Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk (Post-release)

Re: Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk

According to wikipedia there are only 9 airworthy 109s in the world. Six of those are Buchons, two are E models, and one G. I guess in that case the Buchons are better than CGI. Most viewers of the movie wouldn't know the difference between a 109 and a FW 190. :D

I wonder if they could have attached some sort of (temporary) motion control markers on the Buchons and made them look like the correct model of 109 in post?
 
Re: Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk

So many gushing reviews. It's difficult not to get hyped for this one. Only negative review, well backhanded in a way was from USA today. It seems to me that in entertainment these days, it is more important for some, to be culturally relevant rather than historically accurate. Bizarre and illogical to me.

Steps off soapbox.
 
Re: Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk

Dude I just noticed that this is PG-13??!?! What gives? How can you have a war movie be rated PG-13?:confused
 
Well most war movies are PG-13 or less if you go all the way back from the first ones on through the black and white
era into color.

PT-109
Bridges at Toko-Ri

A couple of my favorites.

The modern era brought in the realistic violence and gore. Not sure what might be considered the first to do that.
 
Solid 8/10. A must see in IMAX. I'm happy this film was more about the event than character centric. I will say, Tom Hardy is outstanding. Rumor has it, he is still drifting in his plane today.
 
Totally agree. If you're in London, the Science Museum is playing it in 70mm 2D, which I think is what it's designed for... it's a very moving film.

Wow, what an experience! This movie is meant to be seen on the biggest screen and the best sound system available. You'll be as shellshocked as the soldiers in the movie, for sure. :p
 
No, unfortunately its a comparative rarity to see it used.Digital projectors and sound tracking in the multiplexes have pretty much killed the need for 70mm, its only still really used in Imax ,because it simply costs so much to shoot with it and there are now such a limited number of places with the capability to show it to effect. But the print quality is so very good, which is why films shot back in the sixties and seventies on it look still look magnificent today.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top