Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Loads of good reviews coming out. The Times is an exception.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40642050

Well, it's The Times writing about a movie that is not a Fox picture, so a certain amount of salt can be taken with that...

Here are my thoughts on Dunkirk. I saw it the other night, and it's a damn good film

In fact, I think it's so good, I will be seeing it again.

I'll post my thoughts in spoilers for those who haven't see it yet, , and for the next few days, it would be good if everybody else could do the same.

Dunkirk thoughts. SPOLIER ALERT!!!!

 sebster wrote:
So does it show the role played by the French rear guard? Because I think part is needed to show the complete Dunkirk story.

The French were at Dunkirk?

Saw it yesterday, absolutely superb film, a masterclass in cinematography, production and directing. This could go down as Nolan's masterpiece, even in light of stuff like The Dark Knight and The Prestige.



Amazing film, highly, highly recommended. You have to go and see this if you're into war films or just really well put together films.

It's a good film, even my dad really enjoyed it, particularly the sound at an Imax film.

My main criticism would be that it's rather confusing chronologically. Quite often it would be halfway through a scene before I work out exactly when it's taking place. - It could have done with more timestamps or the like.

I expect it might win a few oscars. - Kinda annoyed by that, really. As I've been rooting for Logan and Wonder Woman to get nods for some of the big oscars.

 Paradigm wrote:
Saw it yesterday, absolutely superb film, a masterclass in cinematography, production and directing. This could go down as Nolan's masterpiece, even in light of stuff like The Dark Knight and The Prestige.

Spoiler:

Two main things elevate it beyond your typical war film for me:
- The soundtrack. What a soundtrack, and the way it's present throughout the whole film until the final moments, never allowing the tension to drop, it's just expert use of a score.
- The use of the 3 timelines to get the varying perspectives without actually repeating scenes/shots for the most part, it's a great way to build up suspense knowing that the event you first see from the somewhat detached pilot's eye view will later be the focus of an intense life-and-death struggle when the land or sea threads catch up. At first I wasn't sure, but it really does come together really nicely.

In addition to those, I love how minimalist it was. Only one scene in which actual German soldiers are seen, never more than a handful of aircraft in show, no more than a third of the film being taken up with dialogue and so much of it letting the imagery do the talking. The fact whole scenes go by in near-silence apart from the score is something that must have taken a lot of guts to write and shoot, as it could easily have backfired, but it works incredibly.

Amazing film, highly, highly recommended. You have to go and see this if you're into war films or just really well put together films.

My thoughts exactly. The naysayers on social media are bemonaing it for not being SPR, but if I want to watch SPR I'll watch SPR.

Both directors have taken a different approach to the genre and both offered something good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
It's a good film, even my dad really enjoyed it, particularly the sound at an Imax film.

My main criticism would be that it's rather confusing chronologically. Quite often it would be halfway through a scene before I work out exactly when it's taking place. - It could have done with more timestamps or the like.

I expect it might win a few oscars. - Kinda annoyed by that, really. As I've been rooting for Logan and Wonder Woman to get nods for some of the big oscars.

IMAX has to be one of mankind's greatest inventions. I'd happily pay money to watch Star Trek TNG series 1 on IMAX - that's how highly I rate it.

 sebster wrote:
So does it show the role played by the French rear guard? Because I think part is needed to show the complete Dunkirk story.

It's not the focus, but the French are there fighting or trying to get out, and the fact that they had a lower priority for evacuation than the British is a significant point in some scenes.

One detail I liked in hindsight was when

It was a cool movie and I'm glad I saw it, but at the same time I feel kind of "meh" about the whole experience. I don't really feel like any of the characters had any significance. Half of them look virtually identical with the same hair and of course clothing, and I can only remember one name. The tension was so intense I couldn't get up but it was just all so faceless in the end.

I do think the use of different timelines was excellent though. At first I worried it would be kind of gimmicky but they really managed to pull it all together, bouncing between them without ever really losing me.

I think it's a real one of a kind film, and expertly crafted, but for my own enjoyment the effect wore off quickly.

 LordofHats wrote:
It was a cool movie and I'm glad I saw it, but at the same time I feel kind of "meh" about the whole experience. I don't really feel like any of the characters had any significance. Half of them look virtually identical with the same hair and of course clothing, and I can only remember one name. The tension was so intense I couldn't get up but it was just all so faceless in the end.

I do think the use of different timelines was excellent though. At first I worried it would be kind of gimmicky but they really managed to pull it all together, bouncing between them without ever really losing me.

I think it's a real one of a kind film, and expertly crafted, but for my own enjoyment the effect wore off quickly.

You may or may not know this, but 'Tommy' is the catch all name for your average British soldier, much like the American GI or grunt, or jarhead etc etc

I think it was no coincidence that a main character was called Tommy, nor a coincidence that a lot of people looked the 'same.'

It reinforced the point of everybody was fethed regardless of name or rank.

That crossed my mind cause it seems like it takes more effort to get a cast of guys with nearly identical hair and hair colors than to not.

I just don't think it made for enjoyable story telling XD

 LordofHats wrote:
That crossed my mind cause it seems like it takes more effort to get a cast of guys with nearly identical hair and hair colors than to not.

I just don't think it made for enjoyable story telling XD

In my humble opinion, the only thing wrong with Dunkirk was the absence of German tanks.

Everything is improved with the presence of tanks

Saw it last week. Was good but hardly a masterpiece as some of you think
There was 0.0 character development, infact the characters were incredibly forgettable, the soundtrack was superb to be fair until they dropped the big uplifting orchesteral piece as the flotilla arrived and there were some definite moments that were contrived (the claustraphobic fishing trawler bit, the Heinkel being shot down at the last moment etc).
But this was by far my biggest gripe - maddening infact:

My main criticism would be that it's rather confusing chronologically. Quite often it would be halfway through a scene before I work out exactly when it's taking place. - It could have done with more timestamps or the like.

Solid but hardly mindblowing.

 Ratius wrote:
Saw it last week. Was good but hardly a masterpiece as some of you think
There was 0.0 character development, infact the characters were incredibly forgettable, the soundtrack was superb to be fair until they dropped the big uplifting orchesteral piece as the flotilla arrived and there were some definite moments that were contrived (the claustraphobic fishing trawler bit, the Heinkel being shot down at the last moment etc).
But this was by far my biggest gripe - maddening infact:

My main criticism would be that it's rather confusing chronologically. Quite often it would be halfway through a scene before I work out exactly when it's taking place. - It could have done with more timestamps or the like.

Solid but hardly mindblowing.

The lack of characters was a deliberate move. Nolan used the visuals to tell the story IMO, and not the characters. We often forget that first and foremost, cinema is a visual experience, a visual way of telling a story.

The main "character" was the event itself not any specific human.

I think its a great movie, but it's not a fun movie. In fact I think it's the best war movie that I'm only ever going to see once.

I was originally a little skeptical when I heard about the absence of the French, but it turns out that was really because this film was aiming for something a lot greater than simply explaining the events of Dunkirk. Anything showing the rear guard fighting would have distracted from the experience of the soldiers there, on the beach, and their looming dread. The film was wonderfully focused and disciplined in that sense, everything worked as part of that feeling of constant dread, of being a victim of forces outside of your control, that hung over you throughout the movie.

The structure has been commented on a lot, blending together three stories that took place over different time periods, but it all worked to service that mood I mentioned above. I understand complaints that it wasn't always clear what you following, especially early on, but ultimately I think that what was missed didn't matter that much.

Ultimately, I think this captured a view of war in a way I haven't seen before, a very personal feeling of experiencing war. It's a hell of thing that's Nolan accomplished.

 sebster wrote:
I think its a great movie, but it's not a fun movie. In fact I think it's the best war movie that I'm only ever going to see once.

I was originally a little skeptical when I heard about the absence of the French, but it turns out that was really because this film was aiming for something a lot greater than simply explaining the events of Dunkirk. Anything showing the rear guard fighting would have distracted from the experience of the soldiers there, on the beach, and their looming dread. The film was wonderfully focused and disciplined in that sense, everything worked as part of that feeling of constant dread, of being a victim of forces outside of your control, that hung over you throughout the movie.

The structure has been commented on a lot, blending together three stories that took place over different time periods, but it all worked to service that mood I mentioned above. I understand complaints that it wasn't always clear what you following, especially early on, but ultimately I think that what was missed didn't matter that much.

Ultimately, I think this captured a view of war in a way I haven't seen before, a very personal feeling of experiencing war. It's a hell of thing that's Nolan accomplished.

Exactly!

A lot of people are giving Dunkirk criticism becuase it didn't show A company of French regiment X, or that guy from country X who turned up with a guitar, or this or that etc etc

To make that kind of film, you would have needed 3 billion, and the viewing time would have been 10 days or something

For any kind of historical event on this scale, it's impossible to tell every story, and fair play to Nolan for recognising this and bringing a different approach.

Saving Private Ryan set the bar very high, and I think a lot of people were expecting another SPR, but Nolan showed there is another way to make a war film.

Saw it last night. Solid film, incredibly tense, and I love what it looks like - it really has the same vibe as looking at WWII photographs but without looking dated, some inspired cinematography - but I left feeling a bit lacklustre. I thought after such an intense build it really rather fizzled out towards the end into Standard WWII Movie Ending.

That said, I've always found myself feeling a bit meh about Nolan's films when others are raving about them. I think they're often great pieces of craft, but rarely really grab me. So maybe it's largely a taste thing.

 sebster wrote:
I think its a great movie, but it's not a fun movie. In fact I think it's the best war movie that I'm only ever going to see once.

I think this sums up my thoughts very well.

Went to see this last night. Pretty harrowing film. Definitely conveys the horrors of war. Incredibly intense.
I did find the chronology confusing for the first half hour or so. Also would have loved an overhead shot showing the scale of the small ships flotilla (nearly 1000 I think).

Doubt I will watch again not because it's a poor film probably because it does such a good job of depicting the tension and horror. It's uncomfortable.

It could have been better. It was far far too disjointed banging between the different stories minute by minute.

 Frazzled wrote:
It could have been better. It was far far too disjointed banging between the different stories minute by minute.

Perhaps but isn't that your response to pretty much everything at this point? TV, Movies, News, the Dictionary...

I found the chronology confusing. I gather that the spitfire that goes down in the film from Tom Hardy's perspective is the one seen later where the little boat sees him crash and fishes the pilot out. Maybe that's why that Heinkel 111 seemed to keep coming back, was it seen to be shot down twice from different points of view in the film? I don't know, I lost track of how many aircraft were in the sky, which were new and which were old ones seen from different perspective.

I think it does need another watch because now in understand better about the chronology I can put it together better.

Other than that, the tension and drama of it was excellent, great on the big screen.

I notice lots want to pick up on innacuracies on the film, despite it being a film and some dramatic concession being made. I suppose the one I felt stood out was that Tom Hardy was surely far too old to be a combat pilot, he's 40, old enough to be most of the pilots' dad. Did he start flying in the Great War alongside Biggles?

The film was actually not that far off from history. I'd call it one of the most authentic war films I've ever seen, even more so than Saving Private Ryan which got lots of praise when it came out for its historical authenticity.

I'd consider anyone harping about to simply be a whiner who doesn't want to be pleased and thus cannot be.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It could have been better. It was far far too disjointed banging between the different stories minute by minute.

Perhaps but isn't that your response to pretty much everything at this point? TV, Movies, News, the Dictionary...

"It could have been better. It was far far too disjointed banging between the different stories minute by minute."
-Frazzled, on Life.

In this particular context constant skipping during tense points would take me out of the experience for a moment or two.

Quick question about flags.

In Dunkirk, I noticed the civilian ships flew a flag I didn't totally recognize - it was a blue flag with the Union Jack only in the upper left corner. I had thought, obviously wrongly, that British ships flew a Union Jack. I read this article on Wikipedia and I think I get what is going on but wanted to check:

Civilian ships operating under requisition (?) to the Royal Navy would fly a blue flag with the Union Jack in a corner
Actual British warships operating under the Royal Navy would fly the above, but on a white field with a red cross

is that right? If so, do any ships in England fly a Union Jack?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Exactly!

You and I agree on something! Or to put it another, you're finally right about something!

A lot of people are giving Dunkirk criticism becuase it didn't show A company of French regiment X, or that guy from country X who turned up with a guitar, or this or that etc etc

To make that kind of film, you would have needed 3 billion, and the viewing time would have been 10 days or something

For any kind of historical event on this scale, it's impossible to tell every story, and fair play to Nolan for recognising this and bringing a different approach.

Not only that, but even with infinite budget and infinite time you would be losing something from the experience by showing all that stuff. Showing a birds eye view of the battle means telling the audience a lot detail that the average soldier on the ground doesn't know. It means the audience is taken away from the viewpoint of the average soldier, he doesn't relate as easily to the confusion that soldier would have been suffering. Nolan kept the view of the war narrowed down to a handful of people as they experienced it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I found the chronology confusing. I gather that the spitfire that goes down in the film from Tom Hardy's perspective is the one seen later where the little boat sees him crash and fishes the pilot out. Maybe that's why that Heinkel 111 seemed to keep coming back, was it seen to be shot down twice from different points of view in the film? I don't know, I lost track of how many aircraft were in the sky, which were new and which were old ones seen from different perspective.

Yes. Hardy watches his wingmate go down, and then sees the other pilot waving at him. Hardy gives a puzzled expression, waves back and flies off. Only later when they show that scene from the other pilot's perspective did we realise that he wasn't waving, he was trying to get the cockpit open, he was trapped and sinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The film was actually not that far off from history. I'd call it one of the most authentic war films I've ever seen, even more so than Saving Private Ryan which got lots of praise when it came out for its historical authenticity.

Thing about SPR is that it gets loads of technical details right, and even includes incredible detail peripheral to the main story that would be missed by almost all movie goers (the soldiers shot down by GIs were speaking Czech and saying they were pressganged in to fighting for Germany, for instance).

But it layers all that on top of what is a fairly run of the mill, cliched story. Grizzled vets sent on a stand alone mission, alternating between action set pieces and dialogue, before finishing it off with a desperate last stand where an absurd number of Germans are slaughtered while the heroes die one by one.

Don't get me wrong, SPR is a great movie because the production is so good, but the story it is built on is nothing much at all.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I found the chronology confusing. I gather that the spitfire that goes down in the film from Tom Hardy's perspective is the one seen later where the little boat sees him crash and fishes the pilot out. Maybe that's why that Heinkel 111 seemed to keep coming back, was it seen to be shot down twice from different points of view in the film? I don't know, I lost track of how many aircraft were in the sky, which were new and which were old ones seen from different perspective.

I think it does need another watch because now in understand better about the chronology I can put it together better.

Other than that, the tension and drama of it was excellent, great on the big screen.

I notice lots want to pick up on innacuracies on the film, despite it being a film and some dramatic concession being made. I suppose the one I felt stood out was that Tom Hardy was surely far too old to be a combat pilot, he's 40, old enough to be most of the pilots' dad. Did he start flying in the Great War alongside Biggles?

At this point in the war our frontline was still heavily based on the pre-war professional forces, so I think it's one of the few periods when having older airmen/sailors/soldiers can be justified.

Random aside, but as a bit of an aircraft geek it's also nice to finally see a justified use of a vic 3 formation; that gets misused in so many films, it's a pet bugbear of mine...

 Ouze wrote:
Quick question about flags.

In Dunkirk, I noticed the civilian ships flew a flag I didn't totally recognize - it was a blue flag with the Union Jack only in the upper left corner. I had thought, obviously wrongly, that British ships flew a Union Jack. I read this article on Wikipedia and I think I get what is going on but wanted to check:

Civilian ships operating under requisition (?) to the Royal Navy would fly a blue flag with the Union Jack in a corner
Actual British warships operating under the Royal Navy would fly the above, but on a white field with a red cross

is that right? If so, do any ships in England fly a Union Jack?

m

The flag is called 'the blue ensign' it's used by the admiralty under certain circumstances. Dunkirk being the one of those as they had brought civilian vessels under admiralty control.

Thanks, and also thanks for the detailed answer I got via PM.