Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
warch said:
Cobnapint said:
Sorry, but the film just wasn't good enough to detract from the inaccuracies, many other films are. This has about as much chance of becoming a classic as Pearl Harbour.
What inaccuracies or other things didn't you like about the film?warch said:
Cobnapint said:
Sorry, but the film just wasn't good enough to detract from the inaccuracies, many other films are. This has about as much chance of becoming a classic as Pearl Harbour.
What inaccuracies or other things didn't you like about the film?
MXRod said:
warch said:
I've just seen Dunkirk and I'm glad I ignored all the facile amateur criticisms of the film.
No more facile or amateur than your review .Obvious troll is obvious.
warch said:
MXRod said:
warch said:
I've just seen Dunkirk and I'm glad I ignored all the facile amateur criticisms of the film.
No more facile or amateur than your review .Obvious troll is obvious.
Darkest Hour on the other hand......
Cobnapint said:
I could have seen past the errors if the film grabbed me by the goolies, dragged me in and kept me there for a couple of hours. But it didn't even try.
Darkest Hour on the other hand......
Only an hour and forty minutes long, but I take the point that it could be hard to emotionally invest in the characters, because we are told almost nothing about them. I liked that but I can understand that other people might not. Darkest Hour on the other hand......
I don't mind that some people didn't like the film, but it does seem some people's rationale for disliking it is based on fairly trivial reasons.
warch said:
Cobnapint said:
I could have seen past the errors if the film grabbed me by the goolies, dragged me in and kept me there for a couple of hours. But it didn't even try.
Darkest Hour on the other hand......
Only an hour and forty minutes long, but I take the point that it could be hard to emotionally invest in the characters, because we are told almost nothing about them. I liked that but I can understand that other people might not. Darkest Hour on the other hand......
I don't mind that some people didn't like the film, but it does seem some people's rationale for disliking it is based on fairly trivial reasons.
warch said:
Cobnapint said:
I could have seen past the errors if the film grabbed me by the goolies, dragged me in and kept me there for a couple of hours. But it didn't even try.
Darkest Hour on the other hand......
Only an hour and forty minutes long....Darkest Hour on the other hand......
warch said:
MXRod said:
warch said:
I've just seen Dunkirk and I'm glad I ignored all the facile amateur criticisms of the film.
No more facile or amateur than your review .Obvious troll is obvious.
Noticed this review from last year by an historian, sums it up well for me, being one of the best films I have ever seen,
https://www.gq.com/story/dunkirk-according-to-a-du...
'I was very, very impressed by the film, I have to say. I suppose it would be possible, if I really put my mind to it, to nitpick about certain things. But they really would be such small things. I did not find that there were many things that were wrong. At no point did I say, "Well, that just looks totally wrong and doesn't correspond to anything that happened."'
The analogy of saving private Ryan, which is lauded is interesting.
' Partly because you would think looking at it that the British and the Canadians had not been part of D-Day. Whereas in fact, on the first day three-quarters of the soldiers who were landed on the beach, I think were either British or Canadian'.
https://www.gq.com/story/dunkirk-according-to-a-du...
'I was very, very impressed by the film, I have to say. I suppose it would be possible, if I really put my mind to it, to nitpick about certain things. But they really would be such small things. I did not find that there were many things that were wrong. At no point did I say, "Well, that just looks totally wrong and doesn't correspond to anything that happened."'
The analogy of saving private Ryan, which is lauded is interesting.
' Partly because you would think looking at it that the British and the Canadians had not been part of D-Day. Whereas in fact, on the first day three-quarters of the soldiers who were landed on the beach, I think were either British or Canadian'.
Six Figs said:
Noticed this review from last year by an historian, sums it up well for me, being one of the best films I have ever seen,
https://www.gq.com/story/dunkirk-according-to-a-du...
'I was very, very impressed by the film, I have to say. I suppose it would be possible, if I really put my mind to it, to nitpick about certain things. But they really would be such small things. I did not find that there were many things that were wrong. At no point did I say, "Well, that just looks totally wrong and doesn't correspond to anything that happened."'
That's how I felt about it, I was really impressed with the air of realism. Obviously there were things that were altered for the sake of narrative convention, the timescale of the evacuation was compressed and there are some compound characters but then that goes for all historical films.https://www.gq.com/story/dunkirk-according-to-a-du...
'I was very, very impressed by the film, I have to say. I suppose it would be possible, if I really put my mind to it, to nitpick about certain things. But they really would be such small things. I did not find that there were many things that were wrong. At no point did I say, "Well, that just looks totally wrong and doesn't correspond to anything that happened."'
Just watched it on Blu Ray. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
The triumph of the film is the way in which the tension, the feeling of danger and peril is maintained throughout, ramping up to almost unbearable levels. It gives you are very real feeling of peril allowing you to emapthise with the civilians, soldiers, seamen and airmen involved.
There are some historical inaccuracies, some of which are inevitable given the passage of time and some a dramatic devices which are there to portray feeling or emotion rather than historical accuracy. I think that the criticism centering around the historical inaccuracies are rather missing the point. Nolan made a conscious decision to use physical artifacts rather than CGI. With CGI he could have created a huge fleet of small boats, squadrons of Mk Spitfires and Hurricanes, proper Me109s (not 108 Taifuns) etc. but much would have been lost with actors acting to tennis balls against green screens and there is always a touch of "uncanny" about any CGI no matter how good.
Any film requires an at least partial suspension of belief. If these inaccuracies spoil it for you that is rather your loss I'm afraid
The triumph of the film is the way in which the tension, the feeling of danger and peril is maintained throughout, ramping up to almost unbearable levels. It gives you are very real feeling of peril allowing you to emapthise with the civilians, soldiers, seamen and airmen involved.
There are some historical inaccuracies, some of which are inevitable given the passage of time and some a dramatic devices which are there to portray feeling or emotion rather than historical accuracy. I think that the criticism centering around the historical inaccuracies are rather missing the point. Nolan made a conscious decision to use physical artifacts rather than CGI. With CGI he could have created a huge fleet of small boats, squadrons of Mk Spitfires and Hurricanes, proper Me109s (not 108 Taifuns) etc. but much would have been lost with actors acting to tennis balls against green screens and there is always a touch of "uncanny" about any CGI no matter how good.
Any film requires an at least partial suspension of belief. If these inaccuracies spoil it for you that is rather your loss I'm afraid
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff