Dunkirk

[Fearless Tower]

Lots of money spent for not much, IMHO.

That was another thing that distinctly stood out to me. Lot of money spent, but it had the look and feel of a low budget production.

[Fearless Tower]

It is the #1 movie in the world!

Look at what it was up against: Emoji….a complete stinker.

Saying it is #1 right now, doesn't amount to much….

[hurricane_yank]

Editing was very poor - one scene could go from sunny and cloudless to cloudy and windy to partly cloudy. I have never been to Dunkirk but I doubt the weather changes that much in a few minutes.

[Fearless Tower]

Editing was very poor - one scene could go from sunny and cloudless to cloudy and windy to partly cloudy. I have never been to Dunkirk but I doubt the weather changes that much in a few minutes.

Had a lot to do with the skipping around in the timeline. They show the same Spitfire ditching 30 minutes apart. First from the wingman's point of view then 30 minutes later after you think the movie has moved on, we are suddenly go back in time to witness the same ditching from the point of view of the yacht.

Same thing with the minesweeper sinking….we literally got to see the same ship sink three times.

Or the Spitfire that seemingly glides for 20 minutes at the end.

Just led to the whole disjointed feeling and also why it felt like it was low budget.

It was like using 10 actors with actual speaking parts combined with about 200 stand-ins on maybe 200 yards of beach to portray the evacuation over 330,00.

[Jesse C.]

It is the #1 movie in the world!

Look at what it was up against: Emoji….a complete stinker.

Saying it is #1 right now, doesn't amount to much….

Dunkirk is in it's second week. That emoji movie just opened this weekend. Dunkirk opened against Valerian, Girls Trip and First Kill.

It is doing pretty good considering it beat the Emoji Movie and Atomic Blonde.

But we get it, you don't like it and that is fine.

[eallen]

The "Spityak" as the guys who built it referred to it as. This was shortly after returning from filming in August of last year. Pit stop on it's way to the new owner...

[PeterA]

The "Spityak" as the guys who built it referred to it as. This was shortly after returning from filming in August of last year. Pit stop on it's way to the new owner...

Can you please advise where the image was taken and if it remains in this film configuration and livery?

Peter

[Saville]

I liked the movie.

You have to understand what this movie was about..and what it was NOT about.

It was NOT about the evacuation at Dunkirk. It was not a documentary. It was NOT about the tremendous threat to the Army, the tremendous problems in getting 300,000+ off the beach (when they expected to get only 30,000). It was NOT about the several thousand who stayed back to hold off the Germans while most got off the beach. It was NOT about the Little Boats.

This movie was about 3 small groups of people; the problems presented to them by the Dunkirk events; and how they dealt with them - the decisions they made.

It was about a few guys on the beach; it was about a few (3) civilians in a small boat going to Dunkirk to help remove soldiers from the beach, and it was about 2.5 RAF pilots (we didn't see Michael Caine )

Dunkirk was merely the pretext for putting these 3 sets of people in extremely difficult situations and telling how they dealt with it. And the writing was done such that the three groups converged at one point , and then diverged again at the very end.

Yes there were flaws. Yes it took a little getting used to the 3 timelines of 3 vastly different lengths.

The movie was a character study of 3 groups of people in a tight situation.

I liked it. I liked Tom Hardy's RAF pilot and the acting he did to portray the decision he chose.

If you were going to the movie to see a colossal extravaganza about Dunkirk - you will be disappointed because that's not what the movie was about. Dunkirk was almost a MacGuffin.

Last edited by Saville on Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

[Saville]

By the way - I did recognize Michael Caine's voice and I thought that was a nice touch.

But other than that - and perhaps his admonition to watch out for the enemy coming out of the Sun, I didn't catch any other Battle of Britain movie reference.

[Forgotten Field]

I like the movie (except the blatant lack of Hawker Hurricanes). For those who think it doesn't tell the "real story" of Dunkirk, I'll offer this parable. In a former life, I was a military medic and paramedic. When I tell people this, the usual response is a positive; there aren't many people out there who think being a medic is bad. But there have been a few times when I have chosen to be a little more explicit about what happened in the field, albeit redacting some pretty hairy, scary, gory things. And there have been a few people who were extremely disturbed by what I had to tell them. One time, as I was speaking to a person who turned deathly pale by what I told him, he said "I don't want to hear any more- I thought you guys just drove ambulances and raced to the hospital."

Yes, Dunkirk was about pulling over 300,000 people off the beach. This movie's story might not be exactly what your image was of the tale. But I think Christopher Nolan wove an intriguing image understandable by many people around the history, telling the story on a very personal level.

Even if he did forget to put Hurricanes in the movie....

[eallen]

PeterA, my photo was taken in San Diego. The aircraft was re crated up and moved up the coast to the Ventura County area. It was in that scheme when it left here...cannot speak to how it is now as far as status or color.

[PeterA]

PeterA, my photo was taken in San Diego. The aircraft was re crated up and moved up the coast to the Ventura County area. It was in that scheme when it left here...cannot speak to how it is now as far as status or color.

Many thanks.

[seagull61785]

I pretty well go along with Saville's post. As an entertaining movie it held my attention. Once I got used to the three different story lines it made more sense and was more enjoyable.

Also had to suppress the urge to 'nit-pick' on items of technical interest which was in hindsight a good thing.

My only query was I can't for the life of me work out why the Blenheim was involved. Yes it was exactly the right era, and Yes I enjoyed the glimpse of it as it flew over the little boat, but I found it difficult to fathom out what it added to the story lines apart from showing the boy's father was knowledgeable with his aircraft recognition charts.

There was probably a good reason for the Blenheim's inclusion so I would be glad if someone else could point it out to me.

Overall it was a good night out with my son at the movies, especially enjoying the beer and chocolate ice-creams we had. Nah they really don't mix well in the stomach.

Cheers

Barry

[Fleet16b]

Some pretty picky people on this thread
If you really want to get technical ....... maybe one of the flying Spitfires is real.
The others are data plate Spitfires ie replicas built around an engine and data plate.
Nothing much of them are actual period parts.

[Fleet16b]

sorry double post