Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film

[SpudLink]

LHRFlightman said:

The most intensely emotional film I've ever seen. I came out exhausted and very emotional.

It's a masterpiece.

“Masterpiece” was how I felt when I left the cinema. Details such as the train pulling into the wrong sidings, which seem to be of concern to others, did not distract from the emotional impact.

XCP said:

I kept expecting the music to break into Nimrod, but it never quite did.

The music score is not something that I normally pay conscious attention to in a film. However, the Spitfire moment at the end, when the music is on the verge of bursting into Elgar, had me wiping a little dust from my eyes.

aeropilot said:

I don't think any of the 3 sub-stories are true in detail......and its a Hollywood movie, as such its 'entertainment' not a documentary, and the reality of any of the situations should be taken with the appropriate pinch of salt.

Nolan was asked this in an interview. He says none of the stories are actual events, but they are meant to be representative of the experience of those who were there.

[ukbabz]

Not too sure where to start, other than one hell of a film.

The use of sound was brilliant, I liked the ticking clock at points where it felt like panic was setting in to really pull me into the film. The cutting between the story arcs took a little bit of time to twig what was happening but it was enjoyable. I think it gave much more depth to a rather short series of actions and allowed a deeper sense of the helplessness that the soldiers, sailors and pilots must have felt at various points.

I was a bit concerned when it flagged up as a 12A, as I was expecting a war film. However, Nolan seems to have a delivered one of the grittiest, emotive war films without showing us the insides of half a regiment.

We got our tickets towards the end, and ended up at one side of the cinema so I think we didn't get the full effect of the sound, however even still it was extremely well done. When the Stuka was diving on the beach it was so loud it was almost painful, again clearly deliberate to get you feeling like you're one of the soldiers on the sand.

I didn't realise until reading this thread that Harry Styles was even in the film and he did a great job for his debut.

The ending on the train was just brilliant, the turn from despair to realisation as the train pulled into the station.

[marcosgt]

durbster said:

I didn't think much of Nolan's Batman films so didn't really consider myself a huge fan, but I'm starting to think my issue was more with Christian Bale than Nolan, because his other films have been well above par.

I think it was the need to stick to the formula that hamstrung those films, especially the long rambling mess that was the last one.

I like his smaller films best like Memento and The Prestige.

Inception was good for much of the time and then turned into a live action Call of Duty game about 3/4 of the way through.

Interstellar was interesting until it disappeared up its own exhaust half an hour from the end...

Still, he always does something interesting, whether it works for you or not, and I'm looking forward to seeing Dunkirk.

M

[anonymous-user]

SpudLink said:

"Masterpiece” was how I felt when I left the cinema. Details such as the train pulling into the wrong sidings, which seem to be of concern to others, did not distract from the emotional impact.

Err......it was a bit less subtle than the train "pulling in to the wrong sidings"
The train interior was entirely and very obviously the wrong era, not just by a few years, but by decades.
There are enough vintage railway carriages knocking about on the various preserved railways of the UK that there was absolutely no need to film on one with brushed aluminium fittings, white Formica-topped tables and 1970s upholstery.
When it happened my immediate split-second reaction was that it was going to be a quirky way to transport us to the present day, and we'd see the two squaddies looking out over a modern day Dover with ships routinely coming and going across the Channel.
Authenticity is such a key part of films nowadays that to get such an easily sourced detail so very wrong was an absolutely clanger.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th July 16:52

[Rogue86]

I didnt notice the train. I spent a large chunk of my working life with Spitfires though and hearing them with such clarity again would allow me to forgive pretty much any mistake the film may have made. Will definitely be seeing it again.

[aeropilot]

Rogue86 said:

I didnt notice the train. I spent a large chunk of my working life with Spitfires though and hearing them with such clarity again would allow me to forgive pretty much any mistake the film may have made. Will definitely be seeing it again.

I thinks that's sadly part of the problem.

A lot of the budget has clearly been spent on the headline 'acts' of authenticity (using 3 x Spits of close to era spec) the Buchon, Blenheim, towing a museum almost correct period warship miles to the film area, using a fleet of the original 'little ships' and using the actual Dunkirk beaches for filming.......but, at the expense of a lot of minor details on the typical film industry basis of "people won't notice/care".....

From the on set stills and clips I've seen the authenticity of a lot of the kit, and spec, and appearance of the soldiers, is very sub standard, given what is available to the film industry and knowledge in how to use/employ it these days.

[GregK2]

I recommend the recent channel 4 documentary to anyone that hasn't seen it. It's available on demand.

Dunkirk: The New Evidence
Dunkirk has long been viewed as the RAF's poorest hour, but this documentary reveals the hidden story of the key role that they played in the evacuation
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dunkirk-the-new...

[Rogue86]

aeropilot said:

I thinks that's sadly part of the problem.

I honestly do not understand how someone can overlook the many things this film stands for and the questions it asks of humanity in favour of train seats that aren't period.

Edited by Rogue86 on Monday 24th July 22:15

[Elroy Blue]

I saw it today and have mixed feelings. If you had zero knowledge of WW2, it would probably be better. It was the air scenes that spoiled it for me. Dogfighting while flaying in formation with the enemy. Bombing at zero feet with two escorts a few feet off your wing and the dead engine Spitfire flying and fighting for about five minutes (that was just silly)

As entertainment it was an enjoyable film.

[cootuk]

I thought the troops looked a little too clean and fresh considering a lot had been doing fighting retreats for the last week.
Given there were around 700 small boats involved, we didn't really get the scale of them all coming over as a widescreen panorama shot.
The train coaches being the wrong era.
Those are the bad points.

My great uncle was in the Royal Artillery, deployed around Brussels then pushed back, and died somewhere on the trip back over the channel. I must say the Elgaresque music certainly made specks of dust drop into my eyes, knowing he would have been on one of the beaches trying to get off. It's the kind of film where you half expect Land of Hope and Glory to strike up, and the audience to sing along.

It's good that the current generation get to see that the Europe they grew up in hasn't always been this way, and that the good guys suffer losses too.

[aeropilot]

Rogue86 said:

aeropilot said:

I thinks that's sadly part of the problem.

I honestly do not understand how someone can overlook the many things this film stands for and the questions it asks of humanity in favour of train seats that aren't period.

Wind yer neck in....

I used be a volunteer helper with the Dunkirk Veterans Association.

[anonymous-user]

Rogue86 said:

aeropilot said:

I thinks that's sadly part of the problem.

I honestly do not understand how someone can overlook the many things this film stands for and the questions it asks of humanity in favour of train seats that aren't period.

Edited by Rogue86 on Monday 24th July 22:15

I guess you'd be ok with a Jetski as part of the flotilla too then?
It's about details, and as mentioned already it says to me the production was just lazy or conceited on the basis no one would notice.
To be a fitting tribute to what happened (as you appear to want it to be) every tiniest little thing should've been as accurate as it could be.
Vehicles/trains/aircraft are an easy win for a film shoot and they got it wrong which leaves me asking myself how accurate all the other stuff was.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th July 23:06

[Rogue86]

aeropilot said:

Wind yer neck in....

I used be a volunteer helper with the Dunkirk Veterans Association.

It wasnt an insult, I'm happy for someone to elaborate on why it is such a stand out point for them. The film was real enough for an actual Dunkirk veteran. Fair enough if it makes you question the accuracy of other things, but then this wasn't a documentary and never professed to be. For me the film is about much more than the authenticity of small details like the interior of a train that is on screen for less than 1% of the film and at a point where young men, having survived the onslaught of the evacuation are wondering whether they will be treated as cowards when they return home.

I think that the film playing down the scale of the operation is potentially a valid point (especially with concern to the size of the flotilla of little boats) but my impression is that this was done to make you connect more with the characters. Personally I would have liked more of a nod to the French, but then again I appreciate it's probably for the same reason - as an infantier you would probably have little knowledge of the size/scale of the French sacrifice until afterwards.

Edited by Rogue86 on Tuesday 25th July 07:45

[Halmyre]

Rogue86 said:

aeropilot said:

Wind yer neck in....

I used be a volunteer helper with the Dunkirk Veterans Association.

It wasnt an insult, I'm happy for someone to elaborate on why it is such a stand out point for them. The film was real enough for an actual Dunkirk veteran. Fair enough if it makes you question the accuracy of other things, but then this wasn't a documentary and never professed to be. For me the film is about much more than the authenticity of small details like the interior of a train that is on screen for less than 1% of the film and at a point where young men, having survived the onslaught of the evacuation are wondering whether they will be treated as cowards when they return home.

That's something that never crossed my mind. What was the public reaction at the time?

[Riley Blue]

I saw it yesterday and rated it 7/10. I was slightly disappointed at the lack of gritty realism; many of the actors were too clean and freshly shaven with gleaming teeth and neatly cut hair but the desperation and fear came across and the action was gripping, edge of seat stuff. The inaccuracies, there were quite a few, some small, some absolute bloopers, didn't spoilt it for me and I can now better apprciate what my Dad went through.

Overall, my second visit to a cinema in ten years was well worth it but haven't prices shot up - £11.30!

[XCP]

good teeth and lack of stubble were a point my wife raised. I think, in reality most people had dentures ( or gaps more likely) by the time they got to adulthood in pre NHS days.

[nicanary]

XCP said:

good teeth and lack of stubble were a point my wife raised. I think, in reality most people had dentures ( or gaps more likely) by the time they got to adulthood in pre NHS days.

Or at the very least yellow teeth. I always think they get the haircuts wrong in these things, but not as bad as they did back in the 1960s, when "period look" meant for nothing. All the women in Battle of Britain had beehive hairdos.

[Ayahuasca]

I saw it in New York. I think the audience was waiting for the bit where the USA saves the day.

The Spitfires were worth the cost of admission on their own. The shots back along the fuselage to the tail were wonderful. The Spitfire landing on the beach and burning to almost Elgar was poetry. There are black and white photos of a crashed Spitfire on Dunkirk beach, maybe the inspiration. Yes there were goofs - Dunkirk to Weymouth? But who cares?

[Riley Blue]

Ayahuasca said:

Yes there were goofs - Dunkirk to Weymouth? But who cares?

I thought that was a bit far fetched too but with the dead lad on board, perhaps they were intent on taking him home having been equally determined to head for Dunkirk earlier. I did feel that more effort could have been put into making a French destroyer launched in 1957 look like a RN destroyer from 20 years earlier but as you say, who cares; I could happily go and watch it again this evening.

[unrepentant]

Watching it tomorrow on 70mm IMAX. Can't wait.