It will flop
IT WILL
shareA war epic by Nolan with an amazing cast and Harry Styles thrown in for good measure.
Flop, my arse.
Will Styles play the young Sinatra with bowt ie like in real life?
share
MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > It will flop
If only for today's audience preferring to go to garbage like Fast and the Furious, instead of this. But I have more faith in human taste. I'm cautiously optimistic.
shareUh, I enjoy Fast & Furious and I'm going to see Dunkirk on opening day. So not everyone seeing Fast & Furious is dumb and ONLY watches "garbage." There are other reasons I watch Fast & Furious. Mainly I just want something "fun." Not every movie I watch needs to be Oscar winning or at least nominated for a buttload of Oscars. But I'm REALLY looking forward to Dunkirk just as much as I was the latest Fast & Furious. I'm not a "dumb" moviegoer. I like everything.
shareOf course. I totally understand, and I am similar. I'm mainly refering to the people of today who only go to watch brainless action films, and don't care to watch anything of substance. Trust me, there are many people who only watch crap (explains why the Transformers movies are popular), and find movies like Dunkirk boring.
shareI saw "Dunkirk", which was a very well-done movie, but it's certainly not for the faint of heart!
So far, it hasn't flopped. "Dunkirk" is playing at a bunch of movie theatres in my area, including the Coolidge Corner Theatre, in Brookline, MA, where I've long held an annual membership, and it's doing quite well indeed.
Just got back from seeing Dunkirk. Pretty good. I enjoyed it as much as I did the latest Fast & Furious. Only thing though is that Dunkirk is more of a movie you only need to see once. Mostly because of how intense it is. I might watch it a few more times though. Will probably buy it on Blu-Ray too.
shareCool that you like Fast and the Furious, I'm just not able to enjoy those movies because none of the main characters gets hurt during the action. Almost never. Since there is no danger (they are never hurt) it makes for boring movies to me. Also, this comes from somebody who loves big fantasy action flicks (James Bond, Indiana Jones, Iron Man etc), but Fast and the Furious is a level of unrealistic that to me is.. not edible.
Yeah. I can understand that argument, especially since they were getting banged up in the first couple. Vin Diesel looked a little bloody at the end of the first one and Tyrese got his arm broken at the end of 2 Fast. Paul Walker also got shot or something at the end of the 4th movie.
But every movie since 5, they've been bulletproof and not taking any damage. And when they do get injured, they heal pretty quick. Only thing though is that I don't really watch movies for 100% realism. If I want realism I'll just watch the news, Discovery/Travel Channel (and so on), or just go somewhere and sit and watch people go about their day. So I can let it go on everyone being bulletproof and stuff now in the Fast & Furious, although it didn't really start off that way.
I think the 4th movie "rebooted" the movies anyway since that is when things started to head in the ridiculous and unrealistic direction it's in now. 5 is when it REALLY took off though. Only "realistic" stuff I call BS on is if it doesn't fit into the plot or universe a movie has created. So if everyone in Fast & Furious started riding unicorns or could time travel and stuff, then I'll be calling BS on it. And I'm big into Oscar movies and watch the Oscars every year, so when a Fast & Furious movie is released in theaters, I just want a break and have something "dumb/fun." And they usually deliver on that. I also do like the characters too. I could watch a two hour movie of them sitting around drinking beers and talking crap about each other.
It's strange, but I am not able to enjoy films that completely throws out every inch of realism out the window.
If Vin had just gotten a little bit hurt, showed some pain, some fright, these movies would have jumped a hell of a lot up on the scale in my book. They would still be silly, but they would be much better, and much more exciting. You can literally keep all the set pieces, like the building jump in Fast and Furious 7, just add some glimmer of realism to it. If the villain is strong, and dangerous, and the characters in it shows pain, the audience can identify with what's going on, and they get invested. This goes for Oscar movies and this goes for popcorn entertainment.
I loved the first Fast and furious movie. I remember watching it in the cinema and having a great time. the series have certainly developed into more of a "team on a mission" movies. If James Bond, Mission Impossible and even comic book movies like The Avengers have real tension and realism to them, why can't this series have it also? They are certainly high quality films, but are not in my opinion good action movies. Face/Off is a good action movie. Is that not also damn silly?
But thanks for a good explanation of why you like them. Both of my brothers adore these films, and I have had several "opinionated" discussions with them on this topic, which is always fun.
It would be nice to see a little more realism in them, I guess. I would like to see the characters get injured and stuff. I cheer more for characters that get pretty banged up by the end but are still successful and will be able to recover from their injuries. Plus have to deal with injuries throughout and what they got earlier in the movie instead of insta-healing a scene or two later. I remember Vin being shot in 6 and early in the movie, but he didn't act injured throughout the rest of the movie.
But what I like about the movie is that even with how ridiculous and "unrealistic" some of the stuff is, they were actually done with practical effects. The whole thing in 7 with them parachuting out of the plane was actually shot and no green screen. Only green screen in that sequence is when it cuts to an actor in a car and they say some dialogue. But they are pretty good at keeping things practical.
Only time I ever called BS on something was in 6 and during the tank battle. I didn't like how Dom caught Letty and then they landed on a car. They should've both smacked into each other and dropped to their deaths instead of Dom catching her and then landing on a car twenty feet away. He wasn't thrown with enough force either to jump that far either.
Everyone complains about the airport scene, but I understood what was going on. The scene was slowed down to show everyone's POV. If the scene was edited differently, a lot of it was happening at the same time. But the scene probably would've lasted 2-3 minutes if they didn't show everyone's POV.
It's actually common to "slow down" things to show everything. Like with countdowns. We see a 30-second countdown but it takes 5-10 minutes of the movie's runtime to get from 30 seconds remaining to 1 second. That's how I view the airport scene in Fast & Furious 6. The runway was no 30 miles like everyone thinks.
Good point, Reaperscout! "Dunkirk" is a good movie, but I could not and would not bring myself to see it again, due to its extreme intensity.
shareNolan is tied with David Fincher and M. Night Shylamalan for my favorite Directors...I love all of Nolans movies
but This new Dunkirk movie has me really curious, Not for the movie itself(I'm sure it will be great) but I'm curious about Its Box office Potential.
as of right now, Its really flying under the radar, The Trailers have been good but Not Great...The Hype for this movie simply isn't where I'd think it should be...
Nolan is a Massive Draw, after The Dark Knight, Nolan directing A Film became a huge part of its draw...Inception,The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar all were huge films but Nolan directing them added A Huge amount of Hype to them and resulted in A Huge Box Office Bump.
Dunkirk is The first Nolan film since he became Massive that Is really Not A Huge Blockbuster...Dunkirk does not play to the same audience that his last 4 films have...
and this is what makes me curious, IMO with Dunkirk were really going to get an idea of what kind of Draw Nolan is, I think by far The biggest selling point about this movie is Nolan directing...The cast is good but has no Massive stars or Box office Draws really, The Movie itself is a war movie about a story a large amount of the audience wont even know...NOLAN is the draw here.
This movie may flop....I just dont see it making that much...If It does, Its 1000% on Nolan, If Dunkirk does make a lot of money it will be because A. it got A huge bump in box office on opening weekend from People seeing this movie due to Nolan Directing and then B. because Nolan made a fantastic movie(that had great word of mouth) and had great legs.
but IMO that Wont happen...
I think this movie is going to be a tough sell..
I think Dunkirk is gonna open between 18 and 25 Million, I think It will make A Domestic total between 55-80 Million and A World Wide total between 200-250 Million
This just isn't the type of movie that audiences want from Nolan...Nolan is a massive draw, almost any blockbuster he makes, Hype will be through the roof and Nolan directing Will add to the box office, But this film isn't it, I just dont see it making very much or see Nolan directing adding very Hype or box office
I could be wrong...If Dunkirk is a smash hit , If Dunkirk makes ore than 100 million Domestically and over 400 million world wide, Then Nolan Drawing power is Massive
I hear Fincher mentioned again near Nolan. Fincher is better now, I have yet to see a new Nolan film that deserves the title.
In these blockbusters his vision is lost. I mean Batman alone. Or Interstellar. Yes it's good on the eyes. But: Please!
Interstellar was just good on the eyes? Another joke please!
shareShut up
shareNolan and Styles alone have enough extremist fans to prevent this movie from ever flopping. Add in Murphy and Hardy and this movie is guaranteed to succeed at the box office.
share[deleted]
I am not seeing it. Looks boring. The only reason to see it is Tom Hardy, but I am going to pass. Isn't it PG-13 also. The horrors of war shouldn't be given a PG-13.
shareIt very borin
shareKids these days.
shareJust got back from seeing it. Pretty intense for a PG-13 rating. But it's not about blood and gore of war. It's more of a survival movie that takes place during war time.
shareI still don't think I will see it. Nolan runs hot and cold for me and from the trailer it looks like it will be cold. I hate going to a movie and being bored and this looks like it will be a snooze for me. I could be wrong though.
shareI was never bored at all. It kept moving for me. But I watch a lot of slower paced movies, especially Oscar movies, so I can handle something that someone else might find slow or boring. But Christopher Nolan's movies are 50/50 with people when it comes to liking and/or disliking. So I can understand why you'd want to wait. I've liked all his movies so far.
shareSome Nolan movies I liked, some were just OK. I don't love his movies, except for Memento, but I don't like how some of his movies explain everything either. There isn't any mystery in his movies. He never lets the viewer think about what they just saw. He is the anti David Lynch.
shareI think Nolan is as idiosyncratic a mainstream filmmaker as you're going to get in this world.
shareI don't agree. I think that he is a pretty straightforward director. His films are OK, but not spectacular. He explains much too much in his movies.
shareBoth "Inception" and "Dark Knight Rises" ended with questions unanswered which I liked.
Many of his films employ a non-linear narrative style (though, like Shyamalan and his twist endings, this device of Nolan's is starting to feel stale and gimmicky).
He's no Lynch I agree; but, then again, who is?
We're in agreement that "Memento" is great. He needs to forego the blockbusters and get back to working on a smaller canvas.
You'll love this then, there is hardly any dialogue, the story is told more through visuals than the dialogue. It was...different to not have much in the way of character development or that the story was being shown, rather been being told per sè. It was very effective, I'll give him that, definitely one of the more intense movies I've seen.
shareI saw and liked this too----mainly because the trailers for it were intriguing, and because it was directed by Nolan---this is definitely not the usual type of film he makes, which intrigued me even more. I also liked the fact that the film dosen't spell everything out for you---you have to figure out what's going on at some point in the film. Impressive film though,love how it was made (plus it was actually shot on film, which explains its unique look) it's real action-packed, and it's unique in that it really pulls you into the action to the point where you feel like you're actually there with the soldiers, going through everything they go through, and then some. So,yeah, anybody who likes war films, should definitely go see it. I'd recommend it.
shareThat's also very true, Reaperscout. Moreover, "Dunkirk" is one of the few war movies that don't glorify war, as is "Saving Private Ryan."
share