Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even though obviously many liked it those observations are disappointing. The surrounding story and the scale of Dunkirk is amazing. A series of close-in scenes cannot do that justice. I'll wait to see it on TV.

Did any of you see it in Imax?

Yes. Saw it on IMAX. Beautiful cinematography and sound editing. The aerial scenes were well done, I thought.

If you recall certain sections of the British media got all huffy because Saving Private Ryan didn't mention British/Canadian involvement on D-Day. This despite the fact that Saving Private Ryan

I agree that 'Ryan' was an 'American' thing, I don't agree that Dunkirk was all British, and I'm not saying you've said that either. Now I haven't seen the film and I'm not knocking the British if they don't say much about the French. Besides, to me anyway, I can say a lot of negative about the French handling of the battle to that point as it was their 'show' so to speak and they botched the whole affair. But the French were deeply involved in Dunkirk and its success. The British did in fact remove some 70 to 80000 Frenchmen IIRC. Also IRL there was also a British office (whose name escapes me) who compared the stand of the French to that of Spartans at Thermopylae IIRC. So maybe some of these things, or others could have been included, and I'm not saying they weren't as I've not seen the show yet. OTOH the writers and director may have not seen them as necessary to their story. After all its their call. For me at least when I see a film my usual response is to find out what really happened, and get the whole story as films usually only give us 'bits'. That is if I'm interested enough.

Anyway I guess my point is let the French get upset if they wish and it may seem to me that they're 'just looking for a sense of outrage where none is necessary or warranted', also when I see the film. Hey its nice to see the French 'annoyed' at someone else, as its usually us.[:D]

I don't agree that Dunkirk was all British, and I'm not saying you've said that either.

That's good because, for the avoidance of doubt, I have said nothing of the sort. I have said that Dunkirk is a film that centres on the British experience of Dunkirk. As I have also made clear I am in no way shape or form interested in French bashing. But Dunkirk was different for the British and the French (although for reasons that were probably only realised by a few at the time). The French, sadly, were effectively defeated by the time of Dunkirk – fighting on from Britain/North Africa was a possibility but it depended upon who was in power – and as we know Reynaud lost that battle and for Petain, that was not going to happen. For the British, there was no question of giving in but they needed their army back. Therefore the evacuation – and its effect, although a defeat - can be seen in a very different light. As the film says – victory is survival. The British survived to fight on and thus Dunkirk was a key moment for Britain, and for the course of the war.

I can say a lot of negative about the French handling of the battle to that point as it was their 'show' so to speak and they botched the whole affair.

That is outside of the scope of the film but yes, exactly. And Nolan could have taken the approach of others (e.g. Stalingrad and blaming the Romanians, Saving Private Ryan and Monty bashing) here and chosen to bash the French anyway by adding into the dialogue some disparaging remarks about Sedan and the performance on the Meuse that led to the debacle. But I am pleased to say he didn't take such obvious - and unnecessary action.

The Battle of France was a fight to save France, the French – as a continental power and defending their own country - obviously had the large army, their generals ran the show, the plan for defence was theirs. Sadly, they blew it. Too many reasons to go into here for something that is out of scope for Dunkirk, but a fascinating - and incredibly sad episode and I feel very sorry for the French. Especially those – and there were a great many – who fought so bravely in defence of their country.

But the French were deeply involved in Dunkirk and its success.

Yes, and Nolan (quite rightly) recognised the French contribution – see my previous post - without making this a film about them.

The British did in fact remove some 70 to 80000 Frenchmen IIRC.

I believe some 120,000 French were evacuated – and, in addition to the sterling work done by French troops, the French navy and air force had a hand in this – a much smaller hand but a hand nonetheless. No one is saying they didn’t. But in a film with 3 Spitfires and one Blenheim, in a film with one 'RN'‘destroyer’ and a few ‘minesweepers’, how many French aircraft and ships should Nolan have shown in a film specifically about the British experience?

So maybe some of these things, or others could have been included

I believe, given the scope of the film, sufficient recognition was given to the French – others views may vary and when you've seen the film you can decide for yourself whether the acknowledgement is sufficient or not.

Hey its nice to see the French 'annoyed' at someone else, as its usually us

Usually the US??? Seriously? Hey, try living with the French as the British have tried for a 1,000 years and then we can talk! (And no my French brothers that is not a sideswipe at you guys – you can of course swap French and British around in that sentence!).

If I Recall Correctly:

Saving Private Ryan was a screen play adapted from the works of Stephen Ambrose (DDay,Band of Brothers,Lewis and Clarke, Eisenhower, Nixon etc). Further Ambrose consulted on the film. Stephen Ambrose was an award winning American Historian who wrote uniquely of the American Experience. No news there and no criticism should be leveled at the film for what was always intended to be a film on the American Experience.

Dunkirk : Nolan consciously omitted all scenes and references to Generals, Churchill, and "era" politics as I recall ; he wrote the screen play on a ferry crossing from Britain to France and based concepts from 'Alls Quiet on the Western Front' - or so it was expressed in one of those "Entertainment TV shows". No criticism should be leveled at the film for omitting what was never intended to be in scope.

--

Based upon opinion it sounds like a great film once a person adjusts expectations from 'documentary' to 'historical narrative'

Have my ticket for the weekend. [8D]

"Classic old time Drive In Movie Theater" north of the city some distance.

Like this beloved game AE - I care less about the High Def graphics and more about ambiance and 'honest portrayal'

Cheers

Saw it Saturday and was disappointed. I had not read anything before seeing it and WAS expecting a more "big picture" story. I went with my daughter and she said it was very confusing and really did not add to her understanding of what happened.

Haven't seen it. Honestly have had no desire to see it - or any other contemporary movie about WW2.
I have a brother in the movie industry for over 30 years now as a screen writer, and I understand now that the industry pays scant attention to history.
I assume now all that movies will be closer related to stories of the Jedi and The Force - than tedious "history".

So I give all of them an automatic "whatever"... it would be nice to be shown how wrong I am.

I saw Dunkirk and enjoyed it. I never watch any movie expecting a history lesson. My expectations with war movies is they will get everything wrong and then make stuff up and throw it in to spice up the story. I went didn't go into Dunkirk expecting anything so didn't have any preconceived notions. I viewed it as an in the trenches type of story, the average soldier during the battle didn't have a clue what was going on way up the chain of command. There are always things left out in every story told due to time or space constraints. It's a matter of who's telling the story as to what is left out and the bias that all stories have and what point of view/perspective.

I saw it. It was fine. It could have used a score. It did make it clear that private vessels did the bulk of the work. It did reference French troops being evacuated but could have gone into more detail. Fictionalized history. Nothing wrong with that when its trying to look at what really happened through the eyes of fictional characters. Then of course we have the movie that shall not be spoken of. Dunkirk was not a documentary but a piece of art and should be judged that way. How about Tom Hardy? I swear that guy is the man of a thousand faces. I've seen him in a hundred things and I never recognize him.

have not seen it yet but found this review interesting.

https://queenofthinair.wordpress.com/20 ... movie/amp/

ORIGINAL: Skyros

have not seen it yet but found this review interesting.

https://queenofthinair.wordpress.com/20 ... movie/amp/

Read your review. Completely disagree.

This one's much closer to the mark:

https://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-bo ... less-bore/

I guess if one is to argue that this movie is really about the changes in men undergoing a crucible of fire and not about the military operation known as "Dunkirk" then...OK. But the title is misleading and a veritable non-sequitur. For gritty realism and the effect war has on men, there's many better places to look. The "Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now" and "When Trumpets Fade" immediately spring to mind. If we followed the naming convention of Nolan, the former should be called "Hue" the middle "Da Nang" and the latter "The Huertgen Forest". In fact, the stories can be told with only the thinnest veneer of a connection to the historical realm and are not predicated on a namesake battle at all.

My interest in seeing a series of vignettes-various snippets from Dunkirk-related activities was not as acute as seeing a more complete depiction of "Dunkirk". Of course, your mileage may vary.

As I think back on the movie, I like some aspects of it less. The story of the two men on the beach (including the one Frenchman) trying-in vain-to escape and repeatedly having ships sink under them was tedious. What was the grand total-four? OK. I get it. Lots of ships sunk and some fortunate men escaping them. But Nolan dwelt on this curiosity far too long. Instead of some character development and interesting dialogue, we're treated to Y.E.T. A.N.O.T.H.E.R ship going out from under these two poor blighters. Tiresome and redundant.

For the most part, I thought the aerial scenes were well-filmed and choreographed. Other than the self-serving "plane porn", pretty movies and sound turned up past 11, I really fail to see any character development, or other connection to the historical context. Those RAF pilots could just as easily have been flying CAP over Malta for all the difference it made to the movie and the connection to "Dunkirk".

So, was the film shot professionally? Yes. Was it at least plausible acting and a screenplay? Yes. Were the individual vignettes entertaining or worthwhile to watch? Yes. Was it 'All that and a packet of peanuts'? No.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I saw it. It was fine. It could have used a score. It did make it clear that private vessels did the bulk of the work. It did reference French troops being evacuated but could have gone into more detail. Fictionalized history. Nothing wrong with that when its trying to look at what really happened through the eyes of fictional characters. Then of course we have the movie that shall not be spoken of. Dunkirk was not a documentary but a piece of art and should be judged that way. How about Tom Hardy? I swear that guy is the man of a thousand faces. I've seen him in a hundred things and I never recognize him.

I am pretty sure that the RN ships rescued most of the soldiers.

Therefore it might have been better if the focus would have been on a RN destroyer, or another RN ship. That might not have been a equally good story but would have shed a better light on events. I suspect this is a common misunderstanding.

I am sure that there are plenty here that can correct me if I am wrong about this. Maybe someone even has figures?

Chickenboy - +1

Yes, the DDs ferried the vast majority of the troops back to England, but because of shallow water the little boats were the ones that went inshore to load the troops and get them to the DDs. The Germans bombed the larger ships but they also strafed the small boats. Considering they were civilians, volunteers and many very old or young they deserve their kudos without taking away from the other ships in the operation.

I will watch it this weekend

in the meantime, I am checking this documentary: The Other Side of Dunkirk; about the view of the 1940 Dunkirk evacuation from the position of the French and Germans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcX8NvJPOFc

ORIGINAL: Big B

Haven't seen it. Honestly have had no desire to see it - or any other contemporary movie about WW2.
I have a brother in the movie industry for over 30 years now as a screen writer, and I understand now that the industry pays scant attention to history.

Dunkirk is much, MUCH more historical than many other movies. Then the point of view is moved to the experiences of individual soldiers - as it is in the Omaha Beach scene of Saving Private Ryan. Many people do seem to have and hard time in understanding this. Maybe they didn't watch SPR either because "there was an excess of Jedi Knights" - I really don't know.

If one wants a docudrama that tells the "whole" story you might watch a production of the BBC from about 10 years ago on YouTube. Three parts (3 hours) and covers the ships, the soldiers, the big picture (can't remember if it gives the French their due - nothing pops to mind anyways)...pretty good and based on the memories/notes of actual participants. IIRC it was part of a bunch of BBC documentaries about WW2. I enjoyed it anyways.

Dang - I watched it twice months ago when the present movie was just a twinkle in Christopher Nolan's eye but now it seems to have disappeared.

I saw it yesterday.

My verdict : It was okay. Just okay. Three and a half stars out of five.

I thought it was too disjointed to present a coherent story.

And the music was terribly invasive. Very loud and at times inappropriate. I think it is a mistake to think you can heighten tension by cranking up the volume.
Often the atmosphere of a scene is best captured by the absence of music or a more subtle use of music.

So IMHO the best war movie of all time remains Das Boot.

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I will watch it this weekend

in the meantime, I am checking this documentary: The Other Side of Dunkirk; about the view of the 1940 Dunkirk evacuation from the position of the French and Germans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcX8NvJPOFc

warspite1

Thank for sharing Jorge_Stanbury.

This is a very good, fair, documentary. As was to be expected with the launch of Dunkirk, regardless of what anyone thinks of the qualities (or otherwise) of the film itself, there is a lot of ill-informed rubbish being spoken on social media about the campaign and what happened back in May/June 1940. This documentary is pretty good at bringing out, at reasonably high level, what actually happened and explains why so much nonsense was written from the British, French and German 'sides' in time of war - but that has then been carried on (and even amplified) in peace.

ORIGINAL: 39battalion

And the music was terribly invasive. Very loud and at times inappropriate. I think it is a mistake to think you can heighten tension by cranking up the volume.
Often the atmosphere of a scene is best captured by the absence of music or a more subtle use of music.

warspite1

Dunkirk Spoiler Alert

I recall there was a lack of music in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Considering what Spielberg was trying to achieve – really putting one on that beach – this was appropriate, and that really worked well.

But I would say in the vast majority of cases, the use of music is key to the success of a scene and there are music pieces that remain stand out – and these vary in styles, in intensity, in volume – but the point is, they all work in their own way.

Zimmer’s ‘music’ score (I use that term loosely [:)]) worked really well in Dunkirk. Especially the climactic scene as the various strands came together – troops aboard the Dutch boat, the sinking ‘minesweeper’, the Spitfire/Me-109/Heinkel duel and the Moonstone’s rescue of the troops and sailors. Downloaded this for my ipod [:)]

On the other end of the music scale, can anyone, seriously, fail to be moved to tears by the classical pieces: Barber’s Adagio for Strings, used in Platoon or Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor used in Gallipoli? Those strings cannot fail to break your heart.

Best overall soundtrack for a war film though imo; a war film set in 1942? David Hentschel’s music score for Operation Daybreak. And highlighting that there is no one correct treatment, this film features early electronic music (mid 70’s) – even pre Kraftwerk probably! And as for the closing scene….. oh boy…. Sadly the recordings were lost and the composer says it’s uneconomic to re-record. Terrible shame.

Platoon - Barber's Adagio for Strings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQsgE0L450

Gallipoli - Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4

Operation Daybreak - Hentschel Main (start) and End Title (from 3 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jylVzNRWa6I
The assassination attempt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQhbnO0fu6A

Dunkirk - Zimmer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1VJ39nVIBk