Jump to content
Erwin

Dunkirk - the movie

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd report that I saw this at my local IMAX last week and it is an xnt movie - highly recommended.    Not a conventional war film, it shows same events from different viewpoints.  So, almost like an art war film.  But, amazing FX, emotional ****, and wonderful Hans Zimmer score etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I thought Ken the least interesting and most conventional cameo in the movie.  Was more impressed with Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy (playing totally different from his usual macho/Mad Mad-type characters).

Most impressed with the directing and editing (and sound). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit OT...  Saw "Atomic Blonde" last weekend and Charlize Theron was a knock out as a hard fighting female agent - she made it look real and the film shows the punishment her character's body takes.  Great movie and great music from that 1989 Berlin era as well.  I just bought the movie's music CD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My input: Dunkirk (seen on an IMAX screen in 4K) was gripping and beautifully photographed (that Spitfire gets treated to the sort of lovingly obsessive gaze that Hitchcock used to give Grace Kelly), with a score that ratchets up the tension almost unbearably. My only criticism is that Nolan is a bit fanatical in his opposition to CGI, and the film would have benefited from added soldiers on the beach and some extra aircraft. All we see are 3 spitfires, one Me 109, and one Heinkel 111. He could have still focused on a small number of characters and situations, but given us glimpses of the vast scale of what was happening in the background - ie, 4000,000 mean trying to escape, and hundreds of aircraft in the skies. But overall, it's unconventional and brilliant, and packs ten times the punch of a hundred DC, Marvel or Michael Bay movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anson Pelmet said:

My input: Dunkirk (seen on an IMAX screen in 4K) was gripping and beautifully photographed (that Spitfire gets treated to the sort of lovingly obsessive gaze that Hitchcock used to give Grace Kelly), with a score that ratchets up the tension almost unbearably. My only criticism is that Nolan is a bit fanatical in his opposition to CGI, and the film would have benefited from added soldiers on the beach and some extra aircraft. All we see are 3 spitfires, one Me 109, and one Heinkel 111. He could have still focused on a small number of characters and situations, but given us glimpses of the vast scale of what was happening in the background - ie, 4000,000 mean trying to escape, and hundreds of aircraft in the skies. But overall, it's unconventional and brilliant, and packs ten times the punch of a hundred DC, Marvel or Michael Bay movies.

Couldn't agree more. Especially about the almost unbearable score (though I love Zimmer) and the small number of aircraft and men. But still a very good movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

You may be interested to know one of the CASA (Spanish licensed version) He-111s and used in the famous 1968 movie Battle of Britain still exists, and I have seen it. It's at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Addison, Texas. It is so prized it will never fly again. Would provide a direct link, but it's got the potential to cause commercial (it's really a 501(c)3) link woe, so I'll give the Wiki instead. Ju-88s abound, though not from the BoB, but there isn't a single intact Do 17 "Flying Pencil" on the planet. This is as good as it gets. Aviation nuts, buy Depends™ first!
 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 2:25 PM, user1000 said:

Another blunder by the Brits.

I hate to take issue with your assertion, but Dunkirk was not a blunder by anyone other than the Germans. The blunder was in the 10-14 days before, and that was by the Allies (or possibly French) not just the Brits.

But you are about to tell me about irony I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+!.  Had Hitler pushed the Brits into the sea they would have lost all 300K+.  But, he ordered a pause...  Possibly political - he hoped the Brits would negotiate if he didn't massacre them.  Also, the Panzers may have had supply problems having raced ahead much faster than anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

+!.  Had Hitler pushed the Brits into the sea they would have lost all 300K+.  But, he ordered a pause...  Possibly political - he hoped the Brits would negotiate if he didn't massacre them.  Also, the Panzers may have had supply problems having raced ahead much faster than anticipated.

Ok, guys...Hitler, Ordered a Pause with his Advance so that Goring could have his way with the Brits out in the Sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 6:23 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

Couldn't agree more. Especially about the almost unbearable score (though I love Zimmer) and the small number of aircraft and men. But still a very good movie.

  My daughter took me to see this movie a week ago, she knows WW2 has always been a topic of great interest to me. I tried not to nit pick too much but it was obvious the sparse numbers of troops, ships and aircraft when in reality the area was crowded with all the above. One thing though, and maybe I got the wrong impression, but it seemed the British were almost unfriendly to the French when several thousand of them were also evacuated, isnt that true? Also a bit of perspective from the German side would have been good I think, but there wasn't any. I had a few other minor criticisms but I'll spare the forum. I give the picture a  7 out of 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, J Bennett said:

I tried not to nit pick too much but it was obvious the sparse numbers of troops, ships and aircraft when in reality the area was crowded with all the above.

 

On 8/8/2017 at 3:38 PM, Anson Pelmet said:

My only criticism is that Nolan is a bit fanatical in his opposition to CGI, and the film would have benefited from added soldiers on the beach

 

On 8/8/2017 at 10:23 PM, Aragorn2002 said:

Couldn't agree more. Especially about the ... small number of ... men.

I dunno, it looks about right

599a99e4ddd46_DunkirkvDunkirk.thumb.jpg.f0db5d8343bcef41a3bb61f4884fe4bb.jpg

About 100,000 men were evacuated from 10 miles of beach over about 10 days. That's about 1,000 men per mile per day ... which is pretty sparse.

11 hours ago, J Bennett said:

French when several thousand of them were also evacuated, isnt that true?

Over a hundred thousand. Most went straight back to France.

Edited by JonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

 

17 hours ago, Erwin said:

+!.  Had Hitler pushed the Brits into the sea they would have lost all 300K+.  But, he ordered a pause...  Possibly political - he hoped the Brits would negotiate if he didn't massacre them.  Also, the Panzers may have had supply problems having raced ahead much faster than anticipated.

Ok, guys...Hitler, Ordered a Pause with his Advance so that Goring could have his way with the Brits out in the Sea.

 

I think you both have a case. Actually, Erwin has two.

Wars are complex events and the things that happen may have multiple reasons for coming about the way they do. For all we know, Hitler may have also called the halt because his tummy was bothering him. The Nazi power structure was such that not many people could stand up to the Führer and say, "This is crazy! Let's not do this!" Churchill heard it (at least a polite version) on a regular basis, and Marshall corrected Roosevelt now and then.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And as Mike said, giving Goering and the Luftwaffe some fun/glory would also be a third reason why Dunkirk wasn't crushed immediately.  Taken altogether it looks like an xnt decision to halt the German attack - just that with the benefit of hindsight H underestimated the first of many Churchill's "Nuts" moments ...

PS:  To my amazement the spousal unit LOVED the movie!  Said it's cos it's not yer typical "warbore" movie, but done in a very innovative style.  She liked the relationships of the desperate men and their struggle to survive.

So, take your sigothers...  Maybe if "Dunkirk" does well enuff we'll see a resurgence of quality movies on WW2.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Had read before of both the stop order for the Panzers and Goering's telling Hitler the Luftwaffe could destroy the British at Dunkirk all by itself. Had also read that Hitler thought he could obtain peace after beating the British, but that not destroying them outright was because he expected the British to sue for peace. A recent book, drawing on an array of new material, concludes this was his true motivation for not having the Dunkirk pocket destroyed. Moreover, it shows there were parties in Great Britain very much interested in such a peace. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/786093/Hitler-Nazi-Germany-Battle-of-Dunkirk-World-War-2-peace-treaty-British-Winston-Churchill

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Guys,

Had read before of both the stop order for the Panzers and Goering's telling Hitler the Luftwaffe could destroy the British at Dunkirk all by itself. Had also read that Hitler thought he could obtain peace after beating the British, but that not destroying them outright was because he expected the British to sue for peace.

And no doubt negotiating already in some neutral country to give that impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Had also read that Hitler thought he could obtain peace after beating the British, but that not destroying them outright was because he expected the British to sue for peace.

Just reading between the lines and speculating, but I have the impression that Hitler's long term goal was an alliance with the British Empire, which he respected and saw the RN as a perfect compliment to Germany's continental power. But he had completely misjudged what an implacable foe he had in Churchill and the circle of men Churchill had gathered around him. There was another element in the British leadership that was either sympathetic towards the Nazis or intimidated by them, and might have conciliated with Hitler, but they missed whatever chance they might have had to seize power. That left Hitler betting on the wrong horse, neither for the first or last time.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×