New Dunkirk Trailer

[JamesM]

In the film there were female nurses on the hospital ship (no surprises there). My question is were female UK personnel in WW2 allowed to be on a ship that sailed into a combat zone?

[CJMello63]

Hope to see it this weekend

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

In the film there were female nurses on the hospital ship (no surprises there). My question is were female UK personnel in WW2 allowed to be on a ship that sailed into a combat zone?

warspite1

It appears that there was one hospital ship lost off Dunkirk - the Paris or Parris (spelling varies). At least one other was lost earlier off Dieppe.

I cannot seem to get any information on whether there were females aboard. The link below refers to nurses but of course that could be male or female.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peoples ... 9683.shtml

There is this from the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service website but this seems to refer only to nurses in France - not serving on board ship.

Dunkirk Evacuation

Many QAs made their way to Dunkirk to await evacuation. One of the last nursing sisters to leave France was Lillian Gutteridge who bravely defended her patients. A German SS officer tried to take over her ambulance and ordered his men to throw out the stretcher bound patients. Lillian Gutteridge was so outraged that she slapped the SS Officer's face. He stabbed her in the thigh with his dagger and he was killed by passing Black Watch soldiers before he could hurt her anymore. Despite her wound she drove the ambulance and her wounded patients to the railway siding and persuaded the French driver to take on board her patients. They went to Cherbourg and during their journey took on board another 600 French and British wounded troops. Several days later Lillian and her patients arrived safely in England.

No QAs were left behind during the Dunkirk Evacuation and all returned to England (cited in the book Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (Famous Regts. S) by Juliet Piggott).

But then there is this from the same website (he doesn't say which ship):

Grey and Scarlet : letters from the war areas by army sisters on active service has extracts of the writings of a Captain of a Hospital Ship of what he witnessed during the evacuation of Dunkirk. He wrote:

As Captain of this ship I should like to give expression to my admiration and deep regard for the Nursing Sisters aboard. We recently made two trips to Dunkirk and two to Cherbourg, in each case being the last Hospital Carrier to enter and leave the ports. Our second trip to Dunkirk was under extremely severe conditions, bombs and shells dropping all about us and men being wounded and killed alongside our ship on the pier. We had numerous narrow escapes and a nerve racking experience. During all this our Sisters were really splendid. Never a sign of excitement or panic of any kind. They just carried on under the able leadership of our Matron, calmly and efficiently. I feel quite sure that their magnificent behaviour was an important factor in steadying the members of the RAMC personnel with whom they worked.

[Neilster]

Hospital ships were clearly marked and lit. Attacking them is a war crime (although it happened). Hence I assume that British hospital ships had female nurses on them. I know for a fact that Australian ones did. I'm also assuming that male nurses were either very rare or non-existent at the time.

Cheers, Neilster

[Yogi the Great]

Just got back from the movie. Similar comments to some of the others, not as spectacular as originally thought it would be, but glad I did go to it and it is worth our time to do so. A few scenes make it worth it as well. I was able to follow it (timeline) a bit better as well because of jamesm's post on this forum. It is always remarkable and inspiring to see and remember what people have gone through with strength and resolve.

[warspite1]

Dunkirk – Spoiler Alert

I have just got back from seeing the film. What can I say? It was intense and lived up to the hype.

The film has no frills, no character development, no backstory, there is no love interest and indeed there is very little dialogue. It’s simply a story of essentially four small groups of people – one from the Army, RN/Army officers on the Dunkirk mole, a Royal Air Force fighter patrol and men aboard one of the little ships. I guess the Royal Navy is a fifth group as they are naturally pretty much ever present, invariably adding something to each of the stories – largely as a result of their ships getting sunk having repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way to try and get the Army home.

One immediate thing I noticed was at the very start when a few lines were used to explain what was happening; it was not the Germans attacking and surrounding the French and British – it was ‘the enemy’. Okay…. that seems a little silly but I guess we are all friends now so….

I was a little confused near the start as one minute it was daytime and the next it was dark or heading that way. However, it quickly became apparent that the action is not strictly chronological (I forgot what one of the posters said above about this). By the way this way of telling the story makes it look like the RAF patrol shoots down half the Luftwaffe, but one sees some of the scenes more than once from different viewpoints. This jumbled timeline idea actually works well.

The film doesn’t seek to tell the story of Dunkirk. The French are acknowledged - holding the perimeter along with a British rear-guard. Amongst the limited dialogue, there is reference to the German tanks being halted, the Luftwaffe being given the job of destroying the BEF and their French Allies, expectation that 30-45,000 British troops only are expected to be rescued, and that the RAF are trying to conserve aircraft and pilots for the battle still to come. But enough of the story is told through the trials and tribulations of the individual groups and the brief dialogue to make clear what is going on even if one knows nothing about this episode in history.

I was expecting some sort of soundtrack what with Hans Zimmer being involved but instead, during the action, there was a sort of noise as opposed to a dramatic music score. This worked really well too and added to the intensity.

How did the film fare on the trembling bottom lip front? Well there were a couple of occasions on which it was a good job I had the Kleenex on hand – I wasn’t emotional you understand, I just had something in my eye….

In summary – a great job Mr Nolan!

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In summary – a great job Mr Nolan!

Indeed! I may need to go watch it a second time, so much to take in during the first time [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In summary – a great job Mr Nolan!

Indeed! I may need to go watch it a second time, so much to take in during the first time [:)]

warspite1

IMAX for me next week! I will be taking my little cruisers along too next time [:)]

[RFalvo69]

I'll repost my review here, too.

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil, but let's say than Nolan, again, plays with the concept of "time" in an unique way. The movie intercuts between the soldiers stranded on the beaches, the small fleet of civilians coming to the rescue, and the RAF battling the Luftwaffe. However, as we are clearly told, the land scenes cover one week, the sea ones one day, and the air battles one hour. Nolan, though, intercuts between them like if they were on the same timeline. The effect is disorienting, at the beginning, but the way everything comes together is, IMHO, totally unique.

There is no gore in the movie, but be warned that this is a very hard PG13 (here in Europe we have different rating systems, but the concept is basically the same): the anguish and the tension are relentless, and soldiers die in dire ways. You really don't need blood and flying limbs when certain... things do happen to people.

A word of warning: there are no real characters in the movie, something, I feel, that many people will not like. I think that Nolan cast some recognisable faces just for that reason ("Hey, Kenneth Branagh looks worried! He must be an English high-up or stuff!" "Wait a minute... they are not going to kill Mad Max, do they??) - because the only connection you have is with the actors. Characters are defined by what they do, not by speeches about the wife at home expecting their first baby. The movie can be defined as a single, uninterrupted sequence that never lets go: there is simply no time for sad sing-alongs.

Zimmer's score is fantastic. Let's say that it doesn't "accompany" the movie, but it is an integral part of the soundscape.

Watch it on the biggest screen around. The air battles alone had the whole audience banking...

My vote: 9 out of 10

ORIGINAL: warspite1
By the way this way of telling the story makes it look like the RAF patrol shoots down half the Luftwaffe, but one sees some of the scenes more than once from different viewpoints. This jumbled timeline idea actually works well.

It is, however, also true that Tom Hardy's Spitfire carries more ammo than all that was produced for the whole RAF during the war [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I'll repost my review here, too.

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil, but let's say than Nolan, again, plays with the concept of "time" in an unique way. The movie intercuts between the soldiers stranded on the beaches, the small fleet of civilians coming to the rescue, and the RAF battling the Luftwaffe. However, as we are clearly told, the land scenes cover one week, the sea ones one day, and the air battles one hour. Nolan, though, intercuts between them like if they were on the same timeline. The effect is disorienting, at the beginning, but the way everything comes together is, IMHO, totally unique.

There is no gore in the movie, but be warned that this is a very hard PG13 (here in Europe we have different rating systems, but the concept is basically the same): the anguish and the tension are relentless, and soldiers die in dire ways. You really don't need blood and flying limbs when certain... things do happen to people.

A word of warning: there are no real characters in the movie, something, I feel, that many people will not like. I think that Nolan cast some recognisable faces just for that reason ("Hey, Kenneth Branagh looks worried! He must be an English high-up or stuff!" "Wait a minute... they are not going to kill Mad Max, do they??) - because the only connection you have is with the actors. Characters are defined by what they do, not by speeches about the wife at home expecting their first baby. The movie can be defined as a single, uninterrupted sequence that never lets go: there is simply no time for sad sing-alongs.

Zimmer's score is fantastic. Let's say that it doesn't "accompany" the movie, but it is an integral part of the soundscape.

Watch it on the biggest screen around. The air battles alone had the whole audience banking...

My vote: 9 out of 10

ORIGINAL: warspite1
By the way this way of telling the story makes it look like the RAF patrol shoots down half the Luftwaffe, but one sees some of the scenes more than once from different viewpoints. This jumbled timeline idea actually works well.

It is, however, also true that Tom Hardy's Spitfire carries more ammo than all that was produced for the whole RAF during the war [:D]

warspite1

DUNKIRK SPOILER ALERT

Yes, the (err...optimistic) ammo situation was not lost on me! [:)] I suspect that the reason he ran out of fuel was that he filled one of his fuel reservoirs with .303 rounds instead of aviation fuel [:D].

[Curtis Lemay]

Hmm. I'm having some trouble with whether the individual plot sequences were based on historical events or just the whims of screenwriters. One at the end in particular bothered me:

Thomas Hardy's spitfire, out of gas and gliding - maybe 200 feet off the ground, shoots down a diving stuka before it can release its bombs.

[Zorch]

Sounds worth seeing.
What will Nolan do for an encore? D-Day from the British beaches?

But wait - 'wars are not won by evacuations'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8KGhwtYcgU

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

DUNKIRK SPOILER ALERT

















Yes, the (err...optimistic) ammo situation was not lost on me! [:)] I suspect that the reason he ran out of fuel was that he filled one of his fuel reservoirs with .303 rounds instead of aviation fuel [:D].

The thing that I didn't understood, however, is why Tom Hardy didn't ditch his Spitfire in the water after that last pass. The scene made clear that there were still many boats near the beach, saving soldiers: he could slowly bank and glide down.

It seemed, to me, an arbitrary excuse to show Tom Hardy's "sacrifice" (even if only becoming a POW) when there was no need for him to make this choice.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: warspite1

DUNKIRK SPOILER ALERT

















Yes, the (err...optimistic) ammo situation was not lost on me! [:)] I suspect that the reason he ran out of fuel was that he filled one of his fuel reservoirs with .303 rounds instead of aviation fuel [:D].

The thing that I didn't understood, however, is why Tom Hardy didn't ditch his Spitfire in the water after that last pass. The scene made clear that there were still many boats near the beach, saving soldiers: he could slowly bank and glide down.

It seemed, to me, an arbitrary excuse to show Tom Hardy's "sacrifice" (even if only becoming a POW) when there was no need for him to make this choice.

warspite1

From a realistic and self preservation perspective - what is safer - to land on water or, out of fuel on a clear sandy beach? No idea but I don't suppose either choice is exactly guaranteed to leave one alive [X(]

From a film and dramatic perspective, they already had one ditching - did they need another? Also it gave the opportunity to show a British serviceman getting taken prisoner (a fate of many of course - and not something seen to that point) and also we had the symbolic burning of the Spitfire during the speech.

In short then, I don't know [:)] but guess it was likely to be a combination of those factors perhaps.

[Chickenboy]

Saw the movie last night and enjoyed it. It wasn't what I was expecting and, really, wasn't what I was hoping for. While the multiple vignettes were well done and well acted, they lacked the necessary scale to convey the weight of numbers that was Dunkirk. The evacuation wasn't about a few dramatic rescues and individual heroism. It was that en masse. Leaving out the mind-boggling scale of the evacuation or glossing over its import belied the nature of the event in my opinion.

A good movie. Well done. But it assumed a point of view that will deny it 'greatness' in my opinion.

[balto]

I give it 3 out of 10 stars. Wait for it to come on TV or rental. I thought the few and far between combat scenes were also not good. The first 4 minutes I thought were great with the "small arms fire" but that was it. I do not understand the reviews above. I am not saying anyone is incorrect, but man, I thought this was mediocre at best. Popcorn and Fajitas were great though.

[warspite1]

Some colour pictures from the Dunkirk episode

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olour.html

[Canoerebel]

+1 to Chickenboy's comments. I was disappointed. I'd give it a 5 out of 10 or maybe 4 out of 10.

[Challerain]

I really enjoyed it. Incredible movie.

[pkpowers]

Really enjoyed it ; Give it 8 out 0f 10 ; All aircraft and equipment was historically accurate ; was intense from start to finish ; Saw it in an IMAX cinema , it was very loud!!! I would call it a horror movie crossed with a loud rock concert [;)]