What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[KK 3,307]

13 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

There so many filmmakers making worthwhile movies.  This is why the Cult of Nolan can get annoying.  He's an interesting filmmaker and vital part of the industry.  Not the Only True Savior of Cinema.  I mean get it, he's audacious, loud, and chest-beating (metaphorically).  He appeals to Kubrick-worshippers.  I like that he gets real budgets and is successful.  But there are great artists out there who make what movies they can scrape together and do it very well.

 

Indeed. That's why I think it's important to clarify that Nolan is one of the few makers with the leverage to try interesting things in the mainstream/blockbuster arena. Filmmakers playing with budgets that high rarely get to make truly individualistic movies. Most of the time, they're roped in by a big studio to make a big franchise flick so they can stay afloat long enough to make the next one.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

 

You're the archdeacon of the Church!!!

 

Only because Karol lost his mind and was excommunicated.  I'm no zealot, but I'll defend the faith!

[crocodile 8,012]

Not sure what to think of it. It is stuck somewhere between the big action movie and a more serious historical account. The trouble is I'm not sure those two things are not cancelling each other out. A bit too dry to stir a strong emotional response and a possibly too sombre to be truly exciting. I give Nolan some points for creating more of a visual experience - there are segments in there that offer the "purest" cinema he's ever produced. The dialogue is mostly functional and dry and the rest of it plays out a lot like a silent film. This feeling is greatly enhanced by the fact music never actually stops during the film - this is wall-to-wall scoring at its most extreme (imagine The Dark Knight bank sequence music  stretched to 106 minutes). I'm not sure whether it works as sometimes this "ticking bomb" approach is bit on the nose. Silence could achieve more sometimes and the director never seems to trust the audience much when it comes to scoring. The actors all do a great job but it is not really an actors' film at all. They all merely portray people doing usual stuff and saying normal things (in those circumstances, of course). Finally, Nolan is back to his obsession with time in films - he's stretching it and compressing throughout the running time. From the editorial point of view, it is quite intriguing and the technical side of this production is very well executed. I was both impressed by it and left slightly cold by the whole experience. It's either Nolan's best or worst work. Not sure which yet...

 

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I do agree there were moments that would have been better handled without score, or even complete silence.

[publicist 4,643]

Nolan movies are what they are, it's not that he actively prods people into praising him. That's more a problem of media culture today. Since AICN, there's a real need to hype everything to keep people from shrugging and if it's not a total bore and for a change doesn't feature another comic book character, heaven opens.

[KK 3,307]

1 minute ago, publicist said:

Nolan movies are what they are, it's not that he actively prods people into praising him. That's more a problem of media culture today. Since AICN, there's a real need to hype everything to keep people from shrugging and if it's not a total bore and for a change doesn't feature another comic book character, heaven opens.

 

This.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, KK said:

At least Nolan gets to do his own thing. That's something we should encourage.

 

And I do!  I'm not much of a fan, but I like that he exists.

 

My speed is more the Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Coen Bros set.  People who always get financing from sort of within the Hollywood money system and get to make highly individual films.  Hopefully Lonergan has joined that set now with the success of Manchester.

 

The "alpha males" like Nolan and Inarritu I often find tiresome.

[KK 3,307]

5 minutes ago, crocodile said:

 Finally, Nolan is back to his obsession with time in films - he's stretching it and compressing throughout the running time. From the editorial point of view, it is quite intriguing and the technical side of this production is very well executed.

 

Karol

 

When I first heard about the film's concept, this was my initial concern as well. But he pulls it off well here. 

 

In the end, for all the talk of a "truly different" Nolan film, this one turned out to be pretty Nolan-esque, really. Just done quite well.

 

I'd be curious to see if he really challenges himself on whatever his next project is.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

9 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Only because Karol lost his mind and was excommunicated.  I'm no zealot, but I'll defend the faith!

 

The Great Schism!  Karolites vs. Pilgrimists!  Let the war to root out heretics commence.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I love Wes Anderson and the Coens, really adore some of their films, but sometimes they verge a bit on one-trick-pony territory for me.  

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

And I do!  I'm not much of a fan, but I like that he exists.

 

My speed is more the Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Coen Bros set.  People who always get financing from sort of within the Hollywood money system and get to make highly individual films.  Hopefully Lonergan has joined that set now with the success of Manchester.

 

The "alpha males" like Nolan and Inarritu I often find tiresome.

 

Oh!  And of course Barry Jenkins now!  He should be able to coast off the Best Picture win and always get financing.  Very encouraging.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

The Great Schism!  Karolites vs. Pilgrimists!  Let the war to root out heretics commence.

 

I will post my demands on Karol's door.  Or the other way around?  

[KK 3,307]

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

And I do!  I'm not much of a fan, but I like that he exists.

 

My speed is more the Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Coen Bros set.  People who always get financing from sort of within the Hollywood money system and get to make highly individual films.  Hopefully Lonergan has joined that set now with the success of Manchester.

 

The "alpha males" like Nolan and Inarritu I often find tiresome.

 

But those guys aren't so much mainstream film makers are they? In that sense, there are a good number of interesting film makers catering towards more niche audiences or awards season. But Nolan is probably one of the last major names who can still compete with the likes of Marvel and Star Wars in financial freedom, scale and broad appeal.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 minute ago, KK said:

 

But those guys aren't so much mainstream film makers are they? In that sense, there are a great deal number of interesting film makers catering towards more niche audiences or awards season. But Nolan is probably one of the last major names who can still compete with the likes of Marvel and Star Wars in scale and broad appeal.

 

It's true and it's why I wish I liked his movies more.  I need to see Dunkirk, because Interstellar was the first Nolan I really liked.  So maybe I've converted.

 

Also, The Revenant grossed over $500 million worldwide.  Inarritu's mainstream now!

[crocodile 8,012]

At least they all have a style. 

 

What I find very interesting is that the film doesn't really feature a single enemy soldier visible on screen. They're almost unreal as this distant threat.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

I don't think we need to all love his films. Heck, I have my own issues with him too. But I think it's good that we have him around.

 

Denis Villeneuve seems to be climbing up to Nolan's seat as well. I have hope for him.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Nope, sorry.  JWFan already decided that Blade Runner 2 is shit.  As JWFan goes, so goes the world.  He's out.

[KK 3,307]

I have faith in Villeneuve!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Your love of country blinds you!

[KK 3,307]

He is the true Saviour!! I shall build my Church upon his name! Join me brother!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

What I've seen from Denis gives me hope as well, but BR2049 will determine his future!  I do hope it is good.

[Romão 2,274]

2 hours ago, KK said:

 

Dunkirk

 

It's to war films what Gravity was to "science-fiction". A roller coaster ride that forgoes character and narrative and instead heavily hinges on the experience. And it does this incredibly well. By the third act, you'll feel the need for some air.

 

It takes a little time to settle and buy into Nolan's unconventional triptych structure. The fact that the three storylines go at different paces throughout the film can threaten to lose some of the audience, but Nolan ties it together quite cleverly.

 

And jeez, there really isn't anyone topping Nolan when it comes to scale nowadays eh? There are some phenomenal setpieces, thousands of extras, and some beautiful shots (though they aren't at the forefront of the film as the teasers/trailers might suggest). And on IMAX, this film is really quite something.

 

Nolan's typical "wrap-up montage" at the end seemed more at odds with this film than in the past. And the "Air" "storyline" goes on for too long. And I sadly found the score rather obnoxious to be honest. When it works, it works well, but mostly, it plays as a cheap, ceaseless tension-building gimmick. Escalating, de-escalating and pulsating with such monotony that at some points, the film's major beats just start to blur with each other. This film deserved better, something more clever. And no, the Elgar did not work for me in context either. Not at all.

 

As a "war film", Dunkirk actually has very little to say about war or what happened at Dunkirk. It's more matter of fact than that, and is keen on solely emulating the experiences of the soldiers. There isn't really anyone to root for, and there isn't anything to take home after the credits roll. But it is an experience worth having, and I admire Nolan for tackling the matter in this fashion. He might be the last major filmmaker that has the leverage and drive to try these things in mainstream cinema. So kudos to him.

 

 

I agree 100% with what you wrote.

 

Nolan's films tend to be at their most impressive at first viewing (The Prestige included), I find, so I'm not sure if repeated viewings will improve this movie for me.

 

I found the opening sequence, following the POV of the soldier until the reveal of the beach to be absolutely terrific. But somehow I don't think the menace of germans was really felt. You never really got a sense how close they actually were, how many were they, how urgent the evacuation was and how time was of essence. I understand that an invisible enemy can sometimes be scarier, but it felt at times as they were running away from the monster under the bed. I just think a greater sense of the enemy closing in would've done a great deal in enhancing the movie's tension.

 

And as massive as the movie felt in many times, in some other, the scale of the whole evactuation felt small. I didn't, at any time, feel the scale of 400 000 soldiers on that beach front ( I realize they probably weren't all there at the same time), but it did feel too small and contained at times. 

 

Because the movie plays perhaps like a constant climax, I was constantly waiting for a pinacle, for a culmination, that never really came (apart perhaps for the arrival of the small boats and yachts from England). This aspect might play better in subsequent viewings, perhaps.

 

I enjoyed the movie a great deal. There's much to be admired and worthy of awe in there. But it is so close from being a masterwork, that some things really do stand out.

 

These are just some very random thoughts

[Disco Stu 15,495]

10 minutes ago, KK said:

He is the true Saviour!! I shall build my Church upon his name! Join me brother!

His name doesn't really go with a suffix very well to indicate one's adherence.  Denisite?  Ugh.  Villeneuvist?  No thanks.

 

I can't join a church if my belief system doesn't come with a cool name.

[KK 3,307]

 

17 minutes ago, Romão said:

Because the movie plays perhaps like a constant climax, I was constantly waiting for a pinacle, for a culmination, that never really came (apart perhaps for the arrival of the small boats and yachts from England). This aspect might play better in subsequent viewings, perhaps.

 

Agreed. The beats were sometimes all over the place, so it was difficult to discern the climax itself. I blame this partially on the score, which aside from its incessant ticking and tension-building, gave little shape to the film itself.

 

The whole film is a lot on the senses. I'd be curious to see how it plays on a second viewing.

 

P.S. I think the film did a great job of capturing the scale of the stranded soldiers. But I agree that it could have done a bit more to emphasize the severity of the enemy threat.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The 10 best films of 2017 so far as rated by Letterboxd users (which is a great, fun website and I will be friends with anyone from here who joins or has joined)

 

I've seen 5 of these.

 

[crocodile 8,012]

5 minutes ago, KK said:

 

 

Agreed. The beats were sometimes all over the place, so it was difficult to discern the climax itself. I blame this partially on the score, which aside from its incessant ticking and tension-building, gave little shape to the film itself.

 

The whole film is a lot on the senses. I'd be curious to see how it plays on a second viewing.

 

P.S. I think the film did a great job of capturing the scale of the stranded soldiers. But I agree that it could have done a bit more to emphasize the severity of the threat.

I'm actually glad that I'll be seeing it in IMAX on the second viewing. I tend be to come out slightly dazed after my first viewing. Happened with pretty much every film of his. Second times tend to be better.

 

Karol

[Jay 37,355]

I've seen 3 of those, want to see 4 others, and never heard of the other 3

[Brónach 1,302]

I've seen 4 of those and plan to see other 4. Pity not to catch Okja in theaters

2 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

but I would never describe it as "so many," and certainly not in the mainstream arena.

 

Luckily, they don't need to be there.

 

I also have to make a conscious effort to avoid anglocentrism in my filmic diet or I'll miss a lot of gems.

 

 

 

Also re: Villeneuve. Why do I have to wait through this Blade Runner bullshit to see Dune, dammit.

[Romão 2,274]

12 minutes ago, Brónach said:

 

 

 

Also re: Villeneuve. Why do I have to wait through this Blade Runner bullshit to see Dune, dammit.

 

Although I really want to see Blade Runner, I almost want him to get it out of the way so he can start working on Dune

[KK 3,307]

It's a bit of a cursed project, isn't it?

 

But I have faith in Villeneuve!

[Fancyarcher 350]

Dunkirk -  OMFG, they weren't kidding, it is the real deal. I'm glad it was only an hour & 45 minutes because otherwise I may have felt pure dread just like the soldiers. 10 / 10

[Hurmm 91]

War for the Planet of the Apes. 

 

Really good. When I saw Cloverfield I know Matt Reeves was someone who should be doing greater things, and his two Apes movies show what a talent he is. Immaculate action staging, and this movie looks spectacular. It's definitely more contemplative that previous Apes movies but by now I think the rebooted series has earned the right, and it's pulled off with just the right finesse and weight. 

 

For what it's worth, I didn't think the second movie was too serious. It was gloriously pulpy power play stuff, while still remaining serious enough for us to care. I probably still prefer Dawn, but this is not far behind. 

 

 

Dunkirk. 

 

Now we know Sparse Nolan is just as good as Plotty Nolan. That is, not very good. This is a war film that feels at once large in scope and yet small in scale, intimate and yet distant (and not in a good way). A very sterile war picture. 

 

And that monotonous drone of a score... Damn. 

[Brónach 1,302]

6 hours ago, Hurmm said:

Now we know Sparse Nolan is just as good as Plotty Nolan. That is, not very good.

 

[crocodile 8,012]

The fact the film is dry is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have that over the ponderous melodrama of SPR. I do appreciate that the characters talk about fuel levels and basic stuff like that over the poetic monologues of TRL. In fact the majority of Dunkirk is refreshingly non-cliche. But still I didn't find the experience of watching it as involving as expected. I'll be seeing it again in IMAX next week. Will see how it plays on the BIG screen.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

Dunkirk and films like The Thin Red Line have very different goals. It's like comparing Gravity and 2001. The latter seeks to say something about war, while the former attempts to more directly emulate that experience.

[crocodile 8,012]

I know they are different. Which doesn't change the fact I hate that narration. It's absolutely redundant.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

The narration over TRL? It can be over-the-top, yes, but definitely necessary to the film and the way it's designed.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The film would have been better off without it!

[crocodile 8,012]

2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

The film would have been better off without it!

Indeed. It's like Blade Runner in that respect.

 

Other than that, the film is excellent.

 

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

The only time the narration feels really needed to me is the aftermath of the big battle scene.  The "this great evil... where'd it come from?" stuff.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Dunkirk. 

 

Spitfires.

 10/10

 

[A24 4,331]

9 hours ago, crocodile said:

I know they are different. Which doesn't change the fact I hate that narration. It's absolutely redundant.

 

 

 

Careful, crocs, it's one of Nolan's favorites.

 

 

9 hours ago, crocodile said:

Other than that, the film is excellent.

 

 

Ah, for a moment I thought you turned into a sinner.

[Sweeping Strings 2,358]

Dunkirk - a good film, yes. But worthy of the almost-universal glowing critical praise it's had? Eh, probably not. 

 

Agree with what others have said about Nolan's mastery of setpieces and spectacle, and the sometime-intrusiveness of Zimmer's score.  

[Koray Savas 2,251]

On 7/22/2017 at 4:40 PM, crocodile said:

Indeed. It's like Blade Runner in that respect.

 

Other than that, the film is excellent.

 

Karol

It's nothing like Blade Runner, in that respect!

[crocodile 8,012]

Point is people talking over it doesn't make it better!

 

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's a crucial element of Malick's stream of consciousness style. 

[KK 3,307]

I agree that it's pretty obnoxious in some of his films. And even pushes its limit in TLR, but I think its still a crucial element to the experience that film provides. Malick's musings on the events we see on screen help us better navigate his emotions and project our own.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Pearl Harbor > Dunkirk

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Careful now, brother Koray... you're close to the worst type of heresy - dumb heresy!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's Nolan's worst film.