Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Saw it a few days ago, thoroughly enjoyed it. The spitfires (real ones used?) were glorious as was the sound effects from the very get go.
As I read beforehand. The lack of boats was a bit of a bad point but I suppose they all just didn't arrive together.
Also was it just me or did the big boats that got bombed go down a wee bit too quick?
As I read beforehand. The lack of boats was a bit of a bad point but I suppose they all just didn't arrive together.
Also was it just me or did the big boats that got bombed go down a wee bit too quick?
Crossflow Kid said:
I do wonder if a lot of those kicking back at the criticism of the lack of attention to detail are doing so because they feel a little uneasy at being emotionally taken in by something that maybe isn't as perfect as it at first appeared.....
Your mates (well, some of them) probably think you're okay, whereas most of us here find you a terrible droning bore. Who is right/wrong? Anyway, saw this tonight and it was excellent. Noticed the train upholstery was probably a bit too new/gaudy for 1940. Number of sh*ts given; none.
The Guardian has decided it's racist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug...
It's true that many people don't realise the contributions of non-white armies from the British colonies during the war, but the writer misses the point that this film is about the events at Dunkirk from the perspectives of a few characters. Bringing in other events and other people would have made it a different story.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug...
It's true that many people don't realise the contributions of non-white armies from the British colonies during the war, but the writer misses the point that this film is about the events at Dunkirk from the perspectives of a few characters. Bringing in other events and other people would have made it a different story.
iSore said:
Crossflow Kid said:
I do wonder if a lot of those kicking back at the criticism of the lack of attention to detail are doing so because they feel a little uneasy at being emotionally taken in by something that maybe isn't as perfect as it at first appeared.....
Your mates (well, some of them) probably think you're okay, whereas most of us here find you a terrible droning bore. Who is right/wrong? .Number of s
ts given? None.Now off you jolly well f
k.dazwalsh said:
Saw it a few days ago, thoroughly enjoyed it. The spitfires (real ones used?) were glorious as was the sound effects from the very get go.
As I read beforehand. The lack of boats was a bit of a bad point but I suppose they all just didn't arrive together.
Also was it just me or did the big boats that got bombed go down a wee bit too quick?
Real Spitfires (the correct Mark as well) were used in the film.As I read beforehand. The lack of boats was a bit of a bad point but I suppose they all just didn't arrive together.
Also was it just me or did the big boats that got bombed go down a wee bit too quick?
We saw Dunkirk last night at the local IMAX, the sound was brutal!
I went with my son and father in law so three generations and we all really enjoyed it. It was a recreation of war, nothing complex or glossy about it and I thought that was quite refreshing (and sobering).
We said it was a proper "boys movie"!
I don't know how it will transfer to the small screen so I won't be in a hurry to watch it again on DVD or TV but glad I saw it.
I went with my son and father in law so three generations and we all really enjoyed it. It was a recreation of war, nothing complex or glossy about it and I thought that was quite refreshing (and sobering).
We said it was a proper "boys movie"!
I don't know how it will transfer to the small screen so I won't be in a hurry to watch it again on DVD or TV but glad I saw it.
The sound was certainly LOUD.
I like a good sound stage but at our local Vue it was verging on too loud. Even the trailers and ads before the film were unusually loud too. Some in the audience commented on it so it wasn't just me.
I wonder if one of the director's requirements for public showing was to turn the volume knob round to 'are you nuts?'.
I like a good sound stage but at our local Vue it was verging on too loud. Even the trailers and ads before the film were unusually loud too. Some in the audience commented on it so it wasn't just me.
I wonder if one of the director's requirements for public showing was to turn the volume knob round to 'are you nuts?'.
marcosgt said:
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 
I mentioned 'Star Wars' in relation to 'Dunkirks' 12A rating, younger viewers & it's repetitive and boring aerial duels - which in my opinion is a valid point. I did not care about, or even notice the train seats.
Look, it's a total marmite film isn't it? I didn't care for it, but i certainly don't think those who liked it are 'wrong'.
I thought this a good summing up from Ebert.com:
"If somebody were to ask me if I liked this film, I would tell them no. I loathed parts of it and found other parts repetitious or half-baked. But, maybe paradoxically, I admired it throughout, and have been thinking about it constantly since I saw it. Even the aspects of "Dunkirk" that didn't sit right with me are all of a piece. This is a movie of vision and integrity made on an epic scale, a series of propositions dramatized with machines, bodies, seawater and fire. It deserves to be seen and argued about. They don't make them like this anymore. Never did, really. "
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dunkirk-2017
Evil Jack said:
I mentioned 'Star Wars' in relation to 'Dunkirks' 12A rating, younger viewers & it's repetitive and boring aerial duels - which in my opinion is a valid point.
I did not care about, or even notice the train seats.
Look, it's a total marmite film isn't it? I didn't care for it, but i certainly don't think those who liked it are 'wrong'.
I thought this a good summing up from Ebert.com:
"If somebody were to ask me if I liked this film, I would tell them no. I loathed parts of it and found other parts repetitious or half-baked. But, maybe paradoxically, I admired it throughout, and have been thinking about it constantly since I saw it. Even the aspects of "Dunkirk" that didn't sit right with me are all of a piece. This is a movie of vision and integrity made on an epic scale, a series of propositions dramatized with machines, bodies, seawater and fire. It deserves to be seen and argued about. They don't make them like this anymore. Never did, really. "
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dunkirk-2017
That Ebert quote sums it up for me. I found the film incredibly dull and by about halfway through was surreptitiously reading emails on my phone. Yet at the same time I can see it for what it is; a tremendously heartfelt attempt by Nolan to bring this remarkable event to life, and something to be admired as a consequenceI did not care about, or even notice the train seats.
Look, it's a total marmite film isn't it? I didn't care for it, but i certainly don't think those who liked it are 'wrong'.
I thought this a good summing up from Ebert.com:
"If somebody were to ask me if I liked this film, I would tell them no. I loathed parts of it and found other parts repetitious or half-baked. But, maybe paradoxically, I admired it throughout, and have been thinking about it constantly since I saw it. Even the aspects of "Dunkirk" that didn't sit right with me are all of a piece. This is a movie of vision and integrity made on an epic scale, a series of propositions dramatized with machines, bodies, seawater and fire. It deserves to be seen and argued about. They don't make them like this anymore. Never did, really. "
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dunkirk-2017
Bizarrely, one of my gripes was that the actors portraying the soldiers just didn't look like squaddies. I spend a fair amount of my time with the latter, and there's a particular demeanour that wan't captured particularly effectively by the 'leading' characters. Can't put my finger on how or why, but there you go.
Also didn't look or feel like a film that had tremendous amounts of money spent on its production. Felt a bit empty IMO
Joey Ramone said:
Bizarrely, one of my gripes was that the actors portraying the soldiers just didn't look like squaddies. I spend a fair amount of my time with the latter, and there's a particular demeanour that wan't captured particularly effectively by the 'leading' characters. Can't put my finger on how or why, but there you go.
I know what you mean, but you're only going to get that demeanour by either (a) Being a squaddie or (b) Spending a fair bit of time in a boot camp like what the actors in Blackhawk Down did. I saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I did feel a little disappointed it wasn't as visceral as things like Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge, but I can understand why Nolan kept it fairly tame so as to allow the lower age rating and get as many people of varying ages to view it. I echo the thoughts of some here that it lacked scale, and although I'm sure it would be very easy to use CGI to add more troops and boats into a scene, I read that Nolan was adamant about keeping things as real as possible, and to use as little as possible CGI, so I can accept it looking like only a hundred or so soldiers were on the beaches and half a dozen little boats turned up to take them home.
Overall a very good film.
Edited by Brigand on Wednesday 2nd August 13:50
[quote=Joey Ramone]
Bizarrely, one of my gripes was that the actors portraying the soldiers just didn't look like squaddies. I spend a fair amount of my time with the latter, and there's a particular demeanour that wan't captured particularly effectively by the 'leading' characters. Can't put my finger on how or why, but there you go.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Most of the soldiers at Dunkirk were not "squaddies" like the ones you spend time with, they were just ordinary blokes,like my wife`s father.
He was not a professional soldier,he was certainly not a fighting man,he was a shop keeper,who like thousands of others joined up "to do their bit".He probably had six months training,put in uniform,given a rifle and sent to France.
Bizarrely, one of my gripes was that the actors portraying the soldiers just didn't look like squaddies. I spend a fair amount of my time with the latter, and there's a particular demeanour that wan't captured particularly effectively by the 'leading' characters. Can't put my finger on how or why, but there you go.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Most of the soldiers at Dunkirk were not "squaddies" like the ones you spend time with, they were just ordinary blokes,like my wife`s father.
He was not a professional soldier,he was certainly not a fighting man,he was a shop keeper,who like thousands of others joined up "to do their bit".He probably had six months training,put in uniform,given a rifle and sent to France.
Edited by Old Merc on Wednesday 2nd August 16:14
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff