There was so much more to this movie than Hardy. It was great from start too finish.

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Living Legend said:

---

Saw the movie twice over the weekend. Best part of the movie was Tom Hardy's performance. Hardy should win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that he deserved for his performance as Bane. The lack of character development really hurt how I felt about the movie. It wasn't as suspenseful as it could have been, simply because I didn't know the characters well enough to care if they survived or not. I thought the story itself was amazing, but I did not walk out of the theater feeling I had seen a Top 5 Nolan Film. Maybe my mind will change after more viewings.

---

But you saw it twice in one weekend?

---

The first time I saw it I fell asleep.

BQ78 said:

---

Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.

---

Something else I was suspicious of, but do not know enough about the spitfire to be certain, is that I thought most of those types of planes have the gear sprung loaded open and that the pilot would manually pump the hydraulics to raise them. That way, if you spring a hydraulic leak or something, you aren't stuck with the gear up.

Panama Red said:

---

i agree it lacked character development. But wasn't that part of the point? It's the story of Everyman.

---

The only way to have character development with that many characters is to spend 12 hours+ on it like Band of Brothers. If you want character development win a couple hours, then you gotta limit it to one character (or two tops) like Hacksaw Ridge.

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.

---

Something else I was suspicious of, but do not know enough about the spitfire to be certain, is that I thought most of those types of planes have the gear sprung loaded open and that the pilot would manually pump the hydraulics to raise them. That way, if you spring a hydraulic leak or something, you aren't stuck with the gear up.

---

I don't think they were spring loaded. We saw him pumping a crank when he was in that long glide to land. These struts would operate manually via lever/crank on typical warbirds.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.

---

Something else I was suspicious of, but do not know enough about the spitfire to be certain, is that I thought most of those types of planes have the gear sprung loaded open and that the pilot would manually pump the hydraulics to raise them. That way, if you spring a hydraulic leak or something, you aren't stuck with the gear up.

---

I don't think they were spring loaded. We saw him pumping a crank when he was in that long glide to land. These struts would operate manually via lever/crank on typical warbirds.

---

Clearly it wasn't spring loaded in the movie. I'm just wondering if that was a mistake.

A family member of mine owns an old plane and the way that one works is that you pump the handle to retract the gear but not to lower them. The undercarriage is always spring loaded to lower. The hydraulics that retract them have to fight that spring all the way up. When the gear are fully retracted, a latch holds them closed. When that latch is released, the gear slam open in one quick violent motion thanks to that spring. If the hydraulic pump beaks, then the pilot must hand pump to retract, which is slow (and somewhat tiring). The plane designed to default gear down for safety reasons. Otherwise, it would suck to spring a hydraulic leak with the gear half down. Landing like that would be insta-death. The pilot would instead have to ditch the whole plane over a hydraulic line.

I'm not sure if the spitfire is the same way or not.

Just saw it tonight. What a fantastic film! I don't think I've ever experienced that kind of intensity for the entirety of a film. Simply outstanding. Watched in IMAX and the sound effects and music were awesome!

No doubt it isn't a "mistake", but may be artistic license which is done in movies from time to time.

i know that some other planes of the era had a similar setup, manually pumping the gear to lower them. but it also wasn't necessarily insta-death to have non-fully functioning landing gear. watch some old film of b-17's coming back from missions. a lot of them "landed" with one or no landing gear down.

Great movie. Enjoyed it.

aTmAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.

---

Something else I was suspicious of, but do not know enough about the spitfire to be certain, is that I thought most of those types of planes have the gear sprung loaded open and that the pilot would manually pump the hydraulics to raise them. That way, if you spring a hydraulic leak or something, you aren't stuck with the gear up.

---

I don't think they were spring loaded. We saw him pumping a crank when he was in that long glide to land. These struts would operate manually via lever/crank on typical warbirds.

---

Clearly it wasn't spring loaded in the movie. I'm just wondering if that was a mistake.

A family member of mine owns an old plane and the way that one works is that you pump the handle to retract the gear but not to lower them. The undercarriage is always spring loaded to lower. The hydraulics that retract them have to fight that spring all the way up. When the gear are fully retracted, a latch holds them closed. When that latch is released, the gear slam open in one quick violent motion thanks to that spring. If the hydraulic pump beaks, then the pilot must hand pump to retract, which is slow (and somewhat tiring). The plane designed to default gear down for safety reasons. Otherwise, it would suck to spring a hydraulic leak with the gear half down. Landing like that would be insta-death. The pilot would instead have to ditch the whole plane over a hydraulic line.

I'm not sure if the spitfire is the same way or not.

---

Since that was a real Spitfire Mk. I they used for the movie, I tend to think it was accurately depicted. Now it could be a case of movie magic depicting him pumping that crank to lower the gear, true, but take a look at this interactive panoramic view of a Spitfire cockpit.

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

Scan down to the lower right and you will see a black, round thing jutting out from the sidewall with a large crank sticking out of it. This thing matches the position of the crank Hardy was working to lower his gear. I do not profess to know how the gear actually worked, whether these were as you described or as the movie depicted, but I don't see any button on that device that would release spring-loaded gear. And this particular cockpit is from a Spitfire Mk IX, a later model than the ones seen in the movie.

Also not sure why the pilot who ditched in the channel did not use that red crowbar we see on the left sidewall to break the canopy.

As for landing such an aircraft with the gear not lowered, that kind of thing happened often enough during the war.

Panama Red said:

---

i agree it lacked character development. But wasn't that part of the point? It's the story of Everyman.

This will easily win Best Cinematography and all the art awards. It was stunning.

As someone said above, some amazing performances with little dialogue. 4 deserve best actor consideration.

I wish they had made the son of the Moonstone captain trans. Would have sealed best picture.

Amazing film.

---

i am one of those who thinks that Nolan was brilliant casting and directing amazing talent that restrained themselves in the roles.

i liken it to one of my favorite films of all time Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and Gary Oldman's portrayal of George Smiley. when i first saw the movie, it was almost jarring to see Oldman so restrained in a movie role. later i realized just how brilliant his performance was .

wangus12 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

i know that some other planes of the era had a similar setup, manually pumping the gear to lower them. but it also wasn't necessarily insta-death to have non-fully functioning landing gear. watch some old film of b-17's coming back from missions. a lot of them "landed" with one or no landing gear down.

---

B-17's might be the greatest plane ever built. Those things stayed in the air with some severe damage. The stories of pilots flying home nearly ripped to shreds are incredible

---

True, the Fortress could take a lot of punishment and still make it home. The P-47 Thunderbolt and everything that Grumman produced also demonstrated this trait. The Grumman Iron Works is how Grumman was referred to - those Hellcats, Wildcats, and Avengers often returned to carriers full of holes and missing chunks of various pieces.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Oh and another thing that water ditching was too hot, no flaps and likely would have killed the pilot but it was certainly more dramatic the way they did it. At least at the end Hardy put his flaps down to slow the crate.

---

Something else I was suspicious of, but do not know enough about the spitfire to be certain, is that I thought most of those types of planes have the gear sprung loaded open and that the pilot would manually pump the hydraulics to raise them. That way, if you spring a hydraulic leak or something, you aren't stuck with the gear up.

---

I don't think they were spring loaded. We saw him pumping a crank when he was in that long glide to land. These struts would operate manually via lever/crank on typical warbirds.

---

Clearly it wasn't spring loaded in the movie. I'm just wondering if that was a mistake.

A family member of mine owns an old plane and the way that one works is that you pump the handle to retract the gear but not to lower them. The undercarriage is always spring loaded to lower. The hydraulics that retract them have to fight that spring all the way up. When the gear are fully retracted, a latch holds them closed. When that latch is released, the gear slam open in one quick violent motion thanks to that spring. If the hydraulic pump beaks, then the pilot must hand pump to retract, which is slow (and somewhat tiring). The plane designed to default gear down for safety reasons. Otherwise, it would suck to spring a hydraulic leak with the gear half down. Landing like that would be insta-death. The pilot would instead have to ditch the whole plane over a hydraulic line.

I'm not sure if the spitfire is the same way or not.

---

Since that was a real Spitfire Mk. I they used for the movie, I tend to think it was accurately depicted. Now it could be a case of movie magic depicting him pumping that crank to lower the gear, true, but take a look at this interactive panoramic view of a Spitfire cockpit.

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

Scan down to the lower right and you will see a black, round thing jutting out from the sidewall with a large crank sticking out of it. This thing matches the position of the crank Hardy was working to lower his gear. I do not profess to know how the gear actually worked, whether these were as you described or as the movie depicted, but I don't see any button on that device that would release spring-loaded gear. And this particular cockpit is from a Spitfire Mk IX, a later model than the ones seen in the movie.

---

I'm not doubting that there is a pump handle. Just doubting (somewhat) that it was used to pump the gear DOWN. I suspect it was only used to retract the gear up. And I highly doubt that they had a stunt pilot really try to land while barely extending the gear in time. That's damn dangerous. I assume that was done with some form of CGI, model, mounting the plane on a rig, or some other form of camera trickery.

Quote:

---

Also not sure why the pilot who ditched in the channel did not use that red crowbar we see on the left sidewall to break the canopy.

---

Maybe it wasn't the practice back then, but nowadays you are supposed to open door/hatch/canopy before a crash landing. Otherwise the frame bends and seals you inside (to burn alive or drown).

Quote:

---

As for landing such an aircraft with the gear not lowered, that kind of thing happened often enough during the war.

---

They tried to do both gear down or both gear up. If only one gear is down, it's probably safer to jump out with a parachute.

might be just me, but the more i think on it, the more i want to see the movie again

haven't felt that way about a movie in a while. ex machina, edge of tomorrow, inception, etc.

It was a fantastic movie, but I actually have zero desire to see it again. War is hell, and that movie showed it. That and the movie is intense with almost zero letup the entire two hours

I kinda place this movie in the category of Schindler's List in that everyone should see it once, but totally understandable why you wouldn't want to see it again.

the dogfights

I'll see it again for a variety of reasons. Didn't catch all the dialogue the first go-round because of accents. The Christopher Nolan treatment to the timeline left me with a few questions and/or surely things I didn't notice the first time. And, I'm lucky to live in Dallas and to get to see it in all it's IMAX glory, so I'd be foolish not to take advantage of that while it's available.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

---

The video was taken off youtube for copyright. Here is a link to the site that filmed the interview with their own video: http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/calgary-veteran-who-survived-dunkirk-causes-a-stir-at-movie-premiere/

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

he was below decks (assumption here based on his reluctance to go in the cabin on the sail boat) on a ship that was torpedoed and barely made it out alive.

Torpedo

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

finally. Imitation IMAX Wednesday @ 7P Edwards (Houston still > Dallas btw...)

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

---

I thought Cillian Murphy was in that life boat after it was torpedoed. The guys who had barely made it out were trying to get into the same boat and Murphy told them that they were already full. He wasn't shell shocked yet at that point.

Then Mark Rylance picked him up while he was sitting on the stern of that sinking ship. Which ship was that? Was that the one that was bombed by that German bomber? Is THAT that the sinking that shell-shocked him?

aTmAg said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

---

I thought Cillian Murphy was in that life boat after it was torpedoed. The guys who had barely made it out were trying to get into the same boat and Murphy told them that they were already full. He wasn't shell shocked yet at that point.

Then Mark Rylance picked him up while he was sitting on the stern of that sinking ship. Which ship was that? Was that the one that was bombed by that German bomber? Is THAT that the sinking that shell-shocked him?

---

they were rescuing people. clearly he hadn't been on a torpedoed ship at that point. remember, the guys on the shore experienced a week of time passage while the other timelines were much shorter time periods.

aTmAg said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

---

I thought Cillian Murphy was in that life boat after it was torpedoed. The guys who had barely made it out were trying to get into the same boat and Murphy told them that they were already full. He wasn't shell shocked yet at that point.

Then Mark Rylance picked him up while he was sitting on the stern of that sinking ship. Which ship was that? Was that the one that was bombed by that German bomber? Is THAT that the sinking that shell-shocked him?

---

Man now you've got me spun up trying to remember correctly. sort of not remembering the exact timeline, I think the ship he was rescued by Rylance on top of was the one that got hit that shell shocked him. But now I'm not certain. But I do remember him saying "U-Boat" when shivering against the corner of Rylance's boat.

schmendeler said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

---

I thought Cillian Murphy was in that life boat after it was torpedoed. The guys who had barely made it out were trying to get into the same boat and Murphy told them that they were already full. He wasn't shell shocked yet at that point.

Then Mark Rylance picked him up while he was sitting on the stern of that sinking ship. Which ship was that? Was that the one that was bombed by that German bomber? Is THAT that the sinking that shell-shocked him?

---

they were rescuing people. clearly he hadn't been on a torpedoed ship at that point. remember, the guys on the shore experienced a week of time passage while the other timelines were much shorter time periods.

---

As I remember it:

So the French dude was on the boat that was torpedoed. He gets out, sees Cillian Murphy (who was not shell shocked yet). Murphy tells him that they will be swamped. Then later (in real timeline.. not movie timeline), Murphy is plucked off a sinking ship by Mark Rylance. So is THAT another ship that was torpedoed by a U-Boat that they didn't show onscreen?

aTmAg said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Here's a question on something I missed:

So Cillian Murphy's character was all shell shocked when he was picked up by Mark Rylance's, character. Earlier in the timeline (but later in the movie), they show him behaving quite normal. I missed what happened to him that freaked him out so much. What was that?

---

The first thing he said (but it was really tough to hear because he couldn't speak clearly) when he finally did talk was "U-Boat." So we are to assume he was on that wreckage after a torpedo blasted that boat for who knows how long .

---

I thought Cillian Murphy was in that life boat after it was torpedoed. The guys who had barely made it out were trying to get into the same boat and Murphy told them that they were already full. He wasn't shell shocked yet at that point.

Then Mark Rylance picked him up while he was sitting on the stern of that sinking ship. Which ship was that? Was that the one that was bombed by that German bomber? Is THAT that the sinking that shell-shocked him?

---

they were rescuing people. clearly he hadn't been on a torpedoed ship at that point. remember, the guys on the shore experienced a week of time passage while the other timelines were much shorter time periods.

---

As I remember it:

So the French dude was on the boat that was torpedoed. He gets out, sees Cillian Murphy (who was not shell shocked yet). Murphy tells him that they will be swamped. Then later (in real timeline.. not movie timeline), Murphy is plucked off a sinking ship by Mark Rylance. So is THAT another ship that was torpedoed by a U-Boat that they didn't show onscreen?

---

They might have shown it on screen, not sure. But yes.

TCTTS said:

---

---

Aha! I mentioned to my wife, I wonder who the radio man is. Has to be someone special.

So Im going tomorrow evening in Houston, it appears my choices are 70mm or IMAX. They dont have 70mm IMAX here. Which one would be better?

The D said:

---

So Im going tomorrow evening in Houston, it appears my choices are 70mm or IMAX. They dont have 70mm IMAX here. Which one would be better?

---

Your choices are the two Edwards theatres. I saw it at the one on I-10 up by Ikea and it was good, with a tall screen. The one on 59 with RPX is a huge screen but I don't know that has the tall proportions.

The one on 10 has reserved seating and the one on 59 does not, which is how we ended up choosing.