Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Effects

eviltimeban wrote: »

Looks like Harry Styles has more than just a bit part.

Or else they just threw him into the trailer in a few places to make sure he was noticed a lot.

Jan_de_Bakker

I don't even regognise the guy, and ill keep it that way ..

Jan_de_Bakker

beardo81 wrote: »

Disappointing trailer, normally Nolan trailers have me salivating for the movie. Just didn't draw me in or have that emotional kick he normally delivers.
Reading too much into the trailer?

I thought the opposite, I think it's one of the finest of his films trailers, I was skeptical to see how Nolan would deal with a historical true story type film, but this has me dying for it!

7 months

eviltimeban

humanji wrote: »

Am I the only one that can't help looking for the sci-fi angle? I kept thinking with the ticking during the start of the trailer and Cillian Murphy's dialogue about going back, that it sounded a bit timetravel-like.

Things just got interesting.

my3cents

Everything in the trailer looked too clean and sterile, OK so you can't expect them to copy 1940's dentistry but at least add some dirt so the soldiers look they have been in a fight.

TheDoc

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Jan_de_Bakker

TheDoc wrote: »

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Yeah it's Tom Hardy

my3cents

TheDoc wrote: »

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Dunkirk (1958) John Mills, Richard Attenbourgh,.....

Falthyron

Any UK or US users here who have seen the Dunkirk Prologue in an IMAX screen? Would be curious to hear your thoughts on it...

Heckler

my3cents wrote: »

Everything in the trailer looked too clean and sterile, OK so you can't expect them to copy 1940's dentistry but at least add some dirt so the soldiers look they have been in a fight.

Agreed. All looks too polished. I've seen grittier looking WW2 reenactment documentaries.

A pity because its an important and interesting story.

I'll still go see it because I think it'll be good in the cinema but Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down have set a high standard in war movies that I don't think has been matched since. (in terms of war depiction that is. Not talking about story, script etc).

And I'm talking about populist, Hollywood blockbuster war movies before someone shouts whatabout "Come and See" etc at me.

eviltimeban

Heckler wrote: »

Agreed. All looks too polished. I've seen grittier looking WW2 reenactment documentaries.

It's because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, IT'S AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.

Or something else Christopher Nolan-y.

pljudge321

Falthyron wrote: »

Any UK or US users here who have seen the Dunkirk Prologue in an IMAX screen? Would be curious to hear your thoughts on it...

Its much, much better than the just released trailer (which I found quite boring). Its also quite long, probably approaching four or five minutes and is made of three interspersed scenes (one on land, one at sea, one in the air). All the while the main theme slowly builds and builds till its at heart pumping level. Much more excited about the film after seeing it.

Sad Professor

Reactions to footage screened at CinemaCon are extremely positive. I'm guessing a trailer isn't far off.

It's also been confirmed that the film is rated PG-13.

bnt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz-jWYc9uC4

I just read that Nolan won't be taking Dunkirk to Cannes.

Mr E

New trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmgiys2n1o

Harry Palmr

Teaser trailers should be banned by law! They just end up trivialising everything.

"Where's the bloody air-force!?"

/cut to Spitfires in formation :pac:

Terrible stuff even though the actual content looks solid and well made.

pixelburp

It's remarkable how tangible and solid everything looks: I'm sure Nolan uses CGI to tidy around the edges - no doubt to bump up any crowd shots to that 400,000 figure - but his commitment to at least starting with physical props, stunt pilots, miniatures and a sheer mass of extras just adds that extra layer of polish and scale, even on a short 2 minute trailer. It all looks very real, and probably because it is. He & George Miller seem like a dying breed of Hollywood filmmaker

On the subject of the film: if I recall my history correctly (and open to correction!), the French forces had no idea Dunkirk was a total evacuation; many French soldiers were acting as the rearguard protecting the retreating British troops, and their government expected London to recommit forces to keep fighting in France. I believe Churchill had decided to let France fall. Always thought it put an interesting & darker twist on what is generally seen in Britain as a noble, triumph-in-the-face-of-defeat sort of story.

Beviamo latte

pixelburp wrote: »

It's remarkable how tangible and solid everything looks: I'm sure Nolan uses CGI to tidy around the edges - no doubt to bump up any crowd shots to that 400,000 figure - but his commitment to at least starting with physical props, stunt pilots, miniatures and a sheer mass of extras just adds that extra layer of polish and scale, even on a short 2 minute trailer. It all looks very real, and probably because it is. He & George Miller seem like a dying breed of Hollywood filmmaker

On the subject of the film: if I recall my history correctly (and open to correction!), the French forces had no idea Dunkirk was a total evacuation; many French soldiers were acting as the rearguard protecting the retreating British troops, and their government expected London to recommit forces to keep fighting in France. I believe Churchill had decided to let France fall. Always thought it put an interesting & darker twist on what is generally seen in Britain as a noble, triumph-in-the-face-of-defeat sort of story.

They had no other choice but to evacuate, their forces were no match for the power of the Wehrmacht, they would have been annihalted, it was the right decision.

Agent Coulson

Is the young lad on the boat at the start the cat killer from Love/Hate?


Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

Sad Professor

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Is the young lad on the boat at the start the cat killer from Love/Hate?


Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

Barry Keoghan? I haven't watched Love-Hate, but he's been in a lot of Irish films lately. Good actor, though typecast in Irish movies. This will hopefully be a stepping stone to bigger and better things for him.

I think the cleanness is to expected given that it's PG-13. But Nolan says it's not a war film and doesn't focus on bloody combat.

Snake Plisken

Not really sure about this, the trailers look technically impressive as you would expect from Nolan but I'm not as exicited about this as I was about Nolan's last six releases.

Dots1982

Someone in that trailer is getting a call from Ralph fiennes wanting his face back

dark crystal

Dots1982 wrote: »

Someone in that trailer is getting a call from Ralph fiennes wanting his face back

Lol, I had to rewind and watch it back to make sure it wasn't Ralph Fiennes digitally enhanced to look younger!

Who is that actor??

Sad Professor

You mean James D'Arcy? I never noticed it before but I guess he does look a bit like Fiennes.

CatInABox

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

I liked it. I think it's going to look amazing in IMAX. It does look clean, but personally I like it. I actually dislike the way that WW2 movies have a "film grain" added to it to make it look like an "old WW2 movie", those old films looked like that because that's the best that the technology could do back then.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Is the young lad on the boat at the start the cat killer from Love/Hate?


Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

Yep, that is Wayne the Cat Killer himself. Or Barry Keoghan as he goes by when he's not hanging around the towers.

Hector Savage

https://www.facebook.com/phenomena.experience/photos/a.118675458191530.16066.117296704996072/1478850088840720/?type=3&theater

Nolan was in Barcelona last night for a press screening apparently ..

johnny_ultimate

Oh wow, IFI screening in 70mm from release day. Result!

Snake Plisken

Any reviews in yet?

Sad Professor

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Any reviews in yet?

No, a bit early for that. I doubt there's even been any press screenings yet. Premiere is the 19th I think? Any reviews will be embargoed until the start of that week at the earliest.

errlloyd

I've never actually been to the IFI, someone told me once that the leg room was a little tight and I'm tall with crappy knees so I've been put off. But I never actually checked that one piece of feedback. So IFI, worth the pain for this?

ricero

Early reviews on twitter are very positive. Embargo lifts on friday for the proper press reviews

Sad Professor

errlloyd wrote: »

I've never actually been to the IFI, someone told me once that the leg room was a little tight and I'm tall with crappy knees so I've been put off. But I never actually checked that one piece of feedback. So IFI, worth the pain for this?

It's not as bad as Screen 2, but leg room in Screen 1 isn't great either. However, if I sit straight it's not too bad (I'm 6 ft). I generally avoid long films there, but Dunkirk is pretty short so should be okay.

GavRedKing

If the run time is to be believed, 1hr 50m, it must be Nolans shortest film to date.

DaniilKharms

GavRedKing wrote: »

If the run time is to be believed, 1hr 50m, it must be Nolans shortest film to date.

Maybe that doesn't include the intermission and the second half?

charlie_says

It's showing on Sunday in Galway Film festival, in 35mm but in the Town Hall Theater which is NOT a proper cinema. It's better than it was in the past though.

Sold out though.

Cina

ricero wrote: »

Early reviews on twitter are very positive. Embargo lifts on friday for the proper press reviews

Meh, Nolan fanboys will always fawn over his work, I wouldn't trust them.

I can't really take a PG-13/12A war movie seriously though, how is it supposed to in any way capture the horrors? Feels like a total cop-out by Nolan.

Sad Professor

Cina wrote: »

Meh, Nolan fanboys will always fawn over his work, I wouldn't trust them.

I can't really take a PG-13/12A war movie seriously though, how is it supposed to in any way capture the horrors? Feels like a total cop-out by Nolan.

I had this same issue but Nolan says it's not a war movie and it doesn't focus on bloody combat. It's more of suspense/survival movie.

Hector Savage

Sad Professor wrote: »

I had this same issue but Nolan says it's not a war movie and it doesn't focus on bloody combat. It's more of suspense/survival movie.

Yep, and Nolan doesn't really do violence anyway.

Falthyron

Cina wrote: »

Meh, Nolan fanboys will always fawn over his work, I wouldn't trust them.

I can't really take a PG-13/12A war movie seriously though, how is it supposed to in any way capture the horrors? Feels like a total cop-out by Nolan.

Read up about what happened at Dunkirk and you will see that very little combat actually takes place.

flangemeistro

The whole Nolan-Murphy-Hardy love in is getting a bit off putting for me.

Almost as bad as Burton-Depp-Bonham Carter thing.

Oh and Harry Styles FFS. Really cynical cashing in casting.

errlloyd

flangemeistro wrote: »

The whole Nolan-Murphy-Hardy love in is getting a bit off putting for me.

Almost as bad as Burton-Depp-Bonham Carter thing.

Oh and Harry Styles FFS. Really cynical cashing in casting.

Cillian Murphy been in 4 Christopher Nolan films. Quite extensively in 1 of them (Batman begins) and hardly at all in the other three.

Tom Hardy is only in two Christopher Nolan films, and his part barely overlapped with Murphy's at all.

So in summary. Wut?

Looper007

flangemeistro wrote: »

The whole Nolan-Murphy-Hardy love in is getting a bit off putting for me.

Almost as bad as Burton-Depp-Bonham Carter thing.

Oh and Harry Styles FFS. Really cynical cashing in casting.

Come on Murphy and Hardy haven't been the leads in his film. Both are fantastic actors as well, why complain. Plus the reviews have said Styles is very good, Nolan doesn't do cynical cash in.

pixelburp

Nolan says he didn't realise Styles was already famous when he was cast:

http://www.avclub.com/article/christopher-nolan-didnt-realize-harry-styles-was-f-257848

Honestly, given it's supposedly a very minor role in what appears to be an ensemble film, it feels a bit silly to blow it all out of proportion; but it is the internet after all

Ben Gadot

Looper007 wrote: »

Come on Murphy and Hardy haven't been the leads in his film. Both are fantastic actors as well, why complain. Plus the reviews have said Styles is very good, Nolan doesn't do cynical cash in.

I'd say it's a combination of both. Nolan would never do a Coppola and miscast Keanu Reeves in a role ill suited to him, but it was still undoubtedly clever casting. Nolan probably saw the best of both worlds in Styles: will appeal big time to a demograph but also has the talent to carry the role.

The funny thing is that Styles hasn't even been focused on that much in official releases. Most consisted of unofficial set photos, and I believe he only got his first line in the latest trailer released.

People will complain either way about Nolan anyway.

Snake Plisken

Cina wrote: »

Meh, Nolan fanboys will always fawn over his work, I wouldn't trust them.

I can't really take a PG-13/12A war movie seriously though, how is it supposed to in any way capture the horrors? Feels like a total cop-out by Nolan.

Meh the Nolan haters are out early even though none of them have seen the movie yet!

Hector Savage

Who is Harry Styles ?
I'm glad I don't know.

silverharp

I can't really take a PG-13/12A war movie seriously though, how is it supposed to in any way capture the horrors? Feels like a total cop-out by Nolan.

gore in ww2 movies has been done to death, how many heads do you need to see decapitated by a shell?, it wouldn't be an issue that its PG13, also the essence of the Dunkirk debacle was the confusion and the troops trying to duck and dive to get to the coast in one piece.

Bacchus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Who is Harry Styles ?
I'm glad I don't know.

How are you glad you don't know who someone is if you don't know who they are to know that you would be glad you didn't know who they are?

Catcher7791

CatInABox wrote: »

I liked it. I think it's going to look amazing in IMAX. It does look clean, but personally I like it. I actually dislike the way that WW2 movies have a "film grain" added to it to make it look like an "old WW2 movie", those old films looked like that because that's the best that the technology could do back then.

It probably will, but there isn't a real IMAX screen in Ireland. The one in Cineworld is Digital Imax, which is a very different and inferior thing. The best way to see it here will be 70mm in the IFI.