PDA

View Full Version : Dunkirk the movie



Hwyl
07-28-2017, 08:16 AM
I glanced at the other thread and was disgusted.So I am starting my own.....No politics (except info about the battle / retreat), and please,no demeaning of other forum members.

I saw the movie last night and was generally disapointed. I was prepared from other reviews to be shocked by the sight of container gantries, some 25 years before they were invented.

I was really upset that they did not do better with the aeroplane stuff, just three ersatz Spitfires. No Merlin engine growl.

I'm not going to comment about the "little ships" scene, because I'm too close to it. I will say I was gobsmacked to see a Thames barge under motor.

There was a whole scene in a beached trawler, which I completely failed to understand.

Two stars on the Garethometer (and one star is for having an actor called "Aneuryn".)

WX
07-28-2017, 05:13 PM
So, not very happy with it then I take it?:)

Phillip Allen
07-28-2017, 05:17 PM
I was disappointed also

wingless
07-30-2017, 10:30 AM
The Dunkirk movie was just seen at the Autonation IMAX Theater (http://www.mods.org/IMAX/) in Fort Lauderdale.

Most of the movie was shot in the IMAX format. It was visually amazing to observe the cinematography on the six-story-tall screen, w/ the 4K IMAX laser projector and to feel the vibrations from the 52,000 watt sound system. (They will be upgrading soon to 1.21 Jigawatts...)

This is hands-down THE BEST theater to experience these movies.

Reynard38
07-30-2017, 10:35 AM
I noticed the cranes as well. Wasn't certain but I was thinking that container shipping came along well after WW2.

Movie was disjointed, too fragmented. Was disappointed as well.

wingless
07-30-2017, 10:52 AM
This IMAX video about the movie is interesting.

Dunkirk IMAX® Behind the Frame (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyTKAyqsIHY)

Ted Hoppe
07-30-2017, 11:34 AM
Historical accuracy sometimes falls short in story telling. Ignorance of the progress of technology is the bane of most modern filmmakers. Use of the container was a producers decision.

when the longest day was shot in 1960 - it was much easier to recreate as most of the pieces were there. I would even suggest reshooting saving private Ryan would be quite difficult in the landing beaches in Normandy as the whole place has become a Disneyish presentation of the battles in many places.

Boater14
07-30-2017, 11:47 AM
Saw an interview with the director. Interestingly he said they used real people rather than computer generated crowds as seen in Troy and so many other battle movies. Watching pbs for years I'm often struck at the Brits attention to detail. The uniforms look like real wool and cotton. Strangely recently on MY MOTHER AND OTHER STRANGERS and FOYLES WAR, the American uniforms not quite on the mark. Recall the combat scenes in Gallipoli. Very memorable.

TomF
07-30-2017, 01:11 PM
We saw it last night. It occurs to me that as in other bits of cinema or TV, one's familiarity with this or that "actual" element of a story's setting (or in other shows, with an actual character) can get in the way of the film's intent. I often find that when a story is built around someone who is supposed to be playing piano, but really can't. Or someone who supposedly sings opera, plays cello, does some kind of swordplay, etc. Ignorance of such things when they get bits wrong on screen means that one can be emotional about what the film maker was emotional about, and not hung up on what I get hung up about.

My two lads, both the age of the ordinary soldiers on screen, were deeply moved. Herself was impressed by the very reserved but massive courage of the man who took his family vessel, and his son. Self effacing but quietly driven by a sense of duty. We never learned the man's name, so he is an "everyman" representing the country. As were the even more nameless men bringing the other little boats.

The story is powerful not because of the aircraft or correct vessels, but because it is a fable, which happens to also be a telling of something historical. As my one lad said, "the movie really didn't have an ending, eh? But I guess that really wasn't the end, in 1940."

Hwyl
07-30-2017, 02:28 PM
The "everyman" in the private boat was flying the blue ensign, which signifies he's a member of a "Royal" yacht club. So at least, upper middle class.

TomF
07-30-2017, 02:33 PM
Oh, sure. But "George" wasn't. Nor presumably were the nameless men who were representing fishermen on other small craft, but exhibiting the same response to duty.

It is romanticized, no doubt, but it is a movie after all.

Nicholas Scheuer
07-30-2017, 03:08 PM
Directors and producers have often been missing the mark in regard to continuity with military aircraft since the genre was invented. Not many will modify a squadron of AT-6's in order to make "Zero's" as they did with "Pearl Harbor". We owe an awful lot of what we've seen in theatres over the years to the fighter aircraft gun cameras used in WW2.

Yeadon
07-30-2017, 03:10 PM
I saw Dunkirk last night at the Cinerama. The pacing was amazing. It reminded me a lot of the most recent Mad Max movie. (Fine movie. Better than Dunkirk by far.) There were no rests in Dunkirk. Very few pauses in the intensity. As a war film, it covered a storyline that I wasn't too familiar with.

Now, for the boats ... I wished there had been more small wooden boats.

I think the sinking trawler storyline was supposed indicate just how badly these guys wanted off that beach. But yeah, that was a weird rabbit hole they went down. Agreed.

I'd probably be willing to see it again in the theater.

Phillip Allen
07-30-2017, 03:20 PM
way to loud

rbgarr
07-30-2017, 04:18 PM
Given all that, Gareth, was Mark Rylance's performance worth it? He's one of my favorite actors (Bridge of Spies, Wolf Hall).

Hwyl
07-30-2017, 05:07 PM
Yes, it was very well acted. Rylance was particularly good.

epoxyboy
07-31-2017, 04:46 AM
I saw Dunkirk last night at the Cinerama. The pacing was amazing. It reminded me a lot of the most recent Mad Max movie. (Fine movie. Better than Dunkirk by far.) There were no rests in Dunkirk. Very few pauses in the intensity. As a war film, it covered a storyline that I wasn't too familiar with.

Now, for the boats ... I wished there had been more small wooden boats.

I think the sinking trawler storyline was supposed indicate just how badly these guys wanted off that beach. But yeah, that was a weird rabbit hole they went down. Agreed.

I'd probably be willing to see it again in the theater.
I haven't seen Dunkirk, but thought the last MM movie was just the biggest steaming pile turd I'd seen in a long while- and I didn't go into it with any expectations. At least the first ones had a hint of a plot.
As my then 19yo son put it, they drive out into the desert, and f@@k a lot of $hit up, then they drive back again doing more of the same.
On that measure, Dunkirk must be the most abysmal piece of story telling ever to go on film, because MM had a story that would struggle to complete with something written by a fifth grade student about "what I did over the weekend".

Pete

mmd
07-31-2017, 06:34 AM
<lol> C'mon, Pete; tell us what you really think!

moTthediesel
07-31-2017, 08:07 AM
I want to know more about the "principle boat" captained by the (always great) Mark Rylance. From what I've been able to find out, some of the other boats used are actual "Little Ships" craft, but I don't think Rylance's boat is. What caught my eye particularly was the second chrome wheel that he is seen cranking -- if I'm not mistaken, I believe that is the Kitchen rudder control -- very cool, and very British!

Tom

Oh, and feel free to sign my name to the "Fury Road" was a steaming pile of dragon ****e petition, thank you.

Tom Hunter
07-31-2017, 09:44 AM
I purposefully avoided thinking about the real Dunkirk or commenting on it while seeing the movie with my SO and her son.
If you are a serious history buff many aspects of the film will be jarring, and they could easily wreck it for you. Tom F. mentioned his problem with piano playing, I have the same kind of problems with things that I am familiar with.
I watched a long interview with the director, and a few things stuck with me.
He decided he wanted to make the movie after a pretty rough passage he made in a friends sailboat from England to Dunkirk 20 years ago. “It was difficult and maybe life threatening, and I thought, if it’s this hard for us, what was it like for the people who went to the battle?”
The reviewer said that Dunkirk is a ticking clock movie. Everyone is running out of time.
The script is 74 pages. Very little dialog, almost all the communication is visual.
I don’t think any of this will spoil the film for those who have not seen it. The acting is great, and the audience where we saw it was clearly moved by the film. This forum is full of people who know the history, and like Gareth your knowledge of how it actually happened may wreck the film for you. I did have a few moments like that, but still enjoyed it very much and recommend it.

Tom Hunter
07-31-2017, 09:50 AM
Tom, Rylance's boat was built in the 1930s but was not an actual little ship.

They did sail a bunch of little ships over for the movie.

They also used an actual WWII British destroyer and the planes are real. They even hired thousands of extras instead of using CGI crowds.

They made choices when making the film. The original Dunkirk mole was long gone, and they rebuilt an accurate version for the film. As mentioned above they included non-period cranes in some shots. Over all I thought the director made good choices for most audiences, I bet I was the only person at my showing who knew the loading cranes in the port were wrong.

If the film had been called "loading cranes of WII" I would have been very upset.

Barry
07-31-2017, 10:41 AM
Anyone read or seen the Film version of the "The Snow Goose"? Ends with the flotilla to Dunkirk.

Yeadon
07-31-2017, 11:08 AM
Ticking clock is a good description of the movie.

John of Phoenix
07-31-2017, 12:27 PM
A 75 year commemoration from two years ago.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/21/10/28EE2E6C00000578-3090641-Commemoration_The_fleet_of_little_ships_set_sail_f rom_Ramsgate_i-m-98_1432200400262.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/21/article-P-500a1b7c-ed2b-4730-a156-1f13aaf4c21a-6YhTpHya8-HSK1-229_634x356.jpg

A flotilla of little ships has set sail for Dunkirk to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the second world war evacuation.
About 50 vessels left Ramsgate, Kent, on Thursday, where hundreds of people lined the harbour walls to watch them emerge on to calm seas beyond the breakwater, cheering as those aboard waved to them.

A piper played by the lighthouse as boats such as Aureol, L’Orage and Chumley – names that have gone down in history for the role they played in saving soldiers from the Dunkirk beaches in May 1940 – sailed out of the port.

Aboard one little ship, the Thames passenger vessel Princess Freda, were Dunkirk veterans Garth Wright, 95, from Plymouth, and Michael Bentall, 94, who came over from Canada for the anniversary.

Wright was impressed by the number of boats taking part in the event.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/dunkirk-operation-dynamo-75th-anniversary-little-ships-second-world-war

Whameller
07-31-2017, 06:16 PM
The "everyman" in the private boat was flying the blue ensign, which signifies he's a member of a "Royal" yacht club. So at least, upper middle class.

Not entirely correct I'm afraid - I fly the Blue Ensign of the Army Sailing Association. Nothing royal about us and the vast majority of our members are, and long have been, emphatically not middle class ! There are others ...

Phillip Allen
07-31-2017, 06:23 PM
I purposefully avoided thinking about the real Dunkirk or commenting on it while seeing the movie with my SO and her son.
If you are a serious history buff many aspects of the film will be jarring, and they could easily wreck it for you. Tom F. mentioned his problem with piano playing, I have the same kind of problems with things that I am familiar with.
I watched a long interview with the director, and a few things stuck with me.
He decided he wanted to make the movie after a pretty rough passage he made in a friends sailboat from England to Dunkirk 20 years ago. “It was difficult and maybe life threatening, and I thought, if it’s this hard for us, what was it like for the people who went to the battle?”
The reviewer said that Dunkirk is a ticking clock movie. Everyone is running out of time.
The script is 74 pages. Very little dialog, almost all the communication is visual.
I don’t think any of this will spoil the film for those who have not seen it. The acting is great, and the audience where we saw it was clearly moved by the film. This forum is full of people who know the history, and like Gareth your knowledge of how it actually happened may wreck the film for you. I did have a few moments like that, but still enjoyed it very much and recommend it.

I had a few wrecked moments but over all thought it was accurate as far as it went

Hwyl
07-31-2017, 06:26 PM
I didn't know that Whameller. I'm a red duster guy if I have to be, then occasionally Y Ddraig Goch.

RFNK
07-31-2017, 07:53 PM
I saw an interview with a Dunkirk veteran a couple of days ago. He said it was the first movie he'd seen that showed what it was really like. He said all previous attempts were "rubbish".

Rick

pila
07-31-2017, 11:03 PM
Haven't seen it yet, but from these comments, it sounds almost as bad as Pearl Harbor, with Japanese Zeros flying knife-edge between buildings , ships etc....typical Hollywood crap...

Larks
07-31-2017, 11:36 PM
I was also disappointed with it Gareth - the advertising was better than the movie.......SPOILER ALERT

Some of the cinematography was terrific but the “1 week, 1 day, 1 hour” format was quite annoying, even once we realised what was going on with it half way through the movie.

And it wasn’t just the container gantries but the bright green (polycarbonate walls?) warehouses, the 60’s-70’s apartment blocks along the beach in the background as the “Spitfire” flew along it and I couldn’t help wondering just how that Spit' managed to get into the air, let alone stay up until the fuel ran out - the burning wreck had no engine in it :eek:.

As for the Dunkirk veteran suggesting it was the first he’d seen that showed what it was really like, I do wonder about the veracity of that claim (i.e. did a vet’ really say that?)....the beach got straffed and the jetty got bombed - but when the camera goes back it appears that no one was killed or injured, the soldiers miraculously all got up again...????? No bodies on the beach, no blood.......a very clean and sanitised evacuation.

Larks
07-31-2017, 11:39 PM
Anyone read or seen the Film version of the "The Snow Goose"? Ends with the flotilla to Dunkirk.


I saw it when it came out in the 70’s, I think it was the first movie that bought me to tears (and I think Jenny Agutter was my first screen crush) and for some reason remembering it prior to going to see “Dunkirk" a similar effect.

Jim Bow
07-31-2017, 11:55 PM
^ No comparison to the Pearl Harbor flik. Go see it. Luckily for me, I know nothing about cranes, so wasn't bothered about them.
It is a very worthwhile movie.

Jim Bow
07-31-2017, 11:58 PM
As for the Dunkirk veteran suggesting it was the first he’d seen that showed what it was really like, I do wonder about the veracity of that claim (i.e. did a vet’ really say that?)....the beach got straffed and the jetty got bombed - but when the camera goes back it appears that no one was killed or injured, the soldiers miraculously all got up again...????? No bodies on the beach, no blood.......a very clean and sanitised evacuation.
Calgary veteran who survived Dunkirk causes a stir at movie premiere

http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/calgary-veteran-who-survived-dunkirk-causes-a-stir-at-movie-premiere/

RFNK
08-01-2017, 12:43 AM
I was also disappointed with it Gareth - the advertising was better than the movie.......SPOILER ALERT

Some of the cinematography was terrific but the “1 week, 1 day, 1 hour” format was quite annoying, even once we realised what was going on with it half way through the movie.

And it wasn’t just the container gantries but the bright green (polycarbonate walls?) warehouses, the 60’s-70’s apartment blocks along the beach in the background as the “Spitfire” flew along it and I couldn’t help wondering just how that Spit' managed to get into the air, let alone stay up until the fuel ran out - the burning wreck had no engine in it :eek:.

As for the Dunkirk veteran suggesting it was the first he’d seen that showed what it was really like, I do wonder about the veracity of that claim (i.e. did a vet’ really say that?)....the beach got straffed and the jetty got bombed - but when the camera goes back it appears that no one was killed or injured, the soldiers miraculously all got up again...????? No bodies on the beach, no blood.......a very clean and sanitised evacuation.

This is the chap: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/dunkirk-veteran-victor-power-on-christopher-nolan-film/8757362?pfmredir=sm

I didn't notice the modern stuff. I did think the plane shooting down another after he ran out of fuel was pretty silly.

Rick

The Bigfella
08-01-2017, 03:20 AM
Three Spitfires and a Hispano Buchon were used.... the latter painted to represent a Bf109

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/MLR_2586a.jpg

Other 'planes were a tad smaller

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/MLR_2307a.jpg

Larks
08-01-2017, 04:38 AM
The movie made it seem like the RAF were almost completely absent, except for the three Spitfires, and yet (at least) 143 RAF aircraft were lost (one historian suggests more) and 156 Luftwaffe aircraft.

240 or so allied vessels were sunk, not including life boats.

Reports on casualties seem to vary between Wiki and various history articles. There were 68,000 British casualties (3500 killed) and 290,000 French casualties (reports seem to differ but this appears to be those killed or wounded - more were captured). Germany appear to have lost 27,000 killed and 110,000 wounded (depending what you read???)

Yet there is just no sense of the tragedy of any of those things in this movie........it really just seemed like someone had the bright idea of making a movie around the Dunkirk Little Ships re-enactment - and did it on the cheap at that. A real missed opportunity.

RFNK
08-01-2017, 04:45 AM
Well, the returning soldiers did criticize the RAF for being absent. They didn't know that the RAF were heavily involved because the air battles were fought away from the beaches. So I read.

Rick

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-01-2017, 05:45 AM
I will not be seeing it but here is an email from a friend who has (he is a Master Mariner who has held command of very large tankers)


After reading all the positive, almost ecstatic, reviews of the movie "Dunkirk" I went to see it last night, full of expectation.


I came away from the theatre feeling disappointed. There is no doubt that the cinematography is impressive - it was filmed in imax format I believe - which had the effect of immersing the audience in the events on the screen.But the storyline was weak, and the acting rather flat and patchy with no notable performances. I think the real stars were the imax camera men.


The film does not use CGI, which is a pleasant change I guess, but it simply lacked substance. By this I mean they did not use enough extras on the beach, nor small boats, to realistically represent the scale of the event. A bit like a Cornish pasty without the filling.


However what really annoyed me were the fundamental errors made, and I certainly only spotted a few of them. As follows:

They used a number of naval vessels, among them the French destroyer Maillé-Brézé which was towed around. But this vessel was commissioned in the late 1950's and just did not look like a WW2 warship.



I caught a very brief shot of a mooring rope used by the hospital ship. It was brand new 8 strand synthetic fibre plaited rope, big enough for at least a Panamax vessel. The biggest synthetic cordage in WW2 was that used for parachute cord.


At one point a small warship - corvette size - was hit and is sinking. We see black heavy fuel oil on the sea and survivors in the water covered in the oil. We then see a Heinkel (I think) that has been shot up by a Spitfire descending in a dive into the area where the bunker fuel has spread and upon impact the Heinkel explodes and the oil ignites into an inferno. This simply would not happen. At best the Heinkel's aviation fuel might ignite, but the fuel certainly would not. Its flash point and ignition temperature are too high - try setting fire to marine fuel oil in a pan with an oxy-acetylene torch, good luck. But fuel spread over the sea - effectively water cooled - just ain't going to burn. Look how difficult it was to set fire to the oil spill from the Torrey Canyon or even Exxon Valdez, and these ships were carrying crude oil, which is far more flammable than fuel oil.



Towards the end we see a heroic Spitfire pilot fighting German aircraft to protect the evacuees until he runs out of fuel over the Dunkirk beach. He is by this time at about I guess not more than 500 feet. The glide descent ratio of a Cessna 172 is about 9:1 so it will advance about 0.75 of a mile before it hits the ground if the glide starts at 500 feet. Even if the Spitfire is twice this (which I doubt) then the best he can do is 1.5 miles, but the bugger seems to glide forever.In any event the pilot lands the Spit on the beach safely and as he gets out we see container cranes in the back ground. Malcolm McLean would have spotted that one.


I expect with a second viewing it would be possible to spot much more.

But what really annoys me is that there is only a passing nod to the French defence of Dunkerque. In fact we see one French soldier cast in a very negative light as he tries to escape posing as a British soldier. Perhaps this is to appeal to an American audience who have been brought up on stories of French cowardice. This is just wrong. About 40,000 French soldiers fought and died defending Dunkerque so that the evacuation could be accomplished. Furthermore there was virtually no representation of the 120,000 French soldiers who were also evacuated to fight another day - and they did. From the outset of WW2 the French fought bravely with what they had against an overwhelming superior force, and they lost. But by no means are they cowards and their defense of Dunkerque should have been, and needs to be, a critical part of any story about the evacuation.

PeterSibley
08-01-2017, 05:55 AM
I haven't seen it and don't know if I will now ,but it looks as if the key to enjoyment is "suspension of disbelief", especially regarding historical errors .

Phillip Allen
08-01-2017, 06:39 AM
I haven't seen it and don't know if I will now ,but it looks as if the key to enjoyment is "suspension of disbelief", especially regarding historical errors .

this crowd is not the average public...

TomF
08-01-2017, 06:46 AM
Again, the film was very powerful for my two sons, who are the right age to have been on that beach. It wasn't the improbable Spitfire landing, the incorrect cordage, the beaches clear of blood.

It was the terror, and the quiet but disciplined response to it. And later, the young serviceman reading Churchill's words from the newspaper.

Made for quite a conversation after the film credits rolled.

Whameller
08-01-2017, 09:00 AM
I didn't know that Whameller. I'm a red duster guy if I have to be, then occasionally Y Ddraig Goch.

Probably more info than you want here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ensign , Hwyl.

I also fly the Saltire when the mood takes me, which excites the dragon-friendly natives of these parts - even in Little England Beyond Wales !

Jim Bow
08-01-2017, 12:29 PM
I didn't notice the modern stuff. I did think the plane shooting down another after he ran out of fuel was pretty silly.

Rick
Very confusing in the way the director cut back and forth in time. My take is that he ran out of fuel while he was approaching the target and fired successfully anyway.

The way the film was cut, it's appears that he ran out of fuel and then took a glide around the countryside before the shoots iy down.

Jim Bow
08-01-2017, 12:41 PM
Here's an article on how they filmed the air to air scenes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/28/how-christopher-nolan-shot-those-amazing-aerial-dunkirk-dogfights/513407001/

Rum_Pirate
08-01-2017, 12:54 PM
I would like to go and see it tonight.

Am a little put off by the negative reports in this thread, but will try and forget them - until the film is over - and enjoy it for what it is i.e. a movie for entertainment and not a historical documentary.

Dave Hadfield
08-01-2017, 02:27 PM
The flying is hokey, especially the through-the-gunsight scenes. In real life, that kind of maneuvering is violent. The roll rates are extreme and the evading aircraft pitches to the point of blackout. The film is all gentle and lethargic. Which would be instant suicide for the evading aircraft.

And Spitfires are heavy-nosed aircraft. The tail is very light. They are always trying to stand on their nose. Trying to land one on a beach with the wheels down would only be attempted if you saw a heavy vehicle drive across a surface just before -- and knew the surface was hard. And since that is very unlikely, it's far safer to land on the belly. You're less likely to end up on your back that way, pinned in the cockpit.

All movies require suspension of disbelief. Errors intrude upon that.

WX
08-01-2017, 04:33 PM
The flying is hokey, especially the through-the-gunsight scenes. In real life, that kind of maneuvering is violent. The roll rates are extreme and the evading aircraft pitches to the point of blackout. The film is all gentle and lethargic. Which would be instant suicide for the evading aircraft.

And Spitfires are heavy-nosed aircraft. The tail is very light. They are always trying to stand on their nose. Trying to land one on a beach with the wheels down would only be attempted if you saw a heavy vehicle drive across a surface just before -- and knew the surface was hard. And since that is very unlikely, it's far safer to land on the belly. You're less likely to end up on your back that way, pinned in the cockpit.

All movies require suspension of disbelief. Errors intrude upon that.
Don't get me started on Lord of the Rings.:)

Hwyl
08-01-2017, 06:32 PM
Dave, you set some pretty high standards. I don't think the film makers took into account, that there would be actual Spitfire pilots watching it.

Tom Hunter
08-01-2017, 06:53 PM
@Dave Did you know that the actually landed the Spitfire on the beach for that scene? People stopped and cheered. I know that no real Spitfire landed there during the battle, but still, its an impressive attempt to make the film real.

All the air battle scenes shot in the cockpit were shot in a real plane (a Yak) with two seats, while performing aerobatics.

@Andrew in response to your friends criticism (most of which are true) they brought 6,000 live extras in to make the film, no CGI crowds anywhere. 6,000 people is a lot, and its a substantial portion of the number of soldiers on either the beach or the mole.

I understand why a knowledgeable person might not enjoy the film, but the director made a great effort to create a very good film as you can see from the two lines above.

Larks
08-01-2017, 07:58 PM
@Dave Did you know that the actually landed the Spitfire on the beach for that scene? People stopped and cheered. I know that no real Spitfire landed there during the battle, but still, its an impressive attempt to make the film real.

All the air battle scenes shot in the cockpit were shot in a real plane (a Yak) with two seats, while performing aerobatics.

@Andrew in response to your friends criticism (most of which are true) they brought 6,000 live extras in to make the film, no CGI crowds anywhere. 6,000 people is a lot, and its a substantial portion of the number of soldiers on either the beach or the mole.

I understand why a knowledgeable person might not enjoy the film, but the director made a great effort to create a very good film as you can see from the two lines above.


I disagree Tom, in film making those two lines do not signify any particular effort at all, let alone any great effort.

Larks
08-01-2017, 08:07 PM
And Spitfires are heavy-nosed aircraft. The tail is very light. They are always trying to stand on their nose. Trying to land one on a beach with the wheels down would only be attempted if you saw a heavy vehicle drive across a surface just before -- and knew the surface was hard. And since that is very unlikely, it's far safer to land on the belly. You're less likely to end up on your back that way, pinned in the cockpit.
.

But this one had no engine Dave, so probably wouldn’t have been so nose heavy and therefore the glide landing may have been reasonably accurate???....?????;)

Hwyl
08-01-2017, 08:39 PM
Relevant
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes?CMP=fb_gu

callsign222
08-01-2017, 09:37 PM
I haven't seen it, but everytime I watch a a flick or show set in pre-1492 Europe and I see fields of corn, or potatoes on the table, or tomatoes, or carts full of corn... Let's just say my brother can't stand watching these things with me.

Now I'm ruined because I didn't know anything about cranes but now I know. Dammit guys.

callsign222
08-01-2017, 09:49 PM
Relevant
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes?CMP=fb_gu

Similar issues with the movie Lincoln, unfortunately, and the missing Frederick Douglass or the great camp of refugees that were in Washington at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/opinion/in-spielbergs-lincoln-passive-black-characters.html

PeterSibley
08-01-2017, 09:58 PM
Relevant
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes?CMP=fb_gu

Very in Brexit world .

Larks
08-01-2017, 10:55 PM
Relevant
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes?CMP=fb_gu

I don’t believe it was as intentional as the author suggests Gareth. The whole movie is missing so many relevant elements that I doubt that any consideration of race or colour of extras or actors was even on the radar.

I’ve been stewing on why this movie has irritated me so much and I think it is because it seemed to promise to tell an epic story of a significant event and it simply did not deliver. I believe that it has really paid short shift to that event, from the allied and German and from military and civilian perspectives and was a waste of an opportunity. The civilians who mobilised to carry out the evacuation were the real heroes of the action and that certainly didn’t come across.

I really hope someone comes along and realises that it is a story that deserves telling properly and gives it the “effort” and impact that it deserves.

Rum_Pirate
08-02-2017, 09:40 AM
I’ve been stewing on why this movie has irritated me so much and I think it is because it seemed to promise to tell an epic story of a significant event and it simply did not deliver. I believe that it has really paid short shift to that event, from the allied and German and from military and civilian perspectives and was a waste of an opportunity. The civilians who mobilised to carry out the evacuation were the real heroes of the action and that certainly didn’t come across.

I really hope someone comes along and realises that it is a story that deserves telling properly and gives it the “effort” and impact that it deserves.

I agree.

I saw it last night.

Was very disappointed with the editing and continuity.

Daylight scenes then to night scenes, then back to day.
The 'little ship' crossing the Channel - seems like it was entirely on its own until the very end. It took too long to cross the channel (day, night and day) which is about 24 miles (Dover to Dunkirk) even at 6 mph it would have been there in 4 hours. Even at 3 mph would have taken only 8 hours, not overnight.

The evacuation of soldiers from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk took place over 9 days between 26 May and 4 June 1940 with over 800 boats. Even the recent tribute voyage had (50+) boats, which seemed a LOT more than was shown in the film.

Modern backgrounds should have been 'smoked' out by special effects.

That must be the world record for a Spitfire gliding up and down a beach.

Spitfire, burning at end scene, had a straight rod from prop to firewall, having had the Rolls Royce V12 27 liter aero engine apparently melted or vaporized in the few minutes of burning!!!

Yep, I was sadly disappointed.

Mind you the ticket cost US$4.44.

PS The film got PC by just referring to "the enemy' and not the 'Germans', 'German army' etc.

Rum_Pirate
08-02-2017, 10:30 AM
The Director of Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)) (2017 film) had lost of other material:

See also[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunkirk_evacuation&action=edit&section=15)]

1940 Dunkirk Veterans' Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Dunkirk_Veterans%27_Association)
James Campbell Clouston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Campbell_Clouston) (pier master on the eastern mole)
Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(1958_film)) (1958 film)
Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(TV_series)) (2004 British television docudrama)

Their Finest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Their_Finest) (2016 film)
Weekend at Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_at_Dunkirk) (1964 film)

peb
08-02-2017, 10:39 AM
I don’t believe it was as intentional as the author suggests Gareth. The whole movie is missing so many relevant elements that I doubt that any consideration of race or colour of extras or actors was even on the radar.

I’ve been stewing on why this movie has irritated me so much and I think it is because it seemed to promise to tell an epic story of a significant event and it simply did not deliver. I believe that it has really paid short shift to that event, from the allied and German and from military and civilian perspectives and was a waste of an opportunity. The civilians who mobilised to carry out the evacuation were the real heroes of the action and that certainly didn’t come across.

I really hope someone comes along and realises that it is a story that deserves telling properly and gives it the “effort” and impact that it deserves.
I was disappointed also. And this is the best explanation as to why.
First of all, I will say the storyline of the sea worked, and was by far the best. But in the other two storylines (the beach and air) there was little if no real character development. On air, this made since. As to the beach, it made it almost impossible for me to keep track of who was who. My wife had the same problem.
Also, (again excepting for the sea storyline), it was emotionally flat.

Finally, the beach storyline didn't even tell the story of the typical soldier on the beach. The sea and air: yes. But not the beach. They chose a storyline that wasn't that realistic, and certainly wasn't typical of the experience.

I don't know how to tell this story, but I think this movie failed.

Hwyl
08-02-2017, 05:29 PM
Even if you find Neistat obnoxious, scroll through to 5 minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umZvSuJKsYg

WX
08-16-2017, 05:48 AM
Finally got to see it today with Mr Sibley. I quite liked it. I liked the way it brought all the elements together into describing from the different perspectives the one incident, namely the sinking of a destroyer ladened with troops

PeterSibley
08-16-2017, 05:52 AM
The CGI was excellent, the little ships too. I really enjoyed it.

WX
08-16-2017, 05:53 AM
This is quite excellent if you want something more indepth.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3l9txr

PeterSibley
08-16-2017, 05:57 AM
This is quite excellent if you want something more indepth.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3l9txr

????

PeterSibley
08-16-2017, 05:59 AM
[QUOTE=WX;5316353]This is quite excellent if you want something more indepth.]

Nothing showing Gary.

WX
08-16-2017, 06:07 AM
[QUOTE=WX;5316353]This is quite excellent if you want something more indepth.]

Nothing showing Gary.
Okay how about this, it's pt 2?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3l9v79

WX
08-16-2017, 06:18 AM
[QUOTE=PeterSibley;5316360]
Okay how about this, it's pt 2?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3l9v79
One slight technically error though...who can spot the aircraft that don't belong?