|
|
Post by CrazyAsshole on Jun 20, 2017 10:07:40 GMT
The running time for Dunkirk is confirmed, the movie clocks at 110 minutes, which is kinda the shortest Nolan movie yet (not taking Following into this). But I think there is no need for this movie to be long, it will be probably a fast paced survival movie. Here are the Nolan movies ranked by the running time:
Interstellar - 169 min
The Dark Knight Rises - 164 minutes
The Dark Knight - 152 min
Inception - 148 min
Batman Begins - 140 min
The Prestige - 130 min
Insomnia - 118 min
Memento - 112 min
Dunkirk - 110 min
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 20, 2017 10:55:00 GMT
Im surprised Memento was under 2 hours, always thought that was a very long film. Its quite drastic for Nolan to go from filming his 2 longest movies yet back to back, to now directing his shortest. Perhaps he's acknowledged some of the criticisms of the excessive length of his story telling in Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar (even though I have no problem with their duration) and has now become more efficient in trimming down unnecessary scenes/plot themes. Will be interesting to see how much screen time the sub plot actors get.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jun 20, 2017 13:57:20 GMT
I found Interstellar to be a bloated mess of a film that went on forever (really the only Nolan film I don't care for). So its refreshing that Dunkirk is just around 2 hours. I'm definitely going to try and see it in IMAX opening weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Jun 20, 2017 14:21:32 GMT
Interstellar isn't his best work, but it's very, very good that I didn't notice the time fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Jun 20, 2017 15:27:06 GMT
How come nobody count Following?
|
|
|
|
Post by CrazyAsshole on Jun 20, 2017 17:27:02 GMT
How come nobody count Following? Read my thread |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 20, 2017 17:31:48 GMT
Ive also heard that the movie is supposed to be light on dialogue compared to Nolan's previous films. Dunkirk is definitely sounding a bit more unconventional compared to Nolan's previous efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 20, 2017 17:35:46 GMT
this movie looks insanely boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 20, 2017 20:11:42 GMT
As far as I am concerned, the shorter a Nolan film, the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Jun 20, 2017 20:18:51 GMT
How come nobody count Following? Read my thread I did. And all you say is "not taking Following into this". What i'm asking is why. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyAsshole on Jun 20, 2017 22:21:29 GMT
I did. And all you say is "not taking Following into this". What i'm asking is why. It's more an amateur movie really, Nolan's first movie. the budget is incredible micro low. And the movie is only 79 minutes lomg. It berally made a theatrical release with that kind of running time. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 21, 2017 0:08:41 GMT
It's only worrying to me because Nolan has always been a slow-burn type of guy. He has yet to disappoint me, though.
As usual, his movie is under fire just before release. I'm not saying that this thread is criticizing him (in fact it's doing just the opposite and I made a similar thread on a different board), but other places are saying that this will be his first bad film.
That's what they said about Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises. Batman Begins wasn't given much of a chance either. I guess we'll see come July 21st.
I'm glad you're optimistic, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 21, 2017 2:41:12 GMT
So what if it is 110 minutes? If Nolan feels that's the right amount of time to tell his story, then so be it. A movie should only be as long as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrazyAsshole on Jun 21, 2017 9:21:39 GMT
It looks like the running time is 107 minutes actually.
|
|
