info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review: Dunkirk (2017)
116 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Leeper
Jul 23, 2017, 3:28:52 PM7/23/17
to
DUNKIRK
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
WWII. Usually films about World War II engagements are about major
victories like MIDWAY or occasionally defeats like TORA! TORA!
TORA!. DUNKIRK is a film about a retreat. Was it glorious? Well,
it was after the Brits had disastrously bitten off more than they
could chew in Europe and could not get the support they needed to
protect them as they backed off. They were lined up on the beach
at Dunkirk where they could be picked off like clay pigeons in a
shooting gallery. They were staring across the English Channel
from Dunkirk to Britain, nearly defenseless. They waited
skittishly to be evacuated, but no rescue appeared to be
forthcoming. The eventual rescue was not the stuff of great
victory and glory. In fact why it was not a horrendous defeat is a
question still hotly debated today.
What did happen was that the British military mobilized ships to
pick up the waiting soldiers and effect a rescue. But what made
the operation particularly memorable is the large number of
civilian volunteers who took private boats and crossed the channel
themselves at risk to their lives as they rescued the waiting
British troops. The small boats were in deadly danger from the
Luftwaffe patrolling the skies above. The battle began May 26,
1940, and finally ended on June 4, with about 198,000 British and
140,000 French and Belgian troops being evacuated from Dunkirk.
Readers may remember the Dunkirk beach scenes recreated for the
film ATONMENT (2007).
Was the rescue glorious? To a great extent it was certainly
heroic. The film documents an expedient retreat. There also was
the fact that everybody knew that the Brits needed a great victory
at that point. But great victories were in short supply just then.
The Dunkirk evacuation gave the public not just an action to be
proud of, it was one in which ordinary civilians valiantly banded
together to have a part in providing a victory.
DUNKIRK is an unusual war film in that it was shot with very
subjective sensory points of view with liberal use of hand-held
cameras and subliminal sound. This gives the film the viewer a
feel of what it was like. The film has a sort of you-are-there
immediacy. The film actually takes a trick or two from "found
footage" films. Long stretches we see have no word spoken.
Director/writer Christopher Nolan lets a scene explain itself
without words. What dialog there is is spoken in thick accent.
That adds to the realism, but makes parts of the film hard to
follow. The style is much like that used in DAS BOOT (1982).
One film cannot follow more than a small fraction of the stories of
the Dunkirk action. Instead we follow three plot threads: one on
the water, one on the land, and one in the air. Nolan carefully
orchestrates the sound design in each of these environments. It
has some texture and a tempo that is a bit overwhelming. On the
other hand Hans Zimmer's film score probably would not stand on its
own. It is non-melodic. It seems there is a constant minimalist
musical texture for the film like it was produced in a machine.
When something is exciting or suspenseful Zimmer simply picks up
the tempo, playing the same sound only faster. The score serves as
a pulse for the film, marking off time.
Since his first film MEMENTO (1982), Nolan usually plays with time
in his films. He experiments while going from one of the three
threads to another. One thread covers a single day, one covers
more than a week, one is somewhere in between, though the stories
are told in parallel going from one thread to another.
The film has a very moving performance by Mark Rylance (of BRIDGE
OF SPIES and WOLF HALL). He shows the courage and sacrifice of a
civilian volunteer who is taking his small boat into the
conflagration that most people would leave to the military. Nolan
acting veterans Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy are on hand. Murphy
shows the deep psychological price soldiers are called on to pay.
Kenneth Branagh has not much to do but is the personification of
the British anxiety, worrying for its 400,000 risked soldiers.
Most characters remain nameless, so the viewer is cautioned to pay
close attention to faces. The film is entirely humorless and
drenched in subdued colors. This (appropriately enough) makes the
whole film a downbeat experience. But Nolan uses unusual and new
techniques to make the viewer feel as if she/he is actually
experiencing the action--for better or worse. This is one of the
great WWII films. I rate DUNKIRK a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or
9/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/combined>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dunkirk_2017>
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2017 Mark R. Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
WWII. Usually films about World War II engagements are about major
victories like MIDWAY or occasionally defeats like TORA! TORA!
TORA!. DUNKIRK is a film about a retreat. Was it glorious? Well,
it was after the Brits had disastrously bitten off more than they
could chew in Europe and could not get the support they needed to
protect them as they backed off. They were lined up on the beach
at Dunkirk where they could be picked off like clay pigeons in a
shooting gallery. They were staring across the English Channel
from Dunkirk to Britain, nearly defenseless. They waited
skittishly to be evacuated, but no rescue appeared to be
forthcoming. The eventual rescue was not the stuff of great
victory and glory. In fact why it was not a horrendous defeat is a
question still hotly debated today.
What did happen was that the British military mobilized ships to
pick up the waiting soldiers and effect a rescue. But what made
the operation particularly memorable is the large number of
civilian volunteers who took private boats and crossed the channel
themselves at risk to their lives as they rescued the waiting
British troops. The small boats were in deadly danger from the
Luftwaffe patrolling the skies above. The battle began May 26,
1940, and finally ended on June 4, with about 198,000 British and
140,000 French and Belgian troops being evacuated from Dunkirk.
Readers may remember the Dunkirk beach scenes recreated for the
film ATONMENT (2007).
Was the rescue glorious? To a great extent it was certainly
heroic. The film documents an expedient retreat. There also was
the fact that everybody knew that the Brits needed a great victory
at that point. But great victories were in short supply just then.
The Dunkirk evacuation gave the public not just an action to be
proud of, it was one in which ordinary civilians valiantly banded
together to have a part in providing a victory.
DUNKIRK is an unusual war film in that it was shot with very
subjective sensory points of view with liberal use of hand-held
cameras and subliminal sound. This gives the film the viewer a
feel of what it was like. The film has a sort of you-are-there
immediacy. The film actually takes a trick or two from "found
footage" films. Long stretches we see have no word spoken.
Director/writer Christopher Nolan lets a scene explain itself
without words. What dialog there is is spoken in thick accent.
That adds to the realism, but makes parts of the film hard to
follow. The style is much like that used in DAS BOOT (1982).
One film cannot follow more than a small fraction of the stories of
the Dunkirk action. Instead we follow three plot threads: one on
the water, one on the land, and one in the air. Nolan carefully
orchestrates the sound design in each of these environments. It
has some texture and a tempo that is a bit overwhelming. On the
other hand Hans Zimmer's film score probably would not stand on its
own. It is non-melodic. It seems there is a constant minimalist
musical texture for the film like it was produced in a machine.
When something is exciting or suspenseful Zimmer simply picks up
the tempo, playing the same sound only faster. The score serves as
a pulse for the film, marking off time.
Since his first film MEMENTO (1982), Nolan usually plays with time
in his films. He experiments while going from one of the three
threads to another. One thread covers a single day, one covers
more than a week, one is somewhere in between, though the stories
are told in parallel going from one thread to another.
The film has a very moving performance by Mark Rylance (of BRIDGE
OF SPIES and WOLF HALL). He shows the courage and sacrifice of a
civilian volunteer who is taking his small boat into the
conflagration that most people would leave to the military. Nolan
acting veterans Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy are on hand. Murphy
shows the deep psychological price soldiers are called on to pay.
Kenneth Branagh has not much to do but is the personification of
the British anxiety, worrying for its 400,000 risked soldiers.
Most characters remain nameless, so the viewer is cautioned to pay
close attention to faces. The film is entirely humorless and
drenched in subdued colors. This (appropriately enough) makes the
whole film a downbeat experience. But Nolan uses unusual and new
techniques to make the viewer feel as if she/he is actually
experiencing the action--for better or worse. This is one of the
great WWII films. I rate DUNKIRK a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or
9/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/combined>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dunkirk_2017>
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2017 Mark R. Leeper
william ahearn
Jul 23, 2017, 4:21:36 PM7/23/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 3:28:52 PM UTC-4, Mark Leeper wrote:
> Readers may remember the Dunkirk beach scenes recreated for the
> film ATONMENT (2007).
>
Haven't seen Dunkirk yet, I have no response. Having seen Atonment [SIC], I can only hope that Dunkirk isn't the empty and decorative display of cinematography that Atonement presented. What a waste.
> Readers may remember the Dunkirk beach scenes recreated for the
> film ATONMENT (2007).
>
RichA
Jul 23, 2017, 8:22:40 PM7/23/17
to
hector
Jul 23, 2017, 9:52:59 PM7/23/17
to
overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
dialog or not.
Thinking of making a rare visit to a cinema to see this in 70 mm which
isn't Imax. As far as I can tell Imax is usually digital, but I'm not
really sure.
I've seen a much earlier black and white film with the same title.
luisb...@aol.com
Jul 23, 2017, 10:50:23 PM7/23/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 3:28:52 PM UTC-4, Mark Leeper wrote:
You can archive check me on this but I seem to remember Churchill himself saying quite openly that Dunkirk was the worst defeat in Brit military history, that he didn't try to spin this. My impression of this event is also that it won the hearts of Americans and others looking at the war from afar, showing the Germans for the monsters that they were and the Brits as the ultimate embodiment of national courage.
I was told the film contains no dialogue at all and that an important part of the story is the British military's reluctance to send warships across the channel to rescue the men because they couldn't afford to lose the few dreadnoughts they had. That's why it fell to every Dallow, Spicer, Pinkie, and Cubitt to do their bit for their beached countrymen. I also heard that the British military believed at the outset that they'd be lucky to get 3000 men back alive, but once the freelancers yachtsmen had finished their job, a staggering 30,000 were saved.
Like another commenter, I too flashed on Atonement while reading this review, and wondered whether this film might not have grown out of Nolan seeing the scene and thinking: a whole film.
I heard somebody who saw it in a packed theater say that it's unusual to have this many people for a film that a lot of younger people wouldn't be familiar with as history.
william ahearn
Jul 23, 2017, 11:17:35 PM7/23/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:50:23 PM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> You can archive check me on this but I seem to remember Churchill himself saying quite openly that Dunkirk was the worst defeat in Brit military history, that he didn't try to spin this.
Well, he didn't mention Gallipoli, did he?
> You can archive check me on this but I seem to remember Churchill himself saying quite openly that Dunkirk was the worst defeat in Brit military history, that he didn't try to spin this.
Lewis
Jul 23, 2017, 11:46:54 PM7/23/17
to
In message <ce864aeb-11e5-42f3...@googlegroups.com> Mark Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
> WWII.
Is it?
> Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
> WWII.
I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
A fleet of fishing boats, merchant marine vessels, and a couple dozen
Naval vessels rescued over 300,000 British, Belgian, French, and
Canadian soldiers in a week.
It is an astonishing event, and was such a long-shot that the word
miracle, far too often used for non-miraculous events, clearly applies
here.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a more heroic event, no
matter where you looked.
<looking forward to seeing the film>
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Lewis
Jul 23, 2017, 11:50:19 PM7/23/17
to
In message <ol3jm6$sf7$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
> dialog or not.
But Maltin is a goof.
> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
> dialog or not.
> Thinking of making a rare visit to a cinema to see this in 70 mm which
> isn't Imax. As far as I can tell Imax is usually digital, but I'm not
> really sure.
lower cost cameras. Most aficionados don't consider this to be IMAX.
--
I've always had a flair for stage directions.
Mark Leeper
Jul 24, 2017, 7:14:15 AM7/24/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:46:54 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
Are you saying that it was not a retreat or that it isn't unusual to do a film about a retreat? This is not a reflection on the heroes involved in the action. I was talking about subjects that film makers choose to make films about. I suppose that what is or is not odd is subjective.
> In message <> Mark Leeper <t> wrote:
> > Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
> > WWII.
>
> Is it?
>
> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>
I did not say it was not heroic. The film industry seems to have agreed with me. Wikipedia lists 52 films about the Battle Of Britain and only five about Dunkirk.
> > Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
> > WWII.
>
> Is it?
>
> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>
Are you saying that it was not a retreat or that it isn't unusual to do a film about a retreat? This is not a reflection on the heroes involved in the action. I was talking about subjects that film makers choose to make films about. I suppose that what is or is not odd is subjective.
trotsky
Jul 24, 2017, 10:32:07 AM7/24/17
to
What a waste.
Inkan1969
Jul 24, 2017, 10:55:04 AM7/24/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:46:54 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
- Inkan1969
william ahearn
Jul 24, 2017, 12:36:36 PM7/24/17
to
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 10:32:07 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>
> Yes, that should naturally follow because of the scenery.
>
My god, you're illiterate and stupid. Go back to crying about Hillary. Being a sorry-ass loser is all you're good for -- at least for a laugh.
>
> Yes, that should naturally follow because of the scenery.
>
Lewis
Jul 24, 2017, 1:53:05 PM7/24/17
to
In message <ad058856-bc1c-4ace...@googlegroups.com> Mark Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:46:54 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <> Mark Leeper <t> wrote:
>> > Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
>> > WWII.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
>> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
>> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
>> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
>> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>>
> I did not say it was not heroic. The film industry seems to have
> agreed with me. Wikipedia lists 52 films about the Battle Of Britain
> and only five about Dunkirk.
I guess we have different sense on what an 'odd choice' is. To me the
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:46:54 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <> Mark Leeper <t> wrote:
>> > Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
>> > WWII.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
>> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
>> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
>> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
>> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>>
> I did not say it was not heroic. The film industry seems to have
> agreed with me. Wikipedia lists 52 films about the Battle Of Britain
> and only five about Dunkirk.
events around Dunkirk seem like ideal subject matter for a big Hollywood
movie, much like the Battle of Thermopylae, the Battle of the Bulge, or
the slave revolt in Rome lead by Spartacus.
> Are you saying that it was not a retreat
according to Winston Churchill, who I have every reason to think knew
what he was talking about.
> or that it isn't unusual to do a film about a retreat?
choice for a movie.
> This is not a reflection on the heroes involved in the action. I was
> talking about subjects that film makers choose to make films about. I
> suppose that what is or is not odd is subjective.
--
On 30 Jul 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
>Think 100MHz Pentium, 33k6 analog modem. Even I have stopped using that.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 24, 2017, 10:51:43 PM7/24/17
to
hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
>Thinking of making a rare visit to a cinema to see this in 70 mm which
>isn't Imax. As far as I can tell Imax is usually digital, but I'm not
>really sure.
There's very little Imax 70 mm projection these days. According to
>Thinking of making a rare visit to a cinema to see this in 70 mm which
>isn't Imax. As far as I can tell Imax is usually digital, but I'm not
>really sure.
this article, it'll be shown on just a handful of screens in Imax 70 mm,
just 31 around the country.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-dunkirk-70mm-controversy-mov-0721-20170720-column.html
In Chicago, there will be a few 70 mm projections in regular cinemas. We
really don't have any active auditoriums left that were built for 70 mm
projection, so I don't know how they get a projection screen in.
The article says the movie was photographed with 65 mm Imax cameras.
hector
Jul 24, 2017, 11:12:25 PM7/24/17
to
that lead to a national holiday, Anzac Day April 25th. Many people
return there each year to commemorate.
hector
Jul 24, 2017, 11:13:17 PM7/24/17
to
though.
hector
Jul 24, 2017, 11:16:47 PM7/24/17
to
trouble to get the projection equipment for 70 mm. I think the Hateful
Eight might have been the main motivation, I'm not sure, but it famously
got the attention of Tarantino who visited the cinema.
There are only 2 Imax theatre locations in Melbourne I think, not
entirely sure.
https://www.suntheatre.com.au/
hector
Jul 24, 2017, 11:18:31 PM7/24/17
to
On 24/07/2017 1:46 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ol3jm6$sf7$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
>> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
>> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
>> dialog or not.
>
> But Maltin is a goof.
Not entirely sure, I like him, I see him on DVDs of Disney classic
> In message <ol3jm6$sf7$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
>> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
>> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
>> dialog or not.
>
> But Maltin is a goof.
cartoons, and the Harold Lloyd boxed set.
His book reviews were mainly from watching the old 4:3 TVs and are a bit
outdated.
luisb...@aol.com
Jul 25, 2017, 2:30:41 AM7/25/17
to
RichA
Jul 25, 2017, 4:10:34 AM7/25/17
to
hector
Jul 25, 2017, 7:05:13 AM7/25/17
to
These tragedies have their own qualities.
Lewis
Jul 25, 2017, 2:10:42 PM7/25/17
to
In message <ol6cn3$ul2$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
> On 24/07/2017 1:42 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ce864aeb-11e5-42f3...@googlegroups.com> Mark Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
>>> WWII.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
>> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
>> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
>> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
>> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>>
>> A fleet of fishing boats, merchant marine vessels, and a couple dozen
>> Naval vessels rescued over 300,000 British, Belgian, French, and
>> Canadian soldiers in a week.
>>
>> It is an astonishing event, and was such a long-shot that the word
>> miracle, far too often used for non-miraculous events, clearly applies
>> here.
>>
>> You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a more heroic event, no
>> matter where you looked.
>>
>> <looking forward to seeing the film>
>>
> See a movie called Gallipoli about Australians in WW1,
Yes, seen that. Like Dunkirk it also has a connection to Winston
> On 24/07/2017 1:42 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ce864aeb-11e5-42f3...@googlegroups.com> Mark Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
>>> WWII.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> I don't think so. The story of Dunkirk is a story that epitomizes the
>> British spirit and reflects on one of the most heroic acts, not of
>> soldiers and generals, but of hundred if not thousands of regular
>> British citizens who risks (and in many cases lost) their lives in an
>> astonishing attempt to save the stranded troops.
>>
>> A fleet of fishing boats, merchant marine vessels, and a couple dozen
>> Naval vessels rescued over 300,000 British, Belgian, French, and
>> Canadian soldiers in a week.
>>
>> It is an astonishing event, and was such a long-shot that the word
>> miracle, far too often used for non-miraculous events, clearly applies
>> here.
>>
>> You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a more heroic event, no
>> matter where you looked.
>>
>> <looking forward to seeing the film>
>>
> See a movie called Gallipoli about Australians in WW1,
Churchill as he was largely responsible for the fuck-up at Gallipoli.
> a tragic defeat that lead to a national holiday, Anzac Day April 25th.
> Many people return there each year to commemorate.
Gallipoli between Australia and New Zealand and Turkey is quite
interesting.
--
"Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time
reading it." - Moses Hadas
Lewis
Jul 25, 2017, 2:25:24 PM7/25/17
to
In message <ol6d2k$ul2$4...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
> On 24/07/2017 1:46 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ol3jm6$sf7$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
>>> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
>>> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
>>> dialog or not.
>>
>> But Maltin is a goof.
> Not entirely sure, I like him, I see him on DVDs of Disney classic
> cartoons, and the Harold Lloyd boxed set.
Maltin doesn't seem to me to have any worthwhile qualities as a critic,
> On 24/07/2017 1:46 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ol3jm6$sf7$1...@dont-email.me> hector <bob...@there.com> wrote:
>>> Leonard Maltin says it seems like a series of vignettes without an
>>> overall picture and that Nolan doesn't care if you can understand the
>>> dialog or not.
>>
>> But Maltin is a goof.
> Not entirely sure, I like him, I see him on DVDs of Disney classic
> cartoons, and the Harold Lloyd boxed set.
he's very middle of the road and I've never found him to be an accurate
or reliable measure of any movie. He seems to like seeing his name on
posters, so I see a lot more praise from him for schlock and pap than I
see from most critics.
OTOH, I don't know where the good reviewers are anymore. Pauline Kael
was always reliably good, even if I disagreed with her.
However, if the only praise-quote on a poster is from Maltin, I know
it's a movie to avoid.
Sometimes Peter Travers seems clueful, but then he gives a nothing movie
like Despicable Me 3 high praise and the wonderful Wonder Woman tepid
acknowledgment.
--
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a
career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy
anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or
processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a
career, I don't want to do that.
Lewis
Jul 25, 2017, 6:28:14 PM7/25/17
to
In message <super70s-465E25...@reader.albasani.net> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnonf38i....@snow.local>, Lewis
Well, Baby Driver was an amazing movie, so i can't fault him on THAT.
> Whatever you want to say about Leonard Maltin he's at least hardworking,
> not many could fill up a voluminous work like his Movie Guide.
Eh. Ebert's were much better.
--
You too will get old. And when you do you'll fantasize that when you
were young prices where reasonable, politicians were noble, and children
respected their elders. Respect your elders.
> In article <slrnonf38i....@snow.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Sometimes Peter Travers seems clueful, but then he gives a nothing
>> movie like Despicable Me 3 high praise and the wonderful Wonder Woman
>> tepid acknowledgment.
> He also jumped on the Baby Driver bandwagon.
>> Sometimes Peter Travers seems clueful, but then he gives a nothing
>> movie like Despicable Me 3 high praise and the wonderful Wonder Woman
>> tepid acknowledgment.
Well, Baby Driver was an amazing movie, so i can't fault him on THAT.
> Whatever you want to say about Leonard Maltin he's at least hardworking,
> not many could fill up a voluminous work like his Movie Guide.
Eh. Ebert's were much better.
--
You too will get old. And when you do you'll fantasize that when you
were young prices where reasonable, politicians were noble, and children
respected their elders. Respect your elders.
ele...@optonline.net
Jul 26, 2017, 8:21:31 AM7/26/17
to
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Lewis
Jul 26, 2017, 9:36:18 AM7/26/17
to
In message <super70s-BF0473...@reader.albasani.net> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnonfhfs....@snow.local>,
> since Ashley Judd and Bug.
When everyone agrees on something, it;'s a good chance to re-examine
your view. Not saying you're going to change your mind, but there's a
fairly good chance you missed something if you're the outlier.
--
THERE WAS NO ROMAN GOD NAMED "FARTICUS" Bart chalkboard Ep. 5F06
> In article <slrnonfhfs....@snow.local>,
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <super70s-465E25...@reader.albasani.net> super70s
>> <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnonf38i....@snow.local>, Lewis
>> > <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>> >> Sometimes Peter Travers seems clueful, but then he gives a nothing
>> >> movie like Despicable Me 3 high praise and the wonderful Wonder Woman
>> >> tepid acknowledgment.
>>
>> > He also jumped on the Baby Driver bandwagon.
>>
>> Well, Baby Driver was an amazing movie, so i can't fault him on THAT.
> I don't think I've seen a movie get so much unjustified critical acclaim
>> In message <super70s-465E25...@reader.albasani.net> super70s
>> <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnonf38i....@snow.local>, Lewis
>> > <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>> >> Sometimes Peter Travers seems clueful, but then he gives a nothing
>> >> movie like Despicable Me 3 high praise and the wonderful Wonder Woman
>> >> tepid acknowledgment.
>>
>> > He also jumped on the Baby Driver bandwagon.
>>
>> Well, Baby Driver was an amazing movie, so i can't fault him on THAT.
> since Ashley Judd and Bug.
When everyone agrees on something, it;'s a good chance to re-examine
your view. Not saying you're going to change your mind, but there's a
fairly good chance you missed something if you're the outlier.
--
THERE WAS NO ROMAN GOD NAMED "FARTICUS" Bart chalkboard Ep. 5F06
Lewis
Jul 26, 2017, 9:37:45 AM7/26/17
to
do, they think it was a movie.
--
'Life's like a beach. And then you die.' --Small Gods
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:05:46 AM7/26/17
to
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:06:24 AM7/26/17
to
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:06:57 AM7/26/17
to
Lawrence of Arabia.
Inkan1969
Jul 26, 2017, 11:13:30 AM7/26/17
to
"Galipoli" is also remembered, I believe, for being the big breakthroughs for director Peter Weir ("Dead Poets Society", "The Truman Show") and Mel Gibson. It also had an unusual poster (SPOILER) that was based on the very last scene of the movie.
"Lawrence of Arabia" was not what I expected. Well, actually it was the big sprawling epic I expected for the first half. Then that prison-poling happened to Lawrence, and the movie, like the guy, seemed to lose its will to live. The movie ended on such a whimper that I didn't ever realize it ws the ending.
- Inkan1969
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:22:35 AM7/26/17
to
>
> "Galipoli" is also remembered, I believe, for being the big breakthroughs for director Peter Weir ("Dead Poets Society", "The Truman Show") and Mel Gibson. It also had an unusual poster (SPOILER) that was based on the very last scene of the movie.
Picnic At Hanging Rock. It would have been Mel Gibson's breakthrough
movie though. Gibson was on Parkinson once talking about his start in
the US, the movie about the Bounty might have been the first before the
Lethal Weapon movies. He said something about sacrifice which I was
waiting to hear more about. He seems obsessed with that subject.
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:24:02 AM7/26/17
to
On 27/07/2017 1:13 AM, Inkan1969 wrote:
occasions. Spike Lee wishes he'd made it. Saw that in 70 mm on a huge
screen in the 90s.
> - Inkan1969
>
hector
Jul 26, 2017, 11:25:22 AM7/26/17
to
On 27/07/2017 1:13 AM, Inkan1969 wrote:
rejoined the army under a different name and died in the way in the
movie. There is a tv movie which leaves little impression, about the
talks after the war where he apparently attended.
Lewis
Jul 26, 2017, 4:24:45 PM7/26/17
to
--
"Is that a star?" "Nah, that's Ted Danson."
Lewis
Jul 27, 2017, 10:11:58 PM7/27/17
to
> DUNKIRK
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
> CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
> writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
> heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
> had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
> Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
> of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
> land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
> the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
> cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
> might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
After seeing the movie I agree with your rating.
> DUNKIRK is an unusual war film in that it was shot with very
> subjective sensory points of view with liberal use of hand-held
> cameras and subliminal sound. This gives the film the viewer a
> feel of what it was like. The film has a sort of you-are-there
> immediacy. The film actually takes a trick or two from "found
> footage" films. Long stretches we see have no word spoken.
> Director/writer Christopher Nolan lets a scene explain itself
> without words. What dialog there is is spoken in thick accent.
> That adds to the realism, but makes parts of the film hard to
> follow. The style is much like that used in DAS BOOT (1982).
It took me a little bit to figure out that he was jumping back in the
timeline over and over, but once I caught on to that the flow of the
movie made perfect sense. Really, the movie covers one small incident
out on the ocean, but we see it over and over from different
perspectives with different backstories.
My (and my wife's) only confusion came from trying to tell people apart,
especially the soldiers.
> Since his first film MEMENTO (1982), Nolan usually plays with time
> in his films. He experiments while going from one of the three
> threads to another. One thread covers a single day, one covers
> more than a week, one is somewhere in between, though the stories
> are told in parallel going from one thread to another.
One covers an hour (the air) one covers a day (the sea) and one covers
a week (the mole). This is told to you at the start of the movie,
but there is no explicit explanation as to what these times mean.
> Most characters remain nameless, so the viewer is cautioned to pay
> close attention to faces. The film is entirely humorless and
> drenched in subdued colors. This (appropriately enough) makes the
> whole film a downbeat experience. But Nolan uses unusual and new
> techniques to make the viewer feel as if she/he is actually
> experiencing the action--for better or worse. This is one of the
> great WWII films. I rate DUNKIRK a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or
> 9/10.
One thing, a small thing, that I really liked was when one of the shops
is sinking Nolan keeps the orientation of the ship on the vertical
plane, so that the sea is at first coming in at a angle, and then coming
in as a wall, crushing horizontally across the screen. It's only a few
seconds of footage in total, but I found it extremely effective.
The moment that choked me up was toward the end when Peter is asked
about "the boy" and there is a pause and then, just at the neat where it
would become awkward, he says, "He's fine."
That was a lovely bit of acting and a lovely bit of directing.
Excellent movie.
--
all your snowflakes are urine and you can't even find the cat
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
> CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
> writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
> heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
> had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
> Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
> of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
> land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
> the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
> cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
> might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
After seeing the movie I agree with your rating.
> DUNKIRK is an unusual war film in that it was shot with very
> subjective sensory points of view with liberal use of hand-held
> cameras and subliminal sound. This gives the film the viewer a
> feel of what it was like. The film has a sort of you-are-there
> immediacy. The film actually takes a trick or two from "found
> footage" films. Long stretches we see have no word spoken.
> Director/writer Christopher Nolan lets a scene explain itself
> without words. What dialog there is is spoken in thick accent.
> That adds to the realism, but makes parts of the film hard to
> follow. The style is much like that used in DAS BOOT (1982).
It took me a little bit to figure out that he was jumping back in the
timeline over and over, but once I caught on to that the flow of the
movie made perfect sense. Really, the movie covers one small incident
out on the ocean, but we see it over and over from different
perspectives with different backstories.
My (and my wife's) only confusion came from trying to tell people apart,
especially the soldiers.
> Since his first film MEMENTO (1982), Nolan usually plays with time
> in his films. He experiments while going from one of the three
> threads to another. One thread covers a single day, one covers
> more than a week, one is somewhere in between, though the stories
> are told in parallel going from one thread to another.
One covers an hour (the air) one covers a day (the sea) and one covers
a week (the mole). This is told to you at the start of the movie,
but there is no explicit explanation as to what these times mean.
> Most characters remain nameless, so the viewer is cautioned to pay
> close attention to faces. The film is entirely humorless and
> drenched in subdued colors. This (appropriately enough) makes the
> whole film a downbeat experience. But Nolan uses unusual and new
> techniques to make the viewer feel as if she/he is actually
> experiencing the action--for better or worse. This is one of the
> great WWII films. I rate DUNKIRK a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or
> 9/10.
One thing, a small thing, that I really liked was when one of the shops
is sinking Nolan keeps the orientation of the ship on the vertical
plane, so that the sea is at first coming in at a angle, and then coming
in as a wall, crushing horizontally across the screen. It's only a few
seconds of footage in total, but I found it extremely effective.
The moment that choked me up was toward the end when Peter is asked
about "the boy" and there is a pause and then, just at the neat where it
would become awkward, he says, "He's fine."
That was a lovely bit of acting and a lovely bit of directing.
Excellent movie.
--
all your snowflakes are urine and you can't even find the cat
william ahearn
Jan 28, 2018, 10:39:29 PM1/28/18
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 3:28:52 PM UTC-4, Mark Leeper wrote:
> DUNKIRK
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
> writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
> heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
> had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
> Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
> of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
> land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
> the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
> cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
> might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
>
Technically impressive and utterly un-involving. Style still isn't substance.
> DUNKIRK
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: In an unusual stylistic view, Christopher Nolan
> writes and directs his re-creation of one of the most
> heroic retreats in history. 400,000 British soldiers
> had been fighting in Europe and now were surrounded by
> Germans, stranded on the beaches of near the French town
> of Dunkirk where they were vulnerable to attack from the
> land, sea, and air. At the same time as he is telling
> the story, Nolan does some strange experiments with
> cinema time that the inattentive viewer (like me perhaps)
> might easily miss. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
>
T987654321
Jan 30, 2018, 5:41:42 AM1/30/18
to
NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving. How any more decades before they fall off the radar?
moviePig
Jan 30, 2018, 9:29:41 AM1/30/18
to
On 1/30/2018 5:41 AM, T987654321 wrote:
> NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving. How any more decades before they fall off the radar?
Not until the phenomenon is fully explained and widely recognized.
> NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving. How any more decades before they fall off the radar?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
Jan 30, 2018, 10:07:38 AM1/30/18
to
On 1/30/2018 9:29 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/30/2018 5:41 AM, T987654321 wrote:
>> NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving. How any more decades before
>> they fall off the radar?
>
> Not until the phenomenon is fully explained and widely recognized.
times where a rag tag group of US military types is vastly outmanned and
vastly outgunned by some third world entity.
alvey
Jan 30, 2018, 2:15:36 PM1/30/18
to
alvey
Obveeus
Jan 30, 2018, 2:50:40 PM1/30/18
to
That may change, though, because the Democrats will cave and spend US
tax dollars to build the wall in exchange for DACA changes that give
long term residents citizenship. Thus, in the end, the Republicans and
the Democrats will both be able to point out that the other side lied
about the promises they made.
Looking at the list of guest speakers for tonight's SotU Address, it
seems that the theme of 'enemies to the south' will only be Trumped by a
theme of 'the enemy is Mother Nature'...but not in a Climate Change sort
of way, just in a heroic obstacle sort of way.
Neill Massello
Jan 30, 2018, 3:23:47 PM1/30/18
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <ce864aeb-11e5-42f3...@googlegroups.com> Mark
> Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
> In message <ce864aeb-11e5-42f3...@googlegroups.com> Mark
> Leeper <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Dunkirk is an odd choice for a patriotic account of the British in
> > WWII.
>
> Is it?
Yeah, that also stopped me. Events like Thermopylae and the Alamo have
> > WWII.
>
> Is it?
never attracted the interest of storytellers, have they?
alvey
Jan 30, 2018, 3:48:53 PM1/30/18
to
alvey
trotsky
Jan 30, 2018, 4:11:37 PM1/30/18
to
On 1/30/2018 4:41 AM, T987654321 wrote:
> NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving.
Do you mean because of the constant misspelling of the incredibly easy
> NAZI's, the gift that keeps on giving.
to spell word "Nazis"?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
0 new messages