Dunkirk (Movie)

Wirraway

It has been reported in the press over here that one american film critic panned the movie because it didn't have enough "strong female characters or people of colour". Oh jeez, give me a break. Let's just rewrite history for the benefit of PC.

 

I was watching a youtube video al about that the other day. Apparently, the comments about no woman or blacks was in USA today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BDLfMh3kJE

 

echolmberg

 

Armor_Aficionado

I thought it was great, well done, very gripping action, BUT not as "epic" as I thought it would be.

....

 

For what it did show, it did very well, but there were way too many gaps in the story...

 

 

 

 

Gonna have to agree with Armor on this one.  I saw it last night with my brother-in-law who is equally into history as much as I am.  It was okay…not as “epic” as critics were making it out to be.  There wasn’t a whole lot of dialog.  From what I understand, they wanted the actions to convey the mood and feeling of the situation but, for me, the lack of dialog did not contribute to character development.  As a result, I found it hard to relate to any of them.  I didn’t know what any of the characters names were and the characters in the movie didn’t seem to be bonded to each other.

 

 Then there’s the heavy British accents.  What little dialog there was was difficult and, at times, impossible for me to understand.  As a result, I just let the action dictate the sentiment.  I might not have been able to understand all the dialog but it was enough for me to tell what was going on if they spoke angrily, fearfully, etc.  Part way through the movie, I felt like it was the first English-speaking movie that could qualify as a foreign film at the same time.

 

Part of the movie followed the storyline of three or four Spitfire pilots.  The air-to-air sequences were some of the best ones I’ve ever seen in a movie.  Much of what you see in other movies are blatantly obvious computer generated scenes.  In “Dunkirk”, however, it appears that no CGI was used and you’re literally looking right down the noses of the Spitfires in the air-to-air sequences.  If you see the movie, go for the airplane action.  I found it well worth the price of admission.

 

All-in-all, I'm NOT saying it was a bad movie by any means.  Not even close.  It's just that, with all the hype, I thought it was going to be better.  I know some people loved the movie.  I felt it was “alright”.  I’ve seen far worse and it was a fair enough movie to see especially the flying sequences.

 

Eric

 

Sorry Eric, i could hold off responding to this no longer.

Let me get this right, your criticising the fact that the English characters were speaking real English.

Wirraway

It has been reported in the press over here that one american film critic panned the movie because it didn't have enough "strong female characters or people of colour". Oh jeez, give me a break. Let's just rewrite history for the benefit of PC.

 

Post the link. I want to fire off a response in their review site. LOLOLOLOLOL!

It has been reported in the press over here that one american film critic panned the movie because it didn't have enough "strong female characters or people of colour". Oh jeez, give me a break. Let's just rewrite history for the benefit of PC.

Ditto on the air combat sequences.  If they remake the Battle of Britain, I hope do it the same way.  

My wife and I went to it last Sunday, we both thought it was Fantastic!  I thought the director and actors did a great job.  

Armor_Aficionado

I thought it was great, well done, very gripping action, BUT not as "epic" as I thought it would be. There were some important points missing. Firstly, all you ever saw of the Germans were the aircraft, nothing else. 

Actually, it occured to me that if I was a soldier on the beach, how much of the Germans would I have seen? And NOT seeing them in the movie sort of amped up the feeling that "they must be right over the sand dune, we're all gonna die" feeling I felt during most of the movie.

All of the pictures I remember seeing from Dunkirk has soldiers lined up like they've shown in the movie, except...there were a LOT more lines with a LOT more soldiers. Since there were over 400,000 Brits, Belgians and French in the pocket they all weren't needed on the "line". 

The lack of the movie feeling Epic I agree with. But then, maybe that's what the director wanted. Maybe he was trying to keep it to broad paint strokes as seen from a personal level and not an HD "picture" of the real event. Not sure...I just know I walked out of the theater with the wind sort of knocked out of me sails...

Armor_Aficionado

I thought it was great, well done, very gripping action, BUT not as "epic" as I thought it would be.

....

 

For what it did show, it did very well, but there were way too many gaps in the story...

 

I haven't seen the movie yet but what you are asking for can be found in countless documentries which isn't what this movie is about.  I wouldn't want to sit through another "TORA-TORA_TORA or Midway" type movie.

I thought it was great, well done, very gripping action, BUT not as "epic" as I thought it would be. There were some important points missing. Firstly, all you ever saw of the Germans were the aircraft, nothing else. They could have done some exposition about how the Germans were able to advance and encircle the B.E.F. at Dunkirk, or give some insight into German staff decision-making as to why not keep advancing and capture all the troops there on the beach, but they didn't really explore the other side at all. Also, why were tens of thousands of men just standing there on the beach, or just lying around relaxing on the beach (!) waiting for the ships to come, and not helping the French troops man the defensive positions in town, or prepare defensive positions on the beach, etc.? I mean, for one I doubt that that's all they did, but if that's exactly what they did was just stand around waiting, then fine, explain WHY! Or explain why the Royal Navy evacuation effort was so poor (they had one throwaway line when the one Army officer asks the Navy officer why they're not sending more destroyers to help in the evacuation, and he says, "They're saving them for the next battle, the one for Britain." but's that's it). For what it did show, it did very well, but there were way too many gaps in the story...

Excellent movie! I saw it last weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. For me, the director did a superb job in spinning the three story lines together. My experience of watching this movie was especially enhanced as I took my mother to see it. She is 91 yrs old and although she was stateside at the time of Dunkirk, she remembers the event very well. She was hugely moved by the movie and even had some tears at times. She even tells me each day since we saw it that she can't get it out of her head and how much she enjoyed it.

It was a great movie.  Very well done.

I saw it last Thursday with my wife.  I thought it was well done, but was disappointed with the last scene of the burning Spitfire,where the propeller was hanging from a broomstick.  Everything else was so much better done,and whatever CGI was there was not intrusive.

Trying to get the wife to go tonight.

Jim  

Saw it yesterday-I agree with ridleusmc-very intense indeed....and well done.

There is also a historical book out which was the basis for the movie.

It got a great review in the local. My wife doesn't much want to go, but I'm going with the kid as she loves England and history.

The reviewer said that it really sets itself apart by making you forget the ending and being terrified or at least frightened for the outcome all the way through.

I'm glad it sounds as good as the trailers looked. I've been trying to find a time to get there myself.