[Closed] Just watched Dunkirk - Did I miss something? [Spoiler content]

No it's s**t

I loved it. I enjoyed it for what it was...entertainment, not a documentary.

I agree. Thought it was hugely overrated. I bought it in DVD though, so only wasted £10.

But Nigel Fargae gave it 5 stars!! 😉

Did I miss something?

Yep: the threads about it when it came out.

Am I missing something?

£15 and about 2 hours by the sounds of it.

Did you miss Harry Potter in it?

P’arrently he’s pleased with his performance, so much so he’s stopped warbling.

🙏

It was awful. Great idea for a film that was totally miscast and badly directed. Mark Rylance playing Mark Rylance, stupid perpetually gliding plane, confusing and pointless timeline. Really annoyed me as I'd been looking forward to it.

Buying DVDs - how quaint! 🙂

I thought it was good 🙂

There was a long thread, basically some people agree with you, others do not. I thought it was an incredible and absorbing tale that told a number of stories, the split timeline gave you the perspective as to how long other aspects took, the kid on the boat was there to show how it wasn't just the soldiers risking their lives, the shock and fear that Cilian Murphy had was important as was the desperation of the guys who basically got bounced back to the beach multiple times.

There was a long thread, basically some people agree with you, others do not.

That's what I said 😀

I loved it. I enjoyed it for what it was…entertainment, not a documentary.

I wouldn't have minded factual inaccuracies if it had been entertaining, but entertained I was not.

There was a long thread, basically some people agree with you, others do not.

Sorry, should have used the search function first.  My bad!

Edit: If the search function actually worked that is!

I imagine it loses some of its impact when not viewed on a big screen, with a cinemas sound system....

I wasn't sure why they needed a dinosaur in it but otherwise pretty impressed.

How much you want for the Bluray?

The plane did seem to glide for a very long time. I thought that it was likely long enough to get back to blighty. I quite enjoyed it but it wasn't 5 stars like Empire claimed.

I loved the overlapping of concurrent stories. I do think there were some things that could have been done differently (and the gliding Spitfire was very annoying) but overall it was okay. I agree that they really didn't capture the despair of two huge armies desperately trying to get off the beaches but I think it would take a very brave director to try to capture that as any wartime beach scene will be compared to Saving Private Ryan (which was possibly the best 15 minutes of cinema ever).

Did we beat Jerry in this one?

How much you want for the Bluray?

PM me your address and it's yours for nowt.

the best 15 minutes of cinema ever

ooh - now that's a thread in waiting.

yo! pm on the way 😀

I loved it though I did expect a bit more......

Lucky enough to have big screen/huge sound system at home.

The converging time lines were brilliantly handled.

Spitfires could actually glide a long way but only if they started gliding at the ideal speed (120-140kts I think) and with sufficient altitude. Too fast - they'd tumble. Too slow and they wouldn't go very far. The sequence in the film was using a huge amount of artistic licence.

its bollix

To be fair, the best bit for me was the sound of the Stukas. But I saw it at a UCI cinema with bmmmmummmmm DOLBY STEREO wubwubwubwub - and it was bloody scary!

It didn't have alot of peouw-peouw-dakka-dakka-dakka for the attention deficit crowd for sure.

[i]UCI cinema[/i]

I meant Vue.

My 2p is that it's a good film, I liked the way they used music to build the tension and it looked great.

But it's not perfect, it takes itself very seriously, long lingering shots of actors staring off into the distance - like Joey from Friend's 'Smell the fart' acting.

It's a bit of soft porn for the middle classes too - the posh boys all act valiantly, stiff upper lip and all that whilst the working class enlisted men cower, argue amongst themselves and basically do anything to survive.

Mostly though, if you don't let the hype get under your skin, it's a better film.

It boils down to two kinds of film fans.

Those preferring to be entertained by way of 'Pew Pew! - BOOM!!', whilst the others prefer not to be spoon fed tripe - but rather enjoy an absorbing tale - being left to fill in the blanks with, you know, their imagination and stuff.

For a sequel they could do the 51st Division left behind who fought at St Valerie en Caux.

Holding back the Germans for 3 days with no ammo, fighting street by street, bayonets against automatic weapons. A bloody sacrifice.

And not evacuated.

^^^ I guess that is the 4,000 men that are referred to in The Darkest Hour?

Did we beat Jerry in this one?

Here's your clue

Nigel Fargae gave it 5 stars!!

Missed at cinema, and found it underwhelming on a 32" screen. Suspect the big screen/sound would improve it considerably. Nice to see Branagh being wheeled out to do his phlegmatic Brit cliche.......

Branagh was just about palatable this time round. Just.

I must admit, I did find the lack of numbers on the beaches odd at first, and found myself wondering if it was a budget constraint, or a conscious decision to add a 'close quarters' feel to the movie. I suspect the latter was driven by the former, as the Ben Hur days of 20,000 extras are obviously long gone.

One day a studio will be brave/silly enough to cut the CGI and go pure old school on a mega-epic war movie. Until then, we have Captain America VIII.

Or, directors will try to eke out a bit more clever. A-la Revenant battle scene. Proabably the best use of CGI I can recall.

Did they include any Boulton & Paul Defiants in the dog fighting scenes?

slimjim78

Member
It boils down to two kinds of film fans.

Those preferring to be entertained by way of ‘Pew Pew! – BOOM!!’, whilst the others prefer not to be spoon fed tripe – but rather enjoy an absorbing tale – being left to fill in the blanks with, you know, their imagination and stuff.

Posted 2 hours ago

So basically if you don't like it you are a pleb . FWIW I thought it was total crap .

Those preferring to be entertained by way of ‘Pew Pew! – BOOM!!’, whilst the others prefer not to be spoon fed tripe – but rather enjoy an absorbing tale – being left to fill in the blanks with, you know, their imagination and stuff.

Interesting this, cos I thought most of the people who didn’t like Dunkirk come up with all the - it’s not realistic enough, not busy enough on the beach and all that stuff like they were there or clever enough to put themselves in the position of being there... but what you’re saying is it actually wasn’t enough of an [i]action[/i] film for them??

No wonder I loved it, I can’t stand action films.

The gliding spit is explained! I forget, might be Mark rylance's character, talks about a son you was raf pilot, killed, but he always thinks he is up there looking after them, that is the plane - a ghost, a bit of good fortune.... Only those with good fortune survived sort of reference.

It is an OK ish film, but I thought it could have been far far better

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.

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!

The soundtrack was my favourite bit, possibly a bit lost when not in a cinema

johndoh

I guess that is the 4,000 men that are referred to in The Darkest Hour?</p>

No that was another of Churchill's glorious victories.

I was referring to this:  http://51hd.co.uk/history/valery_1940

Dunkirk is crap.

I rewatched Fury again this weekend to see if it was actually as crap as I thought it was the first time, and indeed it is. Apart from the Shermans and the Tiger.

I think the idea of that is that it makes you focus in on the smaller stories rather than the bigger picture

Sshhh! Don't [i]explain[/i] it! If people don't get it, they don't get it.

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 think

I thought it was just me that thought it was pretentious, boring pile of shite. Trying way too hard to be moody and arty....and forgetting to have anything actually happen.

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.

Why all the rave reviews?

It was one of the greatest victories in the history of the British Empire.

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.

I watched it on a 50" tv with Surround Sound and thought it was amazing. I'd happily watch it again.

 I thought it looked low-budget and amateurish

Hmm, I definitely prefer low-budget amateurish films to big-budget lavish Hollywood productions. So, far from a negative for me and maybe another reason I liked it a lot.

Not big on historical accuracy Nolan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I found it entertaining until the gliding scene (involving him somehow having the energy to shoot down another aircraft without stalling....) absolutely ruined it for me.

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 terrifying

I was under the impression that the Spitfire didn't glide that long but was at the culmination of all three stories and we saw the same shorter glide three times from different perspectives.

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.

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.

Granted, I may have over-egged the conclusions drawn, and painted them with very broad brush strokes.

I'm merely a frustrated cinema fan. And there are a lot of very, very easily pleased folk - whom I hold deeply responsible for the death of modern cinema.

Wouldn't very, very easily pleased folk be, err, easily pleased by this film?

On the contrary, It's fantastic they they've been forced to actually think about a narrative and challenge their norm.

On the other hand, if they respond with their feet - then Hollywood closes the door on any 'arty' film projects again for a few more years.

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.

this scene

from atonement.....

i think it's better than dunkirk

Don't think I cold sit through TRL again.

If only Atonement didn't have Knightly in it.

I watched Fury last night , made me think again about Dunkirk and how much it threw away in really poor attention to detail .
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.

Thin Red Line is pure class...yes it's a little pretentious, but at least it builds upto something, and it's beautifully shot.

Great film.

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".

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.

Not enough:

spitfires

men

little boats rescuing men

Felt like they were on a tight budget or something

I saw it this week for the first time and really liked it.