Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Patser

Maybe Styles will be shown to survive Dunkirk as a direct result of Hitler's order for the panzers to stop, just so Nolan can clear up any ambiguity that Hitler was a baddie.

Trailer is here and it looks rather damn good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxdljRpDMXg

pixelburp

Well that just looks spectacular. Very old fashioned in a way, like the sort of giant WW2 epics that got made back in the 60s - early 70s.

And it's easy to forget how crazy the story was really, that little sailboats by the hundreds toddled into a war zone to ferry soldiers back.

Oafley Jones

Found that trailer to be underwhelming. I know they've to sell the action, but it just struck me as
completely generic. Love me some Branagh though.

eviltimeban

Looks like Harry Styles has more than just a bit part.

beardo81

Disappointing trailer, normally Nolan trailers have me salivating for the movie. Just didn't draw me in or have that emotional kick he normally delivers.
Reading too much into the trailer?

Skerries

"Right Tom, I'm putting you in my next movie"
"cool!, well at least they will be able to see my face this time"
"eh, about that..."

quad_red

What a disappointing trailer. The teaser ratcheted up the tension like crazy. Even if you had very little idea what Dunkirk was about (as probably allot of the audience won't) ye got the sense of desperation and importance.

This is... sterile. And it looks small scale. Branagh saying there are 400,000 troops on the beach and then showing orderly lines of a few hundred at most extras is a strange way to cut the trailer.

The BEF and French troops that collapsed onto Dunkirk were mauled and desperate. Without food or supplies. *That* scene in Atonement seemed to capture it.

Maybe many of the big shots aren't ready but then they should've gone for an expanded teaser rather than that.

Edit: two bits did resonate. The shot with Spitfires because, well, SPITFIRES and Rylance stoic bravery: there's no hiding from this son.

humanji

Am I the only one that can't help looking for the sci-fi angle? I kept thinking with the ticking during the start of the trailer and Cillian Murphy's dialogue about going back, that it sounded a bit timetravel-like.

I think movies may have broken my brain.

Jan_de_Bakker

That trailer is just stunning, I cannot believe just how good Nolan is .... WOW !!!!

Effects

eviltimeban wrote: »

Looks like Harry Styles has more than just a bit part.

Or else they just threw him into the trailer in a few places to make sure he was noticed a lot.

Jan_de_Bakker

I don't even regognise the guy, and ill keep it that way ..

Jan_de_Bakker

beardo81 wrote: »

Disappointing trailer, normally Nolan trailers have me salivating for the movie. Just didn't draw me in or have that emotional kick he normally delivers.
Reading too much into the trailer?

I thought the opposite, I think it's one of the finest of his films trailers, I was skeptical to see how Nolan would deal with a historical true story type film, but this has me dying for it!

7 months

eviltimeban

humanji wrote: »

Am I the only one that can't help looking for the sci-fi angle? I kept thinking with the ticking during the start of the trailer and Cillian Murphy's dialogue about going back, that it sounded a bit timetravel-like.

Things just got interesting.

my3cents

Everything in the trailer looked too clean and sterile, OK so you can't expect them to copy 1940's dentistry but at least add some dirt so the soldiers look they have been in a fight.

TheDoc

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Jan_de_Bakker

TheDoc wrote: »

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Yeah it's Tom Hardy

my3cents

TheDoc wrote: »

Really looking forward to this.

A story I don't ever really remember being done before? I like Nolan, so I'll go see anything of his, but the fact it's WW2 and a real important event in that timeframe really has me excited.

For a moment I thought they had Hardy as a German pilot. Looked back a few times, and it's him in a Spitfire right?

Dunkirk (1958) John Mills, Richard Attenbourgh,.....

Falthyron

Any UK or US users here who have seen the Dunkirk Prologue in an IMAX screen? Would be curious to hear your thoughts on it...

Heckler

my3cents wrote: »

Everything in the trailer looked too clean and sterile, OK so you can't expect them to copy 1940's dentistry but at least add some dirt so the soldiers look they have been in a fight.

Agreed. All looks too polished. I've seen grittier looking WW2 reenactment documentaries.

A pity because its an important and interesting story.

I'll still go see it because I think it'll be good in the cinema but Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down have set a high standard in war movies that I don't think has been matched since. (in terms of war depiction that is. Not talking about story, script etc).

And I'm talking about populist, Hollywood blockbuster war movies before someone shouts whatabout "Come and See" etc at me.

eviltimeban

Heckler wrote: »

Agreed. All looks too polished. I've seen grittier looking WW2 reenactment documentaries.

It's because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, IT'S AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.

Or something else Christopher Nolan-y.

pljudge321

Falthyron wrote: »

Any UK or US users here who have seen the Dunkirk Prologue in an IMAX screen? Would be curious to hear your thoughts on it...

Its much, much better than the just released trailer (which I found quite boring). Its also quite long, probably approaching four or five minutes and is made of three interspersed scenes (one on land, one at sea, one in the air). All the while the main theme slowly builds and builds till its at heart pumping level. Much more excited about the film after seeing it.

Sad Professor

Reactions to footage screened at CinemaCon are extremely positive. I'm guessing a trailer isn't far off.

It's also been confirmed that the film is rated PG-13.

bnt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz-jWYc9uC4

I just read that Nolan won't be taking Dunkirk to Cannes.

Mr E

New trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmgiys2n1o

Harry Palmr

Teaser trailers should be banned by law! They just end up trivialising everything.

"Where's the bloody air-force!?"

/cut to Spitfires in formation :pac:

Terrible stuff even though the actual content looks solid and well made.

pixelburp

It's remarkable how tangible and solid everything looks: I'm sure Nolan uses CGI to tidy around the edges - no doubt to bump up any crowd shots to that 400,000 figure - but his commitment to at least starting with physical props, stunt pilots, miniatures and a sheer mass of extras just adds that extra layer of polish and scale, even on a short 2 minute trailer. It all looks very real, and probably because it is. He & George Miller seem like a dying breed of Hollywood filmmaker

On the subject of the film: if I recall my history correctly (and open to correction!), the French forces had no idea Dunkirk was a total evacuation; many French soldiers were acting as the rearguard protecting the retreating British troops, and their government expected London to recommit forces to keep fighting in France. I believe Churchill had decided to let France fall. Always thought it put an interesting & darker twist on what is generally seen in Britain as a noble, triumph-in-the-face-of-defeat sort of story.

Beviamo latte

pixelburp wrote: »

It's remarkable how tangible and solid everything looks: I'm sure Nolan uses CGI to tidy around the edges - no doubt to bump up any crowd shots to that 400,000 figure - but his commitment to at least starting with physical props, stunt pilots, miniatures and a sheer mass of extras just adds that extra layer of polish and scale, even on a short 2 minute trailer. It all looks very real, and probably because it is. He & George Miller seem like a dying breed of Hollywood filmmaker

On the subject of the film: if I recall my history correctly (and open to correction!), the French forces had no idea Dunkirk was a total evacuation; many French soldiers were acting as the rearguard protecting the retreating British troops, and their government expected London to recommit forces to keep fighting in France. I believe Churchill had decided to let France fall. Always thought it put an interesting & darker twist on what is generally seen in Britain as a noble, triumph-in-the-face-of-defeat sort of story.

They had no other choice but to evacuate, their forces were no match for the power of the Wehrmacht, they would have been annihalted, it was the right decision.

Agent Coulson

Is the young lad on the boat at the start the cat killer from Love/Hate?


Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

Sad Professor

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Is the young lad on the boat at the start the cat killer from Love/Hate?


Also I really didn't like the trailer very sterile and clean for a WW2 film.

Barry Keoghan? I haven't watched Love-Hate, but he's been in a lot of Irish films lately. Good actor, though typecast in Irish movies. This will hopefully be a stepping stone to bigger and better things for him.

I think the cleanness is to expected given that it's PG-13. But Nolan says it's not a war film and doesn't focus on bloody combat.