I rarely get giggity with movie releases, since it's a slowly dying form of entertainment qualitatively speaking, but Nolan and WWII is one combo that can potentially reconcile me with cinema, like an awkward Lazarus effect. Let's hope for the best
edit:
for the new page:
consolitis wrote:
How it looks (cinematography) is great, but as a trailer it is also pretty boring.
Filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s WW2 epic “Dunkirk” has been surprisingly handed a PG-13 rating. ERC Box Office announced the MPAA’s verdict which awarded the rating for “intense war experience and some language”.
While there never was any indication that Nolan was aiming for an R-rating during production, and he hasn’t made an R-rated film since 2002’s “Insomnia,” the lack of one for a serious war film of this type is unexpected.
Films like “Saving Private Ryan” and “Hacksaw Ridge,” which this has already been compared to, scored R ratings. The PG-13 also implies a lack of graphic fighting scenes. Nolan earned a hefty $20 million up-front fee for directing the film along with 20% of the gross, making it the biggest directorial deal since Peter Jackson’s “King Kong”.
is he going with u ? , that be a interesting story to hear what he thinks of it, ofcourse could bring up a lot of spooky memories,
but i have a gut feeling the history of dunkirk is a whole lot of bloatet up bullshit propaganda stories written by the victors of the war, trying to mask their chaotic retreat as something heroic, when it fact it was utter defeat and pure incompetence of the people in charge, not to mention pure betrayel to the french allies leaving many of them behind asking them to cover britsh asses as they ran back home.
from what i read hitler didnt care about those soldiers on the beaches, he wanted peace as soon as possible to focus on a new front, even disregarding his own military advizers to push on, and his actions gave the allies the days and time to pull out. cheer luck on a military level, possible motivated by politics to let britain save some face going into peace talks
is he going with u ? , that be a interesting story to hear what he thinks of it, ofcourse could bring up a lot of spooky memories,
but i have a gut feeling the history of dunkirk is a whole lot of bloatet up bullshit propaganda stories written by the victors of the war, trying to mask their chaotic retreat as something heroic, when it fact it was utter defeat and pure incompetence of the people in charge, not to mention pure betrayel to the french allies leaving many of them behind asking them to cover britsh asses as they ran back home.
from what i read hitler didnt care about those soldiers on the beaches, he wanted peace as soon as possible to focus on a new front, even disregarding his own military advizers to push on, and his actions gave the allies the days and time to pull out. cheer luck on a military level, possible motivated by politics to let britain save some face going into peace talks
Louis Kilzer quoted Hitler in his book “Churchill’s Deception”
“The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable too shed. Our two peoples belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can’t grasp it.” – Adolf Hitler
In his book, The “Other Side of the Hill,” published in 1948, which deals with the invasion of France and the Dunkirk event, British Military Historian Sir Basil Liddel Hart quotes the German General von Blumentritt concerning Hitlers halt order:
“He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where is the planning, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..”
I think this was better portrayal of scale than Dunkirk
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
Nolan did a great job in creating tension and not glamorizing war the way other movies have done. He showed the desperation of the soldiers magnificently.
People seem to be very critical about the lack of character development, but the movie isn't about the characters. It's about the event itself and it presents it in a very realistic way.
Some people are complaining that the characters didn't speak much, but then again would most soldiers be chatty during an event like Dunkirk?
Nolan's goal was not to create layered fictional characters but to capture the event that is Dunkirk and to do so in a realistic way.
from what i read hitler didnt care about those soldiers on the beaches, he wanted peace as soon as possible to focus on a new front, even disregarding his own military advizers to push on, and his actions gave the allies the days and time to pull out. cheer luck on a military level, possible motivated by politics to let britain save some face going into peace talks
Saw some pepole getting called nazis when they mentioned some of this or even comments like "so Hitler is the real hero?"
Another theory is that Göring wanted to show off with his Luftwaffe.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
