not at all, but by the end of the movie I wondered what was "real" (if anything) and what was just his perception. I don't think they really were, although he may have perceived it.
Then again, the filmmakers and actors may have thought "oh yeah, these evil wall street bastards are the most realistic part of the whole movie."
To me, one of the things that made it good, perhaps great, was that the people who made it lost control of it, and it really means whatever the person who saw it sees in it.
Dunkirk committed the bizarrely, out-of-time sin of being TOO pure with regard to practical effects. The real beach was a fucking mess of equipment. It wouldn't have been a cinematic sin to CGI the beach buildings to their accurate period appearances, or add in the actual detritus of the retreat and hasty entrenchment.
And when you refuse to use CGI tracers for your machine guns, it looks like special effects from 1954. You can't film practical-effect tracers: because then you'd be firing a fucking projectile at your crew. (Coppola used roman candles in Apocalypse Now, and it almost works but you can tell the trajectories are all wrong). So just CGI it! For fuck's sake. The movie felt so dry and academic as a result. And don't even get me started about the Heinkel scale remote-controlled drone plane.
1917 had a paper-thin story, but they dressed those sets with real historical care and it all looked the part in a way that the beach in Dunkirk did not.
You have a point, I think it's mostly highly acclaimed for its incredible cinematography. There were definitely some holes, but I love war movies and decent ones don't come along very often at all so I just take what I can get!
I can't remember the last good movie. The Dark Knight? No idea.
Joker was actually pretty good, if maybe not in the way they intended. Had a bit of a Fight Club vibe to it.
Wasn't it a bit strained that the joker character was beaten by white Wall Street guys? How plausible is that?
The end of Joker was basically Antifa. Its a warning to our society.
not at all, but by the end of the movie I wondered what was "real" (if anything) and what was just his perception. I don't think they really were, although he may have perceived it.
Then again, the filmmakers and actors may have thought "oh yeah, these evil wall street bastards are the most realistic part of the whole movie."
To me, one of the things that made it good, perhaps great, was that the people who made it lost control of it, and it really means whatever the person who saw it sees in it.
Only movie I'm faintly interested in seeing is Nolan's Tenet. Dunkirk was spectacular.
if you liked Dunkirkl, you'd love 1917.
1917 is overrated. It has good production value but the story is paper thin..
Dunkirk committed the bizarrely, out-of-time sin of being TOO pure with regard to practical effects. The real beach was a fucking mess of equipment. It wouldn't have been a cinematic sin to CGI the beach buildings to their accurate period appearances, or add in the actual detritus of the retreat and hasty entrenchment.
And when you refuse to use CGI tracers for your machine guns, it looks like special effects from 1954. You can't film practical-effect tracers: because then you'd be firing a fucking projectile at your crew. (Coppola used roman candles in Apocalypse Now, and it almost works but you can tell the trajectories are all wrong). So just CGI it! For fuck's sake. The movie felt so dry and academic as a result. And don't even get me started about the Heinkel scale remote-controlled drone plane.
1917 had a paper-thin story, but they dressed those sets with real historical care and it all looked the part in a way that the beach in Dunkirk did not.
You have a point, I think it's mostly highly acclaimed for its incredible cinematography. There were definitely some holes, but I love war movies and decent ones don't come along very often at all so I just take what I can get!