another Dunkirk?


all hype, but no substance...

reply

Yep.

reply

Lacks the intensity, dread and helplessness that Dunkirk had...

Also, Dunkirk's distant, detached cinama style seemed better at conveying the coldness of war then 1917... As much as I liked 1917, it had an odd combination of sentimentality and video game-y (FPS) feel that in a way calls too much attention to itself...

I know some people feel the same way about the long one-shot in Atonement... As if it's the director showing off... but with that movie it didn't really take me out of the experience... perhaps because it had a more varied visual style and pacing in the earlier scenes...

Worth watching in on a big screen (not your phone/ipad)... and keep your phone away... immerse yourself otherwise you won't get the feel for either movie (1917 nor Dunkirk)... they are not plot heavy, talky movies than can be "consumed" while texting or scrolling instagram...

reply

1917 had a clean narrative and characters that you could follow. Also had a clear emotional crescendo.

Dunkirk was a shitty movie that had some loud scenes directed well here and there.

reply

1917 was just about one person and was boring, after the novelty of a single camera shot wore off, it got uninteresting.
why does no one ever make a epic WWI movie?

agreed Dunkirk was crap.

reply

Eh I thought it was better than Dunkirk, we at least got to know the two guys. I know that’s not much but it’s at least more than what Dunkirk gave us.

reply