Topic: Latest Movie Thread

[Cord]

I think Dunkirk fares much better once it is thought of more as an "artsy" and symbolic film rather than a realistic, character driven portrayal like Saving Private Ryan or the Band of Brothers and The Pacific series. Almost every scene is a symbolic representation of what would have actually occurred. From never seeing a German soldier to showing almost no blood, the film tries to portray the events without ever really documenting them. I could easily envision most scenes on a live theatre stage.

I must say that I was constantly asking myself, "where are these 400,000 men?" The film shows wide open beaches with lines of what looks like hundreds of soldiers. And very few of the soldiers looked like they'd been through the wringer as they should have.

And yes, the Spitfire that runs out of fuel at about a thousand feet and still manages to glide around to shoot down one last plane definitely pushes the suspension of disbelief. And since the fighter pilots were completely anonymous behind their goggles and masks for the entire film, I found it very distracting to suddenly see Tom Hardy for a few seconds in one of the final scenes.

I rate it as a good, but not great war film. I suspect that it will be much less satisfying to an audience that has no understanding of the events on which it is based.

[johngenx]

I thought Dunkirk was excellent.  The sinking scenes were amazing - chaotic and conveyed the confusion and horror of it.

[quadzilla]

We saw Atomic Blonde last weekend. I didn't love it but did like it. Makes for a good rental IMO but does have a great music track as it is all 80's songs. The wife liked it because of a lead female kicking ass.

Also saw Dunkirk. Story is good, I liked the way the put it together and transitioned between the three perspectives.

Picture quality was really good. I thought I read it was shot in different aspect ratios but never noticed any changes. Changing aspect ratios don't bother me so I could have just missed them. I'm pretty sure the Imax ratio was 1.43:1 at the theater I went to which is the better one to see in so I got lucky there.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket

I liked how it was shot and you feel right up and close to everything. Lots to see in pretty much every shot thanks to the large format.

The sound could be awesome but the theater I was in it wasn't. The problem being the bass had this horrible droning sound like a 16 year kid's car stereo playing too loud and can only produce one note. It became very annoying VERY fast taking me out of the what could have been great sound. Worse part, that note plays through the entire film which is a Nolan thing. Only an issue if the theater can't produce it properly, like the one I was in.

It was also too loud and I like loud music and movies. I would guess it was easily hitting 120+db with explosion but many sections were easily a constant 110db over short (2-3 mins) periods.

While I'm glad I went to see it in Imax for the large format which it truly deserves part of me would have been just as happy watching it at home.

[Guy]

Sound was good at the Imax theater where i went. Loud when it needed to be but not overly loud. The sound of the bullets going trough the hull of that boat toward the end was amazing. One disapointement was the sound of the spitfires, they did not have that throaty sound that gives me goose bumps everytime I hear one.

On that, the dog fight involving Spits and Me109 in Pearl Harbour sounded better in my opinion.

Speaking of the Spitfires, I saw the movie twice, first in the original english version with my son and then the french translated movie with my wife. Twice they translate "bail out" to s'éjecter "eject"... As if a Spitfire had an ejection seat..

[mrthompson]

On that, the dog fight involving Spits and Me109 in Pearl Harbour sounded better in my opinion.

[Guy]

On that, the dog fight involving Spits and Me109 in Pearl Harbour sounded better in my opinion.

Just the 5 minutes or so involving Spitfires. 

The rest was crap..

[PJungnitsch]

How did they portray the French? The way I understand it the average French soldier fought much better in WWII than their post war reputation makes out.

[rrocket]

How did they portray the French? The way I understand it the average French soldier fought much better in WWII than their post war reputation makes out.

That's always been a great myth. The French men fought hard..And willingly.

There are stories of small towns were nearly every fighting aged man was wiped out because they left to fight the war.

America always glosses over the fact that they sat on the sidelines for a couple of years while men from many countries gave their lives. But somehow only the French were "cowards"

[BWII]

Finally saw Hidden Figures, was on the dish, PVR'd it.  Took long enough to convince my wife it's supposed to be good! (Instead we watched Assassins Creed last night...also PVR'd... It sucks).

Anyway...good movie...but it lost all credibility when I saw this:


I imagine you can guess why.  1st person with the right answer gets 100 imaginary bitchcoin.  Hint...it's 1961...

[Guy]

Police car is a 1962?

[BWII]

Close enough...it's a 1964.  Back to the Future?  Or perhaps this was around the same time as the Philadelphia Experiment?  Either way...someone didn't do their homework.
This is what it should've been


But...it was a good enough movie I will try not to let it ruin it for the rest of my days.  Anytime Janelle Monae is in a movie...not even sure how I noticed the car screw up. 

[Brig]

More goofs from that movie!   

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340/goofs

[johngenx]

I really enjoyed "Wind River."  Growing up in aboriginal communities, some mired in abject poverty, I felt transported back to my youth.  The director did an amazing job of creating the sense of place that is the underlying theme of the movie.

Renner is a great actor!  Some of his lines are way too cliched, but the moments when he's not speaking are fantastic.

Elizabeth Olson plays a rookie FBI agent, and she was a good casting choice.  Most rookie cops are portrayed in movies as bumbling and incompetent.  This character is merely inexperienced.  It's not easy to become an FBI agent, and her intelligence and ability to cope with unfamiliar and difficult situations is realistic - the FBI has seriously smart folks working there.

There's a major gaff in terms of the science of humans and cold, but otherwise, the movie is very well done.  The pacing is slow and deliberate with the violence feeling explosive and unexpected - the way it feels in life.

[OliverD]

I really enjoyed "Wind River."  Growing up in aboriginal communities, some mired in abject poverty, I felt transported back to my youth.  The director did an amazing job of creating the sense of place that is the underlying theme of the movie.

Renner is a great actor!  Some of his lines are way too cliched, but the moments when he's not speaking are fantastic.

Elizabeth Olson plays a rookie FBI agent, and she was a good casting choice.  Most rookie cops are portrayed in movies as bumbling and incompetent.  This character is merely inexperienced.  It's not easy to become an FBI agent, and her intelligence and ability to cope with unfamiliar and difficult situations is realistic - the FBI has seriously smart folks working there.

There's a major gaff in terms of the science of humans and cold, but otherwise, the movie is very well done.  The pacing is slow and deliberate with the violence feeling explosive and unexpected - the way it feels in life.

Excellent movie. Have you also seen Sicario and Hell Or High Water?

[johngenx]

Excellent movie. Have you also seen Sicario and Hell Or High Water?

Yes, both, and they're both excellent.  I found Wind River had a much slower pace - but that pacing was integral to the story and really added to the film.

[OliverD]

Agreed about the pacing.

The writer of the three movies refers to them as a trilogy. I hope he keeps making similar movies because the subject matter is fascinating.

One interesting thing I noticed is that all three include scenes of convoys of trucks/SUVs shot from a distance.

[Solstice2006]

Hadn't see many of the Marvel Comics blockbusters in 1-2 years, and the new Spider Man movie got great reviews on a few websites.  My wife was working nights, so I gave it a shot.  As per usual, disappointed.  I find the series with Tobey Maguire much better.  Its like every other scene they try to make it funny.  Wasn't impressed with Michael Keatons delivery of the Vulture either. 

[rrocket]

Finally got around to watching Nocturnal Animals.

I liked it.  Quite a bit actually.  So much so that I caught the replay 3 hours later and noticed several things I hadn't seen in the first viewing.

Michael Shannon was fantastic, too.

[BWII]

Forgot to mention last night we went and saw the new Kingsman movie yesterday.  Good movie...not meant for your little kids...unless they're OK seeing a man get stuffed into a meat grinder.  'cause you know...where (how?) else do vegan's come from?    Otherwise, and in spite of the man made (or made man?) burger...good mindless action flick.  Not a reality show if that's what you're in to.  Kinda wish Channing Tatum's character would've had more parts.


Or you could wait for the "Everything wrong with Kingsman" on You Tube and then say "man, I'm glad we didn't see THAT!"

[Scaerio]

I was late to the game on Dunkirk and Atomic Blonde.  Enjoyed both.  Atomic Blonde dld an awesome job sourcing Eastern Bloc cars for this film - the most interesting, in my mind, being the Romanian ARO 10 4x4 that pushed the Lada cop car into the canal.

Re: some of the criticism of missed details in Dunkirk (full train geed mode on).  The railway car was most likely built pre-WWII, but had its interior up graded at some point in the '80s or so -- hence the garish blue seats.