Awesome. Awesome.

If you live remotely close to a theatre showing this in IMAX 70 MM go experience it.

(IMAX 70 mm not the small Lie-MAX but the giant 8 story IMAX)

Unbelievable.

I'm getting mixed reviews from Social Media..Some say it's good while others say they got up and left early...

It IS awesome. But wear earplugs. Seriously - you won't miss that much of the dialogue (there isn't much, anyway). And those bombs are L-O-U-D.

I read so many excellent reviews of it... Although war movies usually don't interest me that much. Hm.

i definitely would recommed seeing it on the biggest screen available. i thought it was truly exceptional, one of the best viewing experiences i've had in a theatre. and it's a movie that needs to be seen on a big screen - catching it on a tablet three months from now would absolutely not do it justice, given the scale. unfortunately, we don't have an imax screen here anymore. if you have access to one, i'd second seeing it there.

regarding the volume brought up earlier: if you're sensitive to extended periods of loud volume, then earplugs are a good idea. but if you're not sensitive, then make sure you see this in a theatre that has it cranked as loud as possible, because there are moments where the soundtrack and sound effects, gun-fire in particulare, had an almost physical impact, and i think that was absolutely integral to the impact of the movie overall.

[Edited 7/27/17 10:56am]

damosuzuki said:

i definitely would recommed seeing it on the biggest screen available. i thought it was truly exceptional, one of the best viewing experiences i've had in a theatre. and it's a movie that needs to be seen on a big screen - catching it on a tablet three months from now would absolutely not do it justice, given the scale. unfortunately, we don't have an imax screen here anymore. if you have access to one, i'd second seeing it there.

regarding the volume brought up earlier: if you're sensitive to extended periods of loud volume, then earplugs are a good idea. but if you're not sensitive, then make sure you see this in a theatre that has it cranked as loud as possible, because there are moments where the soundtrack and sound effects, gun-fire in particulare, had an almost physical impact, and i think that was absolutely integral to the impact of the movie overall.

Trust me - even with earplugs, the sound knocked me back or bounced me in my seat several times.

I also had my own mini Dunkirk going on. We had gotten absolutely drenched by a thunderstorm on the way to the movie. As in, you could have turned a firehose on us and we wouldn't have gotten any wetter. So all the time the soldiers were wet and cold onscreen, we were wet and cold in the theater. I might actually go see it again - just so I can watch it without that physical distraction.

Oh my gawd. Is this another movie in a genre I never watch I now have to go see because it's so good?

Genesia said:

damosuzuki said:

i definitely would recommed seeing it on the biggest screen available. i thought it was truly exceptional, one of the best viewing experiences i've had in a theatre. and it's a movie that needs to be seen on a big screen - catching it on a tablet three months from now would absolutely not do it justice, given the scale. unfortunately, we don't have an imax screen here anymore. if you have access to one, i'd second seeing it there.

regarding the volume brought up earlier: if you're sensitive to extended periods of loud volume, then earplugs are a good idea. but if you're not sensitive, then make sure you see this in a theatre that has it cranked as loud as possible, because there are moments where the soundtrack and sound effects, gun-fire in particulare, had an almost physical impact, and i think that was absolutely integral to the impact of the movie overall.

Trust me - even with earplugs, the sound knocked me back or bounced me in my seat several times.

I also had my own mini Dunkirk going on. We had gotten absolutely drenched by a thunderstorm on the way to the movie. As in, you could have turned a firehose on us and we wouldn't have gotten any wetter. So all the time the soldiers were wet and cold onscreen, we were wet and cold in the theater. I might actually go see it again - just so I can watch it without that physical distraction.

point taken on the sound. it was loud in my theatre, and for long stretches of the movie it doesn't let up.

hah, that's barely one step removed from smell-o-vision!

Glad to see the use of "Lie-MAX" as a caution here! Most people don't know about the real IMAX. It was and is mostly at science museums. I saw my first real IMAX in 1987.

morningsong said:

Oh my gawd. Is this another movie in a genre I never watch I now have to go see because it's so good?

Not if you don't want to. Here's my opinion on this (keep in mind I walked out halfway through):

This is the kind of movie that people will want to see on a giant screen but two years from now, no one is going to want to watch it on TV.

ufoclub said:

Glad to see the use of "Lie-MAX" as a caution here! Most people don't know about the real IMAX. It was and is mostly at science museums. I saw my first real IMAX in 1987.

I remember when I went to my first Lie-MAX; I couldn't believe this tiny little box was called Imax!

True IMAX are far and few and in between.

Even in L.A. there's one at University City and one in Irvine; there's also an "IMAX" at the Chinese but they don't show film.

sro100 said:

Well, Dunkin' Donuts is #1 Movie at the Box Office for the 2nd week in a row..Somebody is liking it..

TRUECRISTIAN said:

sro100 said:

Awesome. Awesome.

If you live remotely close to a theatre showing this in IMAX 70 MM go experience it.

(IMAX 70 mm not the small Lie-MAX but the giant 8 story IMAX)

Unbelievable.

How much Americans soldiers died in Dunkirk?

None.

Chancellor said:

EmmaMcG said:

Its biggest competition is The Emoji Movie. I'm not trying to put Dunkirk down or anything but how could it not be number one?

..LOL...I can't believe a Studio approved The Emoji Movie..

Chancellor said:

TRUECRISTIAN said:

I strongly believe that US intelligence knew about this attack, but optioned to not stop it and let the attack happen so sway the American public to join the WW2. A government falseflagging operations and starting wars that costs 50.000 American lives wouldn't think twice about sacrificing 3500 lives and a few ships to bring a country out of depression and engage in war.

Honey, you need to check your anti-American propoganda, run along, and study a little bit about Dunkirk. It was not an attack - it was a rescue operation.

TRUECRISTIAN said:

I strongly believe that US intelligence knew about this attack, but optioned to not stop it and let the attack happen so sway the American public to join the WW2. A government falseflagging operations and starting wars that costs 50.000 American lives wouldn't think twice about sacrificing 3500 lives and a few ships to bring a country out of depression and engage in war.

You get around!

https://similarworlds.com...knew-about

P.S.: Jesus wasn't a Republican

Found this interesting article by Richard Cohen:

Why ‘Dunkirk’ is hollow history: The Germans are never mentioned

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dunkirk-hollow-history-germans-mentioned-article-1.3372370

uPtoWnNY said:

Found this interesting article by Richard Cohen:

Why ‘Dunkirk’ is hollow history: The Germans are never mentioned

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dunkirk-hollow-history-germans-mentioned-article-1.3372370

It isn't interesting. It's some guy bloviating on why the filmmaker was all wrong in making the film he wanted to make. If Richard Cohen is such a genius, let him make his own film about Dunkirk, instead of pissing all over someone else's.

Genesia said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Found this interesting article by Richard Cohen:

Why ‘Dunkirk’ is hollow history: The Germans are never mentioned

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dunkirk-hollow-history-germans-mentioned-article-1.3372370

It isn't interesting. It's some guy bloviating on why the filmmaker was all wrong in making the film he wanted to make. If Richard Cohen is such a genius, let him make his own film about Dunkirk, instead of pissing all over someone else's.

john podhoretz, a writer i generally like quite a bit, had a recent column where he made a few similar comments regarding the lack of context given, how we aren't told the existential & civilizational crisis that was faced. i just can't go with that. the situation pretty clearly speaks for itself, i feel. if you want a detailed summary of things like that, a proper history of those events, the place to go for that is the written word. there's no shortage of books on the war.

podhoretz also lamented the absence of any kind of characterization, and i completely disgree with him on that as well. what i think this movie shows is that the bare facts of the situation the men faced is all you need to make a tense, nerve-wracking & thrilling movie. i don't need to know about someone's parents or his opportunity to redeem a troubled past or a girl waiting for him back home. the situation is the drama. you don't need anything else.

for whatever it's worth, i saw if for a 2nd time tuesday, and if anything my appreciation for it has increased. i'm not the final authority on such matters, but i think it's an absolute masterpiece of controlled tension, and it's never less than beautiful to look at.

[Edited 8/3/17 11:53am]

damosuzuki said:

Genesia said:

It isn't interesting. It's some guy bloviating on why the filmmaker was all wrong in making the film he wanted to make. If Richard Cohen is such a genius, let him make his own film about Dunkirk, instead of pissing all over someone else's.

john podhoretz, a writer i generally like quite a bit, had a recent column where he made a few similar comments regarding the lack of context given, how we aren't told the existential & civilizational crisis that was faced. i just can't go with that. the situation pretty clearly speaks for itself, i feel. if you want a detailed summary of things like that, a proper history of those events, the place to go for that is the written word. there's no shortage of books on the war.

podhoretz also lamented the absence of any kind of characterization, and i completely disgree with him on that as well. what i think this movie shows is that the bare facts of the situation the men faced is all you need to make a tense, nerve-wracking & thrilling movie. i don't need to know about someone's parents or his opportunity to redeem a troubled past or a girl waiting for him back home. the situation is the drama. you don't need anything else.

for whatever it's worth, i saw if for a 2nd time tuesday, and if anything my appreciation for it has increased. i'm not the final authority on such matters, but i think it's an absolute masterpiece of controlled tension, and it's never less than beautiful to look at.

[Edited 8/3/17 11:53am]

I saw it for the first time last night in 70mm IMAX and I agree with all that you have said here.

damosuzuki said:

Genesia said:

It isn't interesting. It's some guy bloviating on why the filmmaker was all wrong in making the film he wanted to make. If Richard Cohen is such a genius, let him make his own film about Dunkirk, instead of pissing all over someone else's.

john podhoretz, a writer i generally like quite a bit, had a recent column where he made a few similar comments regarding the lack of context given, how we aren't told the existential & civilizational crisis that was faced. i just can't go with that. the situation pretty clearly speaks for itself, i feel. if you want a detailed summary of things like that, a proper history of those events, the place to go for that is the written word. there's no shortage of books on the war.

podhoretz also lamented the absence of any kind of characterization, and i completely disgree with him on that as well. what i think this movie shows is that the bare facts of the situation the men faced is all you need to make a tense, nerve-wracking & thrilling movie. i don't need to know about someone's parents or his opportunity to redeem a troubled past or a girl waiting for him back home. the situation is the drama. you don't need anything else.

for whatever it's worth, i saw if for a 2nd time tuesday, and if anything my appreciation for it has increased. i'm not the final authority on such matters, but i think it's an absolute masterpiece of controlled tension, and it's never less than beautiful to look at.

Egg-friggin'-zackly. (And I like John Podhoretz, too.)

Sure, the filmmaker could have supplied all kinds of context for this - but then it wouldn't have been the immersive experience that it is. And yes - read a dang book, if you want all that.