- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/31/17 at 9:28 am to kciDAtaE
quote:
Was he too low to eject?
There was no such thing as "ejecting" back then, the pilot had to unbuckle, climb out, and jump off the airplane. There's no way in hell he was doing all that as low as he was.
Posted on 7/31/17 at 11:51 am to RLDSC FAN
How can it be a spoiler when all one has to do is search Dunkirk to know that they were rescued?
Posted on 7/31/17 at 3:59 pm to engvol
quote:Same here. I might have liked the last 2 minutes the best - when they showed Churchill's famous words being read by a kid. And they showed Hardy being captured by the Germans. Hardly a "happy" ending. The real story is that - despite all the horror - the whole thing is just barely beginning. (I supposed that's why they did one quick cutaway to the kid again instead of ending it just on Hardy. I don't know where I rank this for Nolan, but he certainly didn't hurt himself with this effort. 4 stars.
I was really worried there would be scenes from England with Churchill etc. So glad that there wasn't and they only focused on the 3 forces.
Posted on 7/31/17 at 11:37 pm to RLDSC FAN
My immediate post viewing thoughts. I'll preface by saying that I'm a bit of a WWII junky so the few movies that can always draw me to the theater are WWII themed.
First, the sound and attack scenes in general were superb. Not overdone Hollywood bullshite. It felt real. The air combat was the best I've ever seen in a film. It wasn't over the top CGI nonsense with action packed, unrealistic maneuvering like you might see in a typical Hollywood WWII movie *cough* Red Tails *cough* Pearl Harbor. Historically consistent. The 109's and Spitfires had tremendous parity and the movie reflected that.
Shooting down an enemy plane was shown to be difficult, even a Spitfire on a bomber. Nolan's in-cockpit shots were fricking awesome. You felt like you were actually looking down the gunsight and flying the plane yourself. The enemy popping in and out of the picture. If you've ever flown a good combat flight sim you'd appreciate Nolan's depiction of air combat in this period. That alone was worth seeing in theater because a tv won't do those scenes justice.
The Stuka dive bombing scenes were incredible. The only unfortunate part is that because of the movie's perspective we couldn't get an in the cockpit view of a Stuka attack, which I'm sure Nolan would have crushed. He accurately captured the absolute terror of being on the ground and suddenly hearing the unmistakable sirens of a diving Stuka whose bombs could at any moment land in your lap. Now unless I'm mistaken, by recollection I recall the powerless Spitfire intercepting and knocking out a Stuka mid-dive. I don't think so.
That being said, the structure of the movie was not quite what I expected but that doesn't take away from its effect. As a bit of a WWII fiend, I was hoping the movie would capture the broader scope of Dunkirk and that just wasn't Nolan's intention. That's just preferring a broad scope in a WWII movie. I feel like there was so much storyline that could have been harvested around this battle to capture the true magnitude of the events but most movies aren't going to be in the format of The Longest Day.
While the pacing of the film clearly created suspense, it felt a bit vague timewise. There wasn't a great deal of information about the progress of the evacuation or the closing in of the Germans. Again, this is probably just me being overly picky because I'd have preferred a broader scope but the movie went from hopefully we get 30.000 off the beach to the final evacuation of the BEF and moving on to the French without being able to discern how much time had passed. The evacuation of course played out over more than a week's time. Nolan's scope was to keep the film within the confines of the distinct character storylines though so that makes that simply a matter of personal preference and I doubt most audiences would prefer it my way.
All in all I'd give it an 8 out of 10. The action and suspense were great. If you're looking for deep character development or a broader scoped war movie, you'll be a little disappointed. But for a realistic, intense WWII survival film with exceptional effects and suspense and without any of the typical Hollywood cheesiness that usually accompanies, it delivers. In spite of the rave reviews, I don't think it's an instant classic though. I think both the lack of character development, brevity, and narrow scope will probably hurt its rewatchability. So while I think it was definitely a good movie, not quite what I had anticipated reading the reviews, which was bound to be the case given that the reviews were obscenely effusive.
First, the sound and attack scenes in general were superb. Not overdone Hollywood bullshite. It felt real. The air combat was the best I've ever seen in a film. It wasn't over the top CGI nonsense with action packed, unrealistic maneuvering like you might see in a typical Hollywood WWII movie *cough* Red Tails *cough* Pearl Harbor. Historically consistent. The 109's and Spitfires had tremendous parity and the movie reflected that.
Shooting down an enemy plane was shown to be difficult, even a Spitfire on a bomber. Nolan's in-cockpit shots were fricking awesome. You felt like you were actually looking down the gunsight and flying the plane yourself. The enemy popping in and out of the picture. If you've ever flown a good combat flight sim you'd appreciate Nolan's depiction of air combat in this period. That alone was worth seeing in theater because a tv won't do those scenes justice.
The Stuka dive bombing scenes were incredible. The only unfortunate part is that because of the movie's perspective we couldn't get an in the cockpit view of a Stuka attack, which I'm sure Nolan would have crushed. He accurately captured the absolute terror of being on the ground and suddenly hearing the unmistakable sirens of a diving Stuka whose bombs could at any moment land in your lap. Now unless I'm mistaken, by recollection I recall the powerless Spitfire intercepting and knocking out a Stuka mid-dive. I don't think so.
That being said, the structure of the movie was not quite what I expected but that doesn't take away from its effect. As a bit of a WWII fiend, I was hoping the movie would capture the broader scope of Dunkirk and that just wasn't Nolan's intention. That's just preferring a broad scope in a WWII movie. I feel like there was so much storyline that could have been harvested around this battle to capture the true magnitude of the events but most movies aren't going to be in the format of The Longest Day.
While the pacing of the film clearly created suspense, it felt a bit vague timewise. There wasn't a great deal of information about the progress of the evacuation or the closing in of the Germans. Again, this is probably just me being overly picky because I'd have preferred a broader scope but the movie went from hopefully we get 30.000 off the beach to the final evacuation of the BEF and moving on to the French without being able to discern how much time had passed. The evacuation of course played out over more than a week's time. Nolan's scope was to keep the film within the confines of the distinct character storylines though so that makes that simply a matter of personal preference and I doubt most audiences would prefer it my way.
All in all I'd give it an 8 out of 10. The action and suspense were great. If you're looking for deep character development or a broader scoped war movie, you'll be a little disappointed. But for a realistic, intense WWII survival film with exceptional effects and suspense and without any of the typical Hollywood cheesiness that usually accompanies, it delivers. In spite of the rave reviews, I don't think it's an instant classic though. I think both the lack of character development, brevity, and narrow scope will probably hurt its rewatchability. So while I think it was definitely a good movie, not quite what I had anticipated reading the reviews, which was bound to be the case given that the reviews were obscenely effusive.
Posted on 7/31/17 at 11:56 pm to ChewyDante
Just saw it, suspicions confirmed.
First off, are people deaf these days?
Movie was absurdly loud like front row concert. The bullet FX was like a knife piercing your ear drum. Jesus we aren't 85 years old.
Second, beautifully filmed, great choreography, pretty good editing with the 3 stories.
But who cares? Movies are about people. The boat family is about the only part of the story I remotely cared about. Beyond pretty cool filmmaking.
It's story telling 101 from Homer to Harper Lee - you have to be made and in some instances be forced by the narrative to care about the characters beyond the general...death or war or whatever is bad.
You have to make it personal like Jaws or Das Boot, we got to know them and learn them and hope for them. It wasn't just some faceless unknowns who went out there to kill a shark or people who didn't say a word in Das Boot.
This is arcade mixed with great cinematography but I don't know if I like it. Great filmmaking might be sadly losing the human touch even in historical movies that aren't battle for L.A. or Batman.
First off, are people deaf these days?
Movie was absurdly loud like front row concert. The bullet FX was like a knife piercing your ear drum. Jesus we aren't 85 years old.
Second, beautifully filmed, great choreography, pretty good editing with the 3 stories.
But who cares? Movies are about people. The boat family is about the only part of the story I remotely cared about. Beyond pretty cool filmmaking.
It's story telling 101 from Homer to Harper Lee - you have to be made and in some instances be forced by the narrative to care about the characters beyond the general...death or war or whatever is bad.
You have to make it personal like Jaws or Das Boot, we got to know them and learn them and hope for them. It wasn't just some faceless unknowns who went out there to kill a shark or people who didn't say a word in Das Boot.
This is arcade mixed with great cinematography but I don't know if I like it. Great filmmaking might be sadly losing the human touch even in historical movies that aren't battle for L.A. or Batman.
This post was edited on 7/31/17 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 8/1/17 at 12:41 am to RLDSC FAN
Did anyone ever like Zulu?
That's a great war.movie and very atmospheric and disjointed with great cinematography like Dunkirk.
But you got to know the characters. It has a brisk pace like Dunkirk with fear of attack again and again any moment.
But you got to know the characters.
Dunkirk took a huge event in history, military and politically and reduced it simply to battle without expounding what the enemy was thinking. I don't think it works for maximum effect but it is good for what it sets out to do.
Zulu did the same thing, but they created characters for the Brit side.
I wish there had been some backstory at the very least for Tom Hardy's character to bind the last scene.
That's a great war.movie and very atmospheric and disjointed with great cinematography like Dunkirk.
But you got to know the characters. It has a brisk pace like Dunkirk with fear of attack again and again any moment.
But you got to know the characters.
Dunkirk took a huge event in history, military and politically and reduced it simply to battle without expounding what the enemy was thinking. I don't think it works for maximum effect but it is good for what it sets out to do.
Zulu did the same thing, but they created characters for the Brit side.
I wish there had been some backstory at the very least for Tom Hardy's character to bind the last scene.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:16 pm to RLDSC FAN
finally caught a showing last night. excellent work. one of the most exhaustive and tense movies directed at the senses i can recall.
for those familiar with the Nazi treatment of POW's, how would Tom Hardy's character likely been treated after being captured by the Nazis, assuming he wasn't shot on the spot? I know they were brutal with Soviet forces, but I'm under the impression British, American and French POW's faired better?
for those familiar with the Nazi treatment of POW's, how would Tom Hardy's character likely been treated after being captured by the Nazis, assuming he wasn't shot on the spot? I know they were brutal with Soviet forces, but I'm under the impression British, American and French POW's faired better?
Posted on 8/1/17 at 2:29 pm to PhilipMarlowe
quote:
for those familiar with the Nazi treatment of POW's, how would Tom Hardy's character likely been treated after being captured by the Nazis, assuming he wasn't shot on the spot? I know they were brutal with Soviet forces, but I'm under the impression British, American and French POW's faired better?
He absolutely wouldn't have been shot on the spot, unless the soldier doing the shooting wanted to be court martialed. With rare exceptions, prisoner treatment on the Western front was handled pretty much by the book. He'd have been treated about as well as any prisoners were treated, particularly since he was an officer and particularly at this stage of the war as the Germans were hoping to reach terms with the British rather than fight a protracted war in the West.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:17 pm to ChewyDante
good info, and sort of what i imagined. 
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:12 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
First off, are people deaf these days?
Movie was absurdly loud like front row concert. The bullet FX was like a knife piercing your ear drum. Jesus we aren't 85 years old.
Ever been in combat?
Posted on 8/1/17 at 8:21 pm to YumYum Sauce
Just saw it. Loved the movie
However, until just reading this thread, I had the whole premise backwards
I never studied up on the battle of Dunkirk. Through watching the movie, and trying to understand the almost impossible to hear dialogue, I could swear they were saying only 30k were saved and the other 370k or so died
Apparently, it was the opposite
However, until just reading this thread, I had the whole premise backwards
I never studied up on the battle of Dunkirk. Through watching the movie, and trying to understand the almost impossible to hear dialogue, I could swear they were saying only 30k were saved and the other 370k or so died
Apparently, it was the opposite
Posted on 8/1/17 at 8:22 pm to ChewyDante
Good write up and my feelings align with yours - i.e., incredible effects - namely the aerial battles - and suspense, but I felt the film didn't capture the sheer magnitude of the impending nazi force and/or the scale of the evacuation. As you said, that didn't appear to be Nolan's focus, but it left me wanting more despite the amazing realism.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 10:22 pm to lsupride87
quote:
could swear they were saying only 30k were saved and the other 370k or so died
It was Churchills initial goal to save 30-40k people and they said that in the movie, so you weren't completely off base
Posted on 8/2/17 at 9:31 am to jg8623
quote:Right. I dont remember them ever making it clear 300k were actually saved. I get it now, that is why the Admiral(?) was so happy at the end and waiting on the French.
It was Churchills initial goal to save 30-40k people and they said that in the movie, so you weren't completely off base
My only complaint about the movie, is I went in completely unaware of Dunkirk or reading anything about the movie. So I was highly confused about what the mole was, and what it meant when it said 1 week, 1 day, and 1 hour
I get it now, but going into the movie blind it had me scrambling.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 1:28 pm to lsupride87
Saw it Sunday.
I liked it a lot, but had some issues with it. Firstly, the IMAX I went to (Mall of LA, which isn't a true IMAX) was insanely loud. Like honestly way too loud to the point that is was distracting. Mostly with the gunshots; the plane sounds were kinda cool. But it wasn't immersive and whatnot. It was obnoxious and borderline painful. And what's weird is that as loud as it was, it was really difficult to hear and understand the dialogue a lot of times.
The non-linear storyline wasn't terribly easy to follow. I followed along okay, but found myself at times wondering if what I just saw was the same thing I had seen earlier in the film....or who was attacking whom at different points. That being said, the three different timelines converging was a cool concept and I enjoyed the effort. I just thought they could've done a little bit better job of converging them and edited it more seamlessly.
Also agree with others about the scale. That was something that was odd to me. Never once during the movie did I feel like there were 400,000 men on that beach. Not even remotely close, actually.
The score was great. Very tense and it's cool to see a movie without a lot of dialogue still manage to be so intriguing and interesting, and a score be able to keep me tensed and on the edge of my seat.
I didn't quite get Tom Hardy landing so far down the beach in enemy territory. Seems like since he was just gliding down, he could've landed far closer to his allies and not gotten captured.
All in all though, I really liked it. It was pretty overrated based on what I've seen (best war movie, Nolan's best work, etc.). But being an average Nolan movie still puts it ahead of a lot of other films. I'd tell people to definitely see it, but if other IMAX-type theaters are anything like the one I went to, they should see it in a regular theater (or one where the sound is a lot less distracting).
I liked it a lot, but had some issues with it. Firstly, the IMAX I went to (Mall of LA, which isn't a true IMAX) was insanely loud. Like honestly way too loud to the point that is was distracting. Mostly with the gunshots; the plane sounds were kinda cool. But it wasn't immersive and whatnot. It was obnoxious and borderline painful. And what's weird is that as loud as it was, it was really difficult to hear and understand the dialogue a lot of times.
The non-linear storyline wasn't terribly easy to follow. I followed along okay, but found myself at times wondering if what I just saw was the same thing I had seen earlier in the film....or who was attacking whom at different points. That being said, the three different timelines converging was a cool concept and I enjoyed the effort. I just thought they could've done a little bit better job of converging them and edited it more seamlessly.
Also agree with others about the scale. That was something that was odd to me. Never once during the movie did I feel like there were 400,000 men on that beach. Not even remotely close, actually.
The score was great. Very tense and it's cool to see a movie without a lot of dialogue still manage to be so intriguing and interesting, and a score be able to keep me tensed and on the edge of my seat.
I didn't quite get Tom Hardy landing so far down the beach in enemy territory. Seems like since he was just gliding down, he could've landed far closer to his allies and not gotten captured.
All in all though, I really liked it. It was pretty overrated based on what I've seen (best war movie, Nolan's best work, etc.). But being an average Nolan movie still puts it ahead of a lot of other films. I'd tell people to definitely see it, but if other IMAX-type theaters are anything like the one I went to, they should see it in a regular theater (or one where the sound is a lot less distracting).
Posted on 8/2/17 at 2:08 pm to ChewyDante
quote:Mostly true, but don't forget this incident at the same time. LINK
He absolutely wouldn't have been shot on the spot, unless the soldier doing the shooting wanted to be court martialed. With rare exceptions, prisoner treatment on the Western front was handled pretty much by the book. He'd have been treated about as well as any prisoners were treated, particularly since he was an officer and particularly at this stage of the war as the Germans were hoping to reach terms with the British rather than fight a protracted war in the West.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:33 pm to PhilipMarlowe
quote:
for those familiar with the Nazi treatment of POW's, how would Tom Hardy's character likely been treated after being captured by the Nazis, assuming he wasn't shot on the spot? I know they were brutal with Soviet forces, but I'm under the impression British, American and French POW's faired better?
Watch The Great Escape.
The real world guy that the lead British guy was portraying was actually shot down right around this time frame.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 9:49 pm to lsupride87
Saw it tonight and up until the last 30 min or so, I wasn't really enjoying it.
Production was great, but I didn't really like the lack of character development and also didn't care for the alternate time line stuff.
To be honest, the first half of the movie was a little underwhelming. It was a good movie, but I think I was expecting too much going into it. It didn't do a good job of telling the "story" of Dunkirk. Don't think I'll ever re watch it. 7/10
Production was great, but I didn't really like the lack of character development and also didn't care for the alternate time line stuff.
To be honest, the first half of the movie was a little underwhelming. It was a good movie, but I think I was expecting too much going into it. It didn't do a good job of telling the "story" of Dunkirk. Don't think I'll ever re watch it. 7/10
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:50 am to RLDSC FAN
Just got out of an IMAX showing and wow.. f'ing intense and beautiful.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News