New film from Christopher Nolan coming out next year. This looks awesome:
I'm in. :notworthy:
I've been.
Interesting. Can't say I've ever even thought of looking for information / books dealing with the BEF and its fight and withdrawal from Europe in '40. Need to fix that.
Saw the teaser trailer for this...last week, I think? Looks good.
Is that Tom Hardy in a German fighter? Isn't he supposed to only fly Monster Trucks with guys swinging on long poles attached?
I'm pretty sure it's a Spitfire he's in.
It was definitely a Spitfire he was in O0
My concern is if they take the easy way out and portray the BEF commander, Gort, as a boob.
He was in over his head and overwhelmed by the blitzkrieg, like all the allied generals.
But he did take the really hard decision to pull back and save the army when he recognized the full situation. He'll probably be portrayed as a simpering moron who cuts and runs when things get tough.
I hope Hardy talks in the Bane voice through the entire movie.
Quote from: besilarius on December 18, 2016, 08:39:27 AM
My concern is if they take the easy way out and portray the BEF commander, Gort, as a boob.
He was in over his head and overwhelmed by the blitzkrieg, like all the allied generals.
But he did take the really hard decision to pull back and save the army when he recognized the full situation. He'll probably be portrayed as a simpering moron who cuts and runs when things get tough.
He did ok in charge of Malta afterwards.
Quote from: mirth on December 18, 2016, 08:52:34 AM
I hope Hardy talks in the Bane voice through the entire movie
.
That there would make it worth putting up with all the likely improbably acrobatic CGI Stukas in the movie.
"Let's not stand on ceremony here...Mr Churchill."
Gort in command? You got to be kidding. Wasn't he the giant space robot from, "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? If he was in command, the Germans would've never gotten across the Meuse much less to the Channel. He would have just vaporized them. Honestly, sometimes you guys come-up with the craziest things. :idiot2:
Quote from: Sir Slash on December 18, 2016, 11:42:25 PM
Gort in command? You got to be kidding. Wasn't he the giant space robot from, "The Day The Earth Stood Still"?
Tom Hardy arrives to address his commander, in Bane-voice: "Klaatu... barada... COUGHcoughcoughcough {looks around} Well! That's
it, then!"
No. No. NO. You mean the Gorn commander?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Ffuture_tense%2F2015%2F11%2F03%2Fneil_degrasse_tyson_talks_about_the_classic_star_trek_gorn_fight_scene%2Fscreen_shot_20151103_at_2.23.56_pm.png.CROP.cq5dam_web_1280_1280_png.png&hash=1e6d12a6b4ec181ff818e7ac77b8d94adb2f5a4f)
He was a little slow.
^But he had a mean right hook.
Sucker for a curve ball, though.
hes a sucker for any balls. :coolsmiley:
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 06, 2017, 12:18:33 AM
hes a sucker for any balls. :coolsmiley:
Whereas you focus on goat balls 8)
For some reason the title of this movie always reminds me of the county fair. The Dunk Tank I mean..... "Dunk-Kirk". Probably just me. :idiot2:
Dunkirk "movie of the year": Entertainment Weekly review/ (http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/17/dunkirk-review/)
"This is visceral, big-budget filmmaking that can be called Art. It's also, hands down, the best motion picture of the year so far. A"
Well OK then. But if Batman shows-up, I'm walking out. I really hope this is a great film not just an attempt to make itself look great with lots of noise and guys running everywhere with an airplane or two thrown in every so often. Here's hoping it does justice to all the real heroes of Dunkirk.
I'm actually getting to see this on Saturday. My first IMAX film 😀
This is one that might be worth seeing in IMAX
I'm counting on it.
Quote from: mirth on July 19, 2017, 08:09:38 AM
This is one that might be worth seeing in IMAX
Yes, going to see it at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum IMAX theater at some point. :)
I want to see it, just not sure when it will happen. Not this weekend or the next. Maybe on a week night.
I had to make special plans to see it so I understand.
Promise the wife some extra luvin?
Better get your 'extra luvin chair' out to stand on Gus. :DD I know, I know-- cheap shot. But better I said it first before someone who would really hurt your feelings.
I actually promised to not bother her about the luvin' :/
Quote from: Gusington on July 19, 2017, 11:12:08 AM
I actually promised to not bother her about the luvin' :/
So, you took the standard wedding vows.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/
QuoteThe trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan's feat is undeniable: He's made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
:DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD
He could have told the story of all the black female tankers the Wehrmacht was using in 1940 if he wanted to.
Quote from: Gusington on July 19, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
He could have told the story of all the black female tankers the Wehrmacht was using in 1940 if he wanted to.
Jackie von Brown
Heh. Have the PC and SJW waves crested yet? Because I like them as much as mirth likes humidity.
Yeah, I saw that story from USAToday posted by someone on FB and it had me furious (fuhrer-ous)...until I realized it was probably a troll move on USAToday's part to get everyone talking about USAToday and get people to go to their site. That's even more annoying than that stupid SJW crap the author spewed out.
I have it on very good authority that the film will have the battle a result of a failed love relationship between Churchill and Goring. And the Spitfires will be running on solar power. Can't wait!
Quote from: mirth on July 19, 2017, 08:09:38 AM
This is one that might be worth seeing in IMAX
Saw the movie yesterday, definitively something you want to see in IMAX where possible. Unfortunately wasn't an option for me.
So how was it? How do you go watch and enjoy a movie that's been hyped up so much? Also, we're a difficult breed to make happy when it comes to war movies.
Well, it was refreshingly quite something else that I assumed it to be. And while at times I was wondering about certain things, the movie kept getting more and more tense as it went along, having started pretty much at full steam to begin with.
But no spoilers, go see it, worth watching for sure. I'd suggest skip any trailers before seeing it, true to any movie I guess. So annoying to realise oh that scene is coming now.
Nice.
Loins moistening. :clap:
Well worth the admission to see (and hear!) those Spitfire Mk Is flying in tight formation, alone. Filmed on real film, real planes (for most part), really flying, what's there not to like O:-)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-review-christopher-nolan.html
Quote from: mirth on July 20, 2017, 11:44:26 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-review-christopher-nolan.html
That reminds me...
Mild spoiler warning (if you read that review it spoiled it tenfold so not bothering hiding this):
... about the timeline,
- the soldiers are pictured spending a week there, trying to get out,
- the father and son in their boat are depicted as how their one day there and back went, and finally,
- the pilots are there for one hour, as that was all they had gasoline for.
This being a Nolan movie, the timeline then evolves around this, flashbacks and all, bringing all them together to same locations at times, then taking them apart again.
I guess knowing this beforehand would have made it a bit easier to grasp all of it. Although it was sort of said in the film that this is how it goes. I didn't completely get it at the time though O:-)
The worst 3 out of 4 stars review I've seen so far.
Walter Lord's Dunkirk book is on sale for $1.99
It was a good (light) history.
https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Dunkirk-Story-Operation-Dynamo-ebook/dp/B0078X73NO/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500670244&sr=8-1&keywords=dunkirk+by+lord
I have 'We Remember Dunkirk' by Frank Shaw. My copy is signed by the author - 27th May 1990. He signed it for me on the beach at Dunkirk.
Were you both wearing Speedos?
I might actually get over my utter dislike of other people and go see this.
When you see the price of popcorn and a soda, it will return. >:(
Not a fan of this movie really. Could have been epic.
Details please.
Seeing a 520pm show in Manhattan this afternoon with my bruhs! Driving to Brooklyn now to meet up with them beforehand.
I'm somewhat worried this will either be a propaganda piece like it was made in the 1960's, or philosophy on the beach with the occasional explosion.
Though I thought both Interstellar and Inception were impressive movies, I still like Memento best out of all Nolan's movies. His style of complicated (some would say: convoluted) storylines with a limited amount of character development can either work or fail. His Batman trilogy being a clear example.
The best books about Dunkirk that I've read don't focus purely on the British perspective, but on the war as a whole and the combined Anglo-French effort to buy enough time for the troops to be evacuated. The tendency to frame it as a British event might be logical considering the myth that was built around the evacuation, but it does not do justice to the historical operation.
Ironically, Churchill's supposed "bras dessus!" when deciding if the BEF, or also as many French forces as possible would be evacuated, has been conveniently ignored by many of his countrymen. Dynamo is in close competition with the battle of Waterloo for how the events of a battle have been distorted by a tunnel vision of sorts on the British contribution. Obviously, this isn't a uniquely British tendency, framing has been going on since mankind told its first stories, I just worry about the movie's frame.
Quote from: ComradeP on July 22, 2017, 11:40:14 AM
I'm somewhat worried this will either be a propaganda piece like it was made in the 1960's, or philosophy on the beach with the occasional explosion.
Though I thought both Interstellar and Inception were impressive movies, I still like Memento best out of all Nolan's movies. His style of complicated (some would say: convoluted) storylines with a limited amount of character development can either work or fail. His Batman trilogy being a clear example.
The best books about Dunkirk that I've read don't focus purely on the British perspective, but on the war as a whole and the combined Anglo-French effort to buy enough time for the troops to be evacuated. The tendency to frame it as a British event might be logical considering the myth that was built around the evacuation, but it does not do justice to the historical operation.
Ironically, Churchill's supposed "bras dessus!" when deciding if the BEF, or also as many French forces as possible would be evacuated, has been conveniently ignored by many of his countrymen. Dynamo is in close competition with the battle of Waterloo for how the events of a battle have been distorted by a tunnel vision of sorts on the British contribution. Obviously, this isn't a uniquely British tendency, framing has been going on since mankind told its first stories, I just worry about the movie's frame.
The Wall St. Journal article ripped it. Who is attacking the British is almost impossible to determine. Churchill does not make an appearance. His famous "we will fight speech" only comes from a Tommy reading it from a newspaper. The director tried to make it about "universal themes" and as a result how it places in history is almost impossible to discern from the film itself.
As posted above, Walter Lord's book on Dunkirk is on sale for $1.99. It accurately captures the chaos of the military and diplomatic situation at the time. It also discusses how the British evacuation was prioritized and how the French stood and died to make Dynamo possible.
Quote from: airboy on July 22, 2017, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: ComradeP on July 22, 2017, 11:40:14 AM
I'm somewhat worried this will either be a propaganda piece like it was made in the 1960's, or philosophy on the beach with the occasional explosion.
Though I thought both Interstellar and Inception were impressive movies, I still like Memento best out of all Nolan's movies. His style of complicated (some would say: convoluted) storylines with a limited amount of character development can either work or fail. His Batman trilogy being a clear example.
The best books about Dunkirk that I've read don't focus purely on the British perspective, but on the war as a whole and the combined Anglo-French effort to buy enough time for the troops to be evacuated. The tendency to frame it as a British event might be logical considering the myth that was built around the evacuation, but it does not do justice to the historical operation.
Ironically, Churchill's supposed "bras dessus!" when deciding if the BEF, or also as many French forces as possible would be evacuated, has been conveniently ignored by many of his countrymen. Dynamo is in close competition with the battle of Waterloo for how the events of a battle have been distorted by a tunnel vision of sorts on the British contribution. Obviously, this isn't a uniquely British tendency, framing has been going on since mankind told its first stories, I just worry about the movie's frame.
The Wall St. Journal article ripped it. Who is attacking the British is almost impossible to determine. Churchill does not make an appearance. His famous "we will fight speech" only comes from a Tommy reading it from a newspaper. The director tried to make it about "universal themes" and as a result how it places in history is almost impossible to discern from the film itself.
As posted above, Walter Lord's book on Dunkirk is on sale for $1.99. It accurately captures the chaos of the military and diplomatic situation at the time. It also discusses how the British evacuation was prioritized and how the French stood and died to make Dynamo possible.
Did the Wall Street Journal not take a basic history class? Do they really not know who is attacking them a Dunkirk?
I think the Wall Street Journal meant that the enemy is faceless, aside from some planes in the sky.
I get the feeling that since it is popular in order to generate views the remaining publications have to take contrarian positions.
Plus the majority opinion is that there is a certain artistry to this film and if there is one thing artistry generates its opinions (and we all know that those are like arseholes) in that everyone has one and is unafraid to make you hear it.
I have been excited to see this since I saw the first reports on it....outside of history buffs or the UK a little known but pivotal chapter of the war and looking at the early threats where it looked like Nazism was unstoppable. I only wish they had the 70mm version in Massachusetts because I hear that this format is unbelievable to watch Dunkirk in.
Con
Quote from: Gusington on July 22, 2017, 11:32:47 AM
Driving to Brooklyn now to meet up with them beforehand.
For those that wanted my to explain my view of this movie
:spoilers: LOTS of spoilers.
I saw it last night and was not really impressed at all, it was just a depressing arty horrible film to watch. Some of the scenes were amazing though.
Some of the spitfire scenes especially. They were impressive but on a tiny scale. I was under the impression the air battles over Dunkirk were fairly large in scale. This move shows dogfights with a maximum of 3 aircraft on each side at very low level. Almost at wave top level. Bomber attacks were a couple of Stuka's or a single He111, sometimes with two bf109 escorts (yellow nosed at that). You see the British shoot down a fair few aircraft before they have to ditch. For example the Luftwaffe was met by 16 squadrons of the Royal Air Force, who claimed 38 kills on 27 May while losing 14 aircraft. I would have liked to see the larger battles, but the director wanted to show small skirmishes I guess. More personal. More isolating and desperate.
They seem to make a big deal out of the fact that the British pilots only have about 40 minutes of fighting time over Dunkirk or something like that. Stukas were not shown in their traditional flip and dive, which could have been exhilarating to see close up. They were instead only shown as blurred out silhouetted seen from the ground heading down to bomb as faceless menaces with deafening sound... this seems to me one of the only times that the huge amount of sound would have been justified. Since their never seemed to be any real artillery attack even when the Germans got into range. The beach for most of the movie was dead quiet. An AA gun is shown once on the beach but never fired, Naval ships never seem to fire but are shown at one time raising guns. I should also mention that the first Heinkel 111 rear gunner's weapon sounds like a 20mm cannon for effect!!
The weather also played a major part in allowing the evacuation without the Luftwaffe interfering. But I guess that would have been boring to mention or show as would the night time operations. Fair enough on that point.
Another example of small scale is the flotilla that took 300,000 men off the beach in this movie consisted of about 10 tiny boats. When in reality their were 700 little civilian boats involved, that's not counting the Navy ships or auxiliaries which numbered at least 40 or so Destroyers and large Merchant ships. Like the rest of the movie this made things feel very much like a skirmish. There was no inkling of the call that went out to civilian boats I had imagined. No fanfare as the British civilians stood too to do their duty and manned their boats. Just a few navy officers commandeering small craft at a pier and the owners being told to stow life jackets. Significant events that told of the whole spirit of the event and could have been uplifting seem to have been marginalised apart from the fact they were scaled to almost nothing.
It felt too small. Instead of artillery and incessant air attack noises we got deafeningly loud pointless music sound, a constant throughout the film was an all frequencies whistling or droning sound that went up or down according to suspense. It was like listening to the sound of tinnitus at medium but mostly top volume for two hours. The sound in the cinema I was in was ridiculously loud and everybody commented their ears almost gave out (the inside of my ears are swollen and my tinnitus bad this morning). But I think that was just poor volume control on my particular cinemas speakers. This is further proven by the fact that one lady I went with commented that when she say saw spiderman at this particular cinema she had to go and ask them to turn it down. They turn it up so loud their is reverberation, I guess to get that effect where the sound travels through the body.
This film felt more like an art house film than a real film about a military event and I would not watch it again. The focus was on fear and desperation of a few soldiers. Where if I look into the history of Dunkirk. I don't know whether I would find it was that way. There were a lot of scenes that were switched around time wise, like three stories being told out of sync. I prefer movies to tell a story in order if they are going to chop and change between stories. For instance, their is a scene where a fighter has lost engine power and needs to land on the beach in broad daylight. Then their is a night scene. Then back to the fighter in daytime still landing without power and still manually pumping the landing gear. While all of this is going on, what seems to be the same aircraft operating with full power but obviously cannot be, shoots down yet another german aircraft. It's like the director tried to fool people into thinking this aircraft without power managed to shoot down a fighter, cheering afterwards of course.
Over 100,000 French soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk. This story was not really told. Instead the film makes it sound like the British abandoned the French right up until the end when one British officer stays to help them. Obviously the French story at Dunkirk would have been very interesting. The tragedy of them getting to Britain and then some being sent back across the channel to France to rejoin their comrades only to surrender a few weeks later. But I guess people don't care to see that sort of thing. I would also have liked to see half the movie dedicated to the retreat into Dunkirk. That would have really set the scene. They could have had tanks and shown the marshy surrounds and destroyed docks. The movement of British divisions to cover the hole the Belgian army made in it's defence when they surrendered.
I may go back and look at the Richard Attenborough Dunkirk movie and hope it is better. Was it me or did the spitfire landing become two different aircraft and take 10hrs to land? I thought this film was far too art house for my liking. This could have been a battle of Britain style story of the events and decisions of the day as well as the military events. Instead it was the story of a couple of scared infantry men on a beach trying to scam a way off. It was there story rather than most of the mens story. This film is the opposite of Pearl Harbor, instead of Pearl Harbor's sickening love and patriotic outrage stories of hard done by japanese attack, we get an anti war film where you suffer so badly you come out with PTSD. I prefer seeing films like Tora Tora Tora, where their is an even keel on things and events are told properly from both sides. I would have liked to see some of the positive things shown, like the story of the Clan MacAlister. The Anti-Aircraft cruiser calcutta, the Germans frustration at having their tanks taken from them, the french (and 51st highlanders?) heroic counter attack from the south, Churchill's order that the navy go back for the French, the fact that this was a very cheap evacuation indeed and a major triumph. The movie makes the evacuation seem vastly expensive in terms of ships, aircraft and men.
At no time was the German side shown or explained. For the fear purposes of the film they needed to be faceless demons. The closest you get is seeing german aircraft and seeing a few blurred out german infantry for a few second. Blurred out even as they captured the british who were of course very clear. I must admit though, for most of Dunkirk and it's evacuation the Germans were NOT attacking them. It was primarily air attack. As said above, I would really have liked to see some of the retreat to set the scene. Instead at the beginning of the movie all we get is one guy running from some anonymous trigger pullers that seem to be everywhere in the town.
Basically the whole movie was one large missed opportunity. You cannot fault it for what it did show, but you like me may dislike it for it's need to shock and awe you. It's need to miniaturise everything It's arty outlook and it's downright depressing outlook on things in general. It's lack of characters and dialogue.
P.S. Does anybody know whether the boy in the small craft that died as a result of an accidental push down the stairs from an upset soldier really happened?
I saw it tonight with the wife. I agree with many of Destraex's opinions about the movie feeling too small with surprisingly few soldiers, planes and ships in it. And there's little in the way of explanation of what and why things are occurring in the movie. If you don't already know about the battle, don't expect to learn much here about it. But the thing I liked least about the film was the way it was told. There's 3 separate stories told here but rather than show them as they occur, they are shown at the same time. So one scene will be Dunkirk at night and the next will be an air battle in broad daylight followed by another night scene back at Dunkirk. The story could have been just as exciting if it was done chronologically instead of this jigsaw puzzle of stories stapled together.
However, lest I seem too negative, the movie is visually stunning at times. Compelling, exciting and very well done, I just sat and took it all in unable to look away. It's somber and depressing at times with a few genuinely thrilling sudden turns that make you want to cheer. I couldn't help but like the film. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, but Des is right... it could've been a real classic War Movie right up here with the all-time greatest.
BTW Hardy is kind of wasted in his fighter pilot role and not very convincing. He hardly ever turns his head to look for Germans, or manovers his plane much and just gives-up to the Germans at the end. :o Hardly Hardy-like in my opinion.
I just came from seeing it. It was confusing in spots, I agree. I feel like I missed a lot and have to watch it again. There is also absolutely nothing told from the German side either.
Just saw it last night.
Whilst I agree with almost everything Destraex says, I am completely the opposite in terms of enjoyment.
I agree, for example, that it was an "arty" film (no - not like that- daft Grogheads!) but I loved it for it. It wasn't a documentary on Dunkirk. It wasn't a full film about Dunkirk (how could it be at an hour 45 minutes?). It didn't really relay the scale of Dunkirk.
What it did do was pass to me the desperation of Dunkirk on a local level. It should me that through a group of soldiers. It should me that by only showing a few naval and army officers. It showed me that by the occasional big ship that showed.
I loved the way the film set up the "zones" at the beginning. 1. Mole 2. Air 3. Sea and then continued to flip between those. I think that flipping between the various stages gave a superb feel for the chaos and the "close" feel the film was trying to convey.
I do agree with his view and dislike on a couple of things
- There was no recount of Dunkirk the story - why was this happening
- There was no understanding of who the enemy was aside from some aircraft
- I would've loved to have seen some of the discussion and requisition around the civilian boats
- I think the little ships should've been shown on a bigger scale. Whilst the smaller scale stuff showed the desperation and futile situation of the officers and men, I think a large scale showing of the ships at the end would've helped the viewer with the scale. They had already mentioned the 400,000 men to give scale so the viewer could take that feeling and multiply it. I feel they could've helped the viewer at the end with the sheer size and significance of the civilian assistance
- The flipping between night and day - showing out of sync things was also an issue for me. For example the Spitfires were fighting during the day but there were night scenes from Dunkirk interspersed
- The Spitfire with no power destroying a diving Stuka - if it happened, amazing - but I doubt it very much
- Very little action on the beach, including no artillery
The Stukas were blurs I guess because they didn't have any. Spitfires, Messerschmitts and He-111s (I'm assuming the He-111 was a surviving one because it bloody looked great (and real)) they could do and looked fantastic. I was unaware of the "yellow nose" thing not being a huge history buff on the event or era. :-[
It had issues. But they were very, very minor imo. But I was very pleased with the artistic feel of the movie. If that's not your thing, then it may not be enjoyable to you. Also - if you are looking for that big scale movie to portray the size of the event, again, you may well be disappointed.
For me - the movie captured the desperation and futility of the officers and men at a local level. The artistic viewpoint was extremely well done, if a touch messy in places. It tried to give the scale of the event - but only in mention. I found it incredibly tense and it was being ramped up as the movie went on. The music imo was also very well done and helped keep you on the edge of your seat.
Unlike Sir Slash my true love of the movie was the moving from sea to air to land and back again in random orders, though as I mentioned, I didn't like the night day thing - that did throw me.
I would agree with Sir Slash's summary.
To finish - imo, Dunkirk told the story of Dunkirk. It told it from several positions and gave the scale (whilst also providing that "local" feel). IMO this was a much more tense movie than the original Dunkirk. They are both great movies and both for very different reasons. This will join my original on my video shelf and I will enjoy both in years to come. :clap:
Did anyone who watched it think the flyby over Dunkirk by the Spit think it looked like a Spit flying at an airshow today? Dunkirk just looked - well, modern with nice flats and balconies. I have no reference material to know how Dunkirk looked, but the one in the movie seemed to look like how I'd see it today.
JudgeDredd if I wanted to imagine the scale, I would have read a book.
You cannot have a story about dunkirk set in dunkirk during the evacuation where everything plays out and then ignore the scale. The characters are literally standing in it on the big screen. Unless that is you are making a stage play. We have CGI and we have some damned good model making and sets these days.
There was also another mole iirc... i.e. a second place that large ships could dock to evacuate men.
As for the stukas, really, we don't have good enough CGI or even model making machines and sets these days? They were a major feature of this event. I won't call it a battle as such because realistically their was not much fighting on the ground. Mainly an air war to keep the beachhead secure. So I don't know if it qualifies.
I wasn't telling you how to enjoy it ^-^ I was simply explaining how it came across to me and what I liked about it.
It just so happens whilst I thought your points were valid, I left the cinema with a completely different outlook on the experience.
I was not upset Judge. No problem here.
I came across a little harsh. But yes my outlook is one of a grumpy person with very sore and swollen ear canals right now.
I agree with JD that the shots of town looked contemporary to now.
Thinking about it a little more maybe the movie made The Enemy more faceless and non-descript to illicit more fear? It worked for me, if that was the intent.
On the filpside is a movie like Fury that showed The Enemy in detail but also showed them as human and frightening at the same time.
Did very well this weekend, with Oscar buzz already
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/dunkirk-box-office-international-christopher-nolan-1202503989/ (http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-dunkirk-girls-trip-valerian-2-1202503892/)
Think I'll either see it on an airplane or on Netflix eventually.
I'm just thrilled that so many WWII-era pieces are hitting the big screen.
Since Dunkirk is doing so well, and assuming The Darkest Hour does, too, it's easy to imagine a slew of WWII-themed films on epic scales. Maybe even (shudder) remixes of Battle of the Bulge, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora, Midway, et al, etcetera.
Makes me wonder how Hollywood will shoehorn something Chinese into a remake of Battle of the Bulge to pander to the Asian market...they'd figure a way. They always do.
I thought the Yamato movie was pretty damned good, actually...the historic one, not the one with the gravity gun that fights space aliens. ;D
http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/dunkirk-movie-review-a-great-war-movie-except.html
I never even thought about Hardy's pilot wearing his oxygen mask the whole time despite the planes flying only feet above sea level. ??? The movie's done great in so many ways but could have better in so many others. What you take away from the film will depend on whether you focus on the good or the bad parts of it.
Watched it tonight in a theatre with DBOX tilty rumble seats. The effect was very well done, especially with The flying sequences. The chairs would tilt and tip in sync with the motion of the aircraft on screen. When one of the Spits ditched, it felt like someone punted me in the spine. Whenever the movie cut to the ship, the chairs would constantly roll as though we were on waves. The two Korean women sitting behind me did not care for this at all.
Decent film but I agree with some of the criticisms about a lack of scale. Seats definitely added to the enjoyment for me.
Not sure if I will watch it. It brings back thoughts of my dad who was there. I still think of standing on the beach with him and hundreds of other veterans in 1990 and watching the Lancaster drop poppy petals into the sea. It was very emotive.
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 24, 2017, 10:36:22 AM
I never even thought about Hardy's pilot wearing his oxygen mask the whole time despite the planes flying only feet above sea level. ??? The movie's done great in so many ways but could have better in so many others. What you take away from the film will depend on whether you focus on the good or the bad parts of it.
I thought he was only wearing it when he was at altitude (initially) or in combat? Didn't they need it to communicate, so regardless of altitude, you would have it in place during combat for speech?
I don't know. Spit balling really. I'm going to see it again just now so I'll have a look at when it's on.
Did not know your Dad was there Bawb. Without prying too much, can I ask in what capacity? Army? Navy? Civilian?
Army. He was in 5th Infantry Division and was 19 years old at the time.
Wow, Bob. :o
How awesome that you were able to share that experience with him in 1990!
I have some photo's somewhere which I'll try and find. It was an awesome experience.
Definitely sounds like it.
At one point in the movie, Hardy tells his wingmate to go up to 6,000 ft. I don't think that was high enough to need oxygen and I don't know about needing the mask to use the radio-- could be. Somebody here will be along shortly to fill us in on the facts I'm sure. What say you Grogs?
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 28, 2017, 11:00:59 AM
At one point in the movie, Hardy tells his wingmate to go up to 6,000 ft. I don't think that was high enough to need oxygen and I don't know about needing the mask to use the radio-- could be. Somebody here will be along shortly to fill us in on the facts I'm sure. What say you Grogs?
He does actually have his mask on even when there's no-one to communicate with. So it wasn't being used for oxygen OR contact.
Still a bloody good film imo
I think Tom Hardy is contractually obligated to have his face covered 90% of the time for every role he takes with Chris Nolan.
He needs a new lawyer. Or agent. Or both.
Quote from: BanzaiCat on July 28, 2017, 08:16:51 AM
Wow, Bob. :o
How awesome that you were able to share that experience with him in 1990!
:bd:
here's another dick-brain that doesn't really get it...
https://twitter.com/marieclaire/status/890981117037248512
I for one, do not get to celebrate my maleness nearly enough. Once in a while I get to wave it around in somebody's face briefly until my wife tells me to knock it off. Jealousy is an ugly thing.
I do wish the movie had made a better effort to show the courage and determination of the brave Allied soldiers at Dunkirk instead of the more prevalent desperate attempts to escape the beach and get back home. My 2 cents.
The rear-guard fought a bitter battle - and paid the price.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2017, 06:05:15 AM
here's another dick-brain that doesn't really get it...
https://twitter.com/marieclaire/status/890981117037248512
What about that brave lady seen standing on the bow of the little boat in a dress?
^OMG STFU already.
Not you, Des. Whoever that quote is from above. I can't take it anymore.
I agree Gus. It's like reverse discrimination. Like all maleness must be burned in order for the female master race to rule.
The propaganda machine in hollywood is strong, so a movie that is actually close to historically accurate with no real female leads needs to be shut down :P... because females used to rule and males were just slaves in Celtic times apparently .... everything was fair then.
ARRRRGHHH! :pullhair:
It all went down hill when they got the right to vote >:D
Quote from: Gusington on July 31, 2017, 07:58:24 PM
ARRRRGHHH! :pullhair:
It all went down hill when they got the right to vote >:D
Before that, when they were allowed to smoke in public!
And before that, when they weren't busy bringing me sandwiches and beer, 'talking' amongst themeselves.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F096%2F050%2F4cf3c632708c8.png&hash=1b12e6144c794e698af8e784f4d3a9abbdacd18c)
^You tell'em, Retz.
As I recall, there were some women nurses celebrating their femaleness by spreading jam on bread for the troopers on board the Hospital ship. Does that still count as maleness because they were doing it FOR men? :P
People suck. Everybody has a complaint about something. Here is mine; can't even make an historically accurate movie anymore without someone trashing it.
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 31, 2017, 09:44:09 PM
As I recall, there were some women nurses celebrating their femaleness by spreading jam on bread for the troopers on board the Hospital ship. Does that still count as maleness because they were doing it FOR men? :P
Was it jam or marmalade? Makes a difference.
Celebrating my maleness, I'll say the soldiers didn't care. Probably more interested in the 'spread' part.
Jam. Or, in my Dad's case, corned beef and a mug of tea.
Like a Real Man[tm].
My dad & I went and saw Dunkirk the weekend before last. I don't know that either of us would rate it as Oscar-worthy, but we did both enjoy it.
Quote from: bob48 on August 01, 2017, 12:18:44 PM
Jam. Or, in my Dad's case, corned beef and a mug of tea.
both require fire which had yet to be invented when your pops was around, no less your childhood.
Quote from: ComradeP on July 22, 2017, 01:06:21 PM
I think the Wall Street Journal meant that the enemy is faceless, aside from some planes in the sky.
The enemy being faceless is
precisely what makes this movie so tense to watch. It's just plain scarier not seeing who's shooting at you and I like how you never saw the enemy in this movie.
I didn't really like the faceless enemy either. It made me think of Fury, with Brad Pitt, and how that movie portrayed the Wehrmacht - nice combination of a human and monstrous side, like any army. Could have used some of that here.
Finally saw it today. Thought it was thoroughly underwhelming. Quite amazing in how underwhelming it was, telling a story of such a miraculous operation.
I get the faceless aspect of it, but the movie itself just didn't try very hard. There were a few awesome moments in it, and it was good in general, but it felt like it missed the mark.
I enjoyed most of the film, got the time line thing, loved the score - the only thing that left me deflated was the, and I think it was even said in the film - 'there are 300000 men on this beach' and even at its widest pan we see, a 100?
Actually, of course, there was more than just one beach and also there was the harbour, all of which I have been to.