Film The General Film Thread

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
I've just returned from watching Dunkirk, at Printworks IMAX in Manchester. A proper 70mm film IMAX, not the fake digital ones that have sprung up everywhere.

Nolan knows how to make use of the format. The opening shots on the streets are incredibly immersive and the wide sweeping beach shots are amazing, but it's the spitfire moments that truly show it off. I began to feel a little bit dizzy as the pilots did battle. I loved the "chocks away" language used during the dogfights and I almost shat myself when he engaged the bomber. The end of the film is very emotional.

If you can, find a 70mm full IMAX screen to watch it on. It's a fantastic experience.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
I lived in that cinema for a few years...quite often I was the only one watching the Imax movie...great to see it getting used properly.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
Just watched Dunkirk. Beautiful cinematography, fantastic sound and score. But...

I'm not that sure it was actually a particularly good war movie. The narrative device of having the three main action sequences moving in separate timeframes works when it all comes together, but I'm glad I read about it before I saw the film; it was probably as confusing as fuck if you didn't. And while the air combat sequences were great, they were quite jarring in an otherwise "realistic" film, thanks to Tom Hardy running cheat codes of infinite ammunition and invulnerability. His scenes were pure Michael Bay, especially at the end. Overall the film was more arty Thin Red Line than historic A Bridge Too Far, and I tend to prefer the latter
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Trying to watch King Arthur. Wall to wall mockneys. Painful stuff.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
Just watched Dunkirk. Beautiful cinematography, fantastic sound and score. But...

I'm not that sure it was actually a particularly good war movie. The narrative device of having the three main action sequences moving in separate timeframes works when it all comes together, but I'm glad I read about it before I saw the film; it was probably as confusing as fuck if you didn't. And while the air combat sequences were great, they were quite jarring in an otherwise "realistic" film, thanks to Tom Hardy running cheat codes of infinite ammunition and invulnerability. His scenes were pure Michael Bay, especially at the end. Overall the film was more arty Thin Red Line than historic A Bridge Too Far, and I tend to prefer the latter

Agree. Went to see it with some work guys. General consensus was that the human POV was done very well.

I did feel they did a lot of explaining via random lines of dialogue that felt quite jarring to me and imo they could have left the
shell-shocked guy
out completely.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Agree. Went to see it with some work guys. General consensus was that the human POV was done very well.

I did feel they did a lot of explaining via random lines of dialogue that felt quite jarring to me and imo they could have left the
shell-shocked guy
out completely.

The shell shocked guy is important. The only character whose name I recall was directly affected by that guy, and he's the only one who's remembered at the end of the film. That's because the film is about conveying the general emotions felt during the event - not the event itself, or the people in it.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
The shell shocked guy is important. The only character whose name I recall was directly affected by that guy, and he's the only one who's remembered at the end of the film. That's because the film is about conveying the general emotions felt during the event - not the event itself, or the people in it.

I see what you're saying and to an extent I agree. I just personally feel that they could have replaced him by the Moonstone having to sail through, for example, a whole bunch of floating bodies and having events unfold in a different way.

That aside, I do feel he was played very well. His disconnectedness, passivity and childlike reasoning seems to me to be in line with someone extremely shocked or shell-shocked, as Mr Dawson indeed explains he is. I've never met a shell-shocked person though, so I could be wrong.
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
Have a local independent cinema, great for a cheap night out £2.50 for weekday tickets (£3.50 for weekend), going to see Valerian
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
I want to see Valerian too .The visuals will be amazeballs. Besson never fails on that.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
Trying to watch King Arthur. Wall to wall mockneys. Painful stuff.

Just watched it. As long as you simply mentally bleep out all the names and regard it as a generic fantasy movie, its fine.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
Saw Dunkirk. Liked it. Loud. Tense. Stressful. Maybe a touch long.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Wow that new Mummy film was an epic level of utter shit wasn't it!
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Watching Covenant...what kind a fucking crap is this...cabin in the woods..is this the proper film?
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
TBH, I'm not sure, did they make some chessefest space drama based on Patrick Swayzee's Ghost, cos that's what I'm watching, she's sharing her grief with David the robot, who seems to have aged 20 years since the last movie.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom