Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Enjoyed the film but as someone else posted - it lacked scale with only a small number of men depicted on the beaches.
My GrandFather was amongst some of the very last to get back to Dunkirk (rear guard - holding off the German troops on the outskirts). He got to the beach but sadly he never made it home.
My GrandFather was amongst some of the very last to get back to Dunkirk (rear guard - holding off the German troops on the outskirts). He got to the beach but sadly he never made it home.
Crossflow Kid said:
So a 1970s fighter isn't ok.
But a 1970s train is ok.
Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
I didn't see the train from the outside....is the director's cut out already?But a 1970s train is ok.
Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
As far as interior trim is concerned, to date I've not found the time to compare and contrast seat fabrics from decade to decade.
Given the fact the seats didn't have any lines and only appeared in one scene, I paid them no heed....
I'm definitely going to buy the film when it comes out and go through it frame by frame to educate myself on any other textile misdemeanours....
Quickmoose said:
Crossflow Kid said:
So a 1970s fighter isn't ok.
But a 1970s train is ok.
Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
I didn't see the train from the outside....is the director's cut out already?But a 1970s train is ok.
Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
As far as interior trim is concerned, to date I've not found the time to compare and contrast seat fabrics from decade to decade.
Given the fact the seats didn't have any lines and only appeared in one scene, I paid them no heed....
I'm definitely going to buy the film when it comes out and go through it frame by frame to educate myself on any other textile misdemeanours....
Quickmoose said:
I didn't see the train from the outside....is the director's cut out already?
As far as interior trim is concerned, to date I've not found the time to compare and contrast seat fabrics from decade to decade.
Given the fact the seats didn't have any lines and only appeared in one scene, I paid them no heed....
I'm definitely going to buy the film when it comes out and go through it frame by frame to educate myself on any other textile misdemeanours....
Wow, you're funny.As far as interior trim is concerned, to date I've not found the time to compare and contrast seat fabrics from decade to decade.
Given the fact the seats didn't have any lines and only appeared in one scene, I paid them no heed....
I'm definitely going to buy the film when it comes out and go through it frame by frame to educate myself on any other textile misdemeanours....
Enough people have commented on the train interior to suggest it's not a geeky detail noticed only by the autistic few.
Sorry if that ruins the film for you.
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?
Crossflow Kid said:
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?
I said some.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?
All that's just completely ridiculous though, as you well know. Highlighting things like the sound the Stukas made and the Spitfires flying in too tight a formation as items which detracted from the film seem a bit OTT.
jonm01 said:
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
Nolan is just fooling everyone with his sleight of hand tricks.
http://news.sky.com/story/dunkirk-is-christopher-n...
http://news.sky.com/story/dunkirk-is-christopher-n...
Lord Marylebone said:
Nolan is just fooling everyone with his sleight of hand tricks.
http://news.sky.com/story/dunkirk-is-christopher-n...
What a bizarre angle - if you remove the soundtrack and the cinematography, it's not that great a film. Surprise.http://news.sky.com/story/dunkirk-is-christopher-n...
You could say the same about Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Trainspotting or Kick Ass. A film's soundtrack is at least as important as the actors or the dialogue, so of course a film will suffer without it.
Well.. I thought it was shocking.
Dreadful soundtrack,poorly acted,no main characters you could feel empathy with, some rediculous errors, and yet again muffled voices which seems to be the norm now.
Christ it didn't even come close to portraying anything like what those men went through,it was borderline insulting to them I'd suggest.
Dreadful soundtrack,poorly acted,no main characters you could feel empathy with, some rediculous errors, and yet again muffled voices which seems to be the norm now.
Christ it didn't even come close to portraying anything like what those men went through,it was borderline insulting to them I'd suggest.
Patrick Bateman said:
the Spitfires flying in too tight a formation .
But they did really fly that close. Which is why the Germans referred to the RAF as “rows of idiots”. The wiki link below goes into greater detail about why it was used:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation
alfaspecial said:
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...
I think your maths is slightly off. Population of the uk was over 47million. But yes, had Adolf pressed on he could have captured the lot and have Britain sue for peace. 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
Seriously, the train interior was sloppy but it accounted for what, 30 seconds of the film?
If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
DMN said:
But they did really fly that close. Which is why the Germans referred to the RAF as “rows of idiots”. The wiki link below goes into greater detail about why it was used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation
I was just quoting a criticism from further back in the thread.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation
Legend83 said:
Seriously, the train interior was sloppy but it accounted for what, 30 seconds of the film?
If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
This. I noticed it, thought "Ehh? What's that doing there?" and then immediately forgot about it. If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
If some of the Dunkirk vets were moved by the film and praised it, then that's enough for me.
Swervin_Mervin said:
Legend83 said:
Seriously, the train interior was sloppy but it accounted for what, 30 seconds of the film?
If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
This. I noticed it, thought "Ehh? What's that doing there?" and then immediately forgot about it. If it was an integral part of the plot or action scenes I could understand it "ruining" the film.
If Red had been transported to Zihuatanejo in a Megabus I would have thought it a bit odd, but I wouldn't have suddenly declared Shawshank a poor film as a result.
If some of the Dunkirk vets were moved by the film and praised it, then that's enough for me.
I feel that the people critiquing on such really rather minor details....should get out more.
If the Spitfire was a Harrier - justified
If the few seconds of the wrong type of train seat fabric make your teeth itch - then good luck ever watching/enjoying any film ever.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Saw it on the weekend. Had high hopes for it, but to be honest left a bit disappointed.
The 3 differing story lines over the different timescales left it feeling too disjointed.
Some nice cinematography and a lovely soundtrack.... but I feel as though there wasnt really much acting or story in it. Maybe I expected the wrong things.
I don't think it's too surprising that people are divided on this film.The 3 differing story lines over the different timescales left it feeling too disjointed.
Some nice cinematography and a lovely soundtrack.... but I feel as though there wasnt really much acting or story in it. Maybe I expected the wrong things.
Nolan does his own thing and you like it or you don't (I thought this was one of his better films, far better than the Batman thing and preferable to Inception which seemed to turn into - I've said it before - a Call Of Duty live action movie 3/4 of the way through).
He likes to play around with time and I worried it was just a gimmick, but it worked well for me.
The train seats were too modern, but heh-ho, it didn't bother me too much, it was there and gone... At least the German planes weren't Mustangs or Dakotas with Swastikas.
It bucked the trend of 'super realistic CGI enhanced' war films and, much though I admired the grit of SPR and Hacksaw Ridge, I don't think the 'story' of Dunkirk was 'blood and gore' (although there was plenty), it was 'hopelessness turned to hope' and I felt this film captured that well without being maudlin.
Do I need a group of likeable heroes? Not really - Flawed characters are more interesting to me. Faced with "You're not our regiment, go somewhere else", wouldn't you try and find a way to get home rather than face death or capture? 'Cheating the queue' or be left to die? Easy choice...
Was it the best film ever? Probably not. Was it a good film worth my money? Absolutely.
M
PS Reading back I see people complaining about train seats and wanting Star Wars style CGI, referring to "Tedious Nerds" liking Nolan films - Clearly their sense of irony is underdeveloped
Edited by marcosgt on Tuesday 1st August 12:51
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff