Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
I think the worst thing about it was the different time lines. I don't think it added anything to the story and just seemed to be there to give it a Nolan film element. I don't think the film needed this gimmick. More focus put into a conventional telling of the various stories would have improved things I feel.
Cobnapint said:
Eric Mc said:
This one is much better -
By a long chalk.The Nolan one was a bit rubbish really. He gets away with a lot as I find his batman films a bit dull as well.
I saws this last night on BBC 2 while channle hopping
Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
anonymoususer said:
I saws this last night on BBC 2 while channle hopping
Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
Did you get the feel of the half a million troops on the beaches? Looked more like half a dozen to me.Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
My grandfathers warship did four trips,and evacuated 4500 troops .
Watch the 1958 original film,it is so much better and far more accurate.
anonymoususer said:
I saws this last night on BBC 2 while channle hopping
Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
Did you notice when the Spitfire was burning that engine was replaced by a scaffold pole?Really very impressed with it
One of our daughters is home from uni and watched it with me after saying she hadnt seen Harry Styles in it. I knew who he was but didnt know he had acted in this. I recognised the voice of the chap who skippered the little boat but couldnt place him.
I later realised he had been in the historical Henry the 8th thing on TV - Wolf Hall
I had no preconceptions of the film at all but I was pretty stunned by it. The only thing that I thought was odd was the Spitfire gl,iding sequence. It seemed to go on for ages. I now realise it may have seemed like that due to the 3 seperate perspective storytelling.
I thought the Spitfire flight sequnces were simply brilliant
My daughter was very pleased with the film too.
and31 said:
Did you get the feel of the half a million troops on the beaches? Looked more like half a dozen to me.
My grandfathers warship did four trips,and evacuated 4500 troops .
Watch the 1958 original film,it is so much better and far more accurate.
I have seen the original several timesMy grandfathers warship did four trips,and evacuated 4500 troops .
Watch the 1958 original film,it is so much better and far more accurate.
Well done your grandfather
I enjoyed this film and found it one of the better war films I've watched.I liked the way it was presented and the quality of the film.
BobToc said:
Yeah, I really enjoyed it to, but I missed the scaffold pole and period inaccurate train seat so I might not be the best person to ask.
“Home”, “for the French” and the slightly underwhelming number of little boats (due to a desire not to have CGI) would be my only criticisms.
“Home”, “for the French” and the slightly underwhelming number of little boats (due to a desire not to have CGI) would be my only criticisms.
SpudLink said:
Absolutely brilliant film. Extraordinary experience to watch in the cinema.
But the unusual time structure and a few production flaws seemed to ruin it for many on here.
Thinking now about the film and watching it from the very start I suspect that the portrayal of Dunkirk itself wasn't completely accurate some of the building looked too pristine. I missed the very start as I switched to it with the 2 lads running with the stretcher. I didnt see the bits where the lad ran through the town and came onto the beach. It looked like a more recent street than something you would find in the 30s. Why they couldnt have blown a few bits and shot an avalanche of bullets at some of these buidlings beats me.But the unusual time structure and a few production flaws seemed to ruin it for many on here.
I didnt spot the train seat thing
I took it that this was at the start of the evacuation and perhaps didnt expect a mass of boats in the first wave. The time structure was unusual.
I genuinely liked the film and would go and see it at the cinema if it came round again.
Cobnapint said:
Smollet said:
Did you notice when the Spitfire was burning that engine was replaced by a scaffold pole?
Yeah but it was a bit of scaffold made by RR.At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
pquinn said:
Cobnapint said:
Smollet said:
Did you notice when the Spitfire was burning that engine was replaced by a scaffold pole?
Yeah but it was a bit of scaffold made by RR.At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
pquinn said:
Sadly the days are long gone when there was plenty of surplus kit kicking about and if you wanted a burning Spitfire on a beach you'd just drag one out and torch it.
At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
Nobody is suggesting they torch a perfectly serviceable Spit or even one that wasn't, but at least make an effort with your wooden one. They could have stuck any old engine in it. There are loads lying around in the industry and museum back yards.At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
Cobnapint said:
pquinn said:
Sadly the days are long gone when there was plenty of surplus kit kicking about and if you wanted a burning Spitfire on a beach you'd just drag one out and torch it.
At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
Nobody is suggesting they torch a perfectly serviceable Spit or even one that wasn't, but at least make an effort with your wooden one. They could have stuck any old engine in it. There are loads lying around in the industry and museum back yards.At least with CGI you can dodge that sort of flaw but if people want to use practical effects you'll end up seeing the inevitable gaps in how they work.
I just think it was stupid to do that as an un-retouched practical effect. No one is going to build a full replica including internals that will look proper when burned because it just isn't worth the effort, while knocking something workable up with a bit of CG to fill the gaps is relatively trivial especially when the detail doesnt need to be mega.
Not the only bit where some compromise and use of CG would have worked better at delivering the intended vision.
pquinn said:
I was being facetious, and thinking back to the glory days of just using real kit because it was there. Or doing a Bridge at Remagen to get your building effects to look real by just trashing an old town in Eastern Europe.
I just think it was stupid to do that as an un-retouched practical effect. No one is going to build a full replica including internals that will look proper when burned because it just isn't worth the effort, while knocking something workable up with a bit of CG to fill the gaps is relatively trivial especially when the detail doesnt need to be mega.
Not the only bit where some compromise and use of CG would have worked better at delivering the intended vision.
I think that sums up the film really. CGI is just a tool to aid the film maker. If it is overused, particularly where most of the filming is on a sound stage and the backgrounds/other characters inserted, it makes a film look unreal. That is not the fault of CGI that is the fault of misuse of a tool. I just think it was stupid to do that as an un-retouched practical effect. No one is going to build a full replica including internals that will look proper when burned because it just isn't worth the effort, while knocking something workable up with a bit of CG to fill the gaps is relatively trivial especially when the detail doesnt need to be mega.
Not the only bit where some compromise and use of CG would have worked better at delivering the intended vision.
Most of the complaints about the movie that don't focus on structure and characters focus on the lack of scale as CGI was barely used. There is a balance and good CGI enhances the story.
As others have already said 'Dunkirk' 1958 staring John Mills is a million times better. More accurate, more realistic & a better watch.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051565/fullcredits
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff