looks like Dunkirk part 2.
-
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 31, 2020 04:25 AM)
Not saying you're wrong, but what are your reasons for it being better than 1917.
I preferred 1917. The only element that stood out to me in Dunkirk was the great depiction of the hopelessness of war. It's just one hopeless event after another. But otherwise, it wasn't that interesting to me. -
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 31, 2020 04:33 AM)
I was often brought out of the experience, in Dunkirk, when there'd be changes in the cameras/aspect ratios used. It was quite jarring for me and ruined immersion. The cinematography in 1917 was far more immersive, in my experience.
Maybe I need to rewatch the movie, because I remember not caring much about the characters in Dunkirk because they were never really fleshed out enough. There were too many characters, and a lot of them didn't have that much depth. The conversations between Schofield and Blake (and some other characters) in 1917 felt more realistic, and made me care about the characters a bit more.
Dunkirk - 6/10
1917 - 7/10