OT: Dunkirk the Movie!

[stuart3]

I'll correct myself before someone else does. [:)] Goering wasn't promoted until after the fall of France. He was still a mere five star general at Dunkirk.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Big B

One of my favorite movies growing up was 1969's Battle of Britain....I still love it.
Hermann Goering was portrayed as a buffoon who didn't understand fighter pilots and modern aerial warfare.

As an adult I understand that things back then were still portrayed in WW2 propaganda format.
Today, I understand that Hermann Goering was the last leader of Richthofen's Flying Circus in WW1, and an accomplished fighter ace in his own right... he couldn't have been the ass he is portrayed as in popular history - in reality - something doesn't smell right.

The Germans finally getting crushed doesn't mean the propaganda was accurate either ..... just saying (and I'm an American Fanboy).

B

warspite1

Hi Big B I would recommend The Battle of Britain (Holland) and The Most Dangerous Enemy (Bungay). There may have been an element of mickey take about his portrayal in that excellent film - but not much given what the likes of Galland and Speer had to say.

I don't think Goering's personal bravery (before his drug addiction) comes into his ability to command the Luftwaffe. His tactics in the battle and his lack of energy in understanding what was required (look at the British efforts to get damaged aircraft back in the skies compared to the Germans as just one example) were woeful.

Goering was a political animal and what was right for Germany appeared to come second to what was right for the Luftwaffe - and for Goering! Don't get me wrong, Goering was, by all accounts highly intelligent, but (and I can only assume his addiction was the issue here) he was the wrong man to lead the Luftwaffe - let alone the economy!

I remember enjoying The Battle of Britain when I watched it as an adolescent. Upon further review, I think I'm coming around to Ebert's point of view about it the more I think about it. I know-sacrilege!

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/battl ... itain-1969

The movie, while it *did* contain some cool aerial fights and "plane porn" was pretty full of schmaltz and overwrought sentimentalism. A totally unnecessary love story was included that detracted from the greater whole as well. Not as blindingly awful a film as TMTSNBN, but-in retrospect-not one I'd say held up well over time.

[warspite1]

Wow. Genuinely wow! That is one of the most awful movie reviews I have ever read. No. It is singularly the worst I have ever read.

And no, my view is not because of the “sacrilege” of saying he did not like Battle of Britain – frankly I couldn’t give a toss who likes it or who hates it because each to their own.

No, I just can’t believe some of the bilge this guy has written – it’s like he is desperate to show how clever he is but the comments he makes vary between the dumb and the really dumb.

Of all the insults to our intelligence in "The Battle of Britain," perhaps the very worst is when Michael Caine's dog looks wistfully up into the sky and whines for his master to return. We are asked to applaud heroism because of the discomfort it causes dogs. There was hardly a wet eye in the house.

This is a truly awful start – and I’m not even a dog lover…. The British generally are animal lovers and this scene, if one is so inclined, causes a bit of a stiff upper lip moment. Personally I can take it or leave it, but one thing I am confident of – the film makers are not asking me to acknowledge and applaud heroism because it leaves sundry canines owner less. What a puerile comment.

"Battle of Britain," in fact, is a throwback to those phony war movies of the 1940s. Remember the obligatory scene of the dashing young pilots lounging around the officers' club? Suddenly the attack alarm sounds, and they all dash out into the night, leaving the fire burning and a few chairs overturned. The faithful old servant moves slowly through the room, adjusting chairs, and then the roar of airplanes is heard overhead as our boys fly off to engage the Hun. The servant takes a half-empty pint of beer from a table, lifts it to toast the heroes, and softly says: "Here's to You, sir!"
To its credit, "The Battle of Britain" eliminates this scene.

Okay… so one up to the BoB apparently… but what is actually so wrong about that “obligatory” scene anyway?

Now the author of this bilge really starts to lose the plot:

But it catalogs (?) all the others:

The pilot staring moodily out the hotel window while his girl looks pensive on the bed;

Yes you are right. Personally I would never watch a war film with such a ridiculous scene.

Churchill, represented by a cigar;

**** me really?! I mean seriously? BoB shows Churchill complete with cigar! That’s outrageous. Why wasn’t his personage appropriately reflected – you know dressed in his favourite pink tank top while smoking a pipe?

the Kid who gets killed on his first mission;

Er news flash. The average age of a RAF pilot was 20 – the youngest was 18. The life expectancy was four weeks. The training time was cut to meet the need for more pilots. As the Japanese found, the less hours in an aircraft, the more chance you’re not going to see another sun rise….. Why is showing a couple of youngsters failing to return from their first mission so wrong? It told a sad truth. It happened. But according to this idiot, that cannot be shown in a war film because of what and why exactly?

the brave little Red Cross nurse;

My mum was a very green 21-year old when she was sent to Australia to nurse the sick and wounded in the Pacific. Showing the courage of a nurse in a war film? Yeah, don’t know why the film makers would have done such a thing. Shocking.

the outcast officer whose early warnings are vindicated;

Cos that never happens does it? No matter the film, no matter the genre, the wisened, experienced person helping to explain the plot through his own previous experience just doesn’t happen – or shouldn’t. The fact it happens in BoB truly confirms this as a rubbish film. Or does it confirm the reviewer as someone who doesn't actually know what he's blabbing on about because its a well used method to bring the audience up to date with the plot?

the officious German general;

The point is? The officious German general – and what about the pompous British officer trying to teach the Poles (who of course need no teaching)? They are characters.

the Nazi pilots drinking champagne

Yes, the German pilots who had grown confident, and battle experienced, in success after success in Spain, Poland, the Low Countries and now France. The champagne perhaps a metaphor for the total and utter confidence that the young Luftwaffe pilots had at the start of the battle?

while the harried British gulp tea and make repairs.

We drink a lot of tea. Sorry and all that. But we do. Sorry that is a crime I know. Re the repairs have a look at German “efforts” to get damaged aircraft back in service and compare that with the British……

And interminable shots of airplanes being shot down.

Yes – it’s a ****ing war film. And here's an absolute shocker. Many people who go to watch war films, go to see war based action. They go to watch aircraft porn, battleship filth and downright naughty panzers. I know right? Who knew?

The airplanes are another sore point. Sure, Harry Saltzman spent millions to assemble and repair Spitfires and Hurricanes, and there was even a TV special about the authenticity of the movie. But you've got to USE airplanes; it isn't enough to own them. Some of the aerial photography is very good. We see dogfights actually filmed in the air and fought by real planes (instead of by models and visual effects).

Right so a positive yes?

But the aerial scenes are allowed to run forever and repeat themselves shamelessly, until we're sure we saw that same Heinkel dive into the sea (sorry -- the "drink") three times already. And the special effects aren't all that good for a movie that cost $12,000,000.

Yes that is true. It takes a few watches but when first watching the film – or maybe the first few even, one doesn’t necessarily realise they are the same shots from different angles. Shame the budget wasn’t bigger but that’s real life.

For example: We see hundreds of German bombers, row after row, thundering across the sky to bomb London. But every one of the bombers moves at precisely the same speed, There's no relative change in position, or correcting for altitude. Nobody even dips a wing. The Germans were good, but they weren't that good.

So what? You now sound like a nerd because you want to impress us with your formation flying knowledge. But exactly how many people did those few seconds of celluloid spoil the film for? Compare that to more modern films with bigger budgets where aircraft are flying off in all impossible directions and angles…..

And so the scene looks fishy, and we figure out we're looking at models. No progress has been made since that notorious scene in "Mrs. Miniver" (1942), where the Dunkirk fleet churned across the English Channel at exactly the same speed (rowboats, gunboats, it didn't matter) and you realized they were being towed through a tank on the same string.

Same again – it was hardly a deal breaker….

Inept as a lot of the effects are, they look good compared to the plot, or story, or whatever it is. Despite a lot of impressive speechmaking, no attempt is made to explain and clarify the Battle of Britain. Strategy is confined to pushing symbols around on maps. There are so many characters we never get involved. We can't even keep them straight. The writers never solved the problem of incorporating the top-heavy special effects into their thin little plot.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. What is possibly not possible to understand about the film? The Germans have won the Battle for France, the Battle for Britain is about to begin - that is all explained. Its also explained about how the Germans are preparing for invasion and we get little vignettes with Curt Jurgens and Ralph Richardson in Switzerland – plus speeches by Laurence Olivier (Dowding) to explain further e.g. the rate at which the young Allied pilots needed to shoot down their German opposite numbers, the mistake that was turning on London etc. I mean genuinely where did you get lost in this massively complex story line??????

There's also evidence that the movie was butchered in the editing. Several scenes seem to lead into or out of other scenes that aren't there. For example, after Susannah York learns that Christopher Plummer has been shot down in flames, there's one of those obligatory scenes intended only to telegraph an outcome. She sees a badly burned man and is lectured on plastic surgery and all that. So we're set up for her dramatic confrontation with Plummer, which never comes. We never see either one of them again, in fact.

Ever heard of less is more? We know what has happened to the Canadian pilot, we know that his and his wife’s life will never be the same again. Leaving it at that is a way of dealing with that episode. Yes they could have dealt with it head on. The fact they didn’t doesn’t make it a bad film.

All we're left with is the offensive publicity campaign. It may be necessary to remind ourselves that the movie is not the battle itself. That TV documentary seemed to hint that Harry Saltzman, the producer, was only slightly less heroic than the guys who flew in the battle. They only died. He had to buy the planes.

Offensive? Yeah whatever…..the only thing offensive is your review - well no its not offensive, its just rubbish.

[Chickenboy]

But what did you think of the review? [&:]

[bradfordkay]

I never read reviews of movies in which I am interested. Far too often the reviewers POV is diametrically opposed to my own...

BTW Warspite, you are spot on in your review of the review. Roger Ebert had no clue about the subject of the film.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But what did you think of the review? [&:]

warspite1

Not sure. I'm on the fence at the moment....[;)]

[Big B]

That's why I have NEVER bothered to pay attention to movie reviews in the media.
I don't need one of those idiots to tell me what to think about something...I can judge for myself thank you very much - in about 30 seconds of watching a clip.
I do have to admit one thing though - when reviewers hate a film - it usually perks my interest ...because I know most of the time our views are different - so I guess they are useful - in a backhanded way. [:D]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I never read reviews of movies in which I am interested. Far too often the reviewers POV is diametrically opposed to my own...

BTW Warspite, you are spot on in your review of the review. Roger Ebert had no clue about the subject of the film.

[SheperdN7]

Actually just watched "The Longest Day" a week or two ago, personally I would've liked it being more about the build-up and waiting game along with the superb German March theme playing whenever the scene shifts back across the channel. I loved the movie and I mean LOVE 10/10 probably one of the best ever during the first hour, I was actually thinking it may replace "Apocalypse Now" for my favourite movie ever. By the time the troops hit the beaches I was starting to fidget, which is my secret signal for "end credits please".


Combine the sheer combat horror of Saving Private Ryan with the superb build up and anticipation of "The Longest Day" and there you go- the picture perfect war movie. Maybe sound editing from "Fury" as well.

[bradfordkay]

All this talk about the movie Battle of Britain made me dig out my copy and watch it this afternoon. I got no turns run in my game, but it was still a very enjoyable afternoon...

[SheperdN7]

BoB is a good movie in its own right.

I would like to weigh in on the Goering talk that was occurring earlier on here.

IMHO, just looking strictly at evidence, Goering was an idiot in the captain's chair. There's just no other possible way to put it. Skilled pilot no doubt, probably was a total ladies man too, at least until the donut addiction started.

But I look at what Galland and Speer said about him. Galland I put stock in, he's essentially the Rommel of the air and from what I believe kept his distance from the political side of things just like the Desert Fox himself, so I think just based on common sense that he wouldn't just be trying to diminish the man just because he wanted vengeance for some past misgiving.


Which brings me to Speer... The Nazi who said sorry... I just have one word in reference to that- bull.



Common sense would tell me that Speer would have an actual grudge or two against Goering so I'd be willing to place stock in the theory that a lot of what Speer said about him would simply be stuff to diminish the man, maybe most of it was founded but I think we can all agree that there is a difference between trying to hurt someone's career and actively trying to destroy it.



"My Luftwaffe is invincible... And so now we turn to England... How long will this one last? Three? Four weeks?"

Probably one of my favourite quotes simply because it was so true and so false.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

All this talk about the movie Battle of Britain made me dig out my copy and watch it this afternoon. I got no turns run in my game, but it was still a very enjoyable afternoon...

warspite1

I'm going to have to do the same [:)] - I love that movie for the opening and closing music scores alone.

However, when Christopher Plummer stares out of the window and Susannah York looks pensive on the bed, I shall of course turn my head away. I don't want that scene spoiling the film.....

[stuart3]

Just watched Battle of Britain again and was reminded of a story I was told by someone who knew people who worked on the production.

About 36 minutes in, during the stuka attack on the RDF stations, a wooden hut gets blown up (shown twice from different angles) with the explosion engulfing a car parked alongside. Someone miscalculated the amount of explosive needed to demolish the hut. The car wasn't supposed to have been touched. It was a genuine and very valuable period vehicle leased for the production. Oh well, at least it was spectacular.

[warspite1]

Yeah, just finished watching it again too [:)]

Having done so, I actually am not convinced that Mr Ebert even saw the film.

a) there was actually far more story telling and scene setting than I remembered. If one watched that film knowing absolutely nothing of the story then that person could not fail to get the gist.

b) at what point did Christopher Plummer actually stop and stare moodily out of the bedroom window and at what point was Susannah York looking pensive on the bed? Must have missed that.

c) funnily enough, Churchill was represented by Churchill. He had a cigar in hand - not uncommon for WSC, but I can confirm the cigar was not sitting in the seat to represent Churchill as Mr Ebert appears to believe was the case.

d) there were two young pilots who were killed on their first mission - not one.

e) so who was the Red Cross nurse? Exactly when did she make an appearance?

f) who was the 'outcast' officer. A few wisened old heads, but an outcast?

g) oddly enough the Germans didn't spend all their time drinking Champagne. There was copious amounts of coffee on show too.

It would have been nice if he'd watched the film before commenting on it.....

I'm up for The Great Escape now!

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yeah, just finished watching it again too [:)]

Having done so, I actually am not convinced that Mr Ebert even saw the film.

a) there was actually far more story telling and scene setting than I remembered. If one watched that film knowing absolutely nothing of the story then that person could not fail to get the gist.

b) at what point did Christopher Plummer actually stop and stare moodily out of the bedroom window and at what point was Susannah York looking pensive on the bed? Must have missed that.

c) funnily enough, Churchill was represented by Churchill. He had a cigar in hand - not uncommon for WSC, but I can confirm the cigar was not sitting in the seat to represent Churchill as Mr Ebert appears to believe was the case.

d) there were two young pilots who were killed on their first mission - not one.

e) so who was the Red Cross nurse? Exactly when did she make an appearance?

f) who was the 'outcast' officer. A few wisened old heads, but an outcast?

g) oddly enough the Germans didn't spend all their time drinking Champagne. There was copious amounts of coffee on show too.

It would have been nice if he'd watched the film before commenting on it.....

I'm up for The Great Escape now!

I think the "outcast" referred to was AVM Leigh-Mallory who wanted to form the fighters into a "big wing" before attacking so as to overwhelm the escorts and get to the bombers. IIRC the movie shows AVM Park (in charge of fighter tactics) favouring each flight going into the attack immediately so they could come down and rearm/refuel quicker and go back again.
The movie shows a point at which the big wing tactic is tried and portrays it as a big success. But this article I just read says the claims of aircraft shot down by the big wing method were thought to be exaggerated by some, which precipitated a huge row.
https://www.military-history.org/articl ... nders.html

As for Ebert, as a movie critic he is looking for the entertaining academy award winners with well developed characters, a plot with surprising twists and perhaps a surprise ending. BoB is more of a dramatized documentary with different purpose - to pay homage to the crews that put it all on the line to defend Britain and also to the British people who endured so much and never wavered. It was also time to educate the younger generations on just what the BoB was about.

The sketchy love scenes were intended to show the urgency for men going into deadly battle of trying to grab a bit of life whenever possible, and the heartbreak that often followed afterward. In those days opening up your emotions was a courageous act.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yeah, just finished watching it again too [:)]

Having done so, I actually am not convinced that Mr Ebert even saw the film.

a) there was actually far more story telling and scene setting than I remembered. If one watched that film knowing absolutely nothing of the story then that person could not fail to get the gist.

b) at what point did Christopher Plummer actually stop and stare moodily out of the bedroom window and at what point was Susannah York looking pensive on the bed? Must have missed that.

c) funnily enough, Churchill was represented by Churchill. He had a cigar in hand - not uncommon for WSC, but I can confirm the cigar was not sitting in the seat to represent Churchill as Mr Ebert appears to believe was the case.

d) there were two young pilots who were killed on their first mission - not one.

e) so who was the Red Cross nurse? Exactly when did she make an appearance?

f) who was the 'outcast' officer. A few wisened old heads, but an outcast?

g) oddly enough the Germans didn't spend all their time drinking Champagne. There was copious amounts of coffee on show too.

It would have been nice if he'd watched the film before commenting on it.....

I'm up for The Great Escape now!

I think the "outcast" referred to was AVM Leigh-Mallory...

warspite1

Well if he thinks Leigh Mallory was an outcast then his definition of outcast is very different from the rest of the English speaking world....

As for Great Escape, what a truly stonking film, much better than I remembered.

The acting (James Coburn's Sedgewick and his 'Australian' accent aside) was first class. The inter-play between the mild mannered Blythe (Donald Pleasance) and Henley (James Garner) was a joy to watch - as were Danny (Charles Bronson) and Willie (John Leyton) and Ives (Angus Lennie) and Hilts (Steve McQueen) but these were only three of the highlights in an acting master-class by everyone who brought the best out of a first class script. Too many great actors to name them all but Hannes Messemer's sympathetic portrayal of Von Luger, the 'Good German', James Donald and Richard Attenborough - I could name them all [&o]

And as for poor Ives.....his story killed me as a kid, and still does [:(]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And as for poor Ives.....his story killed me as a kid, and still does [:(]

And I do not even remember Ives. [:(]

I do not remember much at all about this movie. [:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And as for poor Ives.....his story killed me as a kid, and still does [:(]

And I do not even remember Ives. [:(]

I do not remember much at all about this movie. [:(]

warspite1

SPOLIER ALERT

[X(] Ormster! Nooooooooo

Ives was the little jockey from Scotland who, along with Steve McQueen, was the 'Cooler King' or 'the Mole'. But he was also 'wire happy' after 3 years in captivity. When the Germans find the tunnel during the 4th July celebrations, he flips and tries to climb the wire.....

[ndworl]

Warspite said:

"As for Great Escape, what a truly stonking film, much better than I remembered.

The acting (James Coburn's Sedgewick and his 'Australian' accent aside) was first class."

I always thought James Coburn was Australian, BECAUSE of his role in this film.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ndworl

Warspite said:

"As for Great Escape, what a truly stonking film, much better than I remembered.

The acting (James Coburn's Sedgewick and his 'Australian' accent aside) was first class."

I always thought James Coburn was Australian, BECAUSE of his role in this film.

warspite1

Really? Well I guess you would know a proper Aussie accent more than I - but I always remembered it being rubbish, and when I heard it again today, that view point hasn't changed one bit! It was like he thought putting the word mate at the end of every sentence made it an Aussie accent [;)]

[ndworl]

I should put emojies where I intend a joke. No, we're used to foreign stars absolutely butchering the Aussie accent. I think the spelling of the name itself would give a clue that our man Coburn is American. I suspect an ancestor would have called himself Cockburn.