Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Point of order - he didn't use 108 Taifuns. He used Hispano Buchons - which are effectively 109s with Merlins.
Indeed 108s are VERY different to 109s, but the planes in the film are not...I'll put my plane nerd hat back in the cupboard with my Scalextric and AFV collection again now
M.
Rumblestripe said:
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
Yea... but 14.7 seconds of Spitfire fire - extended to the amount you get in an an X Box game was a bridge too far!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
(still loved the film mind).
Rumblestripe said:
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
Good for you for enjoying 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
But It's not just the inaccuracies that spoil the film, and this is where the disagreement with your first paragraph comes in - it totally lacked any form of suspense, tension, peril or danger whatsoever, let alone reach 'unbearable levels'.
marcosgt said:
Eric Mc said:
Point of order - he didn't use 108 Taifuns. He used Hispano Buchons - which are effectively 109s with Merlins.
Indeed 108s are VERY different to 109s, but the planes in the film are not...I'll put my plane nerd hat back in the cupboard with my Scalextric and AFV collection again now
M.
GetCarter said:
Rumblestripe said:
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
Yea... but 14.7 seconds of Spitfire fire - extended to the amount you get in an an X Box game was a bridge too far!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
(still loved the film mind).
Saw this over the weekend and it was visually impressive but was otherwise disappointing
Not much about the evacuation itself, it seemed to get sidetracked into a subplot about boats and Spitfires running into trouble mid channel. Showing the same events from different points of view seems a promising idea, but it made the timeline confusing. Especially when a small boat seems to get from Dunkirk to Dorset in a few hours. And a Spitfire out of fuel over a crowded beach seems to stay in the air long enough for the evacuation to be finished and finally lands on deserted sand as the sun is going down.
Not much about the evacuation itself, it seemed to get sidetracked into a subplot about boats and Spitfires running into trouble mid channel. Showing the same events from different points of view seems a promising idea, but it made the timeline confusing. Especially when a small boat seems to get from Dunkirk to Dorset in a few hours. And a Spitfire out of fuel over a crowded beach seems to stay in the air long enough for the evacuation to be finished and finally lands on deserted sand as the sun is going down.
I felt the same, ultimately disappointing.
The lack of any real care for the characters I think is what does it, and it lacked any immersion into the fear of being there that many war films manage to do.
This film was the opposite of what 1917 looks to be about, I suspect that will be much more moving.
The lack of any real care for the characters I think is what does it, and it lacked any immersion into the fear of being there that many war films manage to do.
This film was the opposite of what 1917 looks to be about, I suspect that will be much more moving.
te film was slagged off to death just after it came out. It had so many errors it was embarrassing. 
Eric Mc said:
"1917" needs its own thread. It's a bit silly discussing it in a thread called "Dunkirk".
Ahem:https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
It only takes a few people to post how bad a film is to know that it very likely will be that bad
Should have visited here before watching it
This production that someone had the audacity to call a film was nothing but a joke
How bad does it get.........this bad
What a load of complete and utter garbage
Should have stopped watching after 10 minutes but kept telling myself it must get better
Feel better now
Should have visited here before watching it
This production that someone had the audacity to call a film was nothing but a joke
How bad does it get.........this bad
What a load of complete and utter garbage
Should have stopped watching after 10 minutes but kept telling myself it must get better
Feel better now
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff