Movies: Dunkirk: Christopher Nolan next movie release date July 2017

Siamese Dream

Registered User
Feb 5, 2011
75,215
1,238
United Britain of Great Kingdom
I was a little disappointed to be honest, but I went into this knowing exactly how it would be; just an action movie made for seeing in the theatre full of tension and designed to keep you on the edge of your seat. I did enjoy the dog fighting scenes, the Spitfire is one of the most iconic planes in history. Though I think there were a few too many, they could have cut the first one when they fight the single fighter which was a bit pointless, if I wanted to see so much dogfighting I'd just watch The Battle of Britain or Top Gun if I'm in the mood for something more modern.

I saw the run time and knew we weren't going to get a 3 hour 60s/70s classic like A Bridge Too Far with a massive ensemble cast which tells the overall story of the battle with perspectives from both sides and scenes with the generals going over what's happening. I felt that Dunkirk offered very little insight into the scale of what was actually going on around the protagonists, no scenes of the perimeter holding off the enemy or generals talking strategy and the desperation and race against the clock to evacuate the men. There was no build-up either. However I do kind of understand that it seems they just wanted to tell the story of the common man rather than make it all about the high ranking officers.

Overall I had a good cinematic experience, but growing up watching all the WW2 classics I won't be putting this up there with my favourites or on my re-watch list.

Spoiler time:

[Spoil]I knew George was going to die as soon as he got on the boat when he wasn't supposed to. I knew Tom Hardy was going to come back in his Spitfire and save the day. Those events were extremely predictable, however they did well to make you care about George's death without really developing his character.[/Spoil]
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArchAngel55

Goldenshark

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
1,126
306
Vacaville
That was Michael Caine's voice as the radio commander in the Spitfires right?

Yes and notice how they never showed his character's body in the film after his Spitfire was shot down? That's because he didn't die and was picked up somewhere in the channel and made it back to England:

1f96887a1abfac2df1ca422b73193053--battle-of-britain-british-actors.jpg


Squadron Leader Canfield, Battle of Britain (1969)
 

kurt

the last emperor
Sep 11, 2004
8,709
52
Victoria
Yes and notice how they never showed his character's body in the film after his Spitfire was shot down? That's because he didn't die and was picked up somewhere in the channel and made it back to England:

1f96887a1abfac2df1ca422b73193053--battle-of-britain-british-actors.jpg


Squadron Leader Canfield, Battle of Britain (1969)

nice touch
 

Carlzner

Registered User
Oct 31, 2011
16,662
6,847
Denver, CO
Just saw it, and there's something bugging me.

When the blonde pilot went down from Tom Hardy's perspective, we see him get out and wave on top of the plane and Tom does a little wave back. It wasn't the third plane cause that went down much earlier.

Then later we see the same scene from the old guys boat perspective, and he almost drowns before getting saved. Anyone else notice this?
 
Mar 22, 2010
11,493
6
Mother Base
Just saw it, and there's something bugging me.

When the blonde pilot went down from Tom Hardy's perspective, we see him get out and wave on top of the plane and Tom does a little wave back. It wasn't the third plane cause that went down much earlier.

Then later we see the same scene from the old guys boat perspective, and he almost drowns before getting saved. Anyone else notice this?

He wasn't on top of the plane, he was trying to open the cockpit, which may have looked like waving to Tom Hardy.
 

Desdichado93

Registered User
Jan 7, 2012
1,292
246
Sweden
Just saw it, and there's something bugging me.

When the blonde pilot went down from Tom Hardy's perspective,
we see him get out and wave on top of the plane and Tom does a
little wave back. It wasn't the third plane cause that went down much earlier.

Then later we see the same scene from the old guys boat perspective, and he almost drowns before getting saved.
Anyone else notice this?

I did but then I realized that what looked like someone standing on the aircraft's nose was just the propeller.
 

Benjamin

Differently Financed
Jun 14, 2010
31,118
438
yes
I thought it was OK. Good quality but boring at times. Every scene that involved the guy at Dunkirk became a guessing game of which guy he was. Came out of it with a headache because it was waaay too loud.
 

Benjamin

Differently Financed
Jun 14, 2010
31,118
438
yes
Just saw it, and there's something bugging me.

When the blonde pilot went down from Tom Hardy's perspective, we see him get out and wave on top of the plane and Tom does a little wave back. It wasn't the third plane cause that went down much earlier.

Then later we see the same scene from the old guys boat perspective, and he almost drowns before getting saved. Anyone else notice this?

In both perspectives, the pilot is sticking his hand out of the crack between glass and waving. He can open the cockpit about 4 inches before it stops.
 

les Habs

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,236
3,964
Wisconsin
Saw it last week. Didn't like it as much as I thought I would, but still enjoyed it. Would like to see it again at home when it's on video/streaming.

One thing that I thought was lacking was the scale. Cinematically I thought it was beautiful, but the scale of the operation wasn't there for me. I don't know the historical figures, but take the fishing/leisure vessels for example. Surely there were more of those. That's just one example too. So for me some sort of CGI, and I hate CGI, strategically placed in the background likely would have added the missing scale.

The other thing I didn't like was the sound or soundtrack. Not only was it too loud in the theater, but it was just constant the whole time. I'm guessing it was to add tension, and it worked, but I thought it was overplayed.
 

Siamese Dream

Registered User
Feb 5, 2011
75,215
1,238
United Britain of Great Kingdom
Saw it last week. Didn't like it as much as I thought I would, but still enjoyed it. Would like to see it again at home when it's on video/streaming.

One thing that I thought was lacking was the scale. Cinematically I thought it was beautiful, but the scale of the operation wasn't there for me. I don't know the historical figures, but take the fishing/leisure vessels for example. Surely there were more of those. That's just one example too. So for me some sort of CGI, and I hate CGI, strategically placed in the background likely would have added the missing scale.

The other thing I didn't like was the sound or soundtrack. Not only was it too loud in the theater, but it was just constant the whole time. I'm guessing it was to add tension, and it worked, but I thought it was overplayed.

The scale thing is a huge criticism from me, but it seems like Nolan did it on purpose because he just wanted to be as "edgy" as possible.
 

les Habs

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,236
3,964
Wisconsin
The scale thing is a huge criticism from me, but it seems like Nolan did it on purpose because he just wanted to be as "edgy" as possible.

Yeah, but I don't think you lose that. I mean I'm talking things in the background, but you stick with the main cast although there wasn't much to the characters anyway. It's a big criticism from me as well.
 

Siamese Dream

Registered User
Feb 5, 2011
75,215
1,238
United Britain of Great Kingdom
I'm slightly confused. How is that choice "edgy"?

Because it's contrary to the usual style of most classic war films. If this movie had been made in the 60s/70s in the same era of the likes of The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far, there would have been a lot of build-up and scenes with the generals (including the Germans) going over the entire operation and you'd have shots that truly represented the scale of all the men on the beach and all the boats showing up to rescue them. Nolan deliberately didn't want to do this, he wanted to make it a "survival story" about the select few chosen characters, he wanted to make it about them, not about the battle itself. There is also no blood and gore which is typical of the more modern war classics like Saving Private Ryan. Pretty much every criticism you can think of for Dunkirk, Nolan did it that way on purpose.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,017
11,677
Saw it last week. Didn't like it as much as I thought I would, but still enjoyed it. Would like to see it again at home when it's on video/streaming.

One thing that I thought was lacking was the scale. Cinematically I thought it was beautiful, but the scale of the operation wasn't there for me. I don't know the historical figures, but take the fishing/leisure vessels for example. Surely there were more of those. That's just one example too. So for me some sort of CGI, and I hate CGI, strategically placed in the background likely would have added the missing scale.

The other thing I didn't like was the sound or soundtrack. Not only was it too loud in the theater, but it was just constant the whole time. I'm guessing it was to add tension, and it worked, but I thought it was overplayed.

The story was shown as a microcosm of the operation and the emotions that came out of it. I don't see how increasing the scale improves this film because it was never designed to be that way.
 

Goldenshark

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
1,126
306
Vacaville
Because it's contrary to the usual style of most classic war films. If this movie had been made in the 60s/70s in the same era of the likes of The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far, there would have been a lot of build-up and scenes with the generals (including the Germans) going over the entire operation and you'd have shots that truly represented the scale of all the men on the beach and all the boats showing up to rescue them. Nolan deliberately didn't want to do this, he wanted to make it a "survival story" about the select few chosen characters, he wanted to make it about them, not about the battle itself. There is also no blood and gore which is typical of the more modern war classics like Saving Private Ryan. Pretty much every criticism you can think of for Dunkirk, Nolan did it that way on purpose.

Almost everything you mentioned in your post is present in Battle of Britain (1969) which Nolan obviously watched and didn't want to repeat because he knew this film would be a companion to it since the events of that film take place a month after Dunkirk. Battle of Britain is a 1/2 hr longer and feels a 1/2 hr more tedious. It's pretty obvious he wanted to do something different and he definitely succeeded in my opinion. That's refreshing, not "edgy."
 

Goldenshark

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
1,126
306
Vacaville
If he wanted to make it not Battle of Britain, there shouldn't have been so much time spent on dogfights

The amount of time he spent on dogfights has nothing to do with it because Dunkirk's dogfights are nothing like Battle of Britain's dogfights. BoB's dogfights are huge furballs of dozens of aircraft showing dozens of different pilots on both sides which is cool but sometimes gets confusing and is extremely repetitive to watch. Aside from the three main British pilots played by Robert Shaw, Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer, I couldn't really care about anybody else.

Dunkirk's dogfights feels much more smaller and real on a personal level from two pilots. It's a third of the movie because it's one of three personal stories. BoB has the generals on both sides planning with men pushing markers on big maps and things like that and Nolan just didn't want to repeat that larger scale of a battle. He wanted to show the battle on a personal level from land, sea and air.

He's trying not to be cliche, that's not edgy, and in my opinion he succeeded.
 

RobBrown4PM

Pringles?
Oct 12, 2009
8,878
2,766
The amount of time he spent on dogfights has nothing to do with it because Dunkirk's dogfights are nothing like Battle of Britain's dogfights. BoB's dogfights are huge furballs of dozens of aircraft showing dozens of different pilots on both sides which is cool but sometimes gets confusing and is extremely repetitive to watch. Aside from the three main British pilots played by Robert Shaw, Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer, I couldn't really care about anybody else.

Dunkirk's dogfights feels much more smaller and real on a personal level from two pilots. It's a third of the movie because it's one of three personal stories. BoB has the generals on both sides planning with men pushing markers on big maps and things like that and Nolan just didn't want to repeat that larger scale of a battle. He wanted to show the battle on a personal level from land, sea and air.

He's trying not to be cliche, that's not edgy, and in my opinion he succeeded.

Don't forget about the Polish squadron, those guys were awesome.
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
186,842
20,299
Chicagoland
Finally saw it

Enjoyed it very much. It isn't a perfect film but to me it was a very satisfying experience and a movie I would watch again if needed

I would give it ***1/2 out of ****

One minor issue I had was the fact Dunkirk was heavily damaged and large parts in ruins yet in movie the devastation/damage was not presented. From what I recall reading on battle/evacuation the city had large fires burning uncontrolled because water supply and pumps had been destroyed by German bombardment

Its a minor issue that stuck out to me a bit

Also film seemed to be short ,, It probably could have been 15-20 minutes longer IMO and expanded on story a bit more as well as including French and others also involved in Dunkirk
 
Last edited:

RobBrown4PM

Pringles?
Oct 12, 2009
8,878
2,766
It was a good artsy movie, but I think it would have made a good movie had it been shown from a multitude of perspectives (the British, the French and the Germans)
 

snowden

Man is matter
Jul 5, 2011
3,766
37
I loved this movie. Enjoyed the multiple perspectives and the limited dialogue. The star was the sound and visuals. If this comes out later, it might win Best Picture.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->