Dunkirk

JohnTerrell · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:59 am

hurricane_yank wrote:

Especially with the ex-Russell Group 109E right there.

A bit disappointing, but that aircraft of course wasn't ready in-time last year, and even though it finally had a test flight a couple months back, they are still sorting out some things.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:28 pm

No spoilers! I hate it when people spoil the ending.

:lol:

Just kidding
:drink3:

DarenC1 · **Joined:** Sun May 07, 2006 8:10 am **Posts:** 235

Well, personally speaking, I loved it. Best war film I've seen in a long time. The flight sequences were superb - some of them downright gorgeous, in fact. In the sequences involving the Stukas, I almost felt like I was there.

I'll certainly watch the film again on the big screen. It definitely warrants a DVD/blu-ray buy.

(BTW - did anyone else spot the "cameo performance" by a previous war film star?)

hurricane_yank wrote:

JFS61 wrote:

Still don't get the use of the Buchon - At the very least, they could have CGI'd the cowling to look like a 109.

After all, it was one thing to use Buchons back in 1969, when that was all you had (and you were lucky to have them). Nowadays, I just don't get it.

The lack of Hurricanes is a minor annoyance as well.

Especially with the ex-Russell Group 109E right there.

Nolan doesn't like using CGI. Simple as that.

Incidentally, while we do have the Buchon playing the bad guy, there WAS a '109E model used in the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8maHMRIeU

JimH · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:18 pm

The Battle of Britain homage was a nice touch...taka taka taka

no spoilers...see who else picks up on it. Great film and has to be seen on the big screen to fully appreciate.

Jim

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7557

The problem with being a WWII history buff of which I can relate. The quote below goes for pretty much every war related movie that usually comes out these days.

"I wish I could enjoy it more if I didn’t know so much about it."

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/ ... s-holland/

JFS61 · **Joined:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:44 pm **Posts:** 305

Mark Allen M wrote:

The problem with being a WWII history buff of which I can relate. The quote below goes for pretty much every war related movie that usually comes out these days.

"I wish I could enjoy it more if I didn’t know so much about it."

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/ ... s-holland/

Same here. When I was younger, I used to be into medals and ribbons, and ever since then the first thing that I do when watching a war movie is to make sure everyone is not only wearing the correct ribbons (in proper order of precedence) for the time period represented by the film, but that the grouping is plausible as well. Nothing worse than to watch a film set in the 1950's and see someone wearing a Navy Achievement Medal.

Drives my family absolutely crazy.

p51 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:01 am

I saw it Friday night. Most of the Stuka scenes and one of the Spitfire scenes were obviously done with model planes, but the rest of the flying scenes looked great.
I certainly wouldn't put it anywhere on the same level as "Saving Private Ryan," but it's an excellent movie. I love how almost all of the the intersecting stories finally crossed one another eventually, that was great writing!

JohnTerrell wrote:

Perhaps the coolest part was the use of a Yak-52TW, with the front cockpit converted to look like a Spitfire (and nicknamed the "Yakfire"), so that all of the shots of the actors in-flight could be filmed with them seated in an actual aircraft and flying right along with the actual Spitfires, not having to rely on green screen or anything.

I wondered about that. It was obvious they were in the air, but I, too, couldn't figure out how. I figured it was something like the "GeeBee" scenes from "The Rocketeer" where they put a fake cockpit in the back of another plane but had no clue what they used.

JimH wrote:

The Battle of Britain homage was a nice touch...

Didn't catch that but Michael Cane being the flight lead (his voice over the radio only) was a great touch.

StangStung · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:09 pm

I saw it on Friday in 70mm. I thought it was really great. So much going on I'll probably try to catch it again, maybe in IMAX.

The critiques made here really are picking at nits (though they're nits we all know and love - paint, uniforms, etc.), they're pretty small nits on the whole. I thought they did a great job of conveying the desperation of the soldiers the get the F off that beach. And I really liked the fact that Nolan used real planes/models instead of CGI, which to me still looks very hoaky. My eye wasn't immediately drawn to the fake, rather, it was able to focus on the drama.

JimH · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:47 pm

MIchael Caine was in the BoB in 1969...hard to believe that was almost 50 years ago. The full circle of being in Dunkirk was pretty cool.

Jim

p51 wrote:

I saw it Friday night. Most of the Stuka scenes and one of the Spitfire scenes were obviously done with model planes, but the rest of the flying scenes looked great.
I certainly wouldn't put it anywhere on the same level as "Saving Private Ryan," but it's an excellent movie. I love how almost all of the the intersecting stories finally crossed one another eventually, that was great writing!

JohnTerrell wrote:

Perhaps the coolest part was the use of a Yak-52TW, with the front cockpit converted to look like a Spitfire (and nicknamed the "Yakfire"), so that all of the shots of the actors in-flight could be filmed with them seated in an actual aircraft and flying right along with the actual Spitfires, not having to rely on green screen or anything.

I wondered about that. It was obvious they were in the air, but I, too, couldn't figure out how. I figured it was something like the "GeeBee" scenes from "The Rocketeer" where they put a fake cockpit in the back of another plane but had no clue what they used.

JimH wrote:

The Battle of Britain homage was a nice touch...

Didn't catch that but Michael Cane being the flight lead (his voice over the radio only) was a great touch.

Jesse C. · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:04 pm

"I certainly wouldn't put it anywhere on the same level as "Saving Private Ryan," but it's an excellent movie. I love how almost all of the the intersecting stories finally crossed one another eventually, that was great writing!"

I honestly would not compare this to "Saving Pvt. Ryan" at all. Totally different way of story telling and Dunkirk I feel sticks more to actual history rather than being a backdrop to a fictional story, a la "Pearl Harbor"

Don't get me wrong, I love SPR, but this movie is another totally different level.

Mossie · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:03 am

The family of the Naval Commander portrayed by Kenneth Branagh are not happy....perhaps understandably so !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4083210/d ... sons-fury/

Brenden S · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:00 am

I liked the movie, but more dramatized than a historical movie. But it is there to earn money and tell a story. It is up to the people if they want to go watch documentaries or read a book or three and educate themselves on what really happened.
I agree there are some far fetched scenes in there but hey it is a movie at the end of the day.

CoastieJohn · **Joined:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm **Posts:** 1380

Mossie wrote:

The family of the Naval Commander portrayed by Kenneth Branagh are not happy....perhaps understandably so !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4083210/d ... sons-fury/

I chuckled at this review by a reader. Reminds me of the "over paid, over sexed and over here" phrase.

keith bowden
1 day ago

That is really awful, suppose we must be grateful there's no hero yanks in it giving out the orders with a machine gun in each hand and a cigar held between gritted teeth.

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1655

I just saw the movie. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't.

Not enough narrative.

Not enough little ships.

Not enough airplanes, and the flying was terribly hokey. (All that sloppy lethargic bobbing and weaving? Land a Spitfire on a beach with the wheels down? And do so far away from your own troops? And shoot down a Stuka while in that glide? A He-111 that never misses?)

Disappointed.

Dave

ChrisK48 · **Joined:** Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:40 pm **Posts:** 131

Dave Hadfield wrote:

I just saw the movie. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't.

Not enough narrative.

Not enough little ships.

Not enough airplanes, and the flying was terribly hokey. (All that sloppy lethargic bobbing and weaving? Land a Spitfire on a beach with the wheels down? And do so far away from your own troops? And shoot down a Stuka while in that glide? A He-111 that never misses?)

Disappointed.

Dave

I didn't like it much either.

How many rounds of ammo did that Spitfire carry? How far did he fly on that last 15 gallons of gas? How many miles did he glide after the engine quit? Why didn't any of the Navy ships shoot at the German planes? All nitpicks, but that's what we do here, right?

The friend I was with pointed out that there were gun flashes coming from the wings of the "Me-109." Did they have wing guns?

To me it was too loud. (Saw it in IMAX.) My ears were ringing for an hour afterwards. I could have used some narrative, too. And what was the point in killing the kid on the boat? Did that actually happen?

Warbird Information Exchange

Dunkirk

Who is online