|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 2, 2017 2:19:51 GMT
I went and saw Dunkirk this evening, it's a must see, but don't go in thinking you're going to see a WWII movie like you've ever seen before. This was more like a virtual reality trip. In retrospect I wish I saw it in Imax. No spoilers, but Christopher Nolan didn't give two shits about character development, even with some pretty strong acting performances. There must have been five minutes of dialogue in total. He wants you to experience the event. And as much as one could sitting in a theater with a soft drink and bag of popcorn, he succeeded with me. A really unique film. Oscar-worthy? Maybe. Edit: I think the closest comparison one could make would be Das Boot, with less dialogue. Great description Nutty. I thought the same thing and said the same thing to my wife after the movie, the screenwriter didn't have to work much dialogue into the script thats for sure! With a top notch cast such as Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy & Mark Rylance, its quite phenomenal that they didn't say much at all, it was all in their expressions which is something good actors can do. Hardy for example said all his dialogue through an aviator mask, like a flying Bane if you will. Great movie, will get Oscar nominations for sure, cinematography if nothing else, plus the sound effects are like being right there, my wife must have jumped out of her seat about 5 X. I recommend it for sure, and your comparison to Das Boot is spot on, i mentioned that movie to my wife as well, we must be on the same wavelength on describing Dunkirk. I absolutely loved Das Boot, one of my all time favourites for a war movie, i was claustrophobic from watching the movie and i wasn't even in the submarine!
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 2, 2017 2:26:15 GMT
I went and saw Dunkirk this evening, it's a must see, but don't go in thinking you're going to see a WWII movie like you've ever seen before. This was more like a virtual reality trip. In retrospect I wish I saw it in Imax. No spoilers, but Christopher Nolan didn't give two shits about character development, even with some pretty strong acting performances. There must have been five minutes of dialogue in total. He wants you to experience the event. And as much as one could sitting in a theater with a soft drink and bag of popcorn, he succeeded with me. A really unique film. Oscar-worthy? Maybe. Edit: I think the closest comparison one could make would be Das Boot, with less dialogue. Great description Nutty. I thought the same thing and said the same thing to my wife after the movie, the screenwriter didn't have to work much dialogue into the script thats for sure! With a top notch cast such as Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy & Mark Rylance, its quite phenomenal that they didn't say much at all, it was all in their expressions which is something good actors can do. Hardy for example said all his dialogue through an aviator mask, like a flying Bane if you will. Great movie, will get Oscar nominations for sure, cinematography if nothing else, plus the sound effects are like being right there, my wife must have jumped out of her seat about 5 X. I recommend it for sure, and your comparison to Das Boot is spot on, i mentioned that movie to my wife as well, we must be on the same wavelength on describing Dunkirk. I absolutely loved Das Boot, one of my all time favourites for a war movie, i was claustrophobic from watching the movie and i wasn't even in the submarine! Yup, I think I'm going to have to see it again. I think I'm appreciating it more a few hours after seeing it. By the way, Christopher Nolan wrote the screenplay too. The guy is really talented. And Das Boot is a personal favorite as well.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 2, 2017 3:10:36 GMT
Zero character development.
Zero dialog.
See it in the highest quality theater you can.
The guns on the fighters will rattle you.
It's so well done. It's hard to call it great or awesome as is obviously a somber story.
Tremendous might be a good adjective for it.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 2, 2017 5:07:52 GMT
Zero character development. Zero dialog. See it in the highest quality theater you can. The guns on the fighters will rattle you. It's so well done. It's hard to call it great or awesome as is obviously a somber story. Tremendous might be a good adjective for it. As you say Nas its hard to call a movie with such a somber storyline and something as horrific as war with any glorious adjective, but i guess you could describe Nolan's filmmaking as awesome. It was tremendous for sure, and i also agree on the theatre choice, Imax might be the best choice like Nutty suggests.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 3, 2017 12:37:47 GMT
Zero character development. Zero dialog. See it in the highest quality theater you can. The guns on the fighters will rattle you. It's so well done. It's hard to call it great or awesome as is obviously a somber story. Tremendous might be a good adjective for it. I love Nolan's films, but this kind of thing turns me right off. No dialog or character, just action and effects? Zzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 3, 2017 13:33:34 GMT
Zero character development. Zero dialog. See it in the highest quality theater you can. The guns on the fighters will rattle you. It's so well done. It's hard to call it great or awesome as is obviously a somber story. Tremendous might be a good adjective for it. I love Nolan's films, but this kind of thing turns me right off. No dialog or character, just action and effects? Zzzzzz It's about what happened. The story is told well.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 3, 2017 13:53:34 GMT
I love Nolan's films, but this kind of thing turns me right off. No dialog or character, just action and effects? Zzzzzz It's about what happened. The story is told well. I'm just not a big fan of "and then this happened...and then this happened...and then this...etc". I don't doubt it's awesome to look at, and experience, but I fall asleep if there's nothing to process.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 3, 2017 14:04:33 GMT
It's about what happened. The story is told well. I'm just not a big fan of "and then this happened...and then this happened...and then this...etc". I don't doubt it's awesome to look at, and experience, but I fall asleep if there's nothing to process. You would be left with having to process the gravity, magnitude, sacrifice & overwhelming desperation of it all.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 3, 2017 14:11:40 GMT
Zero character development. Zero dialog. See it in the highest quality theater you can. The guns on the fighters will rattle you. It's so well done. It's hard to call it great or awesome as is obviously a somber story. Tremendous might be a good adjective for it. I love Nolan's films, but this kind of thing turns me right off. No dialog or character, just action and effects? Zzzzzz Ditto. However, this movie intrigues me, largely because it's a subject I'm highly interested in. I'll see it but I may be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 3, 2017 14:26:27 GMT
I'm just not a big fan of "and then this happened...and then this happened...and then this...etc". I don't doubt it's awesome to look at, and experience, but I fall asleep if there's nothing to process. You would be left with having to process the gravity, magnitude, sacrifice & overwhelming desperation of it all. Unlikely. I'm dead inside.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 3, 2017 14:57:57 GMT
You would be left with having to process the gravity, magnitude, sacrifice & overwhelming desperation of it all. Unlikely. I'm dead inside. I don't know if i agree with that. You seem to swell with emotion when discussing Jumbo Joe, the LeRfs and short, fat people, so you do have life inside of you. You might enjoy this movie, you never know.
|
|
|
Post by dezaruchi on Aug 6, 2017 18:15:07 GMT
That's too bad. I hadn't heard. Ironically enough, I happen to be watching him right now on tv. The movie is called,"Stealth". Probably a huge budget but it plays like it's a made for tv.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 6, 2017 18:36:49 GMT
I knew the name but couldn't place him. Reviewing his work, it's clear why. That guy wasn't in one memorable role!
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 6, 2017 19:39:52 GMT
I knew the name but couldn't place him. Reviewing his work, it's clear why. That guy wasn't in one memorable role! I mostly agree, but he did play Chuck Yeager pretty well in the Right Stuff, which was an awesome film.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 6, 2017 21:20:05 GMT
I knew the name but couldn't place him. Reviewing his work, it's clear why. That guy wasn't in one memorable role! I mostly agree, but he did play Chuck Yeager pretty well in the Right Stuff, which was an awesome film. That came out when I was 8. I just had my 20 year college reunion!
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 6, 2017 21:52:33 GMT
That's too bad. I hadn't heard. Ironically enough, I happen to be watching him right now on tv. The movie is called,"Stealth". Probably a huge budget but it plays like it's a made for tv. 10 Obie awards and a Pulitzer as a writer. He never really carried a movie as an actor, per say, but in Terrance Malik "Days of Heavan" opposite Richard Gere, the Right Stuff (nominated for an Oscar) and Thunderheat opposite Val Kilmer, Shepard could do a good job as a supporting actor. And major props for getting Jessica Lange who is my favorite actress.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 6, 2017 23:18:23 GMT
I mostly agree, but he did play Chuck Yeager pretty well in the Right Stuff, which was an awesome film. That came out when I was 8. I just had my 20 year college reunion! I was a year older, I didnt see it in the theater, suck a dick and buy a dvd player lol
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 6, 2017 23:23:51 GMT
I always considered Sam Shepard more of a writer than an actor, although i of course saw him in movies such as Frances and the Right Stuff. I would say his acclaim came as a screenwriter, playwright , more so than an actor, although getting nominated for an Academy ward means he must have known what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 7, 2017 0:38:27 GMT
Just watched Apocalypse Now for the first time.
What's all the hype? That movie sucked.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 7, 2017 4:11:50 GMT
Just watched Apocalypse Now for the first time. What's all the hype? That movie sucked. I think the Heart of Darkness thing ws a lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 7, 2017 13:17:07 GMT
Just watched Apocalypse Now for the first time. What's all the hype? That movie sucked. I think the Heart of Darkness thing ws a lot of it. It's a little strange to take Conrad's book written about the Congo and make it about Vietnam for film. Captain Kurtz is awesome either way though. The character seemed even darker and scarier in the book and I liked the general theme of the river just digesting the troops as they moved up it. I read some things about the movie-making process which were interesting. Apparently Martin Sheen's drunken tantrum towards the beginning was 100% real. Not scripted at all and a true drunken rant where the cameramen just filmed him. The cut hand on the glass was apparently real too and Sheen had to get stitches, which they then had to hide in subsequent filming. I'm not a big fan of voice-over narration in those kinds of movies though, especially when it seems like they're pushing certain reactions and emotions on the viewer, that they can't achieve organically (eg. Shawshank). Always makes me think of The Wonder Years...
|
|
|
Post by goodnewsbears on Aug 7, 2017 19:10:25 GMT
That came out when I was 8. I just had my 20 year college reunion! I was a year older, I didnt see it in the theater, suck a dick and buy a dvd player lol You know you spent too much money on your summer vacation when you need to suck a dick to buy a dvd player.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 7, 2017 19:58:56 GMT
I was a year older, I didnt see it in the theater, suck a dick and buy a dvd player lol You know you spent too much money on your summer vacation when you need to suck a dick to buy a dvd player. It was a suggestion. Hey credit cards work too, floats and boats and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 8, 2017 4:04:18 GMT
I think the Heart of Darkness thing ws a lot of it. It's a little strange to take Conrad's book written about the Congo and make it about Vietnam for film. Captain Kurtz is awesome either way though. The character seemed even darker and scarier in the book and I liked the general theme of the river just digesting the troops as they moved up it. I read some things about the movie-making process which were interesting. Apparently Martin Sheen's drunken tantrum towards the beginning was 100% real. Not scripted at all and a true drunken rant where the cameramen just filmed him. The cut hand on the glass was apparently real too and Sheen had to get stitches, which they then had to hide in subsequent filming. I'm not a big fan of voice-over narration in those kinds of movies though, especially when it seems like they're pushing certain reactions and emotions on the viewer, that they can't achieve organically (eg. Shawshank). Always makes me think of The Wonder Years... I think just the implied comparison to King Leopold's colonial practices was enough for some - at the time - to see it as brave social commentary. Wasn't there a discussion of that "the making of Apocalypse Now" movie earlier on here?
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 8, 2017 14:17:25 GMT
Its the chaos of the Vietnam War vs the CIA/Harrision Ford meeting vs Kurtz pissing off the CIA when he orders the assignation of some viet-con officers.
John Milius, writer/director of Conan the Barbarian and Red Dawn, wrote the screenplay for Apocalypse. He wrote a bunch of dialogue for the original Jaws.
Production of Apocalypse took like 280 days. Martin Sheen had a heart attack so they had to stop fliming. Harvey Keitel was fired before Sheen.
Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen and James Caan turned the movie down. $31M budget, $150M at the box office. Movie wasn't for everyone.
"Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse" is the documentary done by Coppola's wife. Almost s crazy as the movie.
|
|