Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

flangemeistro

Saw it last night because I was worried about not seeing it on the big screen before it left the cinema,
Christ what an absolute mess of a film.

Like where do I start?

The lack of dialogue shouldn't have been noticeable because the score was so great but it was over reliant on the score to the point that it was like a Charlie Chaplin movie!

It was like Nolan didn't trust the actors to portray the importance of the movie even though they were mostly highly regarded actors.

I'm not going to use spoiler tags so this is your warning.

With so much money available in current movie making why weren't more boats used to give us the sense of how much of a huge civilian rescue operation this was?
I think I counted 20 boats max! Which we're supposed to believe rescued 300000 men?
This is where Nolan's stubbornness about the use of CGI detracts from his movies.

What was the purpose of the flashback to Cillian Murphy on the life raft?

Why didn't we see Cillian Murphy's life raft attacked?

Why was he sitting on the wreck of a bigger boat when rescued?

How was Tom Hardy able to change direction while gliding without fuel to take down the Gerry?

How was Tom Hardy's fighter able to glide without fuel for so long that everyone was rescued and he was the last one left on the beach?

Why didn't he glide to the safety of waters where the hundreds(twenty) of boats were rescuing soldiers?

Why did the French guy swim for the ladder instead of the clearly open hatch above him?

And then after a badly explained terribly edited movie we finish up with a by golly old chap look how selfless and heroic Kenneth Brannaghs character was to hang on for the French.

Vomit inducing.

It will clean up at the BAFTAS obviously but hopefully the Academy will see it for what it is and that's a self promotional pat on the back for the Almighty British empire with an anti BREXIT undertone.

razorblunt

flange, sit down for a minute, make a cup of tea and you'd answer most of those questions yourself, quite well.

Falthyron

flangemeistro wrote: »

The lack of dialogue shouldn't have been noticeable because the score was so great but it was over reliant on the score to the point that it was like a Charlie Chaplin movie!

You don't like silent films? Nolan said he studied silent films to see how a director could produce tension without the need for dialogue. Hence the music and the editing style.

With so much money available in current movie making why weren't more boats used to give us the sense of how much of a huge civilian rescue operation this was?
I think I counted 20 boats max! Which we're supposed to believe rescued 300000 men?
This is where Nolan's stubbornness about the use of CGI detracts from his movies.

If you had watched the film closely you will have noticed that the events on the beach take place over the space of a week. All of the boats didn't arrive at once to remove all the men at the same time. They went back and forth over days. What we saw was one part of the beach and the men on it.

What was the purpose of the flashback to Cillian Murphy on the life raft?

It wasn't a flashback. This was the timeline belonging to the men on the beach (Harry Styles, et al). The purpose was to show that Cillian Murphy was suffering from PTSD having seen so many men die and not being able to rescue others, like the lads trying to get on his lifeboat.

Why didn't we see Cillian Murphy's life raft attacked?

Do you need to be spoon fed every minor detail?

Why was he sitting on the wreck of a bigger boat when rescued?

Perhaps his lifeboat sank? Perhaps they met another ship, were rescued by that ship, and then that ship was also sank by an enemy torpedo? Perhaps his lifeboat sank not long after the events where we saw him telling Harry Styles to swim back to shore, and he swam back to the wreck?

How was Tom Hardy able to change direction while gliding without fuel to take down the Gerry?

Spitfires can glide once they achieve a certain airspeed before the engine cuts out. As for turning, etc, it would depend on altitude. I can't remember how high up he was, but it is questionable.

How was Tom Hardy's fighter able to glide without fuel for so long that everyone was rescued and he was the last one left on the beach?

See above + timelines. Also, he wasn't the last one on the beach. He was the last one on that section of the beach at that time.

Why didn't he glide to the safety of waters where the hundreds(twenty) of boats were rescuing soldiers?

You need speed to glide on to water. If he isn't approaching the landing with speed he would hit it like a stone hitting water. The impact would probably kill him. You can see this with the other pilot who landed there. His engine is running and he cuts it out at the very last moment. Night time was approaching. I would take my chances on land rather than the dead of night in the water.

Why did the French guy swim for the ladder instead of the clearly open hatch above him?

I don't remember this part, particularly the open hatch.

And then after a badly explained terribly edited movie we finish up with a by golly old chap look how selfless and heroic Kenneth Brannaghs character was to hang on for the French.

We are not sure of the date of the events that take place on screen, but Branagh's character is based on William Tennant who was in charge of the evacuation at Dunkirk. He stayed until the very end.

Vomit inducing.

Hyperbole, much? Perhaps The Emoji Movie would prove more suitable?

flangemeistro

Falthyron wrote: »

You don't like silent films? Nolan said he studied silent films to see how a director could produce tension without the need for dialogue. Hence the music and the editing style.



If you had watched the film closely you will have noticed that the events on the beach take place over the space of a week. All of the boats didn't arrive at once to remove all the men at the same time. They went back and forth over days. What we saw was one part of the beach and the men on it.



It wasn't a flashback. This was the timeline belonging to the men on the beach (Harry Styles, et al). The purpose was to show that Cillian Murphy was suffering from PTSD having seen so many men die and not being able to rescue others, like the lads trying to get on his lifeboat.



Do you need to be spoon fed every minor detail?



Perhaps his lifeboat sank? Perhaps they met another ship, were rescued by that ship, and then that ship was also sank by an enemy torpedo? Perhaps his lifeboat sank not long after the events where we saw him telling Harry Styles to swim back to shore, and he swam back to the wreck?



Spitfires can glide once they achieve a certain airspeed before the engine cuts out. As for turning, etc, it would depend on altitude. I can't remember how high up he was, but it is questionable.



See above + timelines. Also, he wasn't the last one on the beach. He was the last one on that section of the beach at that time.



You need speed to glide on to water. If he isn't approaching the landing with speed he would hit it like a stone hitting water. The impact would probably kill him. You can see this with the other pilot who landed there. His engine is running and he cuts it out at the very last moment. Night time was approaching. I would take my chances on land rather than the dead of night in the water.



I don't remember this part, particularly the open hatch.



We are not sure of the date of the events that take place on screen, but Branagh's character is based on William Tennant who was in charge of the evacuation at Dunkirk. He stayed until the very end.


Hyperbole, much? Perhaps The Emoji Movie would prove more suitable?

You use a lot of ifs and perhaps to explain things that the director should have.

I'm none the wiser after reading your post which leads me to believe you watched the movie through fanboy tinted glasses and if Nolan were to release a movie on the Kardashians escape from Albanian you'd still find a way to defend it.

Falthyron

flangemeistro wrote: »

You use a lot of ifs and perhaps to explain things that the director should have.

I'm none the wiser after reading your post which leads me to believe you watched the movie through fanboy tinted glasses and if Nolan were to release a movie on the Kardashians escape from Albanian you'd still find a way to defend it.

If that is your retort to an educated answer then I guess I wasted my time in explaining your 'errors' with the film. If you struggled with Dunkirk, then I guess you were completely lost with Inception and Interstellar. Pro tip: don't watch Nolan films in future, you won't get any more headaches.

flangemeistro

Falthyron wrote: »

If that is your retort to an educated answer then I guess I wasted my time in explaining your 'errors' with the film. If you struggled with Dunkirk, then I guess you were completely lost with Inception and Interstellar. Pro tip: don't watch Nolan films in future, you won't get any more headaches.

You're the only one who thought your answer was educated, self praise is no praise.

And they're not my errors they're the movies errors and clear holes.

Are you seriously comparing Inception & Interstellar with a movie based on true events?
They were clever thought provoking movies where people had different interpretations to questions that the movies raised,

Dunkirk isn't open to interpretation because the events are documented, your so called educated answers were nothing but excuses to glaring holes and sloppy timeline editing that your untouchable director created.

Three of us left with the same views last night and a whole row of mid to late 30s women in front of us were also very disappointed while leaving.

Forgettable and the sooner the better.

Sad Professor

Keep it friendly please, guys. Attack the post, not the poster. Read the charter. No generalised insults, etc, thanks.

InTheTrees

I too was underwhelmed.

I think they skimped too much on the details.

You never got the impression there were over half a million people waiting to be rescued. We never saw more than a few thousand. In reality there were something like thirty destroyers in the area. We never got a hint of more than one. There were squadrons of raf planes dogfighting the germans throughout. All we saw were the same three spitfires, the same heinkel, and some indistinct Me's.

You never got that impression. The beach seemed pretty calm most of the time.

And the 800 small boats were pretty badly represented by the 20 or so they managed to find for the film. At least they could have added a couple of seconds of computer generated boats to give an idea of what it was like. The boats were used at the time mostly to get soldiers from the shallow beach out out the waiting destroyers. You never really saw that. Saving Private Ryan, managed a few aerial shots of the landings which gave a good impression of the scale.

And I really dont believe it ended so calmly, the film was like school end of term, the brit in charge looking around at a bunch of empty helmets and saying oh well we seem to be all done here.

Over 100,000 french were also evacuated at the time.

ancapailldorcha

Going to see this at the BFI IMAX today. My hopes are high.

flangemeistro

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Going to see this at the BFI IMAX today. My hopes are high.

Honestly I'd dial those hopes down a notch.

siblers

InTheTrees wrote: »

I too was underwhelmed.

I think they skimped too much on the details.

You never got the impression there were over half a million people waiting to be rescued. We never saw more than a few thousand. In reality there were something like thirty destroyers in the area. We never got a hint of more than one. There were squadrons of raf planes dogfighting the germans throughout. All we saw were the same three spitfires, the same heinkel, and some indistinct Me's.

You never got that impression. The beach seemed pretty calm most of the time.

And the 800 small boats were pretty badly represented by the 20 or so they managed to find for the film. At least they could have added a couple of seconds of computer generated boats to give an idea of what it was like. The boats were used at the time mostly to get soldiers from the shallow beach out out the waiting destroyers. You never really saw that. Saving Private Ryan, managed a few aerial shots of the landings which gave a good impression of the scale.

And I really dont believe it ended so calmly, the film was like school end of term, the brit in charge looking around at a bunch of empty helmets and saying oh well we seem to be all done here.

Over 100,000 french were also evacuated at the time.

The evacuation took place over 8 days and the beaches stretch for miles, the 800 boats came at different times and at different locations The film focuses on survival for 3 different groups of people, Tom Hardy's part covers 1 hour, it would make no sense from a narrative point of view to go adding extra fighter planes

El Duda

I swear most of the people who didn't like the film then go on to explain, in great detail, just how misinformed they are over the actual events that took place. Most criticisms i've seen can more or less be debunked.

Some people seem to have actually expected to see 400,000 troops huddled together on the beach.

Tony EH

It's amazing at how many times this false impression has to be corrected. I've lost count at the number of times it's been raised in this thread alone.

Even a cursory glance at the period photos will tell you that Nolan did a great job of depicting what the beaches looked like and just how spread out the men were.

'Dunkirk' has its flaws. But, not showing 400.000 men on a beach isn't one of them.

Falthyron

El Duda wrote: »

I swear most of the people who didn't like the film then go on to explain, in great detail, just how misinformed they are over the actual events that took place. Most criticisms i've seen can more or less be debunked.

Some people seem to have actually expected to see 400,000 troops huddled together on the beach.

I think the advent of CGI has created the idea that if it can be done, then it should be done.

If Nolan had used CGI on the beaches, added another fifteen or twenty planes dog-fighting, hundreds of more boats, all coalescing in the one area you would get Transformers. A giant CGI, indiscernible mess, with so much going on that you can't really see what is actually happening. All of this of course, would fly in the face of historical accounts of what happened on those beaches and the naysayers would still attack it for historical inaccuracy.

'Between a rock and a hard place'; ironic, as it is one of themes of the film.

Just because a director can do something, doesn't mean he/she should. One of the problems with Dunkirk is that it was marketed as a war film first, a survival story second. Those who don't have a clue about what happened in 1940 went in hoping to see tanks, explosions, dog-fights, blood, violence, etc. 'Spoon-feeding' is a major problem in today's society of instantaneity. Immediate answers, clear black and white sign-posting, and a character to guide them through the story is almost necessary for any film resembling a 'summer blockbuster'. Dunkirk is none of these things. Nolan films almost never actually deal with the prevailing theme you get from the trailer. They go a lot deeper than that. Interstellar is depicted as a sci-fi film about looking for a new home. However, its actually about love and the Hollywood film industry killing itself.

siblers

I was reading a book on Dunkirk and Nolan had attempted to have higher numbers of extras on the beach but it was just too dangerous and a bit of a logisitical nightmare due to how the weather was, going down the CGI route was never on the agenda

Another reason why CGI wasn't used is that people are so over exposed to CGI that it would have set up an additional barrier between the viewer and what was going on screen, as the vast majority of things that happened on screen didn't involve CGI it felt more real and we got a better appreciation of what it would have been like for those soldiers. CGI would have just made it more fake and taken away from the experience

ancapailldorcha

flangemeistro wrote: »

Honestly I'd dial those hopes down a notch.

A friend ended up texting me. Is it not that good, then? It's £16 a ticket.

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A friend ended up texting me. Is it not that good, then? It's £16 a ticket.

Watch it and make up your mind.
I was pretty dissapointed.

Cool dogfights though.

siblers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A friend ended up texting me. Is it not that good, then? It's £16 a ticket.

I personally thought it was the best film I've seen in the cinema since The Dark Knight

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A friend ended up texting me. Is it not that good, then? It's £16 a ticket.

Personally, £16 for any cinema ticket is crazy money. I presume you're going to this in London? Sounds like London prices.

If you know anything about the period, you'll enjoy it. I liked its attention to detail. It's very tense and holds its drama, in a way that most modern blockbusters don't even bother with these days. However, I thought the dogfight sequences were the worst handled.

I won't say why here, as not to spoil it for you.

RasTa

£18.50 a ticket for the 20:45 showing...

ancapailldorcha

RasTa wrote: »

£18.50 a ticket for the 20:45 showing...

Nearly fully booked as well.

Odd that there seems to be much fewer seats for the later showings.

jpfahy

silverharp wrote: »

if nothing else enjoy the flying sequence, the original score is probably better for the movie but it has something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Dz05rY5UY

That clip reminds me how good The Battle of Britain was (I saw in in the cinema in 1969) and how poor Dunkirk is in comparison.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote:

I was pretty dissapointed.

Cool dogfights though.

Tony EH wrote: »

However, I thought the dogfight sequences were the worst handled.

****s sake Tony

J Mysterio

jpfahy wrote: »

That clip reminds me how good The Battle of Britain was (I saw in in the cinema in 1969) and how poor Dunkirk is in comparison.

Cheers... must watch.

HandsomeBob

I enjoyed it though it's no where near his best for me. Tom Hardy was the highlight.

Tony EH

J Mysterio wrote: »

Cheers... must watch.

You should.

It's one of the best war films of any decade.

There's a 5 minute sequence dealing with the 15th September raids that has little dialogue, mostly music and air action that's superb.

silverharp

jpfahy wrote: »

That clip reminds me how good The Battle of Britain was (I saw in in the cinema in 1969) and how poor Dunkirk is in comparison.

yeah I watched it a few weeks back. I believe they had access to Spanish Air Force planes for the ME109's as the Spanish made their own variant off it. The problem now is that the planes are too old to fly near their original spec.

indioblack

silverharp wrote: »

yeah I watched it a few weeks back. I believe they had access to Spanish Air Force planes for the ME109's as the Spanish made their own variant off it. The problem now is that the planes are too old to fly near their original spec.

There was an informative book by Leonard Mosely that came out at the same time as the film was released. It covered the films conception and production - and dealt with the issues regarding acquiring the aircraft.
I recently picked up an old paperback copy from Amazon - it's well worth a read.

Harry Palmr

Tony EH wrote: »

There's a 5 minute sequence dealing with the 15th September raids that has little dialogue, mostly music and air action that's superb.

Well that's an outrage! BoB is clearly a terrible film :pac:

Nolan won't care what anyone here thinks, he's made a film which by the rules in an age of CGI infested superhero BS should have flopped mightily esp in the sunny season. Instead it's the biggest film of the summer that is not a dunderhead franchise, at $170m/$400m. It might just encourage other studios to take a chance on serious large scale films again.

Tony EH

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well that's an outrage! BoB is clearly a terrible film :pac:

A lot of people thought so in 1969. The film was a huge flop. I think the cinema going public weren't expecting to get the balanced treatment they got.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Nolan won't care what anyone here thinks, he's made a film which by the rules in an age of CGI infested superhero BS should have flopped mightily esp in the sunny season. Instead it's the biggest film of the summer that is not a dunderhead franchise, at $170m/$400m. It might just encourage other studios to take a chance on serious large scale films again.

And he'd be right not to.

But, yeh, so much of the hollywood product since 2000 has been terribly disppointing. If it isn't another remake/reboot, it's a dull Marvel movie. A lot of output is just so by-the-numbers. Although, this summer hasn't been that bad, all told. 'Dunkirk' and 'War for the Planet of the Apes' were both excellent. I'm probably going to head and see 'Logan Lucky' as well. The trailer interested me. I can leave stuff like 'Kingsman', 'The Dark Tower' and 'Atomic Blonde', all of which look really poor.

It's good to see a serious film, dealing with a serious subject serious money. It shows clearly that there's an audience for it. But, frankly, if Nolan's name wasn't on the title, it wouldn't have done have the business it did.