Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
I saw it and really enjoyed it. Was quite emotional knowing my grandfather was one of the Tommies (in real life...he isn't a 20 year old extra).
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
audidoody said:
As a 'student' of WWII history I've booked to see this next Saturday. From reading the above reviews it seems my disappointment with Christopher Nolan movies is not going to end any time soon.
He does seem to becoming his generation's Ridley Scott, makes some fantastically shot and, quite intelligent films, then ends up (seemingly) surrounded by yes men and disappears up his own arse.Hoping to see it next week, it seems to be a bit marmite with people at the moment, so i'll keep an open mind.
CaptainSlow said:
I saw it and really enjoyed it. Was quite emotional knowing my grandfather was one of the Tommies (in real life...he isn't a 20 year old extra).
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
I was expecting to see a film that conveyed the real danger these men were in, what we actually saw was Tom Hardy mumbling into a flying helmet and some dopey idiots hiding out in a sunken boat. Tens of thousands were killed, wounded or captured - again barely a mention.As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
The German hold was one of the biggest mistakes made in WW2 with Hitler believing those who survived would never come back into Europe again. There is so much history and so much that went on in those few weeks that it could have been an epic historical war film.
As it happens he chose to focus on the visuals, soundtrack and a few charisma free characters.
I was disappointed given all the initial hype, I will watch it again but for me it's not one of the greats by any means.
When I want fact I watch a documentary
When I want escapism I go to the cinema...I don't ever expect perfection, just entertainment.
I don't have a passion for history or war, so that helped with this film...but even something like Rush, where I 'think' I know a thing or two about the story/facts...I just find I annoy myself by looking for, or picking out inaccuracies...
Literally every film requires suspension of belief....
A car doesn't have an 18 speed manual gearbox
A man can't get beaten to an inch of his life, get shot 4 times and get up and beat up the trained killer
There will always be opposing views about science fiction
There will always be a tedious nerd pointing out that the jacket of the main character should have a collar of this size not that size....
Despite the lack of blood and gore, I still feel this film represents decent British film making, no razzamatazz for the sake of it, no purposely twisting of history, or over emotional tear jerkiness...no overblown patriotism.... but a clear desire to produce something of quality and meaning.
A good score, a good story, well acted, beautifully shot
If the inclusion of some background material not being of the correct era or similar ruins it for you... that's a real shame.
When I want escapism I go to the cinema...I don't ever expect perfection, just entertainment.
I don't have a passion for history or war, so that helped with this film...but even something like Rush, where I 'think' I know a thing or two about the story/facts...I just find I annoy myself by looking for, or picking out inaccuracies...
Literally every film requires suspension of belief....
A car doesn't have an 18 speed manual gearbox
A man can't get beaten to an inch of his life, get shot 4 times and get up and beat up the trained killer
There will always be opposing views about science fiction
There will always be a tedious nerd pointing out that the jacket of the main character should have a collar of this size not that size....
Despite the lack of blood and gore, I still feel this film represents decent British film making, no razzamatazz for the sake of it, no purposely twisting of history, or over emotional tear jerkiness...no overblown patriotism.... but a clear desire to produce something of quality and meaning.
A good score, a good story, well acted, beautifully shot
If the inclusion of some background material not being of the correct era or similar ruins it for you... that's a real shame.
I really enjoyed it, but then i'm not some kind of War Geek, so along with the other 90+% of the population just went along open mindedly to see a good film.
My first words to the OH on walking out were "They could have named that 'Sitting Ducks'", it must have been bloody awful. The main thing I didn't like was a lot of the speech which was mumbled and incoherent.
My first words to the OH on walking out were "They could have named that 'Sitting Ducks'", it must have been bloody awful. The main thing I didn't like was a lot of the speech which was mumbled and incoherent.
CaptainSlow said:
I saw it and really enjoyed it. Was quite emotional knowing my grandfather was one of the Tommies (in real life...he isn't a 20 year old extra).
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
You don't see the whites of their eyes unless you really have to... My Dad was in the RN and though his actions must have killed many of the enemy (he was on gun control and torpedo tubes) he never saw one. He even went shore at Dunkirk from the relatively safe confines of a boat, that was probably the nearest he got to them in six years. Come to thnk of it, my Mum probably got closer walking along Eastbourne High Street when it was straffed by a German fighter.As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
CaptainSlow said:
I saw it and really enjoyed it. Was quite emotional knowing my grandfather was one of the Tommies (in real life...he isn't a 20 year old extra).
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
So maybe the story of Dunkirk would be more complete with some sort of recognition of these rear guard heroes? The film doesn't make this obvious at all. So as a young un with no idea of what Dunkirk was all about you would be left wondering - where are the advancing Germans that are mentioned in the intro text right at the start of the film.As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
Smollet said:
vonuber said:
How are they going to shoehorn the yanks in?
Probably get Enola Gay to do a low fly past to hinder the Hun Really, and precisely because of its lack of all the above, it was not a bad film, especially when one realizes that the time line for each group of characters in the film is either compressed or stretched to suit the different situations that each of the groups in the film found themselves in.
As for the noise, and difficulty in understanding what was being said at times, I imagine, that this is probably what it was like for those who had to go through the experience. It is a shame that some of us sitting in our comfy cinema seats had to go through the hell of all that noise, and muffled conversations, while eating our popcorn
I thought it was ok.
I thought the multiple time periods thing worked quite well, but I knew about it before I went in which perhaps helped. If I hadn't then I am not sure the text alone would have been enough for me not to have to think about it. I actually quite liked the fact that the weather was not consistent between each story, as it helped to show the variation is how much time was passing.
I thought the score was very good.
The sound in my cinema was fine, but it wasn't an imax.
The stand out sequence for me was the ship being torpedoed while they were in the mess.
Definitely don't think the scale of it all came across. It really did look like hundreds of men and tens of boats (because it was I guess).
If you want to see it I do think it is one worth seeing in the cinema.
I thought the multiple time periods thing worked quite well, but I knew about it before I went in which perhaps helped. If I hadn't then I am not sure the text alone would have been enough for me not to have to think about it. I actually quite liked the fact that the weather was not consistent between each story, as it helped to show the variation is how much time was passing.
I thought the score was very good.
The sound in my cinema was fine, but it wasn't an imax.
The stand out sequence for me was the ship being torpedoed while they were in the mess.
Definitely don't think the scale of it all came across. It really did look like hundreds of men and tens of boats (because it was I guess).
If you want to see it I do think it is one worth seeing in the cinema.
towser said:
CaptainSlow said:
I saw it and really enjoyed it. Was quite emotional knowing my grandfather was one of the Tommies (in real life...he isn't a 20 year old extra).
As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
So maybe the story of Dunkirk would be more complete with some sort of recognition of these rear guard heroes? The film doesn't make this obvious at all. So as a young un with no idea of what Dunkirk was all about you would be left wondering - where are the advancing Germans that are mentioned in the intro text right at the start of the film.As for the numerous comments re Where were the Germans...I guess the film was trying to reflect reality, famously the Germans didn't attack the beaches by land and the rear guard was sufficient to hold them off for a number of days. Not sure what people want to see...some sort of GoT hand to hand with the French charging a Nazi shield wall with their limp baguettes?
Fast and Spurious said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Some squads were put in sheds after capture, and machine gunned by the Nazis
Never knew that. Made up?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
Went to see it tonight. Thought I was watching Brannagh at the opening of the 2012 Olympics at the beginning. Script between him and the Colonel was pathetic.
Noticed the scene where the lad picks a ciggie butt from the window. That then told us that nobody in the rest of the film would have a crafty fag.
I did think, as someone said before, that bearing in mind the modern interior on the train, we were going to see the film merge in to the present day.
All in all great scenes in the air but the gliding Spitfires altitude did seem to vary considerably on final approach!
Noticed the scene where the lad picks a ciggie butt from the window. That then told us that nobody in the rest of the film would have a crafty fag.
I did think, as someone said before, that bearing in mind the modern interior on the train, we were going to see the film merge in to the present day.
All in all great scenes in the air but the gliding Spitfires altitude did seem to vary considerably on final approach!
With regard to historical accuracy Dunkirk doesn't pretend to be a documentary - it's entertainment ......
There has been lots of discussion on the 'nerd regarding accuracy eg http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/wha...
http://www.thewrap.com/dunkirk-fact-check-how-long...
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dogfightin...
I'm glad that it was a British film rather than one with a 'good ole USofA' spin.
Was the actual evacuation of Dunkirk a triumph - I think it was.
I believe around 235,000 British soldiers were evacuated (of 338,000). Of the 100,000 French troops taken off only around 3000 joined the Free French army (De Gaulle) the majority were rested & then sent back to France (captured or surrendered) - so there was a (harsh) military logic in taking British rather than French soldiers off first.
But in an alternative reality, supposing all the 235,000 British soldiers had been captured by the Germans. What would have been the effect on the war effort? 235,000 represented 5% of the UK population - one in 20 of the whole country I'm pretty sure that there would have been political pressure from the families concerned to 'come to some arrangement' with the Germans?
Finally, one poster earlier criticised the film for having a character read 'We shall fight (them) on the beaches' from a newspaper rather than hear Churchill own voice.....
Well the film was correct, when people say they were persuaded to fight by Churchill's own voice they are under a deception. Churchill gave the speech to Parliament and there was no electronic recording of Parliament at the time. It was transcribed and reported in the press. I believe a number of actors read it out in a Churchillian voice. Churchill later recorded it for posterity in 1949!
Interesting reading:
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/12/02/we-shall-fi...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/ukne...
There has been lots of discussion on the 'nerd regarding accuracy eg http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/wha...
http://www.thewrap.com/dunkirk-fact-check-how-long...
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dogfightin...
I'm glad that it was a British film rather than one with a 'good ole USofA' spin.
Was the actual evacuation of Dunkirk a triumph - I think it was.
I believe around 235,000 British soldiers were evacuated (of 338,000). Of the 100,000 French troops taken off only around 3000 joined the Free French army (De Gaulle) the majority were rested & then sent back to France (captured or surrendered) - so there was a (harsh) military logic in taking British rather than French soldiers off first.
But in an alternative reality, supposing all the 235,000 British soldiers had been captured by the Germans. What would have been the effect on the war effort? 235,000 represented 5% of the UK population - one in 20 of the whole country I'm pretty sure that there would have been political pressure from the families concerned to 'come to some arrangement' with the Germans?
Finally, one poster earlier criticised the film for having a character read 'We shall fight (them) on the beaches' from a newspaper rather than hear Churchill own voice.....
Well the film was correct, when people say they were persuaded to fight by Churchill's own voice they are under a deception. Churchill gave the speech to Parliament and there was no electronic recording of Parliament at the time. It was transcribed and reported in the press. I believe a number of actors read it out in a Churchillian voice. Churchill later recorded it for posterity in 1949!
Interesting reading:
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/12/02/we-shall-fi...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/ukne...
Edited by alfaspecial on Saturday 29th July 09:03
I saw the film last night. I was on the edge of my seat for most of it...
I am glad they didn’t take the "easy way out" and produce a gore fest or huge CGI set pieces the like of which we have all seen before.
The pure terror of standing on a beach awaiting rescue, standing helpless as you see enemy planes approach and strafe and drop bombs - almost in slow motion - is conveyed perfectly.
The small scale dog fights make it easy to follow what's going on (is it just me that finds vast dog fights - whether Star Wars or Battle of Britain - confusing?) and for me increased the tension right through to the final engagement between the Spitfire and the bomber.
Those are the scenes I can’t stop thinking about and will stay with me. I certainly didn't leave the cinema grumbling about train seats.
If you can get to the Science Museum to see it in 70mm Imax you are in for an unforgettable experience...
I am glad they didn’t take the "easy way out" and produce a gore fest or huge CGI set pieces the like of which we have all seen before.
The pure terror of standing on a beach awaiting rescue, standing helpless as you see enemy planes approach and strafe and drop bombs - almost in slow motion - is conveyed perfectly.
The small scale dog fights make it easy to follow what's going on (is it just me that finds vast dog fights - whether Star Wars or Battle of Britain - confusing?) and for me increased the tension right through to the final engagement between the Spitfire and the bomber.
Those are the scenes I can’t stop thinking about and will stay with me. I certainly didn't leave the cinema grumbling about train seats.
If you can get to the Science Museum to see it in 70mm Imax you are in for an unforgettable experience...
Edited by funinhounslow on Saturday 29th July 10:00
Cobnapint said:
Agree. Just got back from the local Vue. What a disappointment.
There was absolutey no sense of peril that the Germans were approaching. The troops in the beach scenes looked like they were queuing for a pleasure trip.
All of the main escaping characters were fully clean shaven.
I'm sure I saw a modern glass panelled balcony in one of the sea front buildings early on.
The loaded departing naval vessels and the hospital ship looked only a third full.
The rescuing armada of private boats looked rather, erm, down on numbers.
Spitfires only had about 15 seconds worth of rounds but the pilot trying to shoot the Heinkel down seemed to have an unlimited ammo cheat activated.
They also had a whopping great engine behind the prop - the burning Spit on the beach at the end (yes the one that now holds the world record for the longest glide) had what looked like a wooden pole extending back to the cockpit.
The model aircraft that were crashed into the sea - looked like models.
The Stukas had a strange deep bass sound to compliment the standard fit siren.
The Spits were flying Red Arrow display team close - no way would you do that if you were expecting 109s to pay a surprise visit.
When the guys were on the grounded boat waiting for the tide to come in we were encouraged to believe that the weight of just one soldier getting off would make it float. Don't think so.
The acting on the main rescuing small boat was rather lacking. When the young civvie lad died from the bang on the head the others looked less alarmed than when somebody knocks a glass of red wine over on a carpet.
The carriage used for the troop train at the end didn't enter service until 1951, and certainly not with that upholstery.
Total lack of attention to detail. Done on a budget and it showed.
6/10
I concur. Just found it odd. Odd direction, odd storytelling. Was expecting a 2 hour Saving Private Ryan intro but it was nowhere near that level technically. It actually could have done with some CGI to portray the scale required. Soldiers cheering when ten small boats turned up and Brannagh's acting were embarrassing.There was absolutey no sense of peril that the Germans were approaching. The troops in the beach scenes looked like they were queuing for a pleasure trip.
All of the main escaping characters were fully clean shaven.
I'm sure I saw a modern glass panelled balcony in one of the sea front buildings early on.
The loaded departing naval vessels and the hospital ship looked only a third full.
The rescuing armada of private boats looked rather, erm, down on numbers.
Spitfires only had about 15 seconds worth of rounds but the pilot trying to shoot the Heinkel down seemed to have an unlimited ammo cheat activated.
They also had a whopping great engine behind the prop - the burning Spit on the beach at the end (yes the one that now holds the world record for the longest glide) had what looked like a wooden pole extending back to the cockpit.
The model aircraft that were crashed into the sea - looked like models.
The Stukas had a strange deep bass sound to compliment the standard fit siren.
The Spits were flying Red Arrow display team close - no way would you do that if you were expecting 109s to pay a surprise visit.
When the guys were on the grounded boat waiting for the tide to come in we were encouraged to believe that the weight of just one soldier getting off would make it float. Don't think so.
The acting on the main rescuing small boat was rather lacking. When the young civvie lad died from the bang on the head the others looked less alarmed than when somebody knocks a glass of red wine over on a carpet.
The carriage used for the troop train at the end didn't enter service until 1951, and certainly not with that upholstery.
Total lack of attention to detail. Done on a budget and it showed.
6/10
Edited by Cobnapint on Thursday 27th July 23:04
jonm01 said:
I concur. Just found it odd. Odd direction, odd storytelling. Was expecting a 2 hour Saving Private Ryan intro but it was nowhere near that level technically. It actually could have done with some CGI to portray the scale required. Soldiers cheering when ten small boats turned up and Brannagh's acting were embarrassing.
Why were you expecting a 2 hour Saving Private Ryan Intro when they are depicting completely different events?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff