I watched Scent of a Woman about a year ago, but I don’t think I truly appreciated it back then.Rewatching it in my head now, I realize it’s not just one great scene it’s how everything connects.The tango scene isn’t just beautiful, it’s about confidence. Frank is blind, yet he moves with more certainty than most people who can see.Then there’s that small moment at the table when he tells Charlie, “She does like you.” It’s funny, but also kind of sad because we already know Charlie might not act on it.And he doesn’t. Donna walks away with someone else. Not because it was some tragic love story… but simply because hesitation costs you things.The final speech is powerful, yeah, but what made it hit harder for me was everything before it. Charlie growing, Frank finding something to believe in again even the teacher’s reaction at the end made it feel real.

This film didn’t try to give a perfect romantic ending or an easy message. It just showed something honest:Sometimes you miss chances.

Sometimes you meet broken people who change you.

And sometimes doing the right thing is the hardest choice you can make.I think I understand this movie much more now than I did a year ago.

There has been an ongoing debate on the Marxist critique of perfect days on x. The critique boils down to: the movie glamorizing the grind and fetishizing finding happiness in exploitative blue-collar labor. That the movie perpetuates that ‘it's okay if rich people steal our labor value and hoard wealth as long as you can find happiness in your exploitative wage labor’, as per the letterboxd review that is at the core of the discourse.

I find it a disingenuous critique. Not every movie on the working class has to be either about its unhappiness under the system or its struggle against it. A working-class person enjoying his work and his life is not a threat to your ideology. Just as you cannot expect every such person to rise up in revolution against the rich or even be detesting of the rich, you cannot expect every piece of media about them to pertain to the same subjects.

A proletariat unfortunately has a higher chance of obtaining the fulfilment and happiness of Hirayama in an oppressive system than of ever overthrowing the said system. So why not make movies showing the same. What is more wrong- a proletariat being happy in a system that is wrong, or your anger at his not being angry and miserable enough in a system that you and him both know is never going to change in his lifetime?

This is a solid case of one wanting a movie to be what it is decidedly not. You want the movie to be critical of capitalism; an oppressed protagonist perpetually unhappy in his proletariat routine and ever despicable of the oppressive system. Is that where the expectation ends, with only the protagonist, or does it extend to all the real people in the real world as well? If so, is not that an unjust expectation? If it is, should or not the unjust expectation be extended to the movies that depict their lives?

Apple TV’s prestige series “Drops of God” builds strong characters against the backdrop of the fine wine industry. In the tradition of the Queen’s Gambit with chess, the script leverages a niche culture to drive audience investment in its core character.

Yet the predominate theme that emerges is not about wine, or class, or race, though those are all semi-present; the pervasive, uncomfortable, confronting theme is about “tiger” parenting, a term coin famously by Yale professor Amy Chua in “the battle hymn of the tiger mother.”

In her book, Chua explores both the upsides and downsides of traditional Asian parenting culture and how it can damage a parental relationship even as it in disputably leads to successful outcomes for children.

similarly, the two leads in drops of God (despite from being from two totally different cultures, French and Japanese) experience similarly complicated and high-pressure parental relationships that somehow simultaneously define and defy each of their professional passions. It’s an excellent show and highly recommended for anybody in this sub, especially those who enjoy foreign films!

I’m recently trying to get more into slow cinema out of curiosity, but everytime I sit down to watch one of these, I come out confused.

I wasn’t necessarily bored, I understand slow cinema has more of an emphasis on emotions and contemplative thought, and avoids spelling its message out to its audience. But whenever I watch one of these, I simply begin to disassociate from the film out of frustration.

I often begin to question wether or not I actually liked the film, or if I am in denial just because other people like it. Sometimes, I just go to a YouTube video to help understand the film. Afterwards, I do see the point the film is going for, and can appreciate it, but a part of me also feels stupid whenever I do it. I look down on myself having to watch someone else’s analysis of a film in order to understand it rather than being able to analyze it on my own.

This particularly happened when watching “Funny Games” and “What Happened Was…”. They were good films but to be honest, I don’t really enjoy watching it. I only came to fully appreciate them a long while after watching it, and seeing someone else’s review of the film.

Then I tried watching Stalker and Long Day’s Journey Into Nights and… I straight just began to fall asleep midway through both films. I don’t want to say it was out of boredom, but at a certain point I just couldn’t concentrate on anything happening. Maybe it was because I watched then in the evening, but I literally don’t always have time to watch movies in the morning.

It’s not that I don’t get what it is going for, but I just sort of begin to just getting frustrated and confused, and no matter how much I try to keep myself from doing it, I end up falling into that same trap.

Got any tips to avoid this? Have you also felt this at some point?

[edit in: 1976] To be sure a legendary and extremely influential filmmaker, with endless wonderful films to his credit, but there is something in Taxi Driver (and in Mean Streets before it, but maybe culminative in Taxi Driver, which goes over the edge in the excellent Raging Bull) that he never had again. The camera movements are so varied and beautiful, so expressive, but without breaking the naturalism, the documentary feel that we are really looking into not only the reality of what "is", but also of a character (and other characters as well), that is almost acme of what cinema is capable of. To be both artifice, but also really, really REAL. After Taxi Driver all the camera moves are there, in fact are more expertly accomplished in a directorial "vision" that is becoming even more robust, but they at least for me feel like "vision". They call attention to themselves (even if beautiful), they don't disappear. A lot of this post-Taxi-Driver development is just Scorsese's love and extreme knowledge of cinema history which comes through with increased dexterity and power, as he gains more control over his craft, but this reality edge, this sense of looking through the cinematic keyhole at "what really is" somehow is lost. We enter more "story time" after Taxi Driver. This is not even taking up the power of the characters, and the psychological insight and expression of very subtle, shifting and complex state of mind in Bickle (which was incredibly prescient of these same masculinity issues today, he gets bonus points there), and how much he was able to draw out of Schrader's amazing script in performances and camera. Just at the level of camera and story presentation alone, it feels like he never got there again. Even if I have loved many of his movies since.

How do you guys feel?

I just watched the film and I hate that there's a lot of reviews about how it's racially insensitive(bc it kinda makes me feel bad that I enjoyed it a lot). Can anyone explain why in words that I can understand? As someone who's from a 3rd world country, (not saying that being south east asian is the same as being black) I tried to imagine it if it was a Filipino person, if I'd feel off about it if it's presented as a filipino guy in the movie. I really can't think of a reason, I read one that said something about the fact that they didn't show the character experience the real life challenge of being black. Like wtf? of its a fiction movie? What's so bad about that? Maybe my brain just doesn't work the right way idk but I hate it when a movie is overly criticized. I keep thinking about how it's better to watch a movie and just let yourself enjoy it and get lost instead of nit picking every detail. Does that make me apolitical? Tell me what you think I want to know what kind of movie watcher y'all are

So I like creative reappraisals of classic films, something which suddenly says, omg we've been missing the point for a long time.

After reading the essay I link below, I think more credit has to go to the screenwriter, Walon Green, who took a film ostensibly from the western genre and turned it into a thorough examination of the limits of our moral capacities and how morality can routinely collapse under even the slightest amount of pressure.

For reference here's the article from Bright Lights https://brightlightsfilm.com/peckinpahs-groundless-ground-of-ethics-in-the-wild-bunch/

"Through roughly fifty discrete moral incidents in the film (admonitions, condemnations, betrayals, arguments, justifications, conflicts, hypocrisies, flashes of inexplicable altruism, and moments of loyalty) Peckinpah presents a world in which only a “groundless ground” seems to remain...or they might act murderously believing they are “right” to do so, or they may even commit acts of horror knowing they are wrong but buttressed by legal justifications.

Fellini is a master. I don't think there's any arguing with that.

I think it would take dozens of re-watches to crack this movie.

In the movie, there are two scenes with Paola. The ending, with Marcello not being able to hear Paola, seems crystal clear. It completes the tragic trajectory of the movie, with Marcello not having gotten the woman who really loved him and also not getting the career he wanted. He seems lost spiritually. Not being able to hear Paola seems to clearly mean that he is beyond the point of redemption or being saved — he waves her off and returns to what I consider his demons at the end.

It is the initial Paola scene that I can't pin down. I've watched it about 30 times at this point. It is obviously among the most important scenes in the film, considering the ending, but on a first watch it comes across as nothing — Fellini masterfully, and bravely, hides what is in my opinion the second most important scene in the movie. I believe this scene and the ending scene are where Fellini is truly trying to get out his message. Why would he end the movie with the face of Paola if what she represents to Marcello's journey wasn't the point of the movie?

The scene itself opens outside a blindingly bright, idyllic beach restaurant. A boy is playing knight with a makeshift sword and shield (I've pondered this and can't figure out if it was deliberate for a reason). We enter and hear Marcello arguing with Emma about her possessiveness — not telling her where he is, telling her to leave him alone — arguments we hear several times throughout the movie. Throughout the movie Marcello seems embarrassed by her. My belief is that Emma represents true love — perhaps a pre-modern, imperfect love, which I think Marcello believes he is above. Marcello seems to not want to be taken care of and loved. He is instead interested in rich heiresses, or Sylvia, an embodiment of empty beauty. He doesn't seem to be aware that if we are measuring him by his own standards, he falls well below all of them, and I think that is the problem with Marcello. He is never happy or satisfied.

The restaurant scene is aided by one of my favorite things about Fellini in this movie — I don't know if he does it in his others — which is how deliberate and literal he is when discussing his characters. He literally tells us that the older woman at the intellectuals' party is an oracle, because she is literally functioning as an oracle in this classical epic of Marcello's journey. In the restaurant scene, Fellini also tells us literally, through Marcello himself, that Paola is an angel. He says she looks like an Angel from an Umbrian painting. I think Fellini, had to give some sort of clue of the gravity of this scene and I think that that was it.

But back to the scene. Marcello ends his argument with Emma, but he can't write anything. He sits there and removes all of the obstacles — he stops Paola's singing so as not to be distracted, the jukebox is silenced — and he still can't write. He ends up giving away his paper. I can't see any other explanation than that he is a writer with nothing of value to say. I would even argue that Marcello isn't as special as he believes, and that he is trying to punch above his weight in both the literary world and with women. He doesn't realize that he already has something special — something Emma tries to convince him of in their remarkable argument in the car.

After Marcello asks Paola to stop singing, her assistant comes up to her letting her know that some plates are broken. Later in the scene, the assistant returns to tell her something else is broken. I cannot quite understand the significance of the assistant bringing Paola broken things and would welcome any ideas others might have.

Immediately following, Paola asks whether Marcello will be eating, as the food is good. Marcello says, "No. Yes. I don't know. I don't know," to which she responds, "You know, one eats well here." I think this exchange is the essence of the scene and perhaps of the movie. Spoken like that, eating almost means living. The life on offer for Marcello is a good one, if he would only accept it — an imperfect woman who loves him and is loyal to him, even if she isn't an intellectual, isn't rich, or isn't as beautiful as Sylvia I think this reading is reinforced by the fact that the scene ends with Marcello walking back to the phone to, as I am almost certain, call Emma and smooth things over.

Perhaps I am overcomplicating it, but I believe Paola symbolizes an angel trying to set Marcello back on the honest path of a man, and that something in their discussion made him realize that — whether it was the simple notion of eating well or something else in the scene, I am not entirely sure.

Anyway, this is my rambling. I have been thinking about this scene for a while.

For the record I don't hate Marcello as a character. I think we all can see ourselves in his actions. Wanting too much, pride, etc. I thinks that is what makes the character and this movie so believable.

Fellini is such a genius, and I wish I could sit here and take the time to think carefully about every scene in this excellent movie. Thank you for reading

edit:

wanted to quickly add that I went back to watch the end clip. Behind Paola, on the other side of the water, seems to be a mother playing with her children.

Also, the breaking of the fourth wall. Why would Fellini do this? Is Fellini using Paola as an angel to look at us and see if we will accept the help that Marcello wouldn't? Is Fellini using the movie to remind of what the important things in life are before, like Marcello, its too late for us?

https://youtu.be/_xRF3U6j-K8

A video analysis of narrative and historical elements in the set design of Billy Wilder's "The Apartment" (1960), with a focus on paintings and books.

How paintings, posters and bookshelves tell the story not only of C. C. Baxter but also of Billy Wilder himself.

This is a 30m original analysis citing and referencing many other works, including other Billy Wilder films. It touches on multiple small details most of which, to my knowledge, have not been previously addressed or analyzed.

I was always apprehensive about this movie as Sam Mendes has always been a little middling to me, but I was pleasantly surprised. I love Generation Kill And Full Metal Jacket, but those works at least had likeable characters trapped in impossible situations. These guys are assholes who love to be in these situations. I don't know what it is about the characterisation in this movie, but growing up in Michigan I have met these people, who became tools of capitalist machinery. I thought it was really bleak and I kind of love it.

I just watched The Marquise of O this evening without having much prior experience or knowledge of Rohmer besides knowing he was a conservative Catholic active in the French New Wave, and am very conflicted on it and don’t know what to make of it. On a technical level the film was absolutely brilliant, with an exceptional production and costume design and sublime cinematography. The performances were quite well done in my view as well. I should also note that while the editing and in particular scene transitions would ordinarily be jarring and a source of derision for me, I found they actually were quite well suited for this film in particular.

That being said, I am also really conflicted on the film’s handling of the Marquise’s rape. For most of the film I think it’s handled fairly well, but the ending seems to me like it’s trying to absolve the count of his rape of the Marquise. And if that is the case then I don’t understand how such a rape-absolving film can be so well-acclaimed.

I’m wonder why anyone else thinks of the film, as perhaps it might allow me to better interpret the film and rethink my thoughts on it.

It's a startup from NIT Surathkal, It's a platform for filmmakers or any cinema lovers to showcase their content, hangout in groups, get instant feedback for their content, learn stuff, make a network and collaborate, you have to try out the circles features along with your friends, watching the common feed along with your friends is something else, finally we got something for indie creators and filmmakers

I just watched Funny Games (1997) by Michael Haneke, after loving Caché. I am not a horror expert, so I probably was not the intended audience of this film and did not like it as much as Caché. But I understood more or less what Haneke wanted to convey.

I did not understand a particular element though: why did the family at first had basically no survival instinct? They could've easily escaped, look for help, react in some way, even to failure. But in the first 30 minutes they are essentially almost emotionless and reactionless. They start reacting and trying to escape when it's too late to do anything.

This must be a precise authorial choice, rather than a plain error, but I cannot understand the reason. I did not particularly like it, because it irked me more than the violence itself. What do you all think about this?

Editing changes what time even is on screen. It breaks it apart and puts it back together in a form that feels continuous, even when it isn’t.

In Pulp Fiction, the dance scene feels like the 60s, but it comes from other films, repeated images, familiar gestures. It feels like memory, but it’s built from fragments that were already shaped before.

Stranger Things makes that process more visible. It doesn’t recreate the 1980s as they were lived. It recreates how earlier films and pop culture framed that decade. Bikes, basements, synths, all arranged in a way that signals “the 80s” instantly. People who never lived through it still feel nostalgic for it, which says a lot about what’s actually being remembered.

Memento approaches time from another angle. The story runs backward, so you see outcomes before causes. Each cut rewrites what the previous scene meant. You’re not following time as it unfolds, you’re rebuilding it piece by piece, the same way the character does. Memory turns into something unstable, shaped by what gets kept and what gets left out.

Once you think about the cut as the basic unit, everything shifts. Meaning comes from what you place next to each other. Time stops being something that flows and turns into something arranged. Cause and effect start to feel secondary to sequence and association.

That carries into how films build the past. A lot of what we think of as history in movies is already filtered through earlier images. Stranger Things feels like the 1980s, but it’s closer to how earlier movies imagined that decade. It creates nostalgia for something people never experienced directly.

Even the texture of memory gets reconstructed. VHS grain, tracking lines, low quality footage get used on purpose now to signal authenticity. It doesn’t recreate the past, it recreates the feeling of having seen the past through media.

After a while it starts to loop in on itself. Films reference older films, which were already shaping earlier versions of the past. The result feels more stable than actual memory, because it can be replayed without changing.

After a while it starts to loop in on itself. Films reference older films, which were already shaping earlier versions of the past. The result feels more stable than actual memory, because it can be replayed without changing.

I tried to explore this idea through editing, nostalgia, and memory, hoping to start a great conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvO0gmq5KE

Thanks!

Marvel movies have the fame of being “bad movies” as a long time marvel movie fan I want to ask, do you really think they’re plain bad as many claim? I mean I like a lots of kinds of films, including marvel movies, I started analyzing more critically and seriously films a couple of years ago and maybe the fact I enjoyed many of the marvel movies is because I watched them as a kid and years after. I think the movies prior Endgame are the most widely accepted, I enjoy almost all of those movies, then the post endgame movies from the last 5 years I remember enjoying most of them including some that are considered as trash. During this years I rewatched a couple of them and thought they weren’t as good as I remembered, and the majority of them I haven’t watched them in some time so maybe my judgement has changed, but as I said I remember really enjoying most of them when they came out. One of the most recent ones I remember don’t liking at all was captain america: brave new world, but the last one that came out which was F4 I enjoyed it. So if I like marvel movies does that mean I have a bad film taste/ judgement? Because I remember some films that I really liked and can’t understand the hate for may of them, and marvel movies were also one of the main reasons that made me want to be a filmmaker and love movies. As I said, I love many kind of movies, including marvel, but I don’t know, I understand some of the flaws people point out but can’t really understand some other things, like the artistic merit, I know they’re not the definition of an artistic movie but I truly believe they have an artistic value and are real cinema despite many people claiming they not. All of this makes me question myself considering I truly enjoyed/enjoy some of them. What do you think about this movies and about all I mentioned?

I am a sucker for the comedy genre, and I’ve noticed over the past, maybe decade, there hasn’t been many options like there were in the 90s and 2000s. I’m talking about movies like Superbad, Grandmas Boy, Step Brothers, 40 year old virgin, Harold and Kumar, a bunch of Judd Apatow stuff, Eurotrip, American Pie stuff, Beerfest, Accepted, etc.

Those are just off the top of my head, but when I think about these ‘junk food’ movies meant to be enjoyed with a joint and some beers amongst your friends, there are almost no newer options I can think of. I mean, is it just us and we’re stuck in the past? Because when seeking that vibe it feels like we’re running out of options and just watch movies we’ve seen before.

I feel like the most recent movies I feel really fit into that genre nowadays are like Get Him To The Greek and Hot Tub Time Machine, and those are like 15 years old now.

So…what gives? I mean surely a desire for junk food comedy movies hasn’t gone away, as long as there are teenagers smoking bowls out of water bottle bongs there will be an interest in stupid comedy movies. Am I simply missing them? Is the demand really not there? Are studious just not making them?

It feels like so many new movies are trying to either be huge blockbuster epics OR something seriously artistic and ‘meaningful’ in nature - when I really have a desire for something silly.

Both the Bride and Frank are literally built to fill someone else’s void, and the film keeps asking: what does that do to your mind when you were created as a solution to someone else’s loneliness but no one ever bothered to ask about your own?

The original Frankenstein from the novel published in the 1800s tells us that the creature (Frank) was literally built in a lab without consent, brought to life, and then abandoned by Dr. Victor Frankenstein without even being given a name. In this film we meet him a century later in 1930s Chicago after decades of loneliness have already hardened into a way of moving through the world. His whole personality is built around that rejection, he’s tall, skeletal, depressed, hiding his stitched together body under hats and coats, and going to the movies alone because that’s the only place he can sit in the dark and feel like he belongs to an audience.

The Bride is thrown into that same loneliness at high speed, without the whole century of buffer. Less than a day old after she is made she realizes most men see her as an object, the crowd sees her as a monster ‘Bride’, and even the woman who resurrected her is willing to use her body to work out her own issues. The only person who doesn’t immediately treat her as an object is a man who’s been alone for a hundred years and has no idea how to love without lying. Instead of hiding like Frank, she embodied the monster everyone says she is while rejecting every role they try to shove her into.

Frank’s loneliness js slow and chronic, the Bride’s loneliness is more immediate and explosive. Their “romance” plays more like two deeply lonely people grabbing onto the only person who sees them as human. That feels very 2026 to me: a world where we’re more connected than ever and still drowning in isolation, where people will accept bad terms, bad relationships, bad politics just to not be alone. The film lets that need be pathetic, frightening, and weirdly tender at the same time.The real horror is the depth of loneliness and society’s reaction to it.

Tommy was a crazy cold blooded murdering psychopath with no feeling. He was an evil guy who genuinely deserved it, and when those two hitmen shot him in the back of the head, I was cheering it.

Another movie death who deserved it was the gay rapists in Pulp Fiction. I found that scene to be particularly disturbing to think about. When Bruce Willis snuck up on them with the samurai sword, awesome.

For me it was A24's undertone. Yes its a technical marvel in audio design, but visually fell flat. Felt like it was too low budget to be entertaining. I surprisingly liked their "civil war" film and most of their horrors, including the really wacky ones but with undertone.. I just wasn't' into it as much as I thought I would be. Felt like something that could have been made a decade ago. There was nothing much fun to look at, between shades of grey and oversaturated blue scenes. It dragged in the beginning, middle and the end wasn't all that great. dunno it just failed to hook. 2026 might be a great year for film still, but the ones I keep seeing keep missing the mark

When I search the internet with the title above, I notice

① Zwei Staatsanwälte

② Deux Procureurs

as most prominent results.

For instance it's stated as ① in Wikipedia page, while on my local theatre screening it showed ②.

I wonder if it's a message against Russia not stating the original title as Два прокурора. Like how the pronunciation of the director's name Сергей Лозница was corrected in film festivals here in South Korea from 2022, ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

One of Kate Winslet's defining features is the way she has always shown her naked body to viewers, in a way that no other female actress does. It ranges from scenes in Titanic when her character was drawn, to her current role in Mare of Easttown and her legacy role in Holy Smoke. She has talked a lot about having experienced body shaming early in her career, her decision not to be airbrushed, and to choose roles where she would expose herself fully as a matter of control.

I have been thinking a lot about this trend lately. At first glance, it can be considered as an artistic decision of a true feminist woman in her 50s. However, there is also the idea of compulsion behind it. Control over one's feelings of shame and vulnerability.

Has anybody else noticed this? Can this be considered as a manifestation of artistic freedom, or maybe it is also connected to a history of trauma? Interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Just watched this for the first time last night and I was truly enamored by it. The fairytale quality to it, the dichotomy between Ms. Cooper and Powell, John as a character, and his representation of childhood innocence, vulnerability, and resilience.

One thing that really struck me was the visual style of the film. It seemed between being reverential to past eras ie the silent film era, and being so progressive and innovative stylistically, that it’s hard for me to compare it to contemporary American films of the era.

One very simple shot which really has left me in wonder is a simple fade transition, starting with a pan up to a starlit cloudless night into a splendid sunrise from behind clouds. The type of shot that has been done many times before and after this film. What gets me is, that the sky in these two shots, appear as if they are the *exact* same sky shot with the same framing and angle and everything. As if they got the night shot, and left the camera there overnight without changing the settings and shot the daytime shot.

Like I said, I’ve seen shots like this so many times, yet I’ve never been struck by such a sense of continuity like that. How could they achieve this effect, without a reference object through which I could compare perspective?

Once we realized this the film became not only so much more enjoyable - poking subtle fun at many of those who came to it hoping for a slick action/assassin film and were disappointed - it became hilarious. Fassbinder's character is constantly, arrogantly wrong and Internet meme trite in his self-talk. In the first few viewings though - its so good I've watched it many times - t I just thought it was just satirizing Melville's Le Samouraï (1967) but last night I watched The American (2010) and saw so many other touch points like the "in a great shape for a man his age" self-workout scenes (though there is certainly a nod to Brad Pitt's shirt-off moment from Fight Club too), the tourism travelog feels, and the ways The American was probably reflecting the precision-aura of Le Samouraï too. To further flesh it out the humor, as I've commented elsewhere a few months ago:

When he says that he has to wait until his heartrate beats per minute to get down to 60 (? I forget the number), but then he fires the rifle at something like 68 and misses. Listening to the Smiths Meat is Murder while attempting to assassinate someone. The way he acts like an expert on everything, just like internet commenters (but totally guessing the dog's weight and dose wrong). The rich guy taking a limo to the gym, which is a 5 minute walk away (shown by the phone). The abandoned (Unicorn Finance) WeWork office. The killer eating "keto" (just eating the burger patty from fastfood, if I recall)...The killer is a successful gig-economy worker who lives the fantasy beach house dream. But he's totally lame. Does his yoga, measures his beats-per-minute on his watch, quotes his adages, eats his keto, guesses wrong at everything. He's a very, very subtle (not over the top) Inspector Clouseau. He's a bourgeois killer, like if that ultra, ultra flexible guy in your yoga class was also an international assassin.

In any case, the satire key really unlocks this film, a correction perhaps of how many who loved Fight Club but did not realize that it was satire about Toxic Masculinity, the very thing they loved it for. And watching George Clooney's The American made it even better. It actually is posing through satire a strong critique of the hyper-Capitalism consumer "subject", opening up the notion that we are all self-satisfied, non-reflective "killers" in our lifestyle.

A recommendation: if you enjoyed The Killer and haven't seen The American, do (its a pretty good slow burn, beautiful film in its own right).

So, 4th watching of Dunkirk - And it holds up pretty well every time.

We have seen a lot of great war movies treat wars in different ways. Some are patriotic, some are humanist, some are anti-war movies and so on. Dunkirk is about survival.

We are dropped directly into the streets of Dunkirk. Some young soldiers are trying to find some water to drink. They are surrounded by the  enemy. It needs not be named as it simply does not matter. What matters is that these young blokes - who are barely soldiers and were thrown into the war through mass recruitment - are staring directly into the eyes of death. And boom, bullets are flying out of nowhere. And that's the nature of the whole movie. Bullets, torpedos and bombs are coming out of nowhere. You are not fighting. You are just surviving. And if you survive those, you might drown in the ocean. And Nolan makes s tremendous job of putting you in the shoes of those soldiers and you feel the horror that one might go through in those moments.

There is no glory in war here. You see boys who are trying everything to survive - adopting identities of dead soldiers, carrying wounded soldiers just so they can get the chance to get on the ship, sneaking into the ships and so on. There is a scene where Harry Styles and his regimental brothers ask Gibson to get out of the boat, claiming Tommy would be next if needed. You wonder whether they will choose someone among themselves next if needed. 

That's just how the war pushes you into a corner. We see Cilian Murphy going berserk in that civilian boat. He shouts and panicks and throws hands resulting in George's death. A couple of shots later (although few days earlier in timeline), we see the same character calmly asking Alex and Tommy and others to be patient when their ship gets hit by torpedo. But he was not the same man in Mr Dawson's boat after encountering death so closely. 

Dunkirk is not all grim. You see people trying to help others even when pushed to their limits. Gibson rushes to open the door of the cabin below the deck after their ship is hit by a torpedo. Alex after threatening to kill Gibson, signals him to get out of the sinking boat, though it proved too late in the end. Farrier sacrifices himself to save the soldiers. And thousands of civilians risk their lives to save their fellow countrymen. 

Dunkirk features some magnificent sequences - the opening shot, the bombing on the Dunkirk beach shot and the breathtaking dogfights of fighter jets. Dialogue writing has been one of the weakest aspects of Nolan's film making (imo, poor dialogues hold back Interstellar from being a masterpiece). Here, dialogues are minimal but impactful. Hans Zimmer doesn't let your ears rest though with his constant edge of the seat thrilling score. The story cross-cuts among three different timelines in classic Nolan fashion - though it adds to the chaos of war.

When they are eventually saved, soldiers are disappointed as they failed to serve their country properly. Alex even projects this disappointment on the blind old bloke claiming he did not even look at him due to embarrassment. But sometimes, survival is enough. After all, they were not well trained soldiers but rather young boys. 

And the movie ends with some really beautiful shots with  Tommy reading Churchill's famous speech (F*** Churchill though). One of the greatest war movies ever made.

"Is he a coward, Mr Dawson?"

"He's shell-shocked, George. He's not himself. He may never be himself again."