.
- Thread starter Nittany Ned2
- Start date
I am excited to see it, but may have to wait for on-demand... where are you watching the BBC Battlefield series? Is this on netflix or comcast on-demand?
we're going to see it in the IMAX dome in Ft Worth next week
Only 106 minutes long but read some good reviews. Said character development not the greatest but suspense and visually is really good.
Definitely plan to see it in the theatre as l'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan's work, but I may wait for the crowds to die down a bit.
The critical ratings for this movie are off the charts. My sons (who are going to see it tonight with some friends) said they read a review putting it ahead of Shawshank. Hell, if it was even in the same zip code as Shawshank, it would be a masterpiece.
My 14 year old son just asked if we could see it. Only movie he cares to see this summer. Guess we'll go if not sold out.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Reading a lot of 'Best Movie of the Year' and 'masterpiece' superlatives - certainly has my interest peaked. Throw in Hardy and C. Murphy, and this is a no brainer. Nolan's films are always practical and visually stunning too - thinking about his opening scenes in The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Returns...
Absolutely. Opening night at an IMAX. Sold my Diamondbacks v Nationals season tickets even.
Yes I'm going to go see it. Battlefield rocks.
History channel just did great series on Normandy. Spent a lot of time focusing on 7 objectives and how st lo was final step for dday plan. It was very good. Didn't know that Germans brought western army to bear to close the gap but allies pushed through.
History channel just did great series on Normandy. Spent a lot of time focusing on 7 objectives and how st lo was final step for dday plan. It was very good. Didn't know that Germans brought western army to bear to close the gap but allies pushed through.
What's interesting is you have a great humanist story, a terrific pop culture director and Harry Styles (that's why 14 year olds are giving it a look whether they admit it or not). The last reason should not be underestimated - while we old guys would scoff at One Direction, my high school daughters view that band the same way I viewed U2. Once reunited, they will undoubtedly make more money touring than any other group in history. Nolan has a young rep too.
USA Today complained that the film lacks females and people of color.
Saw it tonight in IMAX. Be prepared for a sensory onslaught the entire film. It was a wild ride, very tense, and if you can't tolerate feeling like you are actually in the middle of a war, then this may not be the film for you. Brilliant cinematography and the sound was bludgeoning at times. It will rank up there with some of the greatest war films IMO. I was on the edge of my seat the entire film.
Last edited:
If you go see it I suggest seeing it in IMAX format to get immersed in the entire experience (large visual format and sound). The air combat scenes were phenomenal as it felt like you were in the cockpit with the pilot due to the filming process. A visually stunning film.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I was hoping to see this in 70 mm film IMAX as Nolan intended. Unfortunately, just found our theatre is digital IMAX. I have been looking forward to seeing this film after watching the extended previews. It appears to be groundbreaking as a movie experience in how it will engage your senses.
We have tix for Sunday evening in digital IMAX.
We have tix for Sunday evening in digital IMAX.
And Asians. Don't forget the Asians.
It will be interesting to see how the film will be perceived in the US considering US wasn't really involved in Dunkirk. Should be interesting how Nolan ties in the US, which will likely be more fiction than reality.
But you know, poor character development might be a good thing. When I think of Dunkirk, I can't think of of a standout, lots of people doing heroic acts.
If they spent time developing characters I think it would take away from the underlying story.
There was plenty of character development for what was needed in the story. It is too broad of a focus to get too deep into the characters.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Just finished; really intense as others have noted. Some more context I think would have been helpful but the sheer scale of the film - especially the dogfighting scenes - were spectacular. I kept hoping Hardy would bust out his Bane voice though during his piloting scenes. Overall - very good; not sure it's deserving of the ridiculous praise it's getting but it's close. It's more 'Hollywood' than other war films - more modern score, more sophisticated editing, and more stylized direction. Doesn't hurt things at all - but not what I was expecting.
That was intentional on the director's part. Here's how the S.F. Chronicle's reviewer explained it:
" 'Dunkirk' is not a war move where everybody gets to have a scintillating personality. Rather, it depicts a hiatus from personality, an ordeal in which life, under assault, is reduced to its basics. This distance has the unique effect of keeping us from fully identifying with one character as the viewer's surrogate, in a way that, say, Tom Hanks was our surrogate in "Saving Private Ryan." In this way, [Director Christopher] Nolan doesn't offer us a replacement for our participation in the war. Rather, he enlists us in the war ourselves, so that we jump out of our skins when snipers shoot holes in a boat the we feel that we're on. And we react in terror when the ocean blazes with an oil fire, as men, underwater, hold their breath and try to find a safe spot to resurface.
Nolan forces us out of the usual movie mode of thinking, well, so long as the hero survives, everything will be OK. He involves us instead in every disaster and near disaster, so that we feel it - and end up, by the end of the film, drained and exhausted and yet strangely excited."
Saw it last night.
A good movie with HYPER expectations. If you simmer those expectations, I think you will enjoy the movie more.
It's a good film, not great. Acting is good, not great. The Action is good, not great.
I give it a solid B. Unlike Saving, there was a real lack of action. The story line was weaker than Saving. Even when secondary characters died, it was less stimulating than when secondary characters died in Saving.
The only thing I thoroughly enjoyed was watching the film you do have a sense that YOU'RE flying the spitfire planes. Other than that, his style, albeit creative, didn't really work as well as Spielberg's Saving.
I understand your point, Felli, and I may end up concluding that a hero-centric narrative is preferable. But I nonetheless look forward to seeing Dunkirk and its alternative "hero-less" presentation of the chaos of war.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Very true. And how frustrating (but realistic) is it that they don't hit the target every time? Watching Hardy stalk that Greman bomber was infurating and exhilarating at the same times. Also, love the British fighter pilots and their proper uniforms - to include ties.
I just saw the movie with my wife. BTW, she didn't like it because "there weren't any characters". During follow up conversation, she clarified that the only character name we knew was George. At least she was willing to see the movie with me.
Spoilers:
Overall it was a very well done movie. The imagery and characters were extremely real. The way that the characters were intertwined was very interesting, with some of the big payoff connections not happening until the end of the movie.
The scene with the British pilot struggling to get out of the of the cockpit after the water landing was as intense as anything since the hand to hand knife fight in Saving Private Ryan.
One large criticism that I have is the part where Hardy flies over the British troops and lands his spitfire on the beach where he gets captured by the Germans. This makes absolutely zero sense to me. He could have parachuted in the British area with his plane pointed in a safe direction. Alternatively, he could have targeted a German position and crashed his plane into it. Why would anyone who isn't in a position to lose his life, and just a few seconds before was fighting heroically for his country and countrymen, basically give himself up to become a prisoner of war? Maybe this has been written about or I may have missed something in the movie.
Spoilers:
Overall it was a very well done movie. The imagery and characters were extremely real. The way that the characters were intertwined was very interesting, with some of the big payoff connections not happening until the end of the movie.
The scene with the British pilot struggling to get out of the of the cockpit after the water landing was as intense as anything since the hand to hand knife fight in Saving Private Ryan.
One large criticism that I have is the part where Hardy flies over the British troops and lands his spitfire on the beach where he gets captured by the Germans. This makes absolutely zero sense to me. He could have parachuted in the British area with his plane pointed in a safe direction. Alternatively, he could have targeted a German position and crashed his plane into it. Why would anyone who isn't in a position to lose his life, and just a few seconds before was fighting heroically for his country and countrymen, basically give himself up to become a prisoner of war? Maybe this has been written about or I may have missed something in the movie.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Felt the same and yeah - Hardy allowing himself to be captured made little sense given he was out of fuel anyway; just parachute at that point. Also, not having more characterization for George made his death much less impactful in my opinion.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
FWIW, Redditers have a few thoughts....
The first is symbolic:
After Hardy shot down the german plane he glides along the beach where his fellow men are standing. I don't even think they realize hes out of fuel. When he slides back the cockpit roof he hears the roars and chants of his fellows soldiers who have just wintessed the first signs of victory maybe since the war began. He then shakes his head, slides back the cockpit doors and keeps on. In that moment he realize that their new vigor is what is important, and by bailing out he stains the picture of a victiorius tomorrow that these men just witnessed.
He chose his faith and decided to instead be captured (which those men will never know about) Just to inspire them to keep on fighting, for themselves and for their country.
Nolan wanted to show that all small deeds contributed to huge important, victorious events. This was just one of many.
Hope my answer satisfied you and after all thats just my take from it
This is more technical:
(Tom Hardy's case)
See it from an aviation point of view. Do not overthink. The plane is out of fuel, powerless, even the landing gear needed manual cranking.
1) Parachuting is risky business in that era. Altitude plays a part too.
2) Gliding a powerless plane is totally different from a powered plane. You have to do a tricky controlled descend to avoid stalling and noise-diving. That means no unnecessary change of course. The airspeed pretty much determine where u can land.
3) It is gliding remember, the allied beach sector is i) full of soldiers, you don't want to crash land there ii) Altitude did not permit landing at that sector, the controlled descend brought him beyond that sector.
4) He was fortunate to have enough time to fully manual crank the landing gears. Too early and it would reduce airspeed. Too late and the plane would belly crash, with the nose in sand because of the propellers digging in.
5) As an aviator POW, his prison camp was probably run by the Luftwaffe, not some sadist SS prison camp.
I am seeing articles that the French are upset. This is probably just the press. Not sure there is a "French at Dunkirk PR Group" to ask, really. Also think that the French don't want to open that can or worms in that many French collaborated. Often referred to as Vichy after the regime put in place during German occupation. But I've spoken to several who fought in north africa who have told me that there were as many french vichy as there were germans and italians that they fought against.
New FWIW, Redditers have a few thoughts....
The first is symbolic:
After Hardy shot down the german plane he glides along the beach where his fellow men are standing. I don't even think they realize hes out of fuel. When he slides back the cockpit roof he hears the roars and chants of his fellows soldiers who have just wintessed the first signs of victory maybe since the war began. He then shakes his head, slides back the cockpit doors and keeps on. In that moment he realize that their new vigor is what is important, and by bailing out he stains the picture of a victiorius tomorrow that these men just witnessed.
He chose his faith and decided to instead be captured (which those men will never know about) Just to inspire them to keep on fighting, for themselves and for their country.
Nolan wanted to show that all small deeds contributed to huge important, victorious events. This was just one of many.
Hope my answer satisfied you and after all thats just my take from it
I'm not buying it. I get that he felt that his flight boosted the spirits of his fellow soldiers. That has nothing to do with him being in a situation where he would either be shot or a pow. Nobody with a fighting spirit would give themselves up like that. Also the parachute technology then was not much different from the T-10 that I used for most of my jumps in the late 80's. You only need 250 feet to fully deploy a parachute and he could have easily gained that much altitude and jumped. He also could have landed in the water very easily and then just walked ashore. This is absolutely an attempt for the director to have an impactful scene, but it just doesn't add up. If this was a minor character somewhere in the middle of other frantic action, then it would be forgotten. This was the climax of the movie, however and it stands out like a sore thumb.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Yeah - I feel like you do. Pretty unnecessary all things considered. Though the 'hard' ending was weird as well. Still - good film overall.
I still think that it's a great movie, but it was one of the last things I remember from the movie, which diminishes it.
Good, intense, just not great. It was clever in that you never saw a German, no German plane cockpit scenes, even the capture of the pilot at the end the Germans were blurry. Well done in that not seeing the Germans makes it feel even more like they are closing in.
It didn't seem like 400,000 on that beach, seemed like much less. Was the fighting really just here and there skirmishes? Nothing more coordinated? George dies way too soon and wasn't necessary.
It didn't seem like 400,000 on that beach, seemed like much less. Was the fighting really just here and there skirmishes? Nothing more coordinated? George dies way too soon and wasn't necessary.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Yeah - the German bomber was very 'Jaws'-like in that regard.
George may have died too early, but it does show that even a teenage kid was willing to put his personal anger/sorrow aside to avoid causing more emotional trauma to that soldier. It was a little too timely, where the second that they anounce that he was dead, the soldier responsible for his death asks about him.
Sitting in IMAX in Randolph, MA waiting for the movie to start. Hoping it can touch saving private Ryan.
During the evacuation from Dunkirk the bulk of the German Army was redeploying to the south along the Somme - away from Dunkirk. Remember over half of the French Army was positioned along the Somme. The Luftwaffe, artillery, and limited infantry were thought sufficient to eliminate the Allied beachhead at Dunkirk.
