Dunkirk

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
3,052
35
48
Marina del Rey, CA
#21
IMAX 70 is good, but supposedly laser projection IMAX to is better. Availability of regular IMX and laser projection IMAX theaters can be found here. (Sadly none in NY or NJ)

http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/19/dunkirk-imax-70-mm-where-to-see/

"Some theaters are also showing the movie in IMAX with laser projection. This means a laser light force is used instead of a standard lamp, which broadens the color palette (blacks look darker, for instance), amplifies contrast for highlights and shadows, and brightens the image."

(Steve, only place in CA is Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood where I saw Star Wars in 1977 two weeks after it opened and literally fell out of my seat with the opening scene.. I'll never ever forget it.)
but Imax Laser is digital 1.43, not film.
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
0
36
#22
I personally haven't enjoyed a Christopher Nolan film since The Prestige.

I found The Dark Knight to be devoid of real stakes (curiously empty streets, curiously empty tunnels - isn't Gotham city supposed to be a thriving metropolis?), devoid of any tension (which Zimmer tries to make up for in bombast), and devoid of thematic and narrative development (Heath Ledger was fantastic though). Likewise, I found Inception to be completely unemotionally engaging despite the premise of spousal grief and parental regret, thematically confused (who knew a film about the subconscious would be so literal in its depictions), any sense of story-craft undone by the constant exposition of its characters (that is, after all, the whole reason Ellen Page's character exists I'm guessing), and an empty climax in which I cared not a whit for Leonardo DiCapro's character's future, despite having sat through 148 minutes of his story. And the film that was supposed to be about parental connection and sacrifice, Interstellar, turned out to be mawkish, overly sentimental and downright embarrassing in its narrative contrivance (a cosmic bookcase, really?) in using theoretical physics and a black hole to allow a father to tell his daughter he loves her. Let's not even talk about The Dark Knight Rises.

That Nolan is unquestionably a filmmaker who understands the power of the frame and its ability to convey spectacle is a given. That his characters are undeveloped and his stories rely on self-reflexive contrivances unfortunately hasn't encouraged me to buy a ticket. That the reviews are off the chain suggests either that this is the best movie of the year so far, that I'm very much out of step with contemporary cinema, or both. I mean, I liked Personal Shopper, so what would I know?

As an aside, my favourite war films are (in no particular order):

The Thin Red Line
Inglorious Basterds
Apocalypse Now
Dr. Strangelove
Downfall
The Pianist
Jarhead
The Hurt Locker
Three Kings
Restrepo*
Standard Operating Procedure*



Best,

853guy

*Documentary
 
Last edited:

BruceD

VIP/Donor
Dec 13, 2013
908
3
18
#23
I personally haven't enjoyed a Christopher Nolan film since The Prestige.


As an aside, my favourite war films are (in no particular order):

The Thin Red Line
Inglorious Basterds
Apocalypse Now
Dr. Strangelove
Downfall
The Pianist
Jarhead
The Hurt Locker
Three Kings
Restrepo*
Standard Operating Procedure*



Best,

853guy

*Documentary
Don't forget

Paths of Glory
All Quiet on the Western Front
Saving Private Ryan
Cross of Iron
Battle of Algiers
Stalingrad
From Here to Eternity
Alexander Nevsky
Das Boot
A Walk in the Sun


Good to see you included Downfall!

BruceD
 
Last edited:

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
#24
Don't forget

Paths of Glory
All Quiet on the Western Front
Saving Private Ryan
Cross of Iron
Battle of Algiers
Stalingrad
From Here to Eternity
Alexander Nevsky
Das Boot
A Place in the Sun


Good to see you included Downfall!

BruceD
Great choice from both of you. I was surprised 853Guy omitted Saving Privste Ryan
 

jazdoc

Member Sponsor
Aug 7, 2010
2,629
2
38
Bellevue
#25
Don't forget the other great film about Dunkirk "Mrs. Miniver" which won the Academy Award for best picture in 1942. The final shot is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time.

 

asiufy

Member Sponsor
Jul 8, 2011
2,770
23
38
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
#26
I'll be the dissenting voice. I want my 2 hours (and $20) back! What a waste of time...
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
0
36
#27
Great choice from both of you. I was surprised 853Guy omitted Saving Privste Ryan
Hi Steve,

I really like Saving Private Ryan, but it just didn't burn itself into my psyche like many of the others did.

Aside from the first fifteen minutes of visceral action, the rest of the film told me nothing about the way war shapes men and men shape war. From my perspective, the 'find the kid brother' premise could have been equally and validly effective had the context for the story been the vikings, ancient Egypt or 80's NYC. In that sense, as a "war film", the war itself feels incidental to the plot when compared to some of the above. I thought Munich superior in every way, and probably the one film of Spielberg's that dealt with history in a compelling way.

Be well!

853guy

jazdoc said:
Don't forget the other great film about Dunkirk "Mrs. Miniver" which won the Academy Award for best picture in 1942. The final shot is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time.
Thanks jazdoc, wasn't aware of it. Will try and track it down.

Cheers,

853guy
 
Last edited:

WLVCA

Member Sponsor
Nov 2, 2012
1,694
0
36
Tucson
#28
We went to see Dunkirk today and enjoyed the movie - thought it was well done.

After reading some reviews, a few were critical of the "parallel story technique." Apparently this is something Nolan does in many of his movies. To me he seemed to pull it off in this movie.

I wouldn't call it the greatest war movie I have ever seen but I did think it was a very good movie. I was anticipating an intense film based on the previews and it was. For my taste, I was thankful that it wasn't as bloody as it might have been. But that's me.

Certainly was glad there was a good movie to see as there haven't been too many this summer.
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,988
25
48
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
#29
What I would like to know is this: Are women going to like it too?
I know, it's not 'Wonder Woman' (2017), but many here said there is not much blood and violence and guts flying all over (almost nil). ...So, I just wonder.

You guy's wives, what did they say?
 

marty

Active Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,142
22
38
Far Hills, NJ
#33
The original list posted for IMAX theaters showing Dunkirk may not be accurate. Additional theaters are apparently being added. We're seeing it in IMAX fairly close by in NJ later today.
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,988
25
48
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
#34
Speaking of IMAX: Christopher Nolan is not into 3D, only 2D. 'Dunkirk' is in 2D evidently, and so are all his other previous films...'Interstellar' and 'The Dark Knight' trilogy. And IMAX is losing money in 3D, so they'll be showing more 2D films from now on.
https://www.themarysue.com/imax-3d-phase-out/

https://qz.com/1039936/imax-says-no-too-the-reign-of-3d-movies-is-over-in-us-cinemas/
_____

It's too bad because I am into 3D, and few more. It will bounce back, it always does, and James Cameron ('Avatar' sequels) is not dead yet.

But yeah it's funny that a film like 'Dunkirk' filmed in 2D by Christopher Nolan (by the way, he is not into Dolby Atmos either, not even 7.1-channel; he's more a stereo guy, or 3 or 5 channels maximum...all his films are of the 5.1-channel variety and with the main emphasis on the front stage...front stereo, and center for dialog), is the subject to kill 3D just a little more and more. His influence and opinion count, and so is James Cameron and few other cinema maestros.

But @ the end of the line it's the public's money that speaks the loudest and gives the trends. It's not the fine arts, it's the mass appeal.
The best is not always the direction chosen by the masses. Only the true connoisseurs pick the best. That's why there are so few of us in the world of true arts. :b

Anyhow...related to 'Dunkirk' with its golden weight.
 

marty

Active Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,142
22
38
Far Hills, NJ
#37
I’m sorry to say that Dunkirk was one of the worst movie experiences in recent memory. To begin, I thought the movie was terrible. I read several reviews which gave it good scores, but I just can’t understand why. One review said, it’s not really a war movie. Oh really? In the first minute alone, 6 soldiers are shot and that was just the beginning of the massacre. There are plenty of dead bodies and enough gunfire and dropped bombs that nobody could possibly mistake this for a family outing at the county fair. This is hardly a spoiler alert as everyone knows the story- Churchill rescued 335,000 soldiers stranded on Dunkirk beach. But they weren’t rescued by large ships or destroyers. Rather they were were rescued by a fleet of small fishing boats manned by non-military townfolk who crossed the channel from jolly old England. But the movie’s signature moment showing the arrival of boats defied all common sense. What we saw was perhaps 30 small fishing boats, and hardly the armada of boats that would have been necessary to rescue 335,000 men. This was so blatantly stupid, the move would have been more aptly titled “Dumbkirk”. The only reason this movie could possibly be nominated for best picture this year is because far better movies such as “Throw mamma from the train” are no longer eligible, so they have to pick something. The 3 story lines are hardly related except for time and place and the dialog was virtually non-existent. Even worse, whatever dialog was there was often unintelligible due to the worst sound system I have ever heard at a movie, let alone an IMAX. The explosions, gunfire and background music with pounding subwoofer intensity was so loud that whenever someone spoke, my wife and I turned to each other asking “what did he say”?

Naturally I took out my trusty iPhone app “analyzer” and captured this sample.

IMG_1242.jpg

Can you believe that a professional actually allowed this sort of crap to occur? The 30 dB peak centered at 50 Hz was unbearable. Keep in mind the iPhone mic rolls off the bottom end. Believe me, there was no shortage of 20Hz information. At the end of the movie, which was bad enough on substance alone, I felt that I had just gone 10 rounds with a subwoofer and the subwoofer won in a unanimous decision. I’m so sorry we wasted our time on this piece of crap. The running time was 106 minutes but it felt like 3 hours. We couldn’t wait to run out of the theater to breath. Upon leaving, I tracked down the theater manager to tell him how unhappy I was about the sonic assault to my brain, His comment? “Oh yeah, we have been getting that a lot. In fact IMAX just sent us a chip to turn the sound down”. I asked, “do you mean it was originally louder than what we just heard?” Maybe that’s why I saw an ambulance stationed outside the theater when I left.

BTW, most IMAX theaters showing Dunkirk are NOT using 70mm film with 2.20:1 but rather a digital projection with 1.85:1 such as the one I saw last night. A good explanation of this can be found here:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/...iner-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket
 
Last edited:

DaveyF

Active Member
Aug 1, 2010
5,757
19
38
La Jolla, Calif USA
#38
Interesting post Marty. Could it be that the particular movie theater that you watched this movie in was at fault regarding the SQ...and not so much the movie soundtrack. IOW, the movie theater's sound system and set-up was crap and you happened to experience why.
 

asiufy

Member Sponsor
Jul 8, 2011
2,770
23
38
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
#39
No, I saw the movie in IMAX here in San Diego, and it was exactly as Marty described. I thought I couldn't make out some of the dialogue because hey, I'm not a native speaker, but yeah it does seem the EQing is totally off.

From the first minute, it was a sonic assault, and not a pleasant one. The gun shot sound was piercing, and extremely annoying as well.

And the icing on the cake was the stupid notion that a handful of fishing boats rescued almost 400k people. Suuure...

This "film" is more like a mock-documentary, and not even a good one at that.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
#40
No, I saw the movie in IMAX here in San Diego, and it was exactly as Marty described. I thought I couldn't make out some of the dialogue because hey, I'm not a native speaker, but yeah it does seem the EQing is totally off.

From the first minute, it was a sonic assault, and not a pleasant one. The gun shot sound was piercing, and extremely annoying as well.

And the icing on the cake was the stupid notion that a handful of fishing boats rescued almost 400k people. Suuure...

This "film" is more like a mock-documentary, and not even a good one at that.
Actually if you recall the movie they did NOT rescue 330,000 troops but rather the British troops. Ewan McGregor if you recall said he was going to stay for the rest of the evacuation and the evacuation of the French troops

It seems that 70 mm Imax is a dud. We saw it on a regular screen and had no problems with the dialogue.

I still can't consider this a true war story. There was war and mayhem all around but I looked at the film more as an evacuation. Interesting that the 2 people who were naysayers here both saw the film on 70 mm iMax so there must be a relation there.

I thought the film was very engaging but not enough for me to say this was the movie of the year nor Nolan the Director of the year.
 

About us

  • Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing