I thought the score definitely got in the way of the visuals, as there was too much of it and it was too loud.
I just found it superfluous for too many scenes. The tension is clear. The emotions are clear. The film is working in a kind of pseudo-documentary register anyway, and in 1940 nobody carries their own soundtrack around an emergency war zone. The music could just back off.
I liked the movie, but I think you liked it better than I did - I had issues with the structure, which I felt was unnecessary - and I also had a hard time keeping track of the two non-Harry Styles boys, especially once they were all wet and their hair was no longer curly or straight.
This movie was my first experience of Harry Styles! He was actually the one I was most in danger of losing track of: until the long scenes of waiting on the beach, I'd had less time to study his face. My mother whom I would not call face-blind had trouble with all three of them to the point where she was unsure which one that wasn't Tommy was still alive in the closing scenes.
I can see the film being difficult to enjoy if the structure doesn't work for you. It did for me. Did you find it confusing or did it just feel gratuitously complicating?
I will say that after waiting most of the movie for it, the wide shot of the flotilla of little ships did make me choke up, so the 70mm was worth it for that.
Yes. That had the right effect.
Otoh, I would have watched a whole movie of Tom Hardy in a Spitfire.
Tom Hardy was almost completely off my radar until Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and now I've realized I'm actively interested in him as an actor.
(As an American, I didn't learn about Dunkirk until my recreational reading about the war from a non-US perspective over the last few years; I'm pretty sure we were taught that the war started with Pearl Harbor when I was in school [in the 80s]).
no subject
I just found it superfluous for too many scenes. The tension is clear. The emotions are clear. The film is working in a kind of pseudo-documentary register anyway, and in 1940 nobody carries their own soundtrack around an emergency war zone. The music could just back off.
I liked the movie, but I think you liked it better than I did - I had issues with the structure, which I felt was unnecessary - and I also had a hard time keeping track of the two non-Harry Styles boys, especially once they were all wet and their hair was no longer curly or straight.
This movie was my first experience of Harry Styles! He was actually the one I was most in danger of losing track of: until the long scenes of waiting on the beach, I'd had less time to study his face. My mother whom I would not call face-blind had trouble with all three of them to the point where she was unsure which one that wasn't Tommy was still alive in the closing scenes.
I can see the film being difficult to enjoy if the structure doesn't work for you. It did for me. Did you find it confusing or did it just feel gratuitously complicating?
I will say that after waiting most of the movie for it, the wide shot of the flotilla of little ships did make me choke up, so the 70mm was worth it for that.
Yes. That had the right effect.
Otoh, I would have watched a whole movie of Tom Hardy in a Spitfire.
Tom Hardy was almost completely off my radar until Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and now I've realized I'm actively interested in him as an actor.
(As an American, I didn't learn about Dunkirk until my recreational reading about the war from a non-US perspective over the last few years; I'm pretty sure we were taught that the war started with Pearl Harbor when I was in school [in the 80s]).
Thanks for the data point!
Also, nice icon.