Every single character was in service of a grander narrative... except Harry Styles, he was Nolan's Heath Ledger in this role, possibly even better than The Joker himself.
Harry Styles joins the cast of 'Dunkirk'
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
No where close to Ledger's performance.
m4st4 wrote:Every single character was in service of a grander narrative... except Harry Styles, he was Nolan's Heath Ledger in this role, possibly even better than The Joker himself.
Harry was amazing and you know I adore him but no way did he out perform Heath! His Joker was unbelievable.Not to say he couldn't eventually get on that level, only time will tell. He's made an impressive start, for sure...
lmao watm4st4 wrote:Every single character was in service of a grander narrative... except Harry Styles, he was Nolan's Heath Ledger in this role, possibly even better than The Joker himself.
I would assume that's sarcasm.
Posts: 25
Joined:
July 2017
I thought he was good in this movie but find it really difficult to believe that he'd be singled out among the young cast if anyone else had done that same exact performance. Swap him with any of the other roles, and the praise would be equally ravenous. As someone who was very aware of his celebrity, although not young enough to be in the 1D fanbase demographic, I found his presence distracting though not overly so. I would just respond to him as a celebrity instead of a character. "Oh, Harry Styles is taller than I was expecting" "Harry Styles pulls off dramatic yelling pretty well!" were the kind of thoughts that went through my head.
Shady1 is that you?
Posts: 37
Joined:
July 2017
I like the fact that I'm a fan of Harry for more than 2 years and I didn't see Harry in the movie. I saw the character. Alex. And Alex is not Harry at all. They have nothing in common. It was so easy to me. And I'm happy that he did a good job in the movie because I was skeptical.
IMO, Harry gets extra mentions because
1. He is really famous. Similarly Tom Hardy often gets more mentions than most of the others. In addition, quite a bit of the Harry-centric publicity in print/tv/radio might not have not existed except for Harry. I am talking US hot-celeb type coverage like EW, Extra, Insider, and music magazine/pop radio coverage and fashion magazine coverage. For many of those there could have been zero coverage for Dunkirk w/o Harry.
2. He had one of the more dynamic characters, the most dynamic of the main ground cast.
3. People were mouthing off about Harry for a year before the film opened, and not in a good way. e.g. "I don't want a stinking boy band member in my Nolan/war movie", "Why didn't they cast a real actor","I don't want fangirls screaming in my war movie", "I bet they only cast him for publicity", "But can he act?" and all the other bs. IMO he deserves some good mentions after all of that crap. Plus LOTS of people were curious how he would do in his role. He did well and many articles note that.
1. He is really famous. Similarly Tom Hardy often gets more mentions than most of the others. In addition, quite a bit of the Harry-centric publicity in print/tv/radio might not have not existed except for Harry. I am talking US hot-celeb type coverage like EW, Extra, Insider, and music magazine/pop radio coverage and fashion magazine coverage. For many of those there could have been zero coverage for Dunkirk w/o Harry.
2. He had one of the more dynamic characters, the most dynamic of the main ground cast.
3. People were mouthing off about Harry for a year before the film opened, and not in a good way. e.g. "I don't want a stinking boy band member in my Nolan/war movie", "Why didn't they cast a real actor","I don't want fangirls screaming in my war movie", "I bet they only cast him for publicity", "But can he act?" and all the other bs. IMO he deserves some good mentions after all of that crap. Plus LOTS of people were curious how he would do in his role. He did well and many articles note that.
Last edited by dormouse7 on July 29th, 2017, 5:22 pm, edited 7 times in total.
