and structure felt appropriate and made it more unique that a war film was being tackled in such a way. Nolan decision to write the characters with no backstories made sense to me. In the essence of the chaotic nature war one doesn’t have time to dwell over the personal matters of others. As an audience member, I felt empathy for the soldiers because I felt their situation not because I knew them as individuals. I think, that was the point Nolan was trying to convey. It’s about the in the moment experience of war rather than a (typically) 3 hour long epic tale about war.

This film is now officially my new TOP 20 entry after 2nd viewing, first after Mad Max: Fury Road.

Vader182 wrote:...movies (and the arts in general) are more than a list of checkboxes.

-Vader

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.

Ok after watching it a second time, I have give it a more solid review.

This film is definitely Nolan's best edited film (so far). Lee Smith and Nolan together have produced what I believe to be the pinnacle of Nolan's trademark. This is it, in the most pure simple form. The triptych timelines converging together into one moment harks back to the glory of Memento.

Hoyte's does well with the advancements made with Interstellar and here they are refined, giving us riveting aerial exchanges, claustrophobia and life within the dull landscapes, its hyper realism of a grim reality. However, I was not blown away by the imagery and I feel that this is one thing that I see lacking from Nolan's recent films. I was expecting a much more expressive compositions.

Tom Hardy has the most expressive eyes and his head mannerisms are something that absolutely makes this film.

To conclude this is a filmmakers film. While there isn't much story, character, dialogue to go by, there are stakes and you are in the thick of it from the get go. This film is a great exercise of Nolan's directing ability. It's cinema in the 'simple but not easy' form.

Criticisms 8/10

RIFA wrote:

Vader182 wrote:...movies (and the arts in general) are more than a list of checkboxes.

-Vader

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