Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

This weekend, Christopher Nolan's new movie came out, Dunkirk. It depicts the evacuation of the British Army after complete failure against the German Blitzkrieg in the 1940 Battle of France.  

Apparently the "battle" is not well known amongst the causal movie going public. It was probably one of the most pivotal events in the war. If 300,000 soldiers get captured right off the bat, it's hard to imagine the UK holding on until the US enter the war. 

Nolan goes Nolan in this movie telling the story from 3 different perspectives with 3 different timelines. 

1) Soldiers trying to escape the beach.
2) A Civilian Yacht going across the Channel to help with the evacuation.
3) A squadron of Spitfire Pilots battling the Luftwaffe above the Channel.

They're told from a week before, day before and hour before the event where it all comes together. (otherwise Tom Hardy and his Spitfire would only show up at the end of the movie). You keep going back in time to see events from a different perspective. 

This is a really compelling movie and super suspenseful movie. Not a lot of gore though. I think it ranks behind Inception for me as favourite Nolan movies. It's definitely the leader in the Club House for Best Picture at the Oscards. And Mark Rylance should win his second Oscar for his performance here. 

Edited by Boges
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This weekend, Christopher Nolan's new movie came out, Dunkirk. It depicts the evacuation of the British Army after complete failure against the German Blitzkrieg in the 1940 Battle of France.   A

Das Boot is much better in German with subtitles as needed, which isn't often.    

Possibly the most famous foreign language scene of recent decades? I wish I knew German but one can get the gist even without the subtitles:   Here's one of countless spoofs:

35 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why are there no women or black actors in this film?  I'm offended.

I guess it's racist because they wanted to be historically accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this movie in a true Imax cinema. (Apparently, there are different versions of Imax cinemas. In Montreal, if I understand correctly, there is only one true Imax cinema: the Scotia Bank cinema. The other Imax cinemas are digital - Scotia is celluloid.) You can also see this movie in 70mm which frankly, I think, is a better format overall and particularly for this movie - assuming that you want to see it.

The movie is bad, crappy.  No plot, no character development, no nothing. All noisy - very noisy - unrealistic, just special effects. CGI. Music is bad. At least in Gravity, Sandra Bullock wanted to go home. In Dunkirk, we get Kenneth Branaugh in a British navy uniform under a cloudy sky muttering: ".. . home". (He also utters the only joke of the movie: tides and Navy vs Army.)  But if you love Spitfires, you'll love this movie. A Spitfire glides forever... then lands on a beach.

Nolan has described this movie as many people working together to achieve a goal. I call BS. This is no Mrs Miniver. It is about one hour into the movie that we see the many small boats on the horizon. No, this is Christopher Nolan using sophisticated CGI to turn a WWII video game into a cinema movie. (Seeing this movie made me miss David Lean - and what he would have done with this technology.)

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Dammit!  I was hoping it would be good. 

Oh well, there's always Atomic Blonde...

It's an excellent movie and is getting rave reviews from all corners (well except one here maybe) The three different perspectives are woven together very well. I plan to see it on Imax when it airs there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Dammit!  I was hoping it would be good. 

Oh well, there's always Atomic Blonde...

Well don't let the above review sway you. 

Movie is in 90s on Rotten Tomatoes. 

The plot is obvious. And the story telling device is unique. 

And there actually isn't much CGI at all. 

I think the review in the OP is actually what's crappy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well don't let the above review sway you. 

Movie is in 90s on Rotten Tomatoes. 

The plot is obvious. And the story telling device is unique. 

And there actually isn't much CGI at all. 

I think the review in the OP is actually what's crappy. 

 

If you want to see a Spitfire impossibly gliding, forever, forever, then it's a good movie.

Not much CGI? If you want to see very good CGI, then it's a good movie.

=====

Christopher Nolan is Stanley Kubrick without the technical talent. Heck, Christopher Nolan is David Lean without the artistic talent.

Modern directors/producers have access to so much technology - yet they produce crap.

Why?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, August1991 said:

If you want to see a Spitfire impossibly gliding, forever, forever, then it's a good movie.

Not much CGI? If you want to see very good CGI, then it's a good movie.

=====

Christopher Nolan is Stanley Kubrick without the technical talent. Heck, Christopher Nolan is David Lean without the artistic talent.

Modern directors/producers have access to so much technology - yet they produce crap.

Why?

I'll make my own mind up about Dunkirk, but I do agree completely that CGI is wasted on so many directors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omni said:

...The three different perspectives are woven together very well. I plan to see it on Imax when it airs there.

Uh, three perspectives: the mole, the air, the sea?

Woven together?  Sorry, there's no plot there. Nothing.

======

This movie had a story, related badly at the end through an actor speaking badly, reading a newspaper  - Supertramp did it far better. It was Churchill's speech to Parliament in 1940: "...  we will fight them on the beaches. We will never surrender... "

In the movie Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan entirely missed the sense of Supertramp's point.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, August1991 said:

Uh, three perspectives: the mole, the air, the sea?

Woven together?  Sorry, there's no plot there. Nothing.

======

This movie had a story, related badly at the end through an actor speaking badly - Supertramp did it better. It was Churchill's speech to Parliament in 1940: "...  we will fight them on the beaches. We will never surrender... "

In the movie Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan entirely missed Supertramp's point.

 

 

Maybe you just didn't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omni said:

Maybe you just didn't get it.

Omni, I think I get it. Yesterday - before seeing this movie, I read Churchill's speech to the British Parliament after Dunkerque. I was surprised at first because it was so detailed; I thought that I was reading a military report  - then I realized Churchill's power: truth.

Here is a link to the full speech:

On the beaches

======

For those curious, Russians in particular but Americans also, in June 1940 when these events occurred, Britain was all alone against Nazi Germany.

Russia (Stalin and the Soviets) were allied with Hitler and Nazi Germany. America and Roosevelt took no position; they were "neutral".

I can only imagine how some people in Poland, Slovakia, Jews across Europe would have heard Churchill's words in June 1940.

"We will never surrender... " 

 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Omni, I think I get it. Yesterday, I went back and read Churchill's speech to the British Parliament after Dunkerque. I was surprised at first because it was so detailed; I thought that I was reading a military report from June 1940.

Here is a link to the full speech:

On the beaches

I think the free world does not know how much we owe to Winston Churchill.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wilber said:

It's had good reviews from the few surviving vets who have seen it. A lot like they remember it but some said the movie was even louder.

Huh? Surviving vets and good reviews? True, the movie is loud - but that's part of the PR, Wilber. Good advertising, a con. (Anyone surviving would now be at least 92... )

Saving Private Ryan, a far better movie, was released in 1998 when many, still alive in their 70s, remembered well.

=====

But I'm still waiting for Hollywood/Nolan to make "Khe Sanh".

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, August1991 said:

For those curious, Russians in particular but Americans also, in June 1940 when these events occurred, Britain was all alone against Nazi Germany.

 

All alone ?    In 1939, the British Empire spanned the entire globe.   Nazi Germany...not so much.

How do you say "Reich" in the king's English ?   Empire !

 

e8b3bfab1f3b8347d368a16f5755f7f8--social

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Uh, three perspectives: the mole, the air, the sea?

Woven together?  Sorry, there's no plot there. Nothing.

That's useless hyperbole. 

The Mark Rylance yacht thing is a story. The soldiers trying to escape the beach is a story. Tom Hardy's mission is a story. They all come together. Just because you didn't like the unique storytelling method doesn't mean the movie was without a plot. 

And back to the CGI. Did you expect them to fly a classic Spitfire and turn off the engine to land on a beach? Or crash it in the water. Any movie would use CGI for such a thing. The CGI wasn't obvious though.

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

All alone ?    In 1939, the British Empire spanned the entire globe.   Nazi Germany...not so much.

How do you say "Reich" in the king's English ?   Empire !

 

e8b3bfab1f3b8347d368a16f5755f7f8--social

Geographically all alone in Europe.

Obviously the war was able to go on in North Africa. Their territory in the Southeast came under threat by the Japanese a year after Dunkirk.  

Even when the US joined the War it was 2 years before they even attempted to re-enter continental Europe, 3 years before they attempted to re-take France.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, August1991 said:

Huh? Surviving vets and good reviews? True, the movie is loud - but that's part of the PR, Wilber. Good advertising, a con. (Anyone surviving would now be at least 92... )

Saving Private Ryan, a far better movie, was released in 1998 when many, still alive in their 70s, remembered well.

=====

But I'm still waiting for Hollywood/Nolan to make "Khe Sanh".

The idea behind this movie was to try and come as close as possible to putting you on that beach without resorting to some contrived personal story or claiming to be a documentary. According to those who were there, it succeeded quite well. If that isn't to your taste, I get it. 

According to those who were there, Private Ryan also succeeded quite well when it came to describing what actual combat was like, but the worst thing about that movie was the contrived story line. The ending made no sense at all.

Edited by Wilber
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

Geographically all alone in Europe.

Obviously the war was able to go on in North Africa. Their territory in the Southeast came under threat by the Japanese a year after Dunkirk.  

Even when the US joined the War it was 2 years before they even attempted to re-enter continental Europe, 3 years before they attempted to re-take France.  

 

I haven't seen the 2017 release, but Dunkirk (1958 version) provides the complete context of war declared by Britain and France on Germany after Poland was invaded in 1939, the long Phoney War, domestic apathy, then the battle/evacuation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I haven't seen the 2017 release, but Dunkirk (1958 version) provides the complete context of war declared by Britain and France on Germany after Poland was invaded in 1939, the long Phoney War, domestic apathy, then the battle/evacuation.

Nolan doesn't hold your hand. There's some exposition but the movie is about Escaping the beach and those who are tasking on helping the army escape the beach. It's not particularly important that the Allies used WW1 tactics in the face of the Blitzkrieg. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...