Dunkirk discussion thread

[Zontar]

So I'm surprised no one made this, so right before I leave for work I'm going to drop this thread here and come back to it and see what happens.

I enjoyed the movie, in fact I think it's Nolan's best work to date. The cinematography was great, the pacing and structuring was pretty well done for interweaving three stories that take place over different periods of time, and it's interesting to see a war movie that actually captures the horror of being in war even when one isn't in combat instead of focusing on a particular mission or fighting the enemy that we usually see in such movies. Never in my life did I think the terror of a dive bomber would be captured on film, nor that of being stuck on a sinking ship (as a guy who was in the RCNR who got trained for such a situation that really got to me).

I'm also not going to lie, when the boats arrived, I teared up a bit.

In the end I liked it and think it's pretty good.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It was a great movie.

I hear a lot of people describing it as Nolan's best movie, which is a bit of an exaggeration, and one of the best war movies ever made, which it probably is. There were a number of things that seemed a bit half-baked about it, from a structural point of view. I felt more would happen with the Cillian Murphy character. Dropping the French dude like that was anticlimactic. Kenneth Branagh was basically Mr. Exposition. Mostly just characters not fulfilling their intended roles, or not being much of a character in the first place.

That's the only thing that bugged me. Technically it's a masterpiece and a great, sensational experience to have in your closest IMAX theater. I appreciate the "return" to a more traditional school of epic filmmaking ala D. W. Griffith, Sergei Eisenstein and Abel Gance. Enough with the vicious, gritty, handheld war movie everybody's been making since Saving Private Ryan.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Loved. It.

Ever since the first teaser came out with all the men on the bridge and the slow building of the stuka's engine as they all looked up in terror, I have been waiting for this movie. I loved every moment of it, and I fully agree that it captured the terror--not the blood and horror, but terror--of war, and being trapped with no place to go.

I loved that you never see the Germans, even at the end where they're just blurred out. It really nailed the feeling of this massive, faceless monster coming to get you. I liked how the timelines interacted toward the end, and how it kind of tricks you with the final German fighter.

I liked that it showed the French staying behind at the beginning, and the grim looks on their faces as they told Tommy to beat it. I would have liked to see a bit more, but that would have ruined the point above about the Germans.

I liked that Tommy didn't look back, didn't try to help, or even start screaming in grief/anger as all his companions were just gunned down at the start. He just ran, which is something I think a boy his age would actually do, and it again comes back to helping show the terror. They didn't turn and fight, they didn't try to find cover, they didn't even go, "Martin's down!" when the first guy got shot. They just bolted, and probably kept praying the entire time, 'Please not me, please not me'.

I loved that the air combat was based in reality, where the ace of the movie wasn't gunning down fighter after fighter (like Poe in Star Wars, ugh), but each battle was a drawn out, stressful event that came down to timing and a bit of luck.


My only complaint is that I feel I need to watch it with subtitles because their British dialect is so thick in some scenes that I could not understand what was being said. I got all the important stuff, but there were bits of dialogue here and there that I wasn't completely sure of what was said. And that is hardly a knock against the movie in any way, if you ask me.

I do have one question though: does anyone know who the person in the fire was supposed to be? Was he that Brit in the ship that was ready to shoot Tommy and the French guy? Or was he just another poor soul?
And I guess, speaking of that ship, does anyone know what happened to the captain of that ship? He came back, but once they launched out to sea, he just vanished. I know he didn't make it, but I would have liked to at least see what happened to him.

 

[Hawki]

I saw it. It gets a stamp of 3/5. It's Nolan's second-worst movie for me.

Thing is, I can't call it a bad movie. The cinematography and sound design are too good for that (fun fact: no CGI was used, the entire film consists of practical effects). However, I can't call it a good movie either, and that's primarily because of the characters. I couldn't tell you anything about them, I couldn't care about any of them, and having seen the movie last week, I can only describe "Peter," and "Kenneth Brannagh admiral guy" and "Tom Hardy pilot guy" (who's still stuck being behind a mask), and "black-haired British soldier guy who teams up with other British soldier guys along with Dutch navy guy, and French soldier guy." I mean, Christ, there's an episode of Foyle's War that deals with the Dunkirk evacuation that made me more invested in the characters that go to Dunkirk than this entire film.

I've heard people say that it's not about the characters, that it's about the event, and blah blah blah. I'd never rely on war movies as a source of information in of themselves, but when I think of movies like Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge, Enemy at the Gates, We Were Soldiers, and Black Hawk Down, coupled with TV shows like Band of Brothers, while my level of character investment varied per installment, that character investment still existed, and I could learn something about some of the history as well in the war-zones depicted as well. Dunkirk: The Movie doesn't really tell me anything about the Dunkirk evacuation that I wasn't already aware of, and while that isn't a fault of its own, I'm not going to give it a free pass for a lack of character development/investment.

So, in the end, Dunkirk is a well crafted film, and if you go to films to see the craftmanship of them, then you'll enjoy it. If you go to films for an emotionally-fulfilling experience that deals with character and story, give it a miss.

Edit: Also, if you want another film that deals with Dunkirk, see 'Their Finest'. It's a WWII romance/comedy/sattre rather than a war movie, and also gets 3/5, but still a much more emotionally fulfilling one.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

(fun fact: no CGI was used, the entire film consists of practical effects).

And I am supposed to be impressed by that why?

 

[Hawki]

(fun fact: no CGI was used, the entire film consists of practical effects).

And I am supposed to be impressed by that why?

Because when you're using hundreds, if not thousands of extras, and flying actual Spitfires, and sinking actual ships, in this day and age, I think that deserves some credit. It may have been done before, but it's still done well.

I've never been one to rail against CGI, but in this case, I think the film's better for it. For all my gripes, like I said, the film is shot excellently - everything feels "real," in it, at least visually.

 

[Zontar]

I barely felt anything.

Was that because of the movie or are you just unable to feel things in general

I sure felt the terror, but then the fact I've had training to deal with those exact situations probably was a part of it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

...but when I think of movies like Saving Private Ryan...

I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but I have seen Saving Private Ryan. And while I think the D-Day segment was inspired film-making, I've long considered the rest of the film to be maudlin and formulaic. I preferred the more elegiac Thin Red Line, even with it being as completely up its own ass as it was.

Anyway, I didn't need to know the names of the characters or have elaborate back stories for them to feel their pain and anxiety or emphasize with their terror. I think there are films that suffer for a lack of robust character development (most specifically, character driven ones), but Dunkirk is not one of those films.

Mind you, I also think Interstellar was brilliant and Inception was tight as fuck, and I know people love to whine about those films on these boards too, so I'm probably just going to go down as a Nolan apologist.

 

[Major_Tom]

(fun fact: no CGI was used, the entire film consists of practical effects).

And I am supposed to be impressed by that why?

Because overuse of CGI makes everything look artificial? Compare dogfights with George Lucas' Red Tails.

Oh, and another fun fact: It was entirely shot on film. As God intended.

 

[wings012]

It's interesting at parts, boring at others and overall really dry. Not my cup of tea.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

(fun fact: no CGI was used, the entire film consists of practical effects).

And I am supposed to be impressed by that why?

Because overuse of CGI makes everything look artificial? Compare dogfights with George Lucas' Red Tails.

Oh, and another fun fact: It was entirely shot on film. As God intended.

Its all fake in the end really. Special Effects whether CGI or Practical is Artificial to the real thing, at least with CGI they are not restricted at what they can do and show and we can see the battles as clear as we can see.

And screw these hipster film snobs that just can't accept change

Martin Scorsese is an old school film geek and yet he made Wolf of Wall Street with modern digital footage.

 

[Hawki]

Mind you, I also think Interstellar was brilliant and Inception was tight as fuck, and I know people love to whine about those films on these boards too, so I'm probably just going to go down as a Nolan apologist.

Since when? Most people seem to love Nolan here.

 

[09philj]

...but when I think of movies like Saving Private Ryan...

I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but I have seen Saving Private Ryan. And while I think the D-Day segment was inspired film-making, I've long considered the rest of the film to be maudlin and formulaic. I preferred the more elegiac Thin Red Line, even with it being as completely up its own ass as it was.

Anyway, I didn't need to know the names of the characters or have elaborate back stories for them to feel their pain and anxiety or emphasize with their terror. I think there are films that suffer for a lack of robust character development (most specifically, character driven ones), but Dunkirk is not one of those films.

Mind you, I also think Interstellar was brilliant and Inception was tight as fuck, and I know people love to whine about those films on these boards too, so I'm probably just going to go down as a Nolan apologist.

Inception is still a pretty fun and imaginative genre flick, and it's a film that manages to justify the scale and spectacle by doing interesting things with them.

In direct contrast, Interstellar should have been made for a tenth of the budget and two thirds of the runtime.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I thought it was good but not the second coming of Christ a lot of people seem to be proclaiming it is.

I really thought Nolan's insistence on playing with time lines and perspectives hurt this movie in some ways while making it work for others. For example, oh and by the way spoilers ahead, the scene where Tom Hardy's wing mate goes down. Hardy looks out the window and sees him getting rescued. Cool, good for that guy. Later on we witness the crash and rescue from the wing mate's perspective and we see him struggling to escape from the plane and nearly drown. But there's absolutely zero tension to the whole scenario because we saw earlier in the movie that he makes it out just fine.

Also, maybe others can weight in, I don't know if it was the audio mix or just the theater I was in, but I couldn't make out half of the dialogue in the movie. Either I couldn't hear the hushed tones of the thick accents made it unintelligible. My girlfriend had the same problem so I know it wasn't just my ears. I said to her during the movie I wish I could watch this with the subtitles because I'd love to know what the heck everyone is saying.

Those things aside, I definitely enjoyed myself, though not as much as I was hoping. It was beautiful to look at and the practical effects made everything look fantastic. I thought the ending was pretty affecting and the movie as a whole portrayed the hopelessness those men must have been feeling pretty well. At no point could they feel safe. Even if they were lucky enough to get on a ship the threat of bombers and U-boats was constant. It must have been absolutely harrowing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I really thought Nolan's insistence on playing with time lines and perspectives hurt this movie in some ways while making it work for others. For example, oh and by the way spoilers ahead, the scene where Tom Hardy's wing mate goes down. Hardy looks out the window and sees him getting rescued. Cool, good for that guy. Later on we witness the crash and rescue from the wing mate's perspective and we see him struggling to escape from the plane and nearly drown. But there's absolutely zero tension to the whole scenario because we saw earlier in the movie that he makes it out just fine.

You misread that scene.

Hardy sees what he thinks is his friend waving him off. Later, we see he isn't waving at all, but struggling to escape from his stuck cockpit. We don't see the rescue until it occurs later in the film.

 

[Major_Tom]

Its all fake in the end really.

Yeah but it doesn't have to look obviously fake.

at least with CGI they are not restricted at what they can do and show and we can see the battles as clear as we can see.

Maybe that's the problem.

And screw these hipster film snobs that just can't accept change

I don't like change for the sake of change. Also they did change, Nolan is now shooting on glorious 65mm film.

Martin Scorsese is an old school film geek and yet he made Wolf of Wall Street with modern digital footage.

So what? He also shot Shutter Island on film[footnote]as God intended[/footnote].

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

^ I watched the Dark Knight on Blu Ray one time on my HDTV and the Film Grain in that movie is distracting as fuck.

And Shutter Island came out before Wolf of Wall Street dude.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I really thought Nolan's insistence on playing with time lines and perspectives hurt this movie in some ways while making it work for others. For example, oh and by the way spoilers ahead, the scene where Tom Hardy's wing mate goes down. Hardy looks out the window and sees him getting rescued. Cool, good for that guy. Later on we witness the crash and rescue from the wing mate's perspective and we see him struggling to escape from the plane and nearly drown. But there's absolutely zero tension to the whole scenario because we saw earlier in the movie that he makes it out just fine.

You misread that scene.

Hardy sees what he thinks is his friend waving him off. Later, we see he isn't waving at all, but struggling to escape from his stuck cockpit. We don't see the rescue until it occurs later in the film.

Right, I understand that. Maybe this was a fever dream or something but I could have sworn that Hardy took a second pass around and his wingmate was visible boarding the civilian ship. My dad wants to see it so I'll probably get another look at the whole sequence and get it all straightened out in my brain.