I read a review from a WWII buff I follow on Twitter and he said aside from a few kit discrepancies and the beach not looking crowded enough at times it was more or less quite accurate.
***Dunkirk***
115,110 Views |
830 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by 42799862
Teacher_Ag said:
I read a review from a WWII buff I follow on Twitter and he said aside from a few kit descrepancies and the beach not looking crowded enough at times it was more or less quite accurate.
Agree on the beaches not looking crowded enough. That surprised me a bit, but didn't detract from the film.
Dunkirk was the best movie I've seen in a long time and easily a top 5 all time war movie.
Teacher_Ag said:
Propaganda is art that persuades. What was this film trying to persuade you of? British superiority? Well, in the context of the larger war this battle was the British and French taking an L.
I think Nolan intended for this to be a story about how individuals rise or shrink when it's all on the line. And about how people band together and do extraordinary things to help when it's do or die. He told that story through the events at Dunkirk, but he could have done so with any number of nations/wars/battles involved and it still wouldn't really be a work of propaganda. If he made a story of average German soldiers and civilians desperately trying to survive during the Battle of Berlin would that be Nazi Propaganda? It depends...did he glorify Nazi ideals? Did he attempt to show Nazis as superior or without flaws? Did he dehumanize or demonize the enemy? If not...it isn't meant as propaganda.
So, just typical human propaganda.
See it in IMAX.
I sat in standard on the second row. Because man I dont buy tickets ahead of time.AliasMan02 said:
See it in IMAX.
I'm sorry, but that was a ****ing masterpiece.
Just saw it in 70 mm IMAX. Absolutely incredible. Definitely see it in that format if you can.
Loved the movie.
Loved the movie.
probably my favorite war movie now
No masterpiece by any means, but a great War movie. I was not expecting it to be so straight forward, but it was consistently great and the almost 2 hours flew by in what felt like 30 min. I don't buy a lot of movies, but Ill probably buy this one, like other Nolan films, upon release.
It is one of the best movies of the decade.
What did you guys specifically like about it?
I really wanted to like this movie, but I left the theater feeling like I'd wasted my money. I liked the aerial combat, but that might be it.
I really wanted to like this movie, but I left the theater feeling like I'd wasted my money. I liked the aerial combat, but that might be it.
Literally everything.
The tension. The action. The cinematography. The sound. The music.
There's nothing I disliked about it.
The tension. The action. The cinematography. The sound. The music.
There's nothing I disliked about it.
Trident 88 said:
What did you guys specifically like about it?
I really wanted to like this movie, but I left the theater feeling like I'd wasted my money. I liked the aerial combat, but that might be it.
I'll try to not act shocked or make a pot shot. As my review states I thought it was incredible.
That being said, I wasn't the person who was on the edge of their seat and getting super into the emotional aspects of the film like some of my friends did (which is great).
I think the best quality about this film was that it was the most pleasant movie theater experience I've had in years. And it's due to the way it was Shot, the way the stories were told, the score, the imagery, the historical context, the artistry in the presentation, etc.
I left the theater feeling completely satisfied.
Sounds stupid I know, but it's just how I felt. Last movie I saw in the theater was Baby Driver. So for lack of a better example I'll go with this. I really liked the movie and will watch it again on redbox. But it had a lot flaws that I still think about. That's OK because it was still a winner for me.
With Dunkirk, there were maybe 1 or 2 things, but everything else was done so beautifully that I didn't even care.
It was just a master class in storytelling imo.
For those of you that saw it in 70mm, where you impressed? I was a little disappointed to be honest. Maybe it's because I haven't seen a movie in film in a while, but there was a lot of flickering on bright scenes. However, I wasn't really sure what to expect, maybe that's completely normal for a film movie. I plan on seeing it in Liemax to see if I notice a difference..
I'll accept that I just "didn't get it" for some reason. Maybe I expected too much.
A few nitpicky questions about the story:
Why didn't all of the soldiers below deck on the Dutch boat that the Germans were using for target practice manage to get out before they drowned? At least one idiot didn't make it.
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
Why were the British troops lined up on the beach like sitting ducks for the German aircraft when there were no boats nearby? Made zero tactical sense.
Why wasn't the civilian flotilla that showed up to rescue the troops much larger? It seems like it would have had to be to help save literally hundreds of thousands of troops, and it would have made the scene much more impressive and uplifting. Were there really so few boats making multiple trips instead? If the budget didn't allow for more actual boats to be rented, why not CGI them?
A few nitpicky questions about the story:
Why didn't all of the soldiers below deck on the Dutch boat that the Germans were using for target practice manage to get out before they drowned? At least one idiot didn't make it.
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
Why were the British troops lined up on the beach like sitting ducks for the German aircraft when there were no boats nearby? Made zero tactical sense.
Why wasn't the civilian flotilla that showed up to rescue the troops much larger? It seems like it would have had to be to help save literally hundreds of thousands of troops, and it would have made the scene much more impressive and uplifting. Were there really so few boats making multiple trips instead? If the budget didn't allow for more actual boats to be rented, why not CGI them?
About to start. Sitting next to the chick from Orphan Black and Richard from Silicon Valley.
You should tell them to appear on Comedy Bang Bang again
Prediction: TC likes the technical side of the field, comes down on the side of "underwhelmed by lack of character development"
I can give an answer to this one. Planes that low can't afford to turn around. They loose all their speed and kinetic energy, and crash. I don't think in real life he could have made one 180 turn to shoot that German. If a plane like that loses an engine on takeoff and only gets a few hundred feet like that, then they are supposed to land in a clearing in front of them. Not try to turn around.Quote:
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
Like Trident , I went in really wanting to like this movie and big fan of Nolan. But it was just OK for me. It kind of just drug on for me... however, it definitely was a cool moment when all the civilian craft showed up.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Literally everything.
The tension. The action. The cinematography. The sound. The music.
There's nothing I disliked about it.
aTmAg said:I can give an answer to this one. Planes that low can't afford to turn around. They loose all their speed and kinetic energy, and crash. I don't think in real life he could have made one 180 turn to shoot that German. If a plane like that loses an engine on takeoff and only gets a few hundred feet like that, then they are supposed to land in a clearing in front of them. Not try to turn around.Quote:
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
I asked this question to myself during the film and answered it (as a guess) in the same way you answered. I chalked it up to Nolan knew reality and it would have not been reality had he turned back with no engine and gliding that low.
The fact that he turned the first time and shot down the German plane is exactly why I asked why he didn't turn a second time to land in friendly territory. And if that wasn't possible, then turn left and ditch it in the ocean. Hell, try anything else potentially survivable before you turn yourself into the krauts.aTmAg said:I can give an answer to this one. Planes that low can't afford to turn around. They loose all their speed and kinetic energy, and crash. I don't think in real life he could have made one 180 turn to shoot that German. If a plane like that loses an engine on takeoff and only gets a few hundred feet like that, then they are supposed to land in a clearing in front of them. Not try to turn around.Quote:
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
1. Because they were being shot at, and going above deck before they absolutely had to was suicide. They were in enemy territory. The soldier who drowned was the French soldier who didn't understand what they were saying when they said to abandon ship; he was focused on trying to plug the leaks. At least that's what I think it was. Especially down in the hold of the ship it got confusing of who was who.Trident 88 said:
I'll accept that I just "didn't get it" for some reason. Maybe I expected too much.
A few nitpicky questions about the story:
Why didn't all of the soldiers below deck on the Dutch boat that the Germans were using for target practice manage to get out before they drowned? At least one idiot didn't make it.
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
Why were the British troops lined up on the beach like sitting ducks for the German aircraft when there were no boats nearby? Made zero tactical sense.
Why wasn't the civilian flotilla that showed up to rescue the troops much larger? It seems like it would have had to be to help save literally hundreds of thousands of troops, and it would have made the scene much more impressive and uplifting. Were there really so few boats making multiple trips instead? If the budget didn't allow for more actual boats to be rented, why not CGI them?
2. As others have explained, the plane couldn't have turned. It got its miraculous turn already when it shot down the fighter at the last second.
3. The Brits had nowhere else to go, as the Germans had control of the whole city except for a scrap of land being held by the rearguard. AND they had to keep their spots in line.
4. Because that's not how it really happened. There were lots and lots of ships that participated in the Dunkirk rescue, but it happened over the course of a week and they didn't all just show up at once. They trailed back and forth across the channel for days. Do you really think budget would have kept them from using additional boats? Come on, man...
I think this is important and isn't a spoiler, but a point of historic fact that might help people:Trident 88 said:The fact that he turned the first time and shot down the German plane is exactly why I asked why he didn't turn a second time to land in friendly territory. And if that wasn't possible, then turn left and ditch it in the ocean. Hell, try anything else potentially survivable before you turn yourself into the krauts.aTmAg said:I can give an answer to this one. Planes that low can't afford to turn around. They loose all their speed and kinetic energy, and crash. I don't think in real life he could have made one 180 turn to shoot that German. If a plane like that loses an engine on takeoff and only gets a few hundred feet like that, then they are supposed to land in a clearing in front of them. Not try to turn around.Quote:
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
WWII planes didn't have "ejection seats" and ditching was extremely dangerous. In the movie, both RAF pilots consider ditching at one point and opt not to after thinking it over. What "ditching" usually meant was detaching your harness and gear, and turning the plane over so you just fell out of it. British planes were very well put together and had very high surviveability in a crash landing if the pilot still had good control.
Another unrelated point of fact is that a "mole" refers to a rock breakwater and pier.
Nolan doesn't explain stuff to the masses. That's just part of his deal.
Landing in water is usually really bad. The better point would be to ask where the hell did all those people go in the 5 minutes it took him too land on the beach.Trident 88 said:The fact that he turned the first time and shot down the German plane is exactly why I asked why he didn't turn a second time to land in friendly territory. And if that wasn't possible, then turn left and ditch it in the ocean. Hell, try anything else potentially survivable before you turn yourself into the krauts.aTmAg said:I can give an answer to this one. Planes that low can't afford to turn around. They loose all their speed and kinetic energy, and crash. I don't think in real life he could have made one 180 turn to shoot that German. If a plane like that loses an engine on takeoff and only gets a few hundred feet like that, then they are supposed to land in a clearing in front of them. Not try to turn around.Quote:
Why didn't Tom Hardy turn the plane around one more time so that he would land where the British were instead of having to surrender to the Germans?
Saw it earlier tonight.
I liked it a lot. The pacing was intense. Few nitpicks with it, but overall a very good flick. Not sure if I would pay full ticket price again to see it but I would recommend it.
I can definitely see how some people would not like it though. The timing format of it was chaotic, at best. And zero background info aside from the first 4 or five lines. A LITTLE more info could have been provided IMO without killing the overall vibe or becoming narrative. I can see how if someone had zero knowledge of Dunkirk they would generally be lost in the grand scheme of things.
I liked it a lot. The pacing was intense. Few nitpicks with it, but overall a very good flick. Not sure if I would pay full ticket price again to see it but I would recommend it.
I can definitely see how some people would not like it though. The timing format of it was chaotic, at best. And zero background info aside from the first 4 or five lines. A LITTLE more info could have been provided IMO without killing the overall vibe or becoming narrative. I can see how if someone had zero knowledge of Dunkirk they would generally be lost in the grand scheme of things.
I would say the first two-thirds were "average" Christopher Nolan - which is still obviously better than 90% of all other films - but it was to the point where I was honestly kind of wondering what all the fuss was about. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed every minute of it, and didn't have a single complaint, but the time jumps and doubling back on story points and what not weren't nearly as much of a cool "thing" as I thought they'd be.
And then the third act happened.
And it all came together in glorious synchronization to produce one of my favorite endings in years, probably.
The stuff with Tom Hardy's plane gliding over the beach, engine dead, was breathtaking and beautiful. And the way it cut back and forth between the main kid reading the newspaper aloud, and then the other kid who died getting mentioned in the local paper, I seriously teared up. Just phenomenal.
I don't know that I'll ever watch the movie all the way through again, but you can bet I'll be buying this thing on Blu-ray the day it's released simply to be able to watch the ending over and over again. But still, masterful work from Nolan all around. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already been said in that regard. Between this, TDK, and Inception - three of my all-time favorite endings - the man definitely knows how to stick a landing, and quite literally this time.
Ag Since 83 - There are movies that require character development (i.e. the vast majority of them), but then there are movies like this one that simply do not. As rare as it is, it's not hard to recognize when it's just not a necessary ingredient. This being the perfect example. From the very first teaser trailer, this movie has always been about one thing: survival. And sometimes a theme that simple and instinctual is more than enough.
Also, LMFAO at whoever called this "propaganda." I cannot fathom viewing life through that kind of lens, where every ****ing thing is somehow a political statement intended as a slight toward your precious patriotism. I love TexAgs so much, but this place can be such a mine field of ridiculous, looking-to-be-offended political thought sometimes. [/end rant]
Anyway, in summary: Nolan is a god and Tatiana Maslany is super cute in person.
What a great summer at the movies.
That is all.
And then the third act happened.
And it all came together in glorious synchronization to produce one of my favorite endings in years, probably.
The stuff with Tom Hardy's plane gliding over the beach, engine dead, was breathtaking and beautiful. And the way it cut back and forth between the main kid reading the newspaper aloud, and then the other kid who died getting mentioned in the local paper, I seriously teared up. Just phenomenal.
I don't know that I'll ever watch the movie all the way through again, but you can bet I'll be buying this thing on Blu-ray the day it's released simply to be able to watch the ending over and over again. But still, masterful work from Nolan all around. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already been said in that regard. Between this, TDK, and Inception - three of my all-time favorite endings - the man definitely knows how to stick a landing, and quite literally this time.
Ag Since 83 - There are movies that require character development (i.e. the vast majority of them), but then there are movies like this one that simply do not. As rare as it is, it's not hard to recognize when it's just not a necessary ingredient. This being the perfect example. From the very first teaser trailer, this movie has always been about one thing: survival. And sometimes a theme that simple and instinctual is more than enough.
Also, LMFAO at whoever called this "propaganda." I cannot fathom viewing life through that kind of lens, where every ****ing thing is somehow a political statement intended as a slight toward your precious patriotism. I love TexAgs so much, but this place can be such a mine field of ridiculous, looking-to-be-offended political thought sometimes. [/end rant]
Anyway, in summary: Nolan is a god and Tatiana Maslany is super cute in person.
What a great summer at the movies.
That is all.
Just got home from it. Really loved it. 70mm IMAX felt like the only way to go (especially dogfights).
The lack of setup, the disjointed timeline, the unbearably loud (at times) sound editing, they all seemed in service of putting the viewer in the mindset of those boys. Expert filmmaking. Probably more thoughts tomorrow.
The lack of setup, the disjointed timeline, the unbearably loud (at times) sound editing, they all seemed in service of putting the viewer in the mindset of those boys. Expert filmmaking. Probably more thoughts tomorrow.
sorry but how was the plot confusing? You seriously have to dumb it down that much ? Axis vs allies and then it shows a flyer saying you are surrounded. Do you have to explain what the English channel is? No. People can google it.
the dogfights were unbelievable
one spoiler question: who shot down the Stuka at the very end that was bearing down on the naval commander? gliding Tom Hardy? that was the only thing that may me say oh come on get real.
one spoiler question: who shot down the Stuka at the very end that was bearing down on the naval commander? gliding Tom Hardy? that was the only thing that may me say oh come on get real.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
17h ago
2.0k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
1d ago
5.5k
47:49
1d ago
2.3k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
1d ago
1.7k
BillyPilgrim
Something I just noticed from the current 2025 commit list…….l
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42