That's the point. I think your comment shows how successful Nolan was with the score. It's not supposed to be "enjoyable." With that being said, I didn't love the movie. It was cool to see in the theater though.

Edit: I saw it in 70mm by the way. It was loud and made me jump a few times, but it was very effective. I thought the score was one of the better aspects of the film.

It's the Michael bay of score. He thinks more is better. A great score applies its tension in the right places. This scores treats a life threatening plane fight the exact same way it treats two guys on a train who are totally safe.

Also volume has nothing to do with an effective score. There is no justification for maximum volume. It just makes it unpleasant.

I go to movies for enjoyment though, sooooooooooooo

If Noland doesn't want people to enjoy his movies he should tell them that up front so we know what we're getting.

"The problem is, you went to the movies to be entertained. Nolan wasn't trying to make the movie enjoyable! GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS"

I did....wasn't too loud or oppressive to me at all

Excited for Dunkirk, in part bc I can't remember a really well-liked film (43/45 top critics on RT give it a thumbs up) getting so much poor feedback here in the thread. Different reasons for neg feedback, too

Watched Lethal Weapon again. Without thinking too much about it, it's probably my favorite action movie from the '80's all in all. Somewhat biased bc I vividly remember finding it as a preteen boy and seeing tits and drugs in the first scene (Now it all makes sense!). Martin Riggs is a 10/10 protagonist, the characters (and their respective personal lives) are defined/believable/interesting, it is both tense and funny, and I love the climactic fight scene between Riggs and Busey's character.. Actually, I love every scene. 97/100

What were the 3 points docked for?

Ha tbh I'm new at this rating-my-movies thing, but I'm writing my scores down and keeping a master list for myself.....and I suppose I'm afraid of giving something a 100, unless it's True Romance or Big Lebowski. good point, thx

Interesting. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Big Lebowski made within a year or two of each other -- True Romance a few years later. None of them received much recognition at first, imo.

Big L. was made in 1998...LW and DH were made in the 80s

Dunkirk

At one point in the movie, there's a man handing out blankets to the returning soldiers, saying 'good job' to everyone as they come back. One soldier asks him why he's telling them good job since all they really did was survive. "Surviving is enough," is the response. This is the true story of the Battle of Dunkirk, where 400,000 allied troops were stranded on a beach in France and got rescued with help from civilian boats from across the bay. It is a story about survival, and nothing more.

The story is told in true 'Nolan' fashion, with 3 intertwined 'stories' that take place over different periods of time. Sometimes overlapping, but never did I feel confused about where we were in the story.

The action is nothing short of astonishing. It doesn't have the unnecessary gore of a Hacksaw Ridge or the emotional impact of a Saving Private Ryan. This movie is about what individual men do to try and make it thru a war. We know nothing about these men, and that's ok. There is really only one true character to develop in this movie, and that character is 'War.' People are killed in this movie, but not by bullets or bombs most of the time. There are instruments of war, and those instruments are large. When they are destroyed, men get crushed, drowned, and burned alive. This is how I imagine most people die in war, not a well placed bullet to the head.

We don't know the soldier's names, where they are from, or who their love is back at home. We just know that they are men who want to make it one more day.

The score is overwhelming, with the constant ticking of the clock and sirens a reminder of the impending doom that we can only begin to scratch the surface to feel what those soldiers must've felt on the beach. It's classic Hans Zimmer, and that is a polarizing statement, as there are many that find him too brash and too intrusive. I for one have always felt that his score adds more than it detracts in it's abrasiveness.

And then there's Tom Hardy. With maybe only 5 lines in the whole movie, and with a mask over his face, he is able to make us feel every moment in the air with those eyes of his. YGOS? You're damn right. Those saying he is underused in this film, I would argue, the fact that he doesn't play every character in every motion picture ever created makes him underused.

See this movie in the biggest screen possible (I saw it in 70mm but not IMAX), and be prepared to experience a war movie like you've never seen before.

I saw a preview for a movie where Halle Berry's kid gets kidnapped and I remembered that a while a ago there was a movie where Halle Berry gets kidnapped and I wondered if maybe she's doing a kind of franchise thing like Liam Neeson and Taken. Then I thought maybe Halle and Liam should team up and do a series of rom-com movies where they fall in love and rescue their kids from sex traffickers.

nice

Re-watched Stand by Me on a flight recently. One of my favorite 80s movies. Still holds up. Great young cast. Corey Feldman was actually really excellent in this. As was Wil Wheaton and River Phoenix. Captured a time and place perfectly - the feeling of being twelve, when your town and your friends were the whole world.

One of the best Stephen King adaptations, along with Shawshank.

Watched a bunch of old movies this weekend. The one that really stuck out was Seven Days in May.

I hadn't seen this since I was a kid and remembered only the main crux of the plot. Terrific cast of Fredrick March, Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster along with some of the great character actors of that era. Really taught cold war political thriller. I found this extremely entertaining and engaging.

Love Seven Days in May... ecomcon.

it was just released on BD, first day purchase for me.

Dunkirk was good but flawed. It is thankfully vastly superior to the turd that is Interstellar but it gets a lot of things entirely wrong and they detract massively from what could have been a very interesting take on a war that has been done to death in film already.

The different time sequences were fine and easy to follow as far as the story went but they didn't have the impact they should have. The purpose was presumably to connect character stories which had no connection at the start as all characters interact in some way by the end. But you are left wondering why as the same effect would have been achieved in chronological order.

The soundtrack was mostly fine, if they had just turned it off a few more times. It perfectly evoked the right atmosphere at certain points, but seemed completely out of place in others. Maybe it was my theatre but it wasn't close to as loud as interstellar which was hurting my head.

The scale was so off it was amazing and you just can't take the film seriously because of it. It was a massive gaping flaw in this that reminded you you were watching a film.

It should have been shorter by about 20 mins.

It needed more gore. It was far too deliberately PG to the point it was distracting. Like going out of its way not to show any real visceral violence. This is just as bad as too much gratuitous violence, no actually it's worse. The atmosphere was ripe to show the horror more directly. This should have been a 15 certificate minimum.

Overall, a decent film, worth seeing but very far from the elite war movies.

frankly, I really do not get this comment.

It is not meant as a criticism on rbenuck4 because quite frankly, it's not a unique view, but there is little in the movie that is shockingly disturbing or brain searing retentive... perhaps that is the sticking point for most Americans who's reference for WWII is quite different than those of Europeans.

the antiseptic manner in which Nolan is featuring the event is, in my humble opinion, quite stylized and in fact is fairly censored.

It's not a bad movie, it's merely not a great movie... in my view.

It's from the 80's?

My favorite scene is when Riggs pulls the trigger and the hammer hits Murtaughs hand.

World War Z is a really effective thriller. Every time it's on, I can't turn it off.

I think there is a Chaotic scale and overwhelming grittiness to the reality of Dunkirk that Nolan failed to capture or convey... certainly in terms of realism.

I haven't seen Dunkirk yet but I have a hard time conceiving that the story can be told properly with a PG-13 rating?

See my comments above. It really couldn't be. It was actively noticeable that it was going out of its way not to show visceral gore. Detracted massively. Probably only film I can remember where that is the case. It's far more common for violence to be overdone.

I was dying at this part too and I was wondering why the other four people in the theater weren't laughing their asses off. Wtf? How awkward is it to be laughing uncontrollably for a lengthy period when no one else in the theater is?

I don't think Dunkirk needed more gore, but the lack of scale was definitely noticeable. It just felt like a few thousand guys on a giant expanse of a beach instead of 400,000.