Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
The movie is rated PG-13 in the US so it really can't have much in the way of graphic gore and violence. If you want blood and intestines showing and body parts being blown off then that makes your film rated R.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
To those who have seen it ...is it really that loud ? I routinely wear ear plugs at I max movies because IMO they all way to loud...is this one worse ?
To those who have seen it ...is it really that loud ? I routinely wear ear plugs at I max movies because IMO they all way to loud...is this one worse ?
I saw a quote from a Dunkirk veteran who saw the movie and he said "It was just like being there, except the movie was louder."
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
I saw it last night with my dad, who is 72 and a little deaf. Both he and my mate complained about how loud it was!!! As to a review, I really wanted to give it a 10, but I just can't, so I'll go with a solid 7.
I saw it last night with my dad, who is 72 and a little deaf. Both he and my mate complained about how loud it was!!! As to a review, I really wanted to give it a 10, but I just can't, so I'll go with a solid 7.
Why is that?
v6, boNes
"Also, I would prefer a back seater over the extra gas any day. I would have 80 pounds of flesh to eat and a pair of glasses to start a fire." --F/A-18 Hornet pilot
It just didn't entertain me as much as I thought it would, if entertain is the right word when talking about war films. My favourite character was the one played by Mark Rylance, which kind of tells you something I suppose. Perhaps Nolan was trying to indeed tell the tale of individuals, but everything was so small scale that when they talk of 300,000 soldiers saved you think "Well, where were they standing then cos I only saw about 1000".
There were also some aspects that really annoyed me, but that is perhaps like most on here I'm a bit geeky when it comes to such things and my mate never noticed 'em.
Perhaps Nolan was trying to indeed tell the tale of individuals, but everything was so small scale that when they talk of 300,000 soldiers saved you think "Well, where were they standing then cos I only saw about 1000".
In terms of cinematography, mood, realism, this five minute single-take scene from the movie Atonement is better than the entire Dunkirk movie itself. For me, Dunkirk came across more like a History Channel documentary than a movie you'd see at a theater.
I saw it last night. I really liked it. I don't want to come off sounding negative about it because overall it was a great movie. But there were a few things that detracted from its greatness. The biggest problem was the volume. Too loud! I thought it was great to see real airplanes and not CG crap. I thought the ranges to targets when viewed from the gun sight perspective was way to close but I'm sure they wanted spectacle over realism. I wanted to scream out to lead the target when they fired the machine guns in a turn with the pipper on the target. The depiction of the Spitfire gliding and manoeuvring was a bit much. I was a bit confused by the time line of the movie kind of jumping around. After the movie I read the trivia page of IMDB and they had a quote from Nolan that made it make sense for me...
The film is told from three points of view: on the beach with the infantry, the evacuation by the navy and then in the air... Nolan stated: "For the soldiers who embarked in the conflict, the events took place on different temporalities. On land, some stayed one week stuck on the beach. On the water, the events lasted a maximum day; and if you were flying to Dunkirk, the British spitfires would carry an hour of fuel. To mingle these different versions of history, one had to mix the temporal strata.
Ajay newbie Veteran
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 19,381
Brisbane OZ
Originally Posted by archermav
Perhaps Nolan was trying to indeed tell the tale of individuals, but everything was so small scale that when they talk of 300,000 soldiers saved you think "Well, where were they standing then cos I only saw about 1000".
That was my take as well, it felt majorly small scale like a couple of thousand guys, maybe a division or so max being rescued by twenty or so 'little ships' that were harassed by three Stukas a Heinkel and a couple of fighters. Sound was great and you could hear the actors speech easily the whole film so i don't know what the gripe was with that. I expected a massive beach scene followed by a lot of little ships and maybe some shots of massed Germans showing what they were facing, mainly to show the pocket and how there was no other way out. All in all it though was a pretty cool film, best scene for me was when the 109 (yes the buchons are ugly af) flew past the Dawons little boat, smoking and low level, the English flag flutters into the scene and then the Spit whizzes past right on his six..that was pretty cool.
Cinema was absolutely packed. More than even Kong or Wonder Woman on opening night which blew me out. Best thing about it, my youngest daughter is now super interested in the whys of World War II and has been probing my book shelf fro reading material, of which there is plenty
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Love him or hate him, Nolan did the impossible. He made a film about a little known battle that typically would only interest history geeks like us and he made it into a big mainstream hit. It's doing very well at the box office and it was number 1 this past weekend as well.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Love him or hate him, Nolan did the impossible. He made a film about a little known battle that typically would only interest history geeks like us and he made it into a big mainstream hit. It's doing very well at the box office and it was number 1 this past weekend as well.
Yes but unfortunately he did little to depict some very important aspects of the reality and that's a pity ,especially for those who, not being "history geeks like us" ,would watch it :
Last edited by kaa; 07/31/1703:03 PM.
"Anyone can shoot you down if you don't see him coming but it takes a wonderfully good Hun to bag a Camel if you're expecting him." Tom Cundall.
I knew of the French's sacrifice at Dunkirk kaa, although I know most outside of this and a few specialty websites won't. The video is just the right length to give enough information for someone who actually wants to learn more yet still teach something to those who only know of the British side of the events.
Went to see this over the weekend. I struggled with it to begin with as Nolan's use of physical over special effects took a bit of getting acclimatised too (amazing how the wham bam of other blockbusters affects your expectations) but boy am I glad he kept it all real as it felt so visceral.
It's by no means an easy film to watch as the exquisite cocktail of the acting quality (even from Harry Styles), the cinematography and Zimmer's resounding Elgar like soundtrack all crank up the anxiety levels to the point that no war film has made me feel more like I was actually there, right in the maelstrom of panic.. The movie really brought my survival instincts to the surface and I could empathise with all of those boys on the beach as the noose tightened. By the end, I was somewhat emotional, but I think this maybe unique to British audiences due to the subject matter.
Incidentally, I've found it fascinating that the movie has appealed to such a wide range of demographics and sparked an interest in the evacuation.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by FieldyHK
Incidentally, I've found it fascinating that the movie has appealed to such a wide range of demographics and sparked an interest in the evacuation.
Absolutely! Nolan really did pull off the impossible or at least the near-impossible.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I had a relative who was rescued at Dunkirk. He told us many times about it, but the part that sticks in my mind was how he told me how utterly filthy and tired the British troops were. They'd been retreating for weeks and all had lice. When he got back home, his wife wouldn't have anything to do with him until he'd had a good soak in the zinc bath in front of the fire.
I'll be seeing the movie, naturally but I'd like to know if the filth and weariness of the Brits is portrayed in it.
"You'll never take me alive" said he, And his ghost may be heard if you pass by that billabong "Who'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me?"
I had a relative who was rescued at Dunkirk. He told us many times about it, but the part that sticks in my mind was how he told me how utterly filthy and tired the British troops were. They'd been retreating for weeks and all had lice. When he got back home, his wife wouldn't have anything to do with him until he'd had a good soak in the zinc bath in front of the fire.
I'll be seeing the movie, naturally but I'd like to know if the filth and weariness of the Brits is portrayed in it.
I'd say somewhat. The film doesn't focus on it, showing them with lice, etc., but certainly shows that they have it rough where they are.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Aside from the great cinematorgraphy, I think the film profits enormously from the music, and the decision to have only minimalistic dialog in it. Plus, the nonstop ticking sound of the stopwatch. It was a masterpiece of audience anxiety induction.
It would have been easy to throw in a lot of meeting room drama with Churchill, the admiralty, the daring and ludicrously absurd suggestion of a second row officer to requisition small civilian boats ... at all of it would have contributed to make it a lesser film. My friend hated it, through. He essentially didn't like the way the story was told and wanted it to be more documentary style. Tried to point out that the film doesn't attempt to be a documentary, in which case, he argued, the film as artistic cinema appealed to him even less. Well, I suppose beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe the film was a tad too successful with him creating anxiety.