AliasMan02 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Why did Hardy not set the plane down near his own troops?!?!?!

Someone explain that to me

---

I'm not sure there's a narrative reason for it, but if I had to guess I'd say that he needed to kill as much air speed as possible before trying to land on the sand. Also, once his gear didn't work, he needed to stay in the air for as long as he could so he could crank it down.

---

There's also no guarantee of a safe landing when you have no engine power, right? Especially on a beach, not exactly a standard runway.

I saw in it 70mm at Edwards Greenway in Houston and couldn't tell a difference in any other movie I've seen. What am I missing? How was the screen supposed to be different?

Going to see this Wednesday night with my brother. Very excited.

Awesome movie. Christopher Nolan is officially king of Hollywood. He can name his next project and I will be there opening night.

FYI: For those in Dallas, Cinemark 17 off Webb Chapel road is the only 70mm IMAX film theatre in Texas. It's worth it. The opening sequence is jaw dropping.

Just got done seeing it in IMAX. Amazing! I don't think I've had that range of emotions from a movie in a long time. The feelings of claustrophobia, edge of the seat anxiousness, startled, sadness, and joy.

Silky Johnston said:

---

I saw in it 70mm at Edwards Greenway in Houston and couldn't tell a difference in any other movie I've seen. What am I missing? How was the screen supposed to be different?

---

70mm should be much wider. IMAX should be much taller. That's the biggest tell.

PatAg said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Why did Hardy not set the plane down near his own troops?!?!?!

Someone explain that to me

---

I'm not sure there's a narrative reason for it, but if I had to guess I'd say that he needed to kill as much air speed as possible before trying to land on the sand. Also, once his gear didn't work, he needed to stay in the air for as long as he could so he could crank it down.

---

There's also no guarantee of a safe landing when you have no engine power, right? Especially on a beach, not exactly a standard runway.

---

Correct. And with no power you have little control over your descent, and are at the mercy of the wind coming off the ocean.

As a few have stated, I felt it was pretty meh while watching it, especially after figuring out there wasn't going to be much more to it...

However, after reflecting on it a bit more, and reading this thread, I have a better appreciation for it. It was unlike any other war movie ever made, and I'm not sure we knew any one characters name more than the kid "George", that tagged along. And I think that was Nolan's intention.

As some have said, this was particular careful not to be about ONE character, but an entire nation. The ending dialog brings the entire film to full circle, and is amazingly good.

With that said, my only real complaint, is throughout the film we have soldiers so scared and freaked out from Dunkirk, but we never really see much past the opening scene. Like the guy that was urging the old captain to turn the boat around. I would have liked to see just more action on the city/beach to truly understand how awful and frightening it truly was for almost half a million solders trapped and helpless.

AliasMan02 said:

---

PatAg said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Why did Hardy not set the plane down near his own troops?!?!?!

Someone explain that to me

---

I'm not sure there's a narrative reason for it, but if I had to guess I'd say that he needed to kill as much air speed as possible before trying to land on the sand. Also, once his gear didn't work, he needed to stay in the air for as long as he could so he could crank it down.

---

There's also no guarantee of a safe landing when you have no engine power, right? Especially on a beach, not exactly a standard runway.

---

Correct. And with no power you have little control over your descent, and are at the mercy of the wind coming off the ocean.

---

I loved the movie as I mentioned above. I was glad to see the questions about Tom Hardy's landing because I didn't want to spoilanything. My question is this, why didn't he eject? They made it obvious he was contemplating it. He opened the canopy while he was over the troops on the beach, he hesitated, and then closed the canopy. I thought maybe he was concerned about endangering the troops with a pilotless aircraft, but he clearly passed the last line of troops before thinking about it. My wife and I thought the same thing...our only guess was that he didn't want to be stranded on the beach and being a "fish in a barrel".

The only way to eject was to flip your plane over and fall out. He was way too low for that and without a motor the plane likely would not even have been able to do it with any control for more than a split second, if at all. Same thing as turning back around up the beach to safe areas... With no motor and high winds coming from the water, that maneuver is likely a suicide move.

These things we take for granted with other movies, because we just expect it to happen and suspend our reality, but Nolan not only doesn't do it, but he also doesn't explain why it's not realistic. He expects the audience to either understand, or go figure out why with some research or discussion, but he's not going to make his movie "suffer" by having to explain it.

At least that's how it has always seemed to me with his work.

shooting down the last stuka was completely unnecessary imo

that's what i don't get

Yeah, and as I said earlier in the thread it was the only part of the movie that gave me a "you gotta be kidding me" feeling but everything else was so good, combined with the fact that I half rooted for it AND the silent flyover scenes being the most beautiful of the film helped me end up saying "nah, **** it. I'll allow it."

Then I sorta thought about how many other movies I could pull that card 10 times during it, even movies I love, and decided to give it to him.

Eject was the wrong word to use. More like bail out...Flipping the plane was not the only way to do this. He could have bailed out while gliding. Like I said, it was obvious he contemplated bailing out, just wondering why he didn't.

i'm just puzzled by the motivation

gigemags-99 said:

---

Eject was the wrong word to use. More like bail out...Flipping the plane was not the only way to do this. He could have bailed out while gliding. Like I said, it was obvious he contemplated bailing out, just wondering why he didn't.

---

How high does one need to be to bail out and deploy a chute? He was only a couple hundred feet off the ground and descending fast. If he bails he likely has to maneuver the aircraft so as not to hit the tail as he goes out, which will cause the plane to lose even more altitude.

gigemags-99 said:

---

Eject was the wrong word to use. More like bail out...Flipping the plane was not the only way to do this. He could have bailed out while gliding. Like I said, it was obvious he contemplated bailing out, just wondering why he didn't.

---

You don't have to flip the plane, but you do have to turn so you can get out and slide down the wing to avoid hitting the tail. He was way too low to use a parachute in any case.

Nolan doesn't explain things. That's just his deal. We don't all know the ins and outs of ditching a WWI fighter, but where most directors would just walk you through it, Nolan doesn't. That's just his thing.

What the movie does tell is from context, though, is that ditching is VERY dangerous. We saw the previous pilot opt to crash land in the ocean instead of doing so. And, as you said, we saw Hardy consider it and then opt to land instead. That should be enough for us, as viewers, to get the message. It doesn't really matter that we don't understand exactly why, only that we saw him choose landing over ditching.

gigemags-99 said:

---

Eject was the wrong word to use. More like bail out...Flipping the plane was not the only way to do this. He could have bailed out while gliding. Like I said, it was obvious he contemplated bailing out, just wondering why he didn't.

---

Yeah, eject was wrong, especially given that the Spitfire was never equipped with any ejection seats. I also don't think the act of opening the canopy necessarily means he was contemplating bailing out - he was clearly a competent pilot who would have known he was far too low to bail out safely. I believe that it was more or less a SOP to open the canopy prior to any potential crash landing, since they are known to jam if the railing or fuselage suffers any damage/bending during the crash landing.

We saw that on his wingman's ditching, although I have no explanation why that pilot did not open his canopy.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

gigemags-99 said:

---

Eject was the wrong word to use. More like bail out...Flipping the plane was not the only way to do this. He could have bailed out while gliding. Like I said, it was obvious he contemplated bailing out, just wondering why he didn't.

---

Yeah, eject was wrong, especially given that the Spitfire was never equipped with any ejection seats. I also don't think the act of opening the canopy necessarily means he was contemplating bailing out - he was clearly a competent pilot who would have known he was far too low to bail out safely. I believe that it was more or less a SOP to open the canopy prior to any potential crash landing, since they are known to jam if the railing or fuselage suffers any damage/bending during the crash landing.

We saw that on his wingman's ditching, although I have no explanation why that pilot did not open his canopy.

---

Then why did he shut the canopy again?

And I think the wingman' water landing was the best use of the time jumps. He sees his buddy in the water with the hand wave and we think everything is hunky dory.

I'm not questioning the genius of leaving us wondering...but, I'm wondering. Lol!

This is pretty cool:

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/26/16033868/dunkirk-soundtrack-shepard-tone

AliasMan02 said:

---

PatAg said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Why did Hardy not set the plane down near his own troops?!?!?!

Someone explain that to me

---

I'm not sure there's a narrative reason for it, but if I had to guess I'd say that he needed to kill as much air speed as possible before trying to land on the sand. Also, once his gear didn't work, he needed to stay in the air for as long as he could so he could crank it down.

---

There's also no guarantee of a safe landing when you have no engine power, right? Especially on a beach, not exactly a standard runway.

---

Correct. And with no power you have little control over your descent, and are at the mercy of the wind coming off the ocean.

---

Unless you have artistic license that is

Silky Johnston said:

---

I saw in it 70mm at Edwards Greenway in Houston and couldn't tell a difference in any other movie I've seen. What am I missing? How was the screen supposed to be different?

---

Update*** - i now know that the width of the screen was the key to knowing it was 70mm. It was exceedingly wide. But not exceedingly sharp.

I saw it at Alamo Ritz on 6th street in austin. Same thing there. There was no distinguishing element of the film in 70 mm. It was wide screen just like every film. It wasn't especially detailed like Interstellar was at Bob Bullock.

Even though I hated the Ritz Alamo experience (warm theater, uncomfortable seats, parking was $15) the movie is outstanding.

Nolan made a masterpiece. The cinematography is exception. The story lines were pounding. I felt far more intensity that I thought i would. When the bullets would hit the ship hull and clang around the stress was visceral.

And the musical backdrop was crazy good. Throughout most of the movie Zimmer builds intensity with a discordant wall of sound. But then at the moment when all hope is almost completely dashed, everything changed on the ground/sea. The armada of ships are first seen on the horizon and the music changes...the music showers us with a more comforting key and builds to soaring heights. Sir Edward Elgar's Enigma Variation (known as Nimrod) was masterful - a truly british masterpiece made even more poignant by the way that Zimmer slowed it down and pushed it's intensity levels up.

I did not understand "The Mole" caption. What was it referring to? The french soldier?

I will see it in Imax again soon.

huh. well, 95%+ of people are assuming it was talking about a possible mole being the silent guy. I assumed he was a German saboteur.

cclearman said:

---

huh. well, 95%+ of people are assuming it was talking about a possible mole being the silent guy. I assumed he was a German saboteur.

---

I didn't know what a Mole was when I saw it and not once did I ever think about attributing it to the story of the character possibly being a mole. I actually didn't even entertain that theory I assumed he was a French soldier disguising himself from the initial beach scene on. I think he also says something in French or with a french accent earlier in the film. Either way, the idea that there was a mole/spy never crossed my mind.

I assumed the mole was something to do with that area or the structure/beach, and that ended up playing out in the film.

AliasMan02 said:

---

A mole is a stone breakwater with a pier built on top.

---

Interesting. Had no clue what they were talking about when that appeared on the screen.

considering the other two storylines were titled with locations/settings, it doesn't really make sense to guess that the mole is anything other than the location of the soldiers on the ground. without having any idea whatsoever or being able to follow dialogue in a movie.

well, I saw mole, thought of an enemy infiltrating unknown, saw the guy taking clothes off a body he just buried, and that's where my mind immediately went.

probably made the movie more intense for me...I kept waiting for him to mess some **** up...or die...but then he was saved multiple times...then they seemed to catch him! Oh, he was just a frenchie...and now he's dead.

cclearman said:

---

well, I saw mole, thought of an enemy infiltrating unknown, saw the guy taking clothes off a body he just buried, and that's where my mind immediately went.

probably made the movie more intense for me...I kept waiting for him to mess some **** up...or die...but then he was saved multiple times...then they seemed to catch him! Oh, he was just a frenchie...and now he's dead.

---

Well hell. It's clear that Nolan has just done the unthinkable.

He's opened the gates to a Choose Your Own Adventure style of filmmaking.

I didn't think he could get any more brilliant!