Dunkirk

[sfox52]

BTW, saw it in super loud XD surround. The screaming sound the diving German planes made (ME's? Stukas?) was pretty annoying.

The Stuka's were known for the fearsome sound they made during a diving attack.

 

[john111/LZ]

"A History of Bombing"-Sven Lindqvist.A book id recommend to anyone interested in the history of mans inhumanity to man.

 

[Eric H]

The Stuka's were known for the fearsome sound they made during a diving attack.

And it wasn't the plane itself that made the noise, they installed sirens on them as a means of instilling fear in the enemy.

http://worldwarwings.com/traumatic-howl-ju-87-siren/

 

[cgutz]

The Brits are probably more proud of their defeats in which they go down in style--Dunkirk, Mons, La Cateau Gandamack, Balaclava, Isandlwana--than they are of their victories. "Die hard, 57th!" and all that.

The day after I watched Dunkirk I was standing in a line next to a British couple holidaying in America. He is a school teacher, so probably fairly well educated. I mentioned the movie. He responded, "Dunkirk happened due to British mistakes." Thought that was an interesting take.

 

[dodog]

I'm a big war movie fan and I saw Dunkirk at the weekend. I was expecting an action spectacular, with bombs, guns, planes etc. What I got was Dunkirk.

By that, I mean I GOT it - as in, the mood, the desperation, the futility of what the soldiers were facing. It was almost 'film noir' to me - very muted, light on dialogue, no cannon fodder getting their appendages blown off and squirting blood into the camera lens. I also found it very refreshing for the soldiers not be best buddies, wise-cracking in the face of insurmountable odds. These guys didn't know, or trust each other - they were scared and just wanted to go home.

Sure there were dead guys, but they were dead and it wasn't the purpose of the film to show soldiers dying. It was to show the courage of those who could, and wanted, to make a difference - to carry on the fight, no matter what.

Nice review. Too many people upset here that the movie wasn't what they WANTED it to be. I'm not sure they were able to actually watch it and get what it was all about. You got it.

 

[Markoneswift]

And it wasn't the plane itself that made the noise, they installed sirens on them as a means of instilling fear in the enemy.

http://worldwarwings.com/traumatic-howl-ju-87-siren/

Yeah the Jericho Horn, what an idea. Prefer the Rolls Royce Merlin though

 

[Turnip]

I find Nolan films pretentious. I often enjoy them while watching, but after, when I think about it, they just annoy me for some reason and I don't even know why. To me this one just feels super-pretentious even off the trailers I've seen, but people keep banging on about it so I almost feel I have to go and see it.

 

[Quadman2]

I find Nolan films pretentious. I often enjoy them while watching, but after, when I think about it, they just annoy me for some reason and I don't even know why. To me this one just feels super-pretentious even off the trailers I've seen, but people keep banging on about it so I almost feel I have to go and see it.

Then comment?

Q

 

[Tom Brennan]

The day after I watched Dunkirk I was standing in a line next to a British couple holidaying in America. He is a school teacher, so probably fairly well educated. I mentioned the movie. He responded, "Dunkirk happened due to British mistakes." Thought that was an interesting take.

The German victory in 1940 was as due to British and French mistakes (of several types--political, strategic and tactical) as to German prowess. Belgian and Dutch mistakes too. But throuout history most victories are as much because of the loser's bad decisions as the winner's good ones.

 

[Quadman2]

Agreed. A lotta problems @ the works of Ambrose.

Check for PM.

Q

 

[Condorsat]

Just seen the movie in an XD theater w/ luxury loungers. New one on me ... I assume XD is extreme digital?

Good war flick ... I liked the sound & the movie. In my case ... really felt like I was there ... while sitting in a luxury lounger.

 

[SoCal Sam]

I find Nolan films pretentious. I often enjoy them while watching, but after, when I think about it, they just annoy me for some reason and I don't even know why. To me this one just feels super-pretentious even off the trailers I've seen, but people keep banging on about it so I almost feel I have to go and see it.

Pretentious for being original ala Inception and Interstellar? Nolan has enough talent to free himself from the big studio formula scripts that tether other directors, see JJ Abrams' Star Trek offerings, all Transformer movies, etc. Anything to get away from the dreaded tent pole formula movie....

 

[Bobcat]

Spoiler Alert:
I found the almost constant audio drone added for dramatic effect to be much at times, and unnecessary.
During the scene of the last downed German plane, was the civilian boat swerving to avoid direct fire or did it have something to do with the gliding ally plane hit on the German plane? I missed something there.

 

[Spitfirejoe]

Spoiler Alert:
During the scene of the last downed German plane, was the civilian boat swerving to avoid direct fire or did it have something to do with the gliding ally plane hit on the German plane? I missed something there.

Bobcat, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking about the same scene - the boat captain (Mark Rylance) waited until the last second to swerve - letting the pilot of the plane establish the path for his bombing run and THEN swerving aside. He discussed the tactic with his son, I think.

Interesting tidbit about that boat - the British Ensign (Flag) on the back of the boat had a blue main field. This color indicates that the captain of the boat had probably served in the British Naval forces only. (Apparently some yacht club captains were allowed to use the blue ensign as well. A red ensign is flown by civilians. This explains why the military officials on the dock at the beginning of the film let him take off on his own. Other small boats were taken over by the military and crewed by servicemen.

 

[c.coyle]

It was excellent. Beautifully shot and tense throughout.

Because I had read and heard so much already, I think I went into the theater without unrealistic expectations. This was a movie about people, not military strategy or governments. To me, it's a disaster movie, not a war movie.

@Spitfirejoe: Thanks for explaining that little detail about swerving at the last minute. That had me stumped. That was one of several moments in the film where the dialogue was swamped by the soundtrack.

Another little quibble: It took forever for that Spitfire to run out of gas [EDIT: But then again it was a one hour timeline]. A few shots of it, from above with the beach as background, just before landing, looked like cheesy 90s CGI.

 

[sqlsavior]

Forewarned, I took ear-plugs. I'm glad I did.

Forewarned is forearmed.

So many sinking ships, and not one rat. A WWI battle in the same style would be oppressing. Good movie, but not pleasant to watch, imo.

 

[cgutz]

Bobcat, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking about the same scene - the boat captain (Mark Rylance) waited until the last second to swerve - letting the pilot of the plane establish the path for his bombing run and THEN swerving aside. He discussed the tactic with his son, I think.

Interesting tidbit about that boat - the British Ensign (Flag) on the back of the boat had a blue main field. This color indicates that the captain of the boat had probably served in the British Naval forces only. (Apparently some yacht club captains were allowed to use the blue ensign as well. A red ensign is flown by civilians. This explains why the military officials on the dock at the beginning of the film let him take off on his own. Other small boats were taken over by the military and crewed by servicemen.

I just finished reading "Miracle of Dunkirk" by Walter Lord. He mentions this incident in his book. Good read, especially after seeing the movie. Movie only captures a slice of the overall operation.

 

[Condorsat]

Movie only captures a slice of the overall operation.

Books always offer more detail (which is getting lost in today's world IMHO) ... movies are just an enactment for the purpose of entertainment.

Video above shows some things Dunkirk got wrong. The Director even said "Yea, I know ... changed it for the movie & dramatic effect" ... paraphrasing him.

 

[spicer]

My, my, kids nowadays! Dunkirk was almost 80 years ago. When you were 20-something, you too probably didn't know about a lot of moderately significant historical events that happened 60 years before you were born, such as the Maine exploding in Havana.

Not entirely. When I was twenty I knew about the Maine...knew about San Juan Hill, Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, WW I battles... trenches and mustard gas, the Battle at Yorktown and Cornwallis' surrender.. Bunker Hill... Gettysburg...Appomattox.. Tarawa... D-Day invasion... War of 1812.. Mexican American War and James Polk and Zachary Taylor. I knew about them largely from High School American History classes... beginning in upper years of grammar school really.. all in public schools, mostly in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona... being an Army brat, a few overseas schools, on base but clearly public schools. Yes, kids nowadays... but I think there is more to it than that... that being kids nowadays are not being taught American History, certainly not the events....the continuity of it. That is what's missing, that's what is needed.

 

[spicer]

If that is the intent of this thread, there is no need to condescendingly put down a whole category of people, is there? That was an unwarranted shot that had nothing to do with the intent of the thread, either.

And calling somebody out for doing so is not "political." That seems to be a thing here recently, yelling "politics!" when somebody says something you don't like.

And I didn't question [EDIT: deleted redundant language] the historical accuracy. [EDIT: deleted redundant language] I mentioned that Dunkirk was a moderately significant event in WWII.

I couldn't agree more...