Lunar Threads

Saw this opening night. Chris Nolan and Hans Zimmer outdo themselves yet again, in a new genre this time. It's an interesting movie, unless you don't know the basics of World War II, it is not even possible to be spoiled. The many characters in the film have little to-no characterization, many are not even named, but I still felt for many of them. It's a high adrenaline survival tale, showing the horrors of war and those that rise above them to save their comrades. Hans Zimmer's score is every bit as good as ever.

What I'm trying to say is that it's a different kind of movie, even for Chris Nolan. I still need to see his earlier work, but I've seen Batman: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception, and Interstellar, all amazing but different. I'm wary of the concept of brand loyalty, I find it leads to blind loyalty to potentially bad products. Chris Nolan, Hayao Miyazaki, and Queen (the Rock band) are some of my only exceptions where I will check out their work without even reading a review.

My father keeps trying to talk me into going to see it with him. He’s crazy over war movies especially ones pertaining to WWII and Vietnam, though they never really do too much for me. I’ll let you know if I give in to see it. ^^

brit wrote:My father keeps trying to talk me into going to see it with him. He’s crazy over war movies especially ones pertaining to WWII and Vietnam, though they never really do too much for me. I’ll let you know if I give in to see it. ^^

If you've liked any of Chris Nolan's movies beforehand, it's (probably) also for you. I'm a history buff but I prefer history from the Bronze ages-the end of the middle ages (depending on where in the world we are talking about.) Ie, I don't see every WWII movie. And sure, let me know ^_^ I just saw it a second time.

Hm, bit of background, my father is a major WW2 history buff (Churchill's multi-volume "The Second World War" is one of the first things he read outside of school), both of us have a deep love of history (though in different areas), and we both appreciate good war movies -- think being able to rewatch "Saving Private Ryan" or "Tora Tora Tora" multiple times.

...his review of Dunkirk was not very encouraging. It was basically what I feared: lots of nameless faces plus tons of action equals no investment in what happens. Like, there's a reason to make a *movie* instead of a *documentary*, and a movie needs some kind of narrative cohesion. If it's just action without investment in characters, and there's too little structure behind it (i.e., no plot), then it results in a film that's just a series of meaningless vignettes. (It's possible to present the subject interestingly without a plot, but then it approaches a documentary, and even those need enough narrative cohesion to keep people's interest and organize the presentation of information).

I admit I haven't seen it, but that's the impression I've been getting from everyone so far. Even the *positive* reviews I've read/heard seem to even admit the lack of plot. Given that *maybe* I'll watch it one day, but won't go out of my way for it. KF

I would say there's a pretty clear plot, just told from multiple perspectives and in a nonlinear fashion. It's certainly not at all character-driven though. The characters tend to have little in the way of backstory and there's relatively little dialog.