Dunkirk (2017)

Dunkirk is one of the most intense films I've ever seen.

There is minimal dialog, and everything is seen essentially from the points of view of the soldiers stranded on the beach, the RAF Spitfire pilots, and the civilian fleet of ships going to rescue the troops.

The faces of the enemy are never shown, nor are their voices heard.

As the story progressed, I found myself getting somewhat emotional, and when the film ended, I realized that I was breathing a sigh of relief.

Well worth your time.

Sounds worth checking out, thanks.

karatattoo wrote:Dunkirk is one of the most intense films I've ever seen.

Ok, now I feel I have to see it. Have to.

I wouldn't mind seeing it, time and finances permitting. My work colleague says that it's not too long, which is a bonus for me. Far too many films are bloated beyond what the story needs. I might catch it on DVD.

I still think 90 minutes is the optimum time for a movie.

I agree. Of course, there will always be exceptions.

tony ingram wrote:I still think 90 minutes is the optimum time for a movie.

I read, years ago, that studios push movies to be that length because it's the average length of time people can go before needing to use the bathroom.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I still think 90 minutes is the optimum time for a movie.

I read, years ago, that studios push movies to be that length because it's the average length of time people can go before needing to use the bathroom.

That has always been my experience.

Mbast1 wrote:I read, years ago, that studios push movies to be that length because it's the average length of time people can go before needing to use the bathroom.

We should learn from the wisdom of the ancients. At least children's movies have the good sense and decency to stick to 90 minutes.

tony ingram wrote:That has always been my experience.

Now I'm curious how much the length of time people can go has changed with the increasing size of drinks at American theaters.

I am a bit weird.

Lucy McGough wrote:We should learn from the wisdom of the ancients. At least children's movies have the good sense and decency to stick to 90 minutes.

To me, I think a movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story. Vague, but it can be too short, or too long, depending.

Mbast1 wrote:

Lucy McGough wrote:We should learn from the wisdom of the ancients. At least children's movies have the good sense and decency to stick to 90 minutes.

To me, I think a movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story. Vague, but it can be too short, or too long, depending.

In principle, a fine idea. In practice, if I sit in one position too long these days, my knee locks.

Mbast1 wrote:Now I'm curious how much the length of time people can go has changed with the increasing size of drinks at American theaters.

I am a bit weird.

You're not weird. It's a very logical thing to think. But if people get used to increasing drink sizes, maybe their bladder capacity increases over the years. If I ever meet a urologist at the hospital where I work, I'll ask them.

tony ingram wrote:In principle, a fine idea. In practice, if I sit in one position too long these days, my knee locks.

Ugh, do I get this. I concede your point, I guess.

karatattoo wrote:Well worth your time.

Finally got to see it last night. And this is exactly right. WELL worth the time. All around excellent movie.