new movie DUNKIRK (3 Viewers)

We went to see it yesterday.

The pluses:
My wife thought it very good, it's good something is out there that may draw the attention of younger age groups, the sound was excellent.
That's about it for me I'm afraid.

I went with an open mind but it was pretty much as I expected, a hugely wasted opportunity.
What tiny bit of the "story" they did actually portray was completely cocked. Oh dear....................

Ranking- Dunkirk the 1958 Film - Five stars, Dunkirk BBC 2004 Docudrama 4 stars, Dunkirk New Movie 1 star.
 
While it held my interest I was disappointed with the film overall. Just did not reveal the total chaos and magnitude of the rescue. The few little subplots did not play on my emotions and obviously no character studies to speak of. My wife, who is not a history buff, did not get the major historical significance I had conveyed to her before viewing......it looked to her like only a few hundred Brits were saved.
My question for aviation experts is whether Spitfires can actually glide that long while firing and maneuvering?
 
I find most of the negative comments to be besides the point. I found it to be an excellent film that conveyed profound emotion.
 
I saw it this week and I thought it was astonishing! I seemed to have my stomach and fists clenched for a good half of the film. The music reminded me of the signature piece from Jaws. Some scenes were brilliantly claustrophobic - it was really quite stressful, which is an achievement for any film. As for the spitfire glide, I thought a bit of 'magic' was allowable - especially as there was no happy ending for the pilot. Interestingly, a new doco I saw on Sunday claims that the success of the evacuation was due to the spitfire. They were a new threat to the Luftwaffe and denied many bombers access to the beach. Most of this done out of sight of the stranded army. 42 were lost. I'm not sure how many other Brit planes though. I wasn't entirely convinced but they certainly helped. But a remarkable film. Great to see an English film do so well.
 
I haven't seen it yet, but my brother did and really enjoyed it and he is hard to impress. -- Al
 
I have not seen the movie yet. Plan on going to see it with my son this weekend. I could not talk my wife into seeing another War Movie. I guess she has seen to many in her lifetime with me. Glad to see it doing well at the Box Office. Hopefully it will encourage more historical films in the future.

Howard
 
Well, I saw it today and really enjoyed it. I mean, it was not a documentary, but I thought it did a great job conveying how intense and overwhelming things must have felt.

I actually liked that they did not focus on the Nazis, and primarily focused on the men trying to survive and those trying to save their fellows.

I am really glad he made it and glad I saw it. I thought it was powerful.

By the way, my wife really enjoyed it and she is not into war movies.
 
This brief interview by the Director Christopher Nolan may help explain the structure of the movie and the story he was trying to tell.

The 'Dunkirk Review' Youtube clip is particularly good and gives an excellent over-view, but I won't post it here as it may spoil it for those yet to see the movie.

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taP8ZzAKDus
 
I haven't seen it yet, but if they keep having to explain the movie I'm thinking someone stuffed up somewhere :wink2:
 
OzDigger said:
I haven't seen it yet, but if they keep having to explain the movie I'm thinking someone stuffed up somewhere :wink2:
Click to expand...

No stuff up OZ, however some just don't seem to get the movie and what Chris Nolan was trying to achieve.

He said right from the beginning he wasn't going to use CGI, only real people, ships, planes and whatever else he could get his hands on.

To be honest I've found some of the negative comments about the flick overly harsh and at times bizarre and wondered if those making them actually saw the same movie I did??
 
Desertkiwi said:
No stuff up OZ, however some just don't seem to get the movie and what Chris Nolan was trying to achieve.

He said right from the beginning he wasn't going to use CGI, only real people, ships, planes and whatever else he could get his hands on.

To be honest I've found some of the negative comments about the flick overly harsh and at times bizarre and wondered if those making them actually saw the same movie I did??
Click to expand...

I was kidding, hence the wink. Having seen several of his other movies I would expect something different, a movie that would make you think. As we know most movie goers don't really want to think or have to concentrate, especially those into Action/War movies which may explain some of the more critical comments.
 
Desertkiwi said:
No stuff up OZ, however some just don't seem to get the movie and what Chris Nolan was trying to achieve.

He said right from the beginning he wasn't going to use CGI, only real people, ships, planes and whatever else he could get his hands on.

To be honest I've found some of the negative comments about the flick overly harsh and at times bizarre and wondered if those making them actually saw the same movie I did??
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Some wanted a conventional war movie but that wasn't what Nolan was trying to do. If you're expecting that, then you will be disappointed.
 
Got around to seeing it today.

Very good movie, nothing earth shattering, won't be running out to see it again anytime soon.

Time flew during the movie, which is a good sign. the pacing was good.

Having to explain everything to the five people I went with afterward at dinner was a bit of a challenge...................:wink2:
 
It was ok but nothing out of the box in my opinion. It's definitely not one I will see again. I wish he had used CGI as it would have been a lot better but as I have read from the posts on here, that's not the movie he was conveying.

Tom
 
I was going to watch it today, but ran out of time. Now I think I'll wait until it hits Netflix, lately I'm more into action/comedy movies.
 
Warrior said:
Got around to seeing it today.

Very good movie, nothing earth shattering, won't be running out to see it again anytime soon.

Time flew during the movie, which is a good sign. the pacing was good.

Having to explain everything to the five people I went with afterward at dinner was a bit of a challenge...................:wink2:
Click to expand...

Agree.....it was entertaining and held my interest but did not convey the real history of the event. Instead of a massive evacuation my wife thought it looked like a High School fire drill with the lines of evacuees spread out neatly on a manicured beach. Still waiting for one of our resident experts to tell us if a Spitfire can actually glide that long while maneuvering and firing.
 
Overall very entertaining move that my 13yr old and Grandpa and me thoroughly enjoyed. While not completely historical, it was a very good movie, highly recommend. My stepdad said that was the longest spitfire glide ever and should be in Guinness!!!!! Not quite possible methinks!

For evening entertainment, we went to the other end of the spectrum with Fury - love the Tiger battle!!

TD
 
nysoldiers said:
Agree.....it was entertaining and held my interest but did not convey the real history of the event. Instead of a massive evacuation my wife thought it looked like a High School fire drill with the lines of evacuees spread out neatly on a manicured beach. Still waiting for one of our resident experts to tell us if a Spitfire can actually glide that long while maneuvering and firing.
Click to expand...

He was at low altitude as seen after shooting down the Heinkle and would be too low to maneuver against the last aircraft (was it a Stuka?) IMO. You would have to know his actual altitude and airspeed to do the math of his glide distance and that would be straight line, no maneuvering. But it made good "cinema." :wink2: Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top