 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?.
What for a short break or a long stay?"
thought I might pop over advance inland a few miles. Realise it's not working out and retreat to the beaches hoping to be picked up by a handsome sailor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?.
What for a short break or a long stay? thought I might pop over advance inland a few miles. Realise it's not working out and retreat to the beaches hoping to be picked up by a handsome sailor "
Thats the Dunkirk spirit  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?"
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion. "
I thought that at first, but Christopher Nolan is a huge director who wouldn't be pushed into cast Harry Styles just because of his name. He would have been right for the part
Alot of people said the same about his casting when he cast Heath Ledger as the joker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?.
What for a short break or a long stay? thought I might pop over advance inland a few miles. Realise it's not working out and retreat to the beaches hoping to be picked up by a handsome sailor "
.
I have a dinghy but I wouldn't recommend leaving Dunkirk in it in this particular political atmosphere  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I thought that at first, but Christopher Nolan is a huge director who wouldn't be pushed into cast Harry Styles just because of his name. He would have been right for the part
Alot of people said the same about his casting when he cast Heath Ledger as the joker"
true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion. "
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Seen it
Probably went in expecting to much after all the hype.
Came out think meh
Should have waited to see it on sky.
Don't think it captured the scale of the reality very well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I thought that at first, but Christopher Nolan is a huge director who wouldn't be pushed into cast Harry Styles just because of his name. He would have been right for the part
Alot of people said the same about his casting when he cast Heath Ledger as the joker"
I've read every Jack Reacher novel but will not watch a film with Tom Cruise in the eponymous role as for me the casting is wrong.
The director and producer can cast who they like: their decision, doesn't follow it has to work for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me "
I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong/missing but I think you've summed it up.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The movie has its flaws but it was a different treatment to a subject which has been done to death - pardon the pun - in movies. There's no Private Ryanesque "Oh my God, war is Hell, those are real bullets."
Einstein supposedly said, "One is the only number we can comprehend in war." It deals with individual stories rather than the big picture and uses the Inception time thing to tell three separate stories, which eventually intermingle. It was good to see something from the Spitfire's view, then later see the same event from the boat with more detail being filled in.
It could be accused of cheesy heroism but there was true heroism in the real events. What I liked was it doesn't shy away from the fear. Courage is not being fearless, it's overcoming fear.
And Harry Styles was good enough for me to keep questioning, "Is that Harry Styles out of One Direction? He's doing quite well if it is." Maybe it was important to have somebody like him in the movie to bring it to a new generation, who might not have been interested in a "stupid old war movie" otherwise.
The one detail I was a bit pedantic movie geek about was that Tom Hardy is 39 and Spitfire pilots rarely made it past 25. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *pidernickMan
over a year ago
Locks Heath (Fareham borough) |
I'm surprised at the mainly negative comments on here. Personally I think it will be mentioned in the same breath as 'Lawrence of Arabia' in years to come. I am hoping to see it again soon and know of many who have seen it multiple times. I would highly recommend it (definitely one for the big screen, rather than waiting until the DVD comes out). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Was very much looking forward to seeing it but was disappointed with it I'm afraid.
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeonly old git, the old film with John mills was for me far better lol
But then I don't think there's been a decent war film made since a bridge too far |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women "
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill "
And don't forget the little ships sailing out of New York to the rescue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill "
 I lol'd |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill
"
We shall defend our mother fucking island. We shall fight them on the mother fucking beaches. You know the rest |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill
We shall defend our mother fucking island. We shall fight them on the mother fucking beaches. You know the rest "
...stop! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill
We shall defend our mother fucking island. We shall fight them on the mother fucking beaches. You know the rest
...stop!"
Haha winston churchill holding an AK motherfuckin 47 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I reckon it's a pretty good film. If you concentrate on capturing the 'spirit' and disregard the historical aristic license. Most people will find it enthralling, captivating and so tense that it's only the WWII buffs (I am becoming one) that will notice many of the criticisms made by other posters.
Harry styles is good enough to forget that he's in it. Kenneth Brannagh plays a man of the era.
The first 3 quarters of the film does a brilliant job of depicting the horror of the surprise attack on the soldiers on the beach (think a reversal of the beginning of saving private Ryan, but over an hour) The last quarter of the film depicts the horror of a nation facing defeat, imminent invasion and the sense of failure by an army of very young men escaping home expecting the dismay and persecution of a public rightfully shitting themselves at the prospect of what's coming across the channel.
Good film. Watch at the cinema whilst you can. Might be too tense to watch at home without being distracted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Still think it's funny one of the new York times said it's disappointing there are no main characters with colour and no lead women
God love the yanks! Haha
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story
"Dunkirk" staring Samuel l Jackson as winston Churchill
We shall defend our mother fucking island. We shall fight them on the mother fucking beaches. You know the rest
...stop!
Haha winston churchill holding an AK motherfuckin 47"
Say "Vas" again, I double dare you A_ dolf you muthafuka... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me "
I,m in agreement there, I have seen it and I was disappointed
1) Ramsgate, where the vast majority of the small boats and owners sailed from wasn't featured and I don't think it was even mentioned.
2) The small boat featured they had sailing from The Devon/Cornwall coast (have forgotten the name of the place)
3) I found it very disjointed, jumping from one part of the story to another, hard to keep track of
4)one scene was night, then day, then night again, but a day and night had not gone by.
I was very disappointed, my usually empty cinema was very busy, on the strength of the historical importance they attached to the film, it is a money spinner pure and simple. Even down to putting Mr One Direction in it. It was a travesty and an insult to the soldier's involved and the real rescue efforts.
In my opinion it's a load of rubbish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me
I,m in agreement there, I have seen it and I was disappointed
1) Ramsgate, where the vast majority of the small boats and owners sailed from wasn't featured and I don't think it was even mentioned.
2) The small boat featured they had sailing from The Devon/Cornwall coast (have forgotten the name of the place)
3) I found it very disjointed, jumping from one part of the story to another, hard to keep track of
4)one scene was night, then day, then night again, but a day and night had not gone by.
I was very disappointed, my usually empty cinema was very busy, on the strength of the historical importance they attached to the film, it is a money spinner pure and simple. Even down to putting Mr One Direction in it. It was a travesty and an insult to the soldier's involved and the real rescue efforts.
In my opinion it's a load of rubbish."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me
I,m in agreement there, I have seen it and I was disappointed
1) Ramsgate, where the vast majority of the small boats and owners sailed from wasn't featured and I don't think it was even mentioned.
2) The small boat featured they had sailing from The Devon/Cornwall coast (have forgotten the name of the place)
3) I found it very disjointed, jumping from one part of the story to another, hard to keep track of
4)one scene was night, then day, then night again, but a day and night had not gone by.
I was very disappointed, my usually empty cinema was very busy, on the strength of the historical importance they attached to the film, it is a money spinner pure and simple. Even down to putting Mr One Direction in it. It was a travesty and an insult to the soldier's involved and the real rescue efforts.
In my opinion it's a load of rubbish."
My local cinema is usually empty during the day. There is usually no more than 10 people for the 1pm shows. The day I saw Dunkirk, a month after its release the place was packed!
Money spinner indeed! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me "
I'm gonna be looking for those things now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I really tried to like it but just couldn't, The great effects aside and the addition of the RAFs role I'd much rather have paid to watch the 1958 film with John Mills.
There's a coherent story there rather than trying to be too clever by half with the 3 views of the same incidents, and barely a nod to the French and British troops that stayed behind to hold the perimeter.
Probably what lends the earlier film more gravitas is that a lot of the cast served in the war and it was more than a payday for them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me "
Very much agree with this. Very disappointed. Knowing what I know now I wouldn't bother going to see it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
I didn't enjoy it. I found it really forced in a lot of ways. The intentional lack of dialogue made it unrealistic, near the start there is a plane dive bombing the beach with a few thousand men, not one of the shouts a word. Not a "shit fuck bollocks", not a "get down", not a "find cover" nothing. A few minutes later two guys carrying a stretcher through hundreds of men. Not once do they say "make room", "coming through" or "watch your backs".
I really didn't like the 3 perspectives, different time frame narrative structure. It just didn't work in this film.
The whole scene in the boat that is beached, then shot at with rifle and machine gun fire was rubbish. "Oh it doesn't matter that the boat is full of holes, if we throw someone off it will all be fine" no, no it wont. Also shoving your hand onto a bullet hole through steel would cut your hand to shreds before you got anywhere near plugging the hole.
People have mentioned the never-ending bullets that Hardy had in his Spitfire (they only had about 9 seconds worth), but also the fact that he still managed to fly, manoeuvre, shoot down an enemy plane, double back on himself and successfully land the plane all after he had run out of fuel at only a few hundred feet altitude!
There were other bits as well, I don't think that they captured the scale very well, my friend said that they didn't have enough small boats, I thought they didn't have enough large RN vessels. The evacuation took place over 40 miles of beaches, this looked more like 400m. I don't know what the problem was, I got the impression that they tried to do it with as little CGI as possible, which is usually a good thing, but it backfired as you cant get enough WWII era boats, especially RN vessels, or enough kitted out extras to adequately represent the true scale of the event with purely genuine props and extras. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As a matter of minor historical interest, Captain Lightoller went over to Dunkirk to help evacuate soldiers and he was an officer on the Titanic. "
My grandmother's teacher was on the Titanic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a matter of minor historical interest, Captain Lightoller went over to Dunkirk to help evacuate soldiers and he was an officer on the Titanic. "
Yes and his boat "sundowner" is still in Ramsgate harbour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone seen it? Would you recommend?
I like war films and soooo wanted to love this, but for me, there was something missing.
It could simply be the casting...Harry Styles... Really?!! Smug Kenneth Brannagh...you sure?!!
A so so film to commemorate an epic endeavour in my opinion.
I agree - and then add the incongruous such as :
Modern lifeboat clearly visible in background
Modern container ship in one shot
Train seats that were very 1970
Camera angles that managed to include very modern buildings
A ship sinking in a harbour that is at most 4m deep
A set of machine guns that just kept on giving - clearly the spitfire had endless ammunition!
I kno I sound picky and nerdy but these things spoil the connection with the right time for me - and it all just seemed a bit airless somehow. Shots of soldiers standings in lines with a rough sea one minute and calm the next, so'iders standing in the sea but not a boat in sight whereas the reality was that they queued whilst ships lifeboats took them off before the little ships arrived. From day one there was constant activity on the beaches and sea to get people off but that wasn't depicted.
A miss from me
I,m in agreement there, I have seen it and I was disappointed
1) Ramsgate, where the vast majority of the small boats and owners sailed from wasn't featured and I don't think it was even mentioned.
2) The small boat featured they had sailing from The Devon/Cornwall coast (have forgotten the name of the place)
3) I found it very disjointed, jumping from one part of the story to another, hard to keep track of
4)one scene was night, then day, then night again, but a day and night had not gone by.
I was very disappointed, my usually empty cinema was very busy, on the strength of the historical importance they attached to the film, it is a money spinner pure and simple. Even down to putting Mr One Direction in it. It was a travesty and an insult to the soldier's involved and the real rescue efforts.
In my opinion it's a load of rubbish."
In answer to number 4, the film depicts 3 intertwined stories, the first is 90 minutes for the spitfire pilot, the second one day for the small boat plus navy and the third is one week for the soldiers trying to escape.
This is why you have night scenes. You really do have to concentrate watching the film.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
