Nolan's next: Dunkirk

[Ns1]

holy shit, 70mm IMAX tix are $26 each!!!

 

[FeuerFrei]

Well, the harrowing escape dramas effectively conveyed desperation and claustrophobia.

Beach front assemblage seemed too organized and pristine. No sense of haste to escape German advance.

The ambient drone used to carry tension from scene to scene in the first part of the film was overdone. Kept me from getting into the scenes, because it buried sounds of activity.

At times I missed (due to lack of enunciation) various lines of dialogue (of which there was little), so I was unable to fully grasp the situation at hand.

The titles "The Mole" "1 day" "1 week" etc. meant nothing to me.

Somehow I missed the final seconds of footage where Germans appeared. I found out afterward how it concluded.

I would only watch it again in hopes of picking up what I missed. Not because it was especially compelling.

 

[Ns1]

n/m

 

[slag]

Watched this last night. I didn't originally understand the text on the different scenes. It wasn't clear to me or several people around me that he's trying to piece 3 different stories together using 2 different timelines. I was like.. WTF is he trying to mean by putting 1 hr, 1 day, etc on each scene? Not clear at all.

I was hoping they would focus more on why dunkirk was the town everyone was in which they kind of did with the leaflets, but wanted more story around that.

Good movie in all, but not as good as Fury.

That was what I meant by him hinting at his use of time bending with the 1hr, day, week text at the beginning.

I understand, but didn't read this thread until today. It's good movie and I'll get it for my collection when its out on bluray.

 

[soulcougher73]

This movie didnt do it for me. Id give it a 6/10 maybe. Nothing special. Jumped around in time a lot which was unnecessary for this kind of movie. No real feeling of danger from Germany. No way they saved 300-400k men with 20-30 small boats. Not much dialog even and what was there was mumbled half the time. Unforgettable and probably wouldnt rewatch in the future. Sad as i love a good WW2 movie but this was not one of them.

 

[zinfamous]

holy shit, 70mm IMAX tix are $26 each!!!

I paid 16.50, with "convenience charge," for 70mm at the A&S museum @ noon yesterday.

Fucking epic, btw. tense tense tense tense. Will Dunkirk again.

 

[zinfamous]

This movie didnt do it for me. Id give it a 6/10 maybe. Nothing special. Jumped around in time a lot which was unnecessary for this kind of movie. No real feeling of danger from Germany.

about this. Well, blame Hitler then. He's the "idiot" that decided not to press the advantage when the Germans very easily could have eradicated the entire British and French military, but he decided not to. At the very least, you should be happy that Nolan didn't give an overly false narrative to inject action at the expense of history. That being said, Nolan captured the unknown terror very well, here. You don't see the enemy, and these soldiers barely see them, but it is very well known that they are there and there is very little defense that these guys trapped on the beach can muster. Only in hindsight do we know that this was one of Hitler's greatest blunders, but no one on that beach would have known that then. Jaws worked well because we didn't really see the shark until the third act, and it got what...2 minutes of screen time overall?

No way they saved 300-400k men with 20-30 small boats.

I agree with this. I thought he didn't bring out the true scale of the operation which was much, much, much larger than what was portrayed here. I don't know if he had some grand desire to avoid digital at all costs, but the scope of the operation as portrayed here suffered in the light of this decision. I was actually thoroughly disappointed when the boats showed up and it looked like they simply ran out of budget to shoot it properly...which is probably not possible with a current day Nolan flick.

 

[BUTCH1]

about this. Well, blame Hitler then. He's the "idiot" that decided not to press the advantage when the Germans very easily could have eradicated the entire British and French military, but he decided not to. At the very least, you should be happy that Nolan didn't give an overly false narrative to inject action at the expense of history. That being said, Nolan captured the unknown terror very well, here. You don't see the enemy, and these soldiers barely see them, but it is very well known that they are there and there is very little defense that these guys trapped on the beach can muster. Only in hindsight do we know that this was one of Hitler's greatest blunders, but no one on that beach would have known that then. Jaws worked well because we didn't really see the shark until the third act, and it got what...2 minutes of screen time overall?



I agree with this. I thought he didn't bring out the true scale of the operation which was much, much, much larger than what was portrayed here. I don't know if he had some grand desire to avoid digital at all costs, but the scope of the operation as portrayed here suffered in the light of this decision. I was actually thoroughly disappointed when the boats showed up and it looked like they simply ran out of budget to shoot it properly...which is probably not possible with a current day Nolan flick.

Interestingly, it was one of Hitler's generals who stopped the advance. He felt that his flank was already exposed and some of the terrain around Dunkirk is marshy and not tank-friendly. Hitler was familiar with this area, (from WW1) and agreed with the decision. I guess he thought Goering would actually come through and finish off the BEF+ the remains of the French 1st army but the RAF showed up and made that task very difficult. Hitler also thought that even though many had escaped, they would never set foot on continental Europe again.

 

[zinfamous]

Interestingly, it was one of Hitler's generals who stopped the advance. He felt that his flank was already exposed and some of the terrain around Dunkirk is marshy and not tank-friendly. Hitler was familiar with this area, (from WW1) and agreed with the decision. I guess he thought Goering would actually come through and finish off the BEF+ the remains of the French 1st army but the RAF showed up and made that task very difficult. Hitler also thought that even though many had escaped, they would never set foot on continental Europe again.

that's cool man, I didn't realize that this was one of his informed decisions. The comment in this flick "why waste tanks when you can pick them off from the sky" (paraphrasing), doesn't really address the fact that it was an, at the time--smart strategic decision in reality...but it doesn't really reject that, either. hmm.

 

[lupi]

I haven't read about the actual battle in some time, but I recall part of the reason being that even though the panzer forces ran over most of the French defense, once they did a substantial portion of the mechanized force was in need of refit (it was mostly PZ-2 and PZ-3 at this time).

 

[soulcougher73]

about this. Well, blame Hitler then. He's the "idiot" that decided not to press the advantage when the Germans very easily could have eradicated the entire British and French military, but he decided not to. At the very least, you should be happy that Nolan didn't give an overly false narrative to inject action at the expense of history. That being said, Nolan captured the unknown terror very well, here. You don't see the enemy, and these soldiers barely see them, but it is very well known that they are there and there is very little defense that these guys trapped on the beach can muster. Only in hindsight do we know that this was one of Hitler's greatest blunders, but no one on that beach would have known that then. Jaws worked well because we didn't really see the shark until the third act, and it got what...2 minutes of screen time overall?



I agree with this. I thought he didn't bring out the true scale of the operation which was much, much, much larger than what was portrayed here. I don't know if he had some grand desire to avoid digital at all costs, but the scope of the operation as portrayed here suffered in the light of this decision. I was actually thoroughly disappointed when the boats showed up and it looked like they simply ran out of budget to shoot it properly...which is probably not possible with a current day Nolan flick.

I think it just made the movie not tense because the viewer didnt get the sense of real danger from German forces. Nothing in this movie was tense for me. I too was expecting a huge panoramic view of hundreds if not thousands of small boats coming to the rescue. Which would have been a cool visual. But instead we got maybe 30 at best. Just didnt feel epic of grand. Overall to me this movie was a let down for me from all the hype. I expected it to be great and it was just meh. But that is just my opinion. We all have our own.

 

[dainthomas]

I think it just made the movie not tense because the viewer didnt get the sense of real danger from German forces. Nothing in this movie was tense for me. I too was expecting a huge panoramic view of hundreds if not thousands of small boats coming to the rescue. Which would have been a cool visual. But instead we got maybe 30 at best. Just didnt feel epic of grand. Overall to me this movie was a let down for me from all the hype. I expected it to be great and it was just meh. But that is just my opinion. We all have our own.

I'd take 30 real boats over 1000 cg boats. And the story was told from the point of view of 3 men, with the exception of the pilot none of them would really have the vantage point to see thousands of boats at the same time. And it seemed to be cloudy/foggy most of the time which would limit visibility.

I liked how focused the story was on what was happening to a few characters simultaneously.

 

[Homerboy]

I agree with this. I thought he didn't bring out the true scale of the operation which was much, much, much larger than what was portrayed here. I don't know if he had some grand desire to avoid digital at all costs, but the scope of the operation as portrayed here suffered in the light of this decision. I was actually thoroughly disappointed when the boats showed up and it looked like they simply ran out of budget to shoot it properly...which is probably not possible with a current day Nolan flick.

This was my one complaint about the movie - the scale of the evacuation was never presented fully. 350K plus men is A LOT of people. I can't imagine there was a scene where they showed even 10K men on the beach. Let alone all the equipment they had with them, It was just too sparse and too minimal. Obviously, in turn the same goes for the number of rescue boats. Google actual pictures from the evacuation pre/post and nothing like that really shows up in the movie,

 

[BUTCH1]

I haven't read about the actual battle in some time, but I recall part of the reason being that even though the panzer forces ran over most of the French defense, once they did a substantial portion of the mechanized force was in need of refit (it was mostly PZ-2 and PZ-3 at this time).

True, the rapid advancement did take a toll on the German army, and the Luftwaffe was also exhausted since they were flying constant sorties in support of the "lightning war" strategy. Moreover, I don't think the German Generals, (or Hitler), actually thought a rescue could be pulled off at Dunkirk since the harbor's facilities had been bombed extensively and mostly destroyed.

 

[TallBill]

This was my one complaint about the movie - the scale of the evacuation was never presented fully. 350K plus men is A LOT of people. I can't imagine there was a scene where they showed even 10K men on the beach. Let alone all the equipment they had with them, It was just too sparse and too minimal. Obviously, in turn the same goes for the number of rescue boats. Google actual pictures from the evacuation pre/post and nothing like that really shows up in the movie,

Absolutely my complaint... the small stories were okay at best and the scope was never remotely shown.

 

[K1052]

I'd take 30 real boats over 1000 cg boats. And the story was told from the point of view of 3 men, with the exception of the pilot none of them would really have the vantage point to see thousands of boats at the same time. And it seemed to be cloudy/foggy most of the time which would limit visibility.

I liked how focused the story was on what was happening to a few characters simultaneously.

This pretty much. I don't really need to see a bunch of sweeping shots of 100K fake guys on a beach. Nolan stayed with practical effects to the utmost possible which is greatly appreciated for the purposes of this film.

The sense of tension and urgency focused on a fresh individual stories was very well done IMO.

 

[Homerboy]

Absolutely my complaint... the small stories were okay at best and the scope was never remotely shown.

This pretty much. I don't really need to see a bunch of sweeping shots of 100K fake guys on a beach. Nolan stayed with practical effects to the utmost possible which is greatly appreciated for the purposes of this film.

The sense of tension and urgency focused on a fresh individual stories was very well done IMO.

I completely agree with both of these statements. I WISH there was more "scale" provided. But also completely appreciated the fact that he stuck with practical effects.

 

[K1052]

In related news I'm going to see it again Friday, this time in 5-perf 70mm.

 

[NoSoupforyou]

I too love good war flicks. I sat thru 2 back to back (3hrs each) of A Bridge Too Far when it was new. Loved Saving Private Ryan and the HBO A Band of Brothers. From what i have been reading about Dunkirk i think i would be disappointed in it.

As for Historical reasons. (Why Dunkirk) As stated above the ground was not suitable for tanks. BUT the Germans could have taken Dunkirk before the allies built up a defense. On May 24 the Germans were poised to take Dunkirk with virtually no opposition. But the Panzers were ordered to halt 8miles from Dunkirk and sat there for 3 days. This allowed the BEF and French to stream into Dunkirk and set up a strong defense.

Part of the reasons were that the ground was bad for tanks. Also do not forget there was still Sizable French forces to the south and the Germans needed to rest and refit before taking on the rest of France. There was also that Hitler wanted a settlement with Britain and let the BEF escape to make peace easier to attain.

The Germans and the English had strong ties and Hitler considered them brothers. The British royals had strong ties to Germany. (google Queen Victoria and Germany)
Then there is the Mountbatten family which originated as a branch of the German Battenburg. And in fact they changed the name to Mountbatten during WW1.

The royal family House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family.

so we can see why Hitler thought there were such strong ties between Germany and England (because there are)
and lastly there is the origin of the name "England" The "angles" were a Germanic people that settled in Great Britain.
and their name is the root of the name England
Also where "Anglo-Saxon" came about. (the Angles and the Saxons)

 

[A Casual Fitz]

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Very simple, with a couple small twists. Nice little film. I'll see it again on my TV at some point.

 

[Ns1]

ok y'all, watching it again with the wife. IMAX 70MM or IMAX Laser? The Laser theater is more comfortable than the 70MM theater.

paging @K1052

 

[Ns1]

saw it in 70mm IMAX last night, the aerial scenes are fucking awesome in that format. But really, more than the size of the giant screen, I'd say go to the theater with the best sound system you can find. Holy shit that sound is amazing.

On the 2nd viewing,

Spoiler

it appears that Cilian Murphy's character is in the first boat that saves the British kid from the destroyer that sank. Yes?

 

[Fenixgoon]

saw it in 70mm IMAX last night, the aerial scenes are fucking awesome in that format. But really, more than the size of the giant screen, I'd say go to the theater with the best sound system you can find. Holy shit that sound is amazing.

On the 2nd viewing,

Spoiler

it appears that Cilian Murphy's character is in the first boat that saves the British kid from the destroyer that sank. Yes?

i'd be interested in seeing it in a dolby atmos theater, but the closest one is in dallas or houston.

as to your spoiler, i can't remember.

 

[Mandres]

i'd be interested in seeing it in a dolby atmos theater, but the closest one is in dallas or houston.

Absolutely you should. My wife and I agreed it was terrifying. The sound effects and score are the best part of the movie - all of the tension and urgency comes from the sound.

I wonder how much of that is lost on non high-def audio theaters? It could explain why there are so many mixed reviews on this one.

 

[A Casual Fitz]

On the 2nd viewing,

Spoiler

it appears that Cilian Murphy's character is in the first boat that saves the British kid from the destroyer that sank. Yes?

Spoiler

Yes, it follows the one week, one day, one hour vague titles in the beginning. The stories are taking place over different lengths of time.