Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by townsend, Aug 6, 2016.
I think from a young persons perspective, under 25 .,there will be some empathy for the film.
Watched a blu-ray last night. Yes, there probably should have had a drone-style sweep of the beach and channel to give a sense of the scale of the event. And I usually hate drone sweeps!
My biggest complaint was that it was a relatively bloodless account. A bomb would drop on the beach and soldiers would be killed or left unharmed, when it would seem there would be plenty of wounded afterwards.
Easily the best film I've seen all year!
I think people misunderstood what the film was, or took their preconceptions of what they wanted it to be, into cinemas with them.
I, almost literally, spent the entire length of the film holding my breath, and my wife said the same thing, with no prompting from me whatsoever.
There were at least 6 people throughout the film's narrative that I 'cared' about, and that's with virtually no character development or a reason to care, other than basic human nature.
I thought it was a great film. My favorite since Hell or High Water
i probably read and heard too much about 'dunkirk' and thus my expectations were through the roof.
i found it to be a very good film, but not the majestic blockbuster that it has been made out to be.
I missed the cinema viewing and only viewed it the other day at home. I thought it was exceptional from start to finish. Overall, a wonderful gripping, multi faceted, intense experience.
My only gripe, albeit a serious gripe, was that the storytelling was too rushed. All of sudden the queues had disappeared and the film was over, a fat man singing about "never surrender" thrown in for a good measure of finality. I could easy have watched this epic for another hour, I felt shortchanged. 'twas but a mini epic
I can't take any war film seriously when all the actors are clean-shaven w/neat sideburn and no stubble in every scene.
But that's "Hollywood!"
I feel the same way, but sometimes one just has to (try) look the other way about details that don't make sense so you can enjoy a good film.
But, I understand that sometimes strong inaccuracies can ruin an otherwise great movie, like crappy endings!
Search for historic images of troops at Dunkirk and you see plenty of clean shaven soldiers. I imagine it's because many are so young that they'd barely started growing bumfluff, but also because shaving regularly in even difficult circumstances was a matter of discipline. Look at the young lads in these images from the Dunkirk rescue:
More at this link: Dunkirk evacuation: Photos of 1940 rescue of Allied troops from beaches of northern France
I watched it a couple of days ago with my family and we all thought it was a fine movie. I must admit I was a little puzzled at first with the lack of planes, ships, and men on the beaches, but it came to me that the movie wasn't supposed to be some grand scale epic war movie. Instead, it went for more of a scaled down version and, in a sense, was served better by that because the storyline was easier to follow and not as confusing as some larger than life movies with multi-faceted plot lines, cuts, and whatever else. Even so, my wife and daughter had trouble keeping track of what was going on with the pilots, the boats, and who was who so I had to keep explaining things to them even though, myself, had not seen it before.
I thought it was quite well done and captured the spirit of the battle even if it didn't represent it in full scale. It was still a gripping, intense movie that accurately (I assume) depicted the evacuation and the sacrifice that was made by the English citizens to help get their soldiers back home. Dunkirk has always been a fascinating topic for me as I love reading about World War II. I think Nolan did an excellent job.
This is exactly right! Watched it last night at home. What an incredibly moving film. So much more than a "war movie." A meditation on survival, perseverance, hope and fate.
British Army Discipline.
I know some people are comparing this to Saving Private Ryan. To me Dunkirk is a work of thought provoking, emotionally intense art, Saving Private Ryan is a war movie. Both have their place.
I was reading up on Dunkirk after seeing the movie. I thought there were too few planes in the movie. I was surprised that what was portrayed in the movie was somewhat appropriate. The men on the beach were dismayed at what they thought was a lack of air cover. They didn't see that many RAF planes. However, so much of the air battle was taking place at high altitude and a bit east, that they couldn't see it. The handful of digital Stuka Bombers in the movie is probably about right. They were so easy to shoot down that the 3, or was it 4, would be about how many in a large flight might get through....???
I still think the movie should of portrayed heavier shelling on the beach....
....oh, and I also saw the excellent PBS show about Dunkirk that ran this winter....
Just watched Dunkirk ( 2 DVD) again (first time in the cinema)have to say it was a bit better the second time. Highlight: Hans Zimmer score.
Nolan is very gifted and probably the only director who can take control of such big sets, open seas, plane battles and expanded crowds, and still have such an intimate feel that touches on universal themes. People mention this in the same breath as SPR, but I think this was the more serious film. When I watch Spielberg now, it just seems so manipulative of the audience's emotions. I don't feel that way after watching Nolan's films. It's a more honest depiction that cuts into the authenticity of the story, if not in the details then in the feel of it. Nolan has a natural understanding of morality and humanity that informs his work.
Separate names with a comma.