- Just watched Dunkirk – Did I miss something? [Spoiler content]
Did they include any Boulton & Paul Defiants in the dog fighting scenes?
No. But they had Spitfires with 11 millionty rounds of ammunition.
spoon fed tripe
It spoon fed every cliché in the war film genre. With a bit of Nolan ‘look how clever I think I am’ frippery thrown in.
I am over films that **** off over war. I made the mistake of following up Dunkirk with a viewing of Hacksaw Ridge this weekend.Posted 1 year agorichardkennerleySubscriber
I’ll risk getting involved here
<span style=”color: #444444; font-size: 16px; background-color: #eeeeee;”>The whole thing was supposed to be about 400,000 soldiers stuck on a beach under attack,</span>
It’s not. The whole thing was supposed to be about a couple of pilots, some civilians and a traumatised soldier on a boat; and a small band of soldiers trying to survive set against the backdrop of the evacuation.
Yeah there were 300,000+ British soldiers in reality which aren’t shown in the film, but there was also an entire German army in the actual war yet you don’t actually see a German soldier throughout the whole film. I think the idea of that is that it makes you focus in on the smaller stories rather than the bigger picture. It’s not a documentary about the evacuation as a whole. Maybe instead of being called Dunkirk, it should’ve been called “some stories about some people in the war.”
Edit – first attempt at quoting not worked then. Tried inserting an image earlier, failed at that too!Posted 1 year ago
I thought it was brilliant but watched it at the cinema and sat in the sweet spot for sound and vision. It was also the only film I’ve watched in a cinema that was applauded at the end.
It is a film suited to immersed viewing, either cinema or big screen and sound system. I have it on Blu-ray but not watched it again yet…. fear of disappointment I thinkPosted 1 year agoforzafkawiMember
Sshhh! Don’t <em class=”bbcode-em”>explain it! If people don’t get it, they don’t get it.
I still don’t get it. I thought it looked low-budget and amateurish. Not at all what you would expect from Christopher Nolan. All of the technical gaffs that people have mentioned as well. It’s like he just reinvented what actually happened rather than reading one of the myriad of references about WWII. Not big on historical accuracy Nolan. Obviously from the Oliver Stone school of film making.
Maybe he should stick to sci-fi where he can just make up what he likes.Posted 1 year ago
and forgetting to have anything actually happen
What did you expect to happen? The real experience of the individuals at Dunkirk was that for a lot of the time nothing did happen, they were stranded in a terrifying limbo, exposed to imminent attack and any attempts at self rescue were futile.Posted 1 year agowinstonMember
I love all the ” if you didn’t like it you just didn’t understand what the director was trying to do” comments as well as the “well you were obviously expecting Hacksaw Ridge so of course you didn’t like it” Not patronising at all there are you slim
Whilst I’m sure there were plenty of people who wanted a sprawling CGI ridden bulletfest, as far as I can see, most on this forum who were disappointed (myself included) just thought Nolan could have done much more with the material and that whilst it contained good actors there wasn’t much good acting. The whole film felt more like a ‘film’ or even a play – very self concious.Posted 1 year ago
thought Nolan could have done much more with the material
He’s the director of the film – maybe it was exactly as he wanted. Do you say, oh Devinci could’ve made the smile a bit bigger, or Bowie could’ve turned that drum sound up a tad? So you didn’t like the film, that doesn’t mean the director should’ve made a different one.Posted 1 year ago
Yeah, I think people are going in to this with way too many preconceptions – and imparting them on to the director/producers. Maybe y’all were expecting Batman to pop up and take out a few gun towers?
The only preconception I go in to the cinema with these days is ‘this is almost certainly going to be complete shit’ – and that way, when a director dares to try something different by NOT churning out an atypical Hollywood zit fest, I can sometimes be pleasantly surprised.
Dunkirk falls into the ‘made a fair stab’ category – which is probably better than 80-90% of releases these days. It’s not great, its not shit – it has several moving moments, some good tension ramping techniques employed, a nice palate and an excellent soundtrack. More worthy of the big screen experience than most. Tom Hardy was a complete miscasting though, he’s quickly become a parody of himself.Posted 1 year agoforzafkawiMember
But it wasn’t made as a documentary piece – Nolan said so much himself. It was a film which took a true historical event and created a fictional micro-story based within that day. It’s story telling, that’s all.
Let’s say realism then shall we? I get that it was a series of micro-stories within the context of the whole event but in most cases it was seriously laughable. If you know anything about WWII that is.Posted 1 year ago
If you know anything about WWII that is
What do you know though? Facts and stats? What about the emotion, the fear, the hopelessness, the relentless peril? I think that’s what Dunkirk is attempting to capture and convey
I’ve read a lot of Ben MacIntyre books and others, and have an interest in WW2 generally (probably because Grandparents were in involved). While those books are entertaining and informative, I found Dunkirk really made me think about the emotional experience of being someone in those situations…. and it must have been unimaginably terrifyingPosted 1 year agojohndohMember
If you know anything about WWII that is.
Ironically I do know a fair bit (see my other posts on the matter). But you have to separate fact from fiction – it is a movie not a documentary. Just because the fictional story is set within a factual day, it does not have to retain every other historically accurate factual reference outside of the central fictional stories.
Edit: And very much what @dmort said.Posted 1 year agoqtipMember
I didn’t go into the film with any preconceptions. I wasn’t expecting, nor wanting, an action-packed film full of intense battle scenes.
For those that are saying that it was about the characters, the fear, the emotion, etc. – I’d agree on that being the intent, but it just didn’t do it for me. The acting seemed wooden and the whole thing felt very unrealistic (as in unbelievable, rather than factually correct).
If you liked it then great, and I’m glad my BluRay will be finding a new owner that will appreciate it, but to dismiss anyone who didn’t like it as an action-junkie simpleton who can’t understand anything without having it spelled out to them is ridiculous.Posted 1 year agocrashtestmonkeyMember
Loved most of Mr Nolan’s work. Possibly suffered from all the hype because it was a big meh for me. I thought the split timelines coming together worked well and there were individual scenes and elements that were powerful, but there was more of it that missed the mark.
If you want pretentious drivel about WW2, check out Terrance Mallick’s The Thin Red Line, now that was properly tosh.Posted 1 year agofinishthatSubscriber
I watched Fury last night , made me think again about Dunkirk and how much it threw away in really poor attention to detail .Posted 1 year ago
As in the last thread I would say the 1958 “original” blows it out of the water , and
is a much better depiction of the whole story – with the exception of leaving out the
RAF – who have a poor plot and barely believable role in the new one.hugoMember
3 timelines with 3 different cadences all interwoven. Innovative and interesting stuff. Well acted, well scripted, with a sombre and non flashy tone throughout. To be a documentary it would have been 10 hours plus, what it is is an artistic representation, let’s call it a movie, of the events of the day.
there were hardly any attacks
Die Hard with a Vengeance is available on DVD?
As to it being unrealistic….
‘I never thought I would see that again. It was just like I was there again.’ Dunkirk survivor.
Those that were there thought it was realistic. There are plenty of quotes out there like that one. That will do for me.
The film isn’t perfect, and I can see how those who want more of an action film rather than tense drama would be put off, but it’s far from “an absolute piece of crap”.Posted 1 year agocurto80Member
It’s not often a film gets two (virtually identical) threads on here a few months apart. If it’s got people talking about it than it’s already done half the job.
It’s clearly one of those films that people react to in very different ways so it’s hardly fair to cast the nay-sayers as spoon-fed morons. Like others I thought it was a bit patchy. Some things were great, others just weird.
For me it came down to finding it hard to engage with the characters emotionally, which is always my test of a film I personally enjoy. I get that Nolan wanted to tell stories of ordinary people and their immediate dilemmas again a backdrop far bigger than any one individual could ever understand. It’s just people like Ken Loach tell those kind of stories quite a lot better.Posted 1 year ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.