Main Menu

Dunkirk

Started by Pinetree, December 14, 2016, 02:26:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ComradeP

I think the Wall Street Journal meant that the enemy is faceless, aside from some planes in the sky.
The fact that these people drew inspiration...and then became chicken farmers - Cyrano, Dragon' Up The Past #45

Con

I get the feeling that since it is popular in order to generate views the remaining publications have to take contrarian positions.

Plus the majority opinion is that there is a certain artistry to this film and if there is one thing artistry generates its opinions (and we all know that those are like arseholes) in that everyone has one and is unafraid to make you hear it.

I have been excited to see this since I saw the first reports on it....outside of history buffs or the UK a little known but pivotal chapter of the war and looking at the early threats where it looked like Nazism was unstoppable.  I only wish they had the 70mm version in Massachusetts because I hear that this format is unbelievable to watch Dunkirk in.

Con

GDS_Starfury

Quote from: Gusington on July 22, 2017, 11:32:47 AM
Driving to Brooklyn now to meet up with them beforehand.

Toonces - Don't ask me, I just close my eyes and take it.

Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


Destraex

#63
For those that wanted my to explain my view of this movie

:spoilers: LOTS of spoilers.

I saw it last night and was not really impressed at all, it was just a depressing arty horrible film to watch. Some of the scenes were amazing though.

Some of the spitfire scenes especially. They were impressive but on a tiny scale. I was under the impression the air battles over Dunkirk were fairly large in scale. This move shows dogfights with a maximum of 3 aircraft on each side at very low level. Almost at wave top level. Bomber attacks were a couple of Stuka's or a single He111, sometimes with two bf109 escorts (yellow nosed at that). You see the British shoot down a fair few aircraft before they have to ditch. For example the Luftwaffe was met by 16 squadrons of the Royal Air Force, who claimed 38 kills on 27 May while losing 14 aircraft. I would have liked to see the larger battles, but the director wanted to show small skirmishes I guess. More personal. More isolating and desperate.
They seem to make a big deal out of the fact that the British pilots only have about 40 minutes of fighting time over Dunkirk or something like that. Stukas were not shown in their traditional flip and dive, which could have been exhilarating to see close up. They were instead only shown as blurred out silhouetted seen from the ground heading down to bomb as faceless menaces with deafening sound... this seems to me one of the only times that the huge amount of sound would have been justified. Since their never seemed to be any real artillery attack even when the Germans got into range. The beach for most of the movie was dead quiet. An AA gun is shown once on the beach but never fired, Naval ships never seem to fire but are shown at one time raising guns. I should also mention that the first Heinkel 111 rear gunner's weapon sounds like a 20mm cannon for effect!!

The weather also played a major part in allowing the evacuation without the Luftwaffe interfering. But I guess that would have been boring to mention or show as would the night time operations. Fair enough on that point.

Another example of small scale is the flotilla that took 300,000 men off the beach in this movie consisted of about 10 tiny boats. When in reality their were 700 little civilian boats involved, that's not counting the Navy ships or auxiliaries which numbered at least 40 or so Destroyers and large Merchant ships. Like the rest of the movie this made things feel very much like a skirmish. There was no inkling of the call that went out to civilian boats I had imagined. No fanfare as the British civilians stood too to do their duty and manned their boats. Just a few navy officers commandeering small craft at a pier and the owners being told to stow life jackets. Significant events that told of the whole spirit of the event and could have been uplifting seem to have been marginalised apart from the fact they were scaled to almost nothing.

It felt too small. Instead of artillery and incessant air attack noises we got deafeningly loud pointless music sound, a constant throughout the film was an all frequencies whistling or droning sound that went up or down according to suspense. It was like listening to the sound of tinnitus at medium but mostly top volume for two hours. The sound in the cinema I was in was ridiculously loud and everybody commented their ears almost gave out (the inside of my ears are swollen and my tinnitus bad this morning). But I think that was just poor volume control on my particular cinemas speakers. This is further proven by the fact that one lady I went with commented that when she say saw spiderman at this particular cinema she had to go and ask them to turn it down. They turn it up so loud their is reverberation, I guess to get that effect where the sound travels through the body.

This film felt more like an art house film than a real film about a military event and I would not watch it again. The focus was on fear and desperation of a few soldiers. Where if I look into the history of Dunkirk. I don't know whether I would find it was that way. There were a lot of scenes that were switched around time wise, like three stories being told out of sync. I prefer movies to tell a story in order if they are going to chop and change between stories. For instance, their is a scene where a fighter has lost engine power and needs to land on the beach in broad daylight. Then their is a night scene. Then back to the fighter in daytime still landing without power and still manually pumping the landing gear. While all of this is going on, what seems to be the same aircraft operating with full power but obviously cannot be, shoots down yet another german aircraft. It's like the director tried to fool people into thinking this aircraft without power managed to shoot down a fighter, cheering afterwards of course.

Over 100,000 French soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk. This story was not really told. Instead the film makes it sound like the British abandoned the French right up until the end when one British officer stays to help them. Obviously the French story at Dunkirk would have been very interesting. The tragedy of them getting to Britain and then some being sent back across the channel to France to rejoin their comrades only to surrender a few weeks later. But I guess people don't care to see that sort of thing. I would also have liked to see half the movie dedicated to the retreat into Dunkirk. That would have really set the scene. They could have had tanks and shown the marshy surrounds and destroyed docks. The movement of British divisions to cover the hole the Belgian army made in it's defence when they surrendered.

I may go back and look at the Richard Attenborough Dunkirk movie and hope it is better.  Was it me or did the spitfire landing become two different aircraft and take 10hrs to land?  I thought this film was far too art house for my liking. This could have been a battle of Britain style story of the events and decisions of the day as well as the military events. Instead it was the story of a couple of scared infantry men on a beach trying to scam a way off. It was there story rather than most of the mens story. This film is the opposite of Pearl Harbor, instead of Pearl Harbor's sickening love and patriotic outrage stories of hard done by japanese attack, we get an anti war film where you suffer so badly you come out with PTSD. I prefer seeing films like Tora Tora Tora, where their is an even keel on things and events are told properly from both sides. I would have liked to see some of the positive things shown, like the story of the Clan MacAlister. The Anti-Aircraft cruiser calcutta, the Germans frustration at having their tanks taken from them, the french (and 51st highlanders?) heroic counter attack from the south, Churchill's order that the navy go back for the French, the fact that this was a very cheap evacuation indeed and a major triumph. The movie makes the evacuation seem vastly expensive in terms of ships, aircraft and men.

At no time was the German side shown or explained. For the fear purposes of the film they needed to be faceless demons. The closest you get is seeing german aircraft and seeing a few blurred out german infantry for a few second. Blurred out even as they captured the british who were of course very clear. I must admit though, for most of Dunkirk and it's evacuation the Germans were NOT attacking them. It was primarily air attack. As said above, I would really have liked to see some of the retreat to set the scene. Instead at the beginning of the movie all we get is one guy running from some anonymous trigger pullers that seem to be everywhere in the town.

Basically the whole movie was one large missed opportunity. You cannot fault it for what it did show, but you like me may dislike it for it's need to shock and awe you. It's need to miniaturise everything It's arty outlook and it's downright depressing outlook on things in general. It's lack of characters and dialogue.

P.S. Does anybody know whether the boy in the small craft that died as a result of an accidental push down the stairs from an upset soldier really happened?
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Sir Slash

I saw it tonight with the wife. I agree with many of Destraex's opinions about the movie feeling too small with surprisingly few soldiers, planes and ships in it. And there's little in the way of explanation of what and why things are occurring in the movie. If you don't already know about the battle, don't expect to learn much here about it. But the thing I liked least about the film was the way it was told. There's 3 separate stories told here but rather than show them as they occur, they are shown at the same time. So one scene will be Dunkirk at night and the next will be an air battle in broad daylight followed by another night scene back at Dunkirk. The story could have been just as exciting if it was done chronologically instead of this jigsaw puzzle of stories stapled together.

However, lest I seem too negative, the movie is visually stunning at times. Compelling, exciting and very well done, I just sat and took it all in unable to look away. It's somber and depressing at times with a few genuinely thrilling sudden turns that make you want to cheer. I couldn't help but like the film. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, but Des is right... it could've been a real classic War Movie right up here with the all-time greatest.

BTW Hardy is kind of wasted in his fighter pilot role and not very convincing. He hardly ever turns his head to look for Germans, or manovers his plane much and just gives-up to the Germans at the end.  :o  Hardly Hardy-like in my opinion.
"Take a look at that". Sgt. Wilkerson-- CMBN. His last words after spotting a German tank on the other side of a hedgerow.

Gusington

I just came from seeing it. It was confusing in spots, I agree. I feel like I missed a lot and have to watch it again. There is also absolutely nothing told from the German side either.


слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd

JudgeDredd

#66
Just saw it last night.

Whilst I agree with almost everything Destraex says, I am completely the opposite in terms of enjoyment.


I agree, for example, that it was an "arty" film (no - not like that- daft Grogheads!) but I loved it for it. It wasn't a documentary on Dunkirk. It wasn't a full film about Dunkirk (how could it be at an hour 45 minutes?). It didn't really relay the scale of Dunkirk.

What it did do was pass to me the desperation of Dunkirk on a local level. It should me that through a group of soldiers. It should me that by only showing a few naval and army officers. It showed me that by the occasional big ship that showed.

I loved the way the film set up the "zones" at the beginning. 1. Mole 2. Air 3. Sea and then continued to flip between those. I think that flipping between the various stages gave a superb feel for the chaos and the "close" feel the film was trying to convey.

I do agree with his view and dislike on a couple of things

  • There was no recount of Dunkirk the story - why was this happening
  • There was no understanding of who the enemy was aside from some aircraft
  • I would've loved to have seen some of the discussion and requisition around the civilian boats
  • I think the little ships should've been shown on a bigger scale. Whilst the smaller scale stuff showed the desperation and futile situation of the officers and men, I think a large scale showing of the ships at the end would've helped the viewer with the scale. They had already mentioned the 400,000 men to give scale so the viewer could take that feeling and multiply it. I feel they could've helped the viewer at the end with the sheer size and significance of the civilian assistance
  • The flipping between night and day - showing out of sync things was also an issue for me. For example the Spitfires were fighting during the day but there were night scenes from Dunkirk interspersed
  • The Spitfire with no power destroying a diving Stuka - if it happened, amazing - but I doubt it very much
  • Very little action on the beach, including no artillery

The Stukas were blurs I guess because they didn't have any. Spitfires, Messerschmitts and He-111s (I'm assuming the He-111 was a surviving one because it bloody looked great (and real)) they could do and looked fantastic. I was unaware of the "yellow nose" thing not being a huge history buff on the event or era.  :-[

It had issues. But they were very, very minor imo. But I was very pleased with the artistic feel of the movie. If that's not your thing, then it may not be enjoyable to you. Also - if you are looking for that big scale movie to portray the size of the event, again, you may well be disappointed.

For me - the movie captured the desperation and futility of the officers and men at a local level. The artistic viewpoint was extremely well done, if a touch messy in places. It tried to give the scale of the event - but only in mention. I found it incredibly tense and it was being ramped up as the movie went on. The music imo was also very well done and helped keep you on the edge of your seat.

Unlike Sir Slash my true love of the movie was the moving from sea to air to land and back again in random orders, though as I mentioned, I didn't like the night day thing - that did throw me.

I would agree with Sir Slash's summary.

To finish - imo, Dunkirk told the story of Dunkirk. It told it from several positions and gave the scale (whilst also providing that "local" feel). IMO this was a much more tense movie than the original Dunkirk. They are both great movies and both for very different reasons. This will join my original on my video shelf and I will enjoy both in years to come.  :clap:

Did anyone who watched it think the flyby over Dunkirk by the Spit think it looked like a Spit flying at an airshow today? Dunkirk just looked - well, modern with nice flats and balconies. I have no reference material to know how Dunkirk looked, but the one in the movie seemed to look like how I'd see it today.
Alba gu' brath

Destraex

#67
JudgeDredd if I wanted to imagine the scale, I would have read a book.
You cannot have a story about dunkirk set in dunkirk during the evacuation where everything plays out and then ignore the scale. The characters are literally standing in it on the big screen. Unless that is you are making a stage play. We have CGI and we have some damned good model making and sets these days.
There was also another mole iirc... i.e. a second place that large ships could dock to evacuate men.

As for the stukas, really, we don't have good enough CGI or even model making machines and sets these days? They were a major feature of this event. I won't call it a battle as such because realistically their was not much fighting on the ground. Mainly an air war to keep the beachhead secure. So I don't know if it qualifies.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

JudgeDredd

I wasn't telling you how to enjoy it   ^-^  I was simply explaining how it came across to me and what I liked about it.

It just so happens whilst I thought your points were valid, I left the cinema with a completely different outlook on the experience.
Alba gu' brath

Destraex

I was not upset Judge. No problem here.
I came across a little harsh. But yes my outlook is one of a grumpy person with very sore and swollen ear canals right now.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Gusington

I agree with JD that the shots of town looked contemporary to now.

Thinking about it a little more maybe the movie made The Enemy more faceless and non-descript to illicit more fear? It worked for me, if that was the intent.

On the filpside is a movie like Fury that showed The Enemy in detail but also showed them as human and frightening at the same time.


слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd

mirth

"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

airboy

Think I'll either see it on an airplane or on Netflix eventually.

BanzaiCat

I'm just thrilled that so many WWII-era pieces are hitting the big screen.

Since Dunkirk is doing so well, and assuming The Darkest Hour does, too, it's easy to imagine a slew of WWII-themed films on epic scales. Maybe even (shudder) remixes of Battle of the Bulge, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora, Midway, et al, etcetera.

Makes me wonder how Hollywood will shoehorn something Chinese into a remake of Battle of the Bulge to pander to the Asian market...they'd figure a way. They always do.

I thought the Yamato movie was pretty damned good, actually...the historic one, not the one with the gravity gun that fights space aliens.  ;D

mirth

"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus