Dunkirk

[wendovertom]

Loved it. I figure if you want a dead accurate portrayal of an event you need to be watching a documentary (even then you sometimes wonder). . . But it probably does a whole great load of favors for getting youth who have no clue interested in history.

Tom P

[PeterA]

I just saw the movie. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't.

Not enough narrative.

Not enough little ships.

Not enough airplanes, and the flying was terribly hokey. (All that sloppy lethargic bobbing and weaving? Land a Spitfire on a beach with the wheels down? And do so far away from your own troops? And shoot down a Stuka while in that glide? A He-111 that never misses?)

Disappointed.

Dave

...most didn't...but some did.

PeterA

[Old Shep]

Dave Hatfield was right....

The 1958 B&W version is much better. Even Mrs. Miniver, made in 1942, deals with Dunkirk and the miracle of the little boats better than this.

Lots of money spent for not much, IMHO.

[Jesse C.]

I just saw the movie. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't.

Not enough narrative.

Not enough little ships.

Not enough airplanes, and the flying was terribly hokey. (All that sloppy lethargic bobbing and weaving? Land a Spitfire on a beach with the wheels down? And do so far away from your own troops? And shoot down a Stuka while in that glide? A He-111 that never misses?)

Disappointed.

Dave

I didn't like it much either.

How many rounds of ammo did that Spitfire carry? How far did he fly on that last 15 gallons of gas? How many miles did he glide after the engine quit? Why didn't any of the Navy ships shoot at the German planes? All nitpicks, but that's what we do here, right?

The friend I was with pointed out that there were gun flashes coming from the wings of the "Me-109." Did they have wing guns?

To me it was too loud. (Saw it in IMAX.) My ears were ringing for an hour afterwards. I could have used some narrative, too. And what was the point in killing the kid on the boat? Did that actually happen?

Yes, they did have wing guns.

[p51]

Dave Hatfield was right....

The 1958 B&W version is much better. Even Mrs. Miniver, made in 1942, deals with Dunkirk and the miracle of the little boats better than this.

Lots of money spent for not much, IMHO.

When I think of Dunkirk and films, I think nobody will ever top the 5+-minute scene in the otherwise awful movie, "Atonement":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU

[DarenC1]

And not Tyrone Power in A Yank in the RAF??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeq9UyViInE

[JohnB]

I wasn't expecting a "Battle if Britain" (1969) or Tora, Tora, Tora style semi-documentary...but I was expecting more than what was on the screen.
After rave reviews over on the Key Publishing forum, I was a bit underwhelmed.
You don't see vast crowds of men, you see a few bombs drop but only from one He 111 at a time. And you never see the German army closing in. In fact, Aside from the first few scenes, I'm not sure you even see a German.
What you do get are long lines of men stretching across the peaceful looking beach and docks.
Perhaps the director planned it to look like that to give it a surreal quality, but one could say it looks like the producers didn't want to hire many re extras.
As you'd expect from soldiers, the lines were orderly, but I thought they looked a bit too orderly, looking more like a line waiting to get into a hit film or waiting for the next i-gadget to be released.

Another surprise was aside from the middle-aged man who pilots his small boat to rescue soldiers, you don't get much insight into the "star" soldiers or Spitfire pilots. Again, that may have been the director's choice, he wanted to emphasize that the rescue wasn't necessary about saving individual men and more about saving the army as a whole. Still, that approach may surprise some...you're not going to get deeply involved with people.

As noted elsewhere, the He 111s and Stukas are by necessity CGI, so we're left with three Spitfires and apparently one Merlin powered "Bf 109".
Much of the aerial action I'd shown from the pilot's point of view. That gives an excellent view of the three dimensional aspect of aerial combat and how difficult it is to shoot at an enemy...I've never seen it done better.
What you don't get is a melee of opposing fighters or the aerial "ballet" scenes you got in The Battle of Britain and that may disappoint some.
On a technical level, you get many shots looking forward from a camera mounted on the "Spitfire's" fuselage...but anyone who has seen a Spitfire will notice the cowl and exhaust stubs don't look anywhere near correct. Apparently, the producers mounted the camera on some other aircraft. One wonders with today's technology, why they didn't mount a camera on a real Spitfire...since many, if not most...have been re-skinned, they would have been damaging the airframe's authenticity.

It's a fine film and I'm sure it gets across the points the director wanted to make, just don't expect an "epic" with a vast scale like you saw in The Longest Day or A Bridge Too Far.

If you're a WWII history buff (or if you even stayed awake in history class) you'll note the length the writer's go to to give historical background on the battle for today's audiences. Still, it's not as blatant a George Clooney's character telling FDR about the status of the war in the beginning of The Monument Men"....somehow I would think that FDR knew that Germans controlled Europe.

Over on the UK forum, many there love the film because they say it's finally a UK-centric WWII film without Americans.

[StangStung]

I wasn't expecting a "Battle if Britain" (1969) or Tora, Tora, Tora style semi-documentary...but I was expecting more than what was on the screen.
After rave reviews over on the Key Publishing forum, I was a bit underwhelmed.
You don't see vast crowds of men, you see a few bombs drop but only from one He 111 at a time. And you never see the German army closing in. In fact, Aside from the first few scenes, I'm not sure you even see a German.
What you do get are long lines of men stretching across the peaceful looking beach and docks.
Perhaps the director planned it to look like that to give it a surreal quality, but one could say it looks like the producers didn't want to hire many re extras.
As you'd expect from soldiers, the lines were orderly, but I thought they looked a bit too orderly, looking more like a line waiting to get into a hit film or waiting for the next i-gadget to be released.

Another surprise was aside from the middle-aged man who pilots his small boat to rescue soldiers, you don't get much insight into the "star" soldiers or Spitfire pilots. Again, that may have been the director's choice, he wanted to emphasize that the rescue wasn't necessary about saving individual men and more about saving the army as a whole. Still, that approach may surprise some...you're not going to get deeply involved with people.

As noted elsewhere, the He 111s and Stukas are by necessity CGI, so we're left with three Spitfires and apparently one Merlin powered "Bf 109".
Much of the aerial action I'd shown from the pilot's point of view. That gives an excellent view of the three dimensional aspect of aerial combat and how difficult it is to shoot at an enemy...I've never seen it done better.
What you don't get is a melee of opposing fighters or the aerial "ballet" scenes you got in The Battle of Britain and that may disappoint some.
On a technical level, you get many shots looking forward from a camera mounted on the "Spitfire's" fuselage...but anyone who has seen a Spitfire will notice the cowl and exhaust stubs don't look anywhere near correct. Apparently, the producers mounted the camera on some other aircraft. One wonders with today's technology, why they didn't mount a camera on a real Spitfire...since many, if not most...have been re-skinned, they would have been damaging the airframe's authenticity.

It's a fine film and I'm sure it gets across the points the director wanted to make, just don't expect an "epic" with a vast scale like you saw in The Longest Day or A Bridge Too Far.

If you're a WWII history buff (or if you even stayed awake in history class) you'll note the length the writer's go to to give historical background on the battle for today's audiences. Still, it's not as blatant a George Clooney's character telling FDR about the status of the war in the beginning of The Monument Men"....somehow I would think that FDR knew that Germans controlled Europe.

Over on the UK forum, many there love the film because they say it's finally a UK-centric WWII film without Americans.

So much to unpack here.

1. Nolan has said on various occasions that he wanted the emphasis to be ground/sea/air level - no generals discussing maps, the Germans are a menacing presence but (like a soldier would have) you never really get to see them close up.

2. Nolan does not use CGI. He used models. That's why they fly more or less correctly - because they're actually flying.

3. What do you think Dunkirk was if not long lines of men? The line on the mole was pretty much like the pics you see of the real day. In fact, there are a number of instances (pulling the oily men out of the water comes to mind) where Nolan directly copied images from WWII.

4. They filmed from a Yak-25. While this may've been a nit we all notice, the public won't. And I'm not sure which of the Spit owners would have been volunteering to play with sheet metal to mount a gigantic IMAX camera. Further, I'm not sure whether or how you could insure that.

Those things in mind, I thought Nolan did a superior job of showing a ground view rather than a overall view. I thought it was a fantastic movie. There's a lot going on with the time play (including the eye-rolling long glide of the Spit, not to mention going onto the beach wheels down - but I'm giving that a hollywood pass) such that I may go see it again.

As you can tell, I'm definitely in the "pro" camp. There's never going to be a "perfect" WWII movie for our crew, but this is pretty danged close.

[old iron]

p51 says:

When I think of Dunkirk and films, I think nobody will ever top the 5+-minute scene in the otherwise awful movie, "Atonement":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU

YES! That scene was FANTASTIC!

[JohnB]

So much to unpack here.

Note I wasn't overly critical of the film, just giving my impressions.
Unlike many, I didn't follow the production or read the hundreds of comments on various forums. I walked into the film with no preconceived notions.

So the director used models instead of CGI, fine (my point being that they were not actual aircraft) but my comments about the aerial action stand. People expecting a Battle of Britain spectacle will be disappointed.

I appreciate what he was trying to do, and the three different storylines was inspired (though it could have been clearer that they were not being told consecutively...the first time it went from nightfall in the soldiers story then cut to daylight for the Spitfires it was a bit jarring).

Also, it would have been interesting to know something about the protagonists (the escaping soldier) so we could better understand or appreciate his actions.

As I said a fine film, just not the greatest ever made.
Like you, I'm still waiting for a perfect film.

[kalamazookid]

I enjoyed it. I was expecting more of a macro-level story than the individualized and interweaving tales, so that took me by surprise but I thought it was a well done movie. I do think a little more background on the situation surrounding Dunkirk would have helped the average viewer appreciate the scope of what was happening in the film more.

The aerial action and story was significantly better than any WWII movie that I've seen in a while. I'm sure there are historical inaccuracies here and there and there seemed to be some embellishments with the flying sequences, but I came for a Hollywood movie, not a documentary, and I was entertained. I saw the movie with a family member who didn't know anything about the backstory of Dunkirk, and that person went home and spent the rest of the night reading about it. If the movie inspires others to do the same, it more than did its job (and will probably make a ton of money at the box office, I'm sure).

[Fearless Tower]

The problem with being a WWII history buff of which I can relate. The quote below goes for pretty much every war related movie that usually comes out these days.

"I wish I could enjoy it more if I didn’t know so much about it."

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/ ... s-holland/

Exactly how I felt.

Maybe it is all my years in the merchant marine then Navy, but I thought Christopher Nolan's effort was one of the most ridiculous and disjointed war movies I have ever seen.

I absolutely hate it when Hollywood washes over the real life stories to give you fictional characters that don't do reality justice. The flying scenes I enjoyed (aside from the ridiculous Spitfire Stuka shoot down followed by beach landing at the end). But the rest was just Hollywood garbage that didn't do the real thing justice.

The real hero stories are far more interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nkirk.html

[Fearless Tower]

Land a Spitfire on a beach with the wheels down? And do so far away from your own troops?

Disappointed

Agreed. What was really sad was the real life pilot that character was loosely based on dud actually land his aircraft on the beach (wheels up) but did so on the friendly part and was not captured.

[PeterA]

Some did...some didn't.

PeterA

[Jesse C.]

It just cracks me up how some of you bemoan the fact that either CGI or Model Aircraft where used in place of the real deal. Would you like them to find some genuine stuff and have it restored for the movie? Let us get realistic about it, that is not going to happen.

Was this movie aimed at the History Buff? No, it was aimed at the general public for entertainment purposes, it is just a movie.
Has it entertained? It is the #1 movie in the world! And has recovered almost of it's $150 million budget back. Something that is getting harder to do these days.

Did I know it was not dead nuts accurate when I went to see it? Yes. Was I entertained? Yes

I am glad this movie was made. It was not a fictional super hero movie or a boorish, formula, comedy. It was a war movie and it used some cool, real, planes and other gear. The operators made some money to keep their birds flying and got some very cool exposure.

I will definitely add to their coffers when I buy the Blu Ray Disc once it is released.