Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Quickmoose said:
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.
Agreed. Nolan took an unusual approach and it's ineresting to see something different. I didn't sit there wondering why there were only two Spitfires over the Channel, it's a snapshot. If your main takeaway is about 1970s train upholstery, then clearly the film was not meant for you, but that doesn't make it a bad film.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.
As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
montecristo said:
Agreed. Nolan took an unusual approach and it's ineresting to see something different. I didn't sit there wondering why there were only two Spitfires over the Channel, it's a snapshot. If your main takeaway is about 1970s train upholstery, then clearly the film was not meant for you, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
Certainly worked with my two teenage girls. We've seen it twice and the first time both were in tears numerous times throughout the film. As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
They can't believe kids were doing that 70+ years ago.
Whilst I would agree with an earlier post, that the Spitfire flown by the Tom Hardy character did seem to have an unbelievably long firing time, in the film,( In the film, after the first few bursts, I kept expecting him to hit the tit and nothing happening with his guns)
it did seem to be quite accurate in terms of the effect the bursts from the Spitfire had on the German planes,
Compared to cannons, even the 8 browning machine 303 machine guns would have comparatively less effect on an opposing aircraft, unless the pilot was consistently able to accurately position his aircraft at the distance where the stream of fire from the 8 machine guns were harmonized to converge. At which point it would pack a decent wallop on the aircraft being targeted.
This makes the achievement of the pilots flying the Spitfires (and Hurricanes with the same gun set up) at the time even more remarkable.
I wonder how many an axis aircraft was put down, not so much because their aircraft had been damaged by the 8 gun set up of the British aircraft, but because (depending on the aircraft type) one or more of its crew had been seriously hit by the scatter gun hail of small caliber bullets flying around them? I ask this, because in the film the German aircraft seemed to take burst, after burst of fire, but carried on flying/attacking the ships, and troops on the ground.
Of course later in the war it was shown that without adequate fighter cover, the JU87`s were just sitting ducks for the allied pilots, and this may be because their much lower speed, and lesser agility, enabled allied pilots to put the enemy aircraft right in the spot where their guns were harmonized far more often?
it did seem to be quite accurate in terms of the effect the bursts from the Spitfire had on the German planes,
Compared to cannons, even the 8 browning machine 303 machine guns would have comparatively less effect on an opposing aircraft, unless the pilot was consistently able to accurately position his aircraft at the distance where the stream of fire from the 8 machine guns were harmonized to converge. At which point it would pack a decent wallop on the aircraft being targeted.
This makes the achievement of the pilots flying the Spitfires (and Hurricanes with the same gun set up) at the time even more remarkable.
I wonder how many an axis aircraft was put down, not so much because their aircraft had been damaged by the 8 gun set up of the British aircraft, but because (depending on the aircraft type) one or more of its crew had been seriously hit by the scatter gun hail of small caliber bullets flying around them? I ask this, because in the film the German aircraft seemed to take burst, after burst of fire, but carried on flying/attacking the ships, and troops on the ground.
Of course later in the war it was shown that without adequate fighter cover, the JU87`s were just sitting ducks for the allied pilots, and this may be because their much lower speed, and lesser agility, enabled allied pilots to put the enemy aircraft right in the spot where their guns were harmonized far more often?
LHRFlightman said:
montecristo said:
Agreed. Nolan took an unusual approach and it's ineresting to see something different. I didn't sit there wondering why there were only two Spitfires over the Channel, it's a snapshot. If your main takeaway is about 1970s train upholstery, then clearly the film was not meant for you, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
Certainly worked with my two teenage girls. We've seen it twice and the first time both were in tears numerous times throughout the film. As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
They can't believe kids were doing that 70+ years ago.
Pan Pan Pan said:
LHRFlightman said:
montecristo said:
Agreed. Nolan took an unusual approach and it's ineresting to see something different. I didn't sit there wondering why there were only two Spitfires over the Channel, it's a snapshot. If your main takeaway is about 1970s train upholstery, then clearly the film was not meant for you, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
Certainly worked with my two teenage girls. We've seen it twice and the first time both were in tears numerous times throughout the film. As an aside, I didn't realise Harry Styles was in it, I wonder if that will help to bring the story of Dunkirk to a new generateion.
They can't believe kids were doing that 70+ years ago.
Hence my sadness after walking out of the cinema into a shopping centre in the Midlands.
gregs656 said:
Why were you expecting a 2 hour Saving Private Ryan Intro when they are depicting completely different events?
I mean on a technical level. SPR opening is the only time I've had a sense of what it must be like to be in the midst of something like that. Nolan's effort didn't come close. Edited by jonm01 on Monday 31st July 10:41
A big disappointment, I'm sad to say.
As posted above, there was a general lack of scale, with the "big moment" when the little ships arrived being simply laughable. 400,000 men reduced to a couple of hundred. It reminded me of the old Sharpe series on tv, when they had to show a big battle but could only afford 30 extras.
There were some great bits in it (the sinking ships were very well done), it was tense throughout, but not moving, which takes some doing given the subject matter. I also thought the different time periods worked quite well.
And that train carriage was unforgivable.
As posted above, there was a general lack of scale, with the "big moment" when the little ships arrived being simply laughable. 400,000 men reduced to a couple of hundred. It reminded me of the old Sharpe series on tv, when they had to show a big battle but could only afford 30 extras.
There were some great bits in it (the sinking ships were very well done), it was tense throughout, but not moving, which takes some doing given the subject matter. I also thought the different time periods worked quite well.
And that train carriage was unforgivable.
Went to see it at the weekend. Really enjoyed the flying sequences especially. Plus the voice of Michael Caine as the Squadron Leader ( he must have survived the crash to fight in the B of B film shortly after...) made me smile. Knew Nolan would do something with the timelines within the movie though
Would like to see it in the IMAX format to see the difference
Would like to see it in the IMAX format to see the difference
Hmmmm, not convinced.
The time-lines coming together sort of worked, but for me one soldier or pilot looks much like another so I struggled to work out who was who.
The sense of scale was hugely lacking - it looked like a TV drama or that there had been gaps left for the CGI to fill in!
The ending just about redeemed it.
The time-lines coming together sort of worked, but for me one soldier or pilot looks much like another so I struggled to work out who was who.
The sense of scale was hugely lacking - it looked like a TV drama or that there had been gaps left for the CGI to fill in!
The ending just about redeemed it.
towser said:
Patrick Bateman said:
The film's not perfect but some of these criticisms are proper autism-grade stuff.
NiceAnyway, did I have a brain fart when I watched this film last night, or is there a continuity error in the Spitfire?
I recall the Spitfire pilot (Tom Hardy), when his dial was shot up, that his colleague told him he had 50 gals., so Tom's character noted the same in chalk, with the time, on his own dash. As his colleague was going to ditch in the sea, I recall he radioed Tom's character and told him he had 15 gals., and Tom's character then noted that value and the new time on the dash?
Later, the dash chalkmark still showed 50 gals not the updated 15 gals. value
Did I get that wrong? (I haven't googled anything, yet...)
I enjoyed many aspects of the film, but the following were issues for me:
-the soldiers were not likeable, they cheated the queue and I didn't have any empathy with them. Harry Styles is a terrible actor, Shame as there is no shortage of good British actors
-some of the scenes didn't portray the scale of the evacuation
-the Spitfire at the end was silly
-the Royal Navy involvement was not really shown (only 5% of the soldiers were evacuated by small vessels)
Plus lots of factual errors if you are pedantic about weather, tides, Spitfire capability, ships etc
-the soldiers were not likeable, they cheated the queue and I didn't have any empathy with them. Harry Styles is a terrible actor, Shame as there is no shortage of good British actors
-some of the scenes didn't portray the scale of the evacuation
-the Spitfire at the end was silly
-the Royal Navy involvement was not really shown (only 5% of the soldiers were evacuated by small vessels)
Plus lots of factual errors if you are pedantic about weather, tides, Spitfire capability, ships etc
Patrick Bateman said:
The film's not perfect but some of these criticisms are proper autism-grade stuff.
So where would you draw the line then?At what point would period vehicles, equipment and clothing actually matter?
Would it be autism-grade criticism if the soldiers had SA80s?
Would it be autism-grade criticism if Tom Hardy had rocked up in a Sea Harrier?
How about a hovercraft or two?
Maybe Ken Branagh tweeting progress back to London?
jonm01 said:
I mean on a technical level. SPR opening is the only time I've had a sense of what it must be like to be in the midst of something like that. Nolan's effort didn't come close.
Something like that? SPR depicted the assault on Omaha Beach, where disembarking Americans became casualties, many of them coming under sustained fire from German troops with MG42 machine guns placed in concrete bunker a few metres away from them.Dunkirk had no German troops, no disembarking Americans assaulting a beach, no MG42 machine guns in concrete bunkers a few metres away.
But you expected the experience to be similar?
Why?
Crossflow Kid said:
Patrick Bateman said:
The film's not perfect but some of these criticisms are proper autism-grade stuff.
So where would you draw the line then?At what point would period vehicles, equipment and clothing actually matter?
Would it be autism-grade criticism if the soldiers had SA80s?
Would it be autism-grade criticism if Tom Hardy had rocked up in a Sea Harrier?
How about a hovercraft or two?
Maybe Ken Branagh tweeting progress back to London?
The majority of people would understand that a Spitfire might've been there but a Sea Harrier probably wouldn't... for example.
Whereas the minority of people would not recognise a 1944 fishing boat from a 1945 fishing boat...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff