Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Very similar movies all visuals no heart and no soul. Terrible movies
^you're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking?
A stunningly brilliant War opus from Christ-opher Jonathan James Nolan, completely redefining the way modern war movies will be done for decades to come, this and Wonder Woman LITERALLY saved the Summer!
Both a waste of film and time.
Gack inducing but at least Dunkirk won't be a shared universe franchise. The reception from alleged critics is silly because jaded critics dig Nolan. They have serious blinders on.
Just as many whites in Transformers so me happy!
Nolan may be the overall superior filmmaker than Bay, but I had more enjoyment out of Bayhem 5 than I did over an overly-procedural "war" film with no characterization.
Dunkirk by far. Absolutely amazing.
Very true. Dunkirk is an overly-procedural war film with no characterization and no heart. Every bit as numbing as any Transformers flick.
I can't believe what I'm reading! Transformers is winning against the greatest cinematic accomplishment since the days of Kubrick, WHAT? Dunkirk wins because of the filmmaking side to it alone! The real warships, real planes that don't instantly blow up after being hit a couple times, hundreds of extras, Hans Zimmer's haunting score and the editing. Practical effects and shooting on location adds a sense of weight, grit and realism; one reason why I hate CGI is because it lacks those things! And do you know what is filled with CGI and cartoon-ish effects? Transformers! At least, Dunkirk has a message and a point, Transformers has nothing! Dunkirk lacks characterisation because it's about something bigger than a story! In War, people don't sit around a campfire and talk about who's waiting for them back home; they fight to stay alive! Dunkirk has an excuse and because of that, it's the most satisfying and realistic war movie of all time! Transformers has nothing going for it and doesn't have an excuse for the bad script and lifeless characters (something that Dunkirk has; a good script with a lot tension and a unique structure).
Ellmac a.k.a. Falcon a.k.a Fontenella and his multiple other sock puppet account are notorious for taking films from directors who threaten their precious MCU's quality (a.k.a. Happy Madison for superheroes) and downvoting them on every board they can to try to help Marvel obtain non-existent victory when the vast majority of critics and fans have already determined Nolan's master-crafts as better than anything Stan Lee's overrated scibbles of fanfiction have ever produced.
Dunkirk is just lousy cinema. No excuses.
This is just an observation: Most of the rabid Dunkirk haters have Marvel films in their top 20s.
^^Haha, I realised that too!
Holy Ralph is Dunkirk a steaming dung pile. Seriously.
The trolls are taking over...
Pretty sure it's okay to enjoy Marvel movies too....
There isn't a single measurable aspect of Dunkirk that was enjoyable. At least Transformers gave us some eye candy.
Dunkirk is one of the few movies that succeed in allowing the viewer to put themselves in each situation. Why does it have this effect? Because of the amazing realism that Nolan creates, which generates an authentic tension. Unfortunately, lots of people today can't take realism and can only be entertained by things blowing up, flashy visual effects and over the top action sequences. Guess what movie falls into that category?
^snikers^ te he te he... yeah Dunkirk is pretty bad.
Seen Dunkirk twice now and, yep, it's still a masterpiece! There's hardly any character development or dialogue but the acting, the urgency, the realism, the score and the subtle hints at humanity still make it really intense. Movies by Stanley Kubrick resemble paintings and have hardly any character development but are still brilliant. So why are people faulting Dunkirk for the reasons why Kubrick movies are so loved?
Still a movie with no heart and no soul no matter how many times you see it or how hard you try and wish away its flaws.
^^ I'm not trying wish away the flaws. And it does have heart and soul, it's just very subtle moments with the characters facial expressions, how the actors become their characters and the tension that is slowly building throughout the movie. I wanted Tom Hardy's character to land safety, I wanted the characters to make it home and when these things happen it's very emotionally satisfying. The movie's about the event and it's shot and edited is as if it's a painting. The audience is still emotionally persuaded and into the movie (in the two times I've seen it, there's been at least 3 times when nearly everyone in audience has gasped. How emotionally invested does an audience have to be in a film to gasp throughout it?). There's also a character who has a lot of tension from the beginning when he's seen tying his shoelace and buckling his belt next to a dead body. These are subtle things that if you blink you will miss it that adds a lot to the movie. The story is told visually and not spoonfed to the audience. Now that that's sorted and for the fifth time now, Dunkirk>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How funny the comparison between these two films are>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anything By Michael Bay.
Dunkirk was dull and "meh" but certainly not Bay or Snyder bad.
I like Age of Extinction, but Dunkirk is a fantastic movie. Dunkirk wins by far.
These movies are both just awful but in two different ways.