Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Anyone planning to see the movie "Dunkirk"?



Anger

Active member
Jul 21, 2017
190
Will be going to see this.

My grandad captained a minesweeper in WWII and took his ship over there as part of the operation to save our men. Looking forward to seeing this re-created.
 


Not seen it yet, but IMHO a movie that gives the time of day, let alone a part, to that karaoke cock from One Direction has been artistically compromised.

Won't compromise a thing for me, as I genuinely have no clue who he is or what he looks like.
 


DavidRyder

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2013
2,884
Saw it on Saturday, bloody brilliant. The way they combined different viewpoints of the events was v well done. I recommend.
 


DavidRyder

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2013
2,884
Not seen it yet, but IMHO a movie that gives the time of day, let alone a part, to that karaoke cock from One Direction has been artistically compromised.

Harry Styles was actually pretty good. But not sure I agree with the 'fast track' way singers/models can get a big part on a big movie, ahead of proper actors. Still, probably got a few teenage girls in, and hopefully they learnt something about the war.
 


biddles911

New member
May 12, 2014
348
Anyone planning to see the movie "Dunkirk"?

Great film but recommend seeing it on iMax or 4dx screen to get full impact. Went to Crawley as both Worthing cinemas only showing on their small screens anyway....why!?

Best bits were the Spitfires. You really felt you were flying with them.

God, these guys were amazingly brave......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 






jakarta

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
15,616
Sullington
Just back from Horsham Capitol.

Good but not a Classic.

Mark Rylance was superb, as ever.

Having researched this in great detail over the years it was a little disappointing to see some of the flaws considering the money that had been spent. e.g. apparently Spitfires have infinite amounts of ammunition, if not fuel... :facepalm:

Harry Stiles - didn't even notice him.
 






LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
46,487
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Great film but recommend seeing it on iMax or 4dx screen to get full impact. Went to Crawley as both Worthing cinemas only showing on their small screens anyway....why!?

Best bits were the Spitfires. You really felt you were flying with them.

God, these guys were amazingly brave......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saw it last night at the Connaught Worthing.....didn't have problem re the screen...its a pretty small cinema upstairs and there new sound system did it proud ..glad you enjoyed it where you went
 


studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
29,555
On the Border
Saw the film today, wouldn't even make my top 20 of war films, and in my view far inferior to the John Mills Dunkirk film.#

I thought the opening scene was daft as I would have expected all the soldiers to have been picked off. Also Tom Hardy' spitfire can glide around for ages while still shooting down German planes. While the sound and effects were good, there was no development of the characters.

Average
 


Garry Nelson's teacher

Well-known member
May 11, 2015
5,257
Bloody Worthing!
First film I've seen at the cinema since Jurassic Park (is this an NSC record?) and it was worth the trip. Brilliantly orchestrated with very little by way of 'characters' (eg no love interest) and virtually no exposition (i.e no maps, no strategy, no Churchill impersonations). The film just really lets the action tell the story and I thought it was superbly done. Of course there's always going to be little things that you notice such as that the soldiers drowning did tend to look like male models. The use of music was very, very moving especially the splash of Elgar at the end. The aerial combat scenes were simply amazing. and the 'at-sea' ones were, er, immersive.
Things have come a long way since Jurassic Park!

PS don't want to sound pretentious here by I think the lack of characterisation was a deliberate attempt to catch a bit of the 'Britishness' at the time: the 'whole' was bigger than individuals. I thought it would have been diminished and used as a 'star vehicle' the way that Holywood might have traditionally treated it?
 




jakarta

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
15,616
Sullington
Sadly loads of factual mistakes, the Luftwaffe would never have sent single bombers with two escorts to attack the beach, it would have been a whole Geschwader (wing) probably with two Gruppen of escorting Me 109's.

In addition the RAF never sent sections of 3 aircraft out to Dunkirk, it would almost always be a squadron of 12 aircraft. See Al Deere's and Robert Stanford Tuck's memoirs about air fighting over Dunkirk.

And yes I need to get out more...
 


Sadly loads of factual mistakes, the Luftwaffe would never have sent single bombers with two escorts to attack the beach, it would have been a whole Geschwader (wing) probably with two Gruppen of escorting Me 109's.

In addition the RAF never sent sections of 3 aircraft out to Dunkirk, it would almost always be a squadron of 12 aircraft. See Al Deere's and Robert Stanford Tuck's memoirs about air fighting over Dunkirk.

And yes I need to get out more...

Or get out less:wink:

Another one for you???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg
 


Monkey Man

Your support is not that great
Jan 30, 2005
3,156
Neither here nor there
Sadly loads of factual mistakes, the Luftwaffe would never have sent single bombers with two escorts to attack the beach, it would have been a whole Geschwader (wing) probably with two Gruppen of escorting Me 109's.

In addition the RAF never sent sections of 3 aircraft out to Dunkirk, it would almost always be a squadron of 12 aircraft. See Al Deere's and Robert Stanford Tuck's memoirs about air fighting over Dunkirk.

And yes I need to get out more...

I did think that there were surprisingly few aircraft in the sky with 400,000 troops as sitting targets. I guess the production budget can only stretch so far.

Still thought it was an amazing film, telling a story that was in danger of being all but forgotten and yet symbolises the best qualities of human spirit and is such an important chapter in the history of modern Britain.
 




LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
46,487
SHOREHAM BY SEA
I did think that there were surprisingly few aircraft in the sky with 400,000 troops as sitting targets. I guess the production budget can only stretch so far.

Still thought it was an amazing film, telling a story that was in danger of being all but forgotten and yet symbolises the best qualities of human spirit and is such an important chapter in the history of modern Britain.

Ye and i counted only 399 990 troops..pffft!

Your last line sums it up for me
 


GOM

living vicariously
Aug 8, 2005
3,222
Leeds - but not the dirty bit
Saw the film today, wouldn't even make my top 20 of war films, and in my view far inferior to the John Mills Dunkirk film.#

I thought the opening scene was daft as I would have expected all the soldiers to have been picked off. Also Tom Hardy' spitfire can glide around for ages while still shooting down German planes. While the sound and effects were good, there was no development of the characters.

Average

There wasn't supposed to be any development of the chartacters, that was deliberate. The film was meant to be subjective about the event, not about the characters.
 


trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,350
Hove
Sadly loads of factual mistakes, the Luftwaffe would never have sent single bombers with two escorts to attack the beach, it would have been a whole Geschwader (wing) probably with two Gruppen of escorting Me 109's.

In addition the RAF never sent sections of 3 aircraft out to Dunkirk, it would almost always be a squadron of 12 aircraft. See Al Deere's and Robert Stanford Tuck's memoirs about air fighting over Dunkirk.

And yes I need to get out more...

Read an interesting piece with a historian who only really picked up a couple of things. One, that for dramatic reasons, the role of the small boats is overplayed, having only effected around 5% of the rescue - and that the Royal Navy had a much greater presence than portrayed. Secondly, that Spitfires had a tiny amount of ammunition (could only fire for something like 12 seconds I think before it was Game Over gun-wise) making some of the dogfights unrealistic. Finally, that a Spitfire would not land on a sandy beach with its undercarriage down as it would sink in and crash heavily.

But, having said all that, he felt if captured the feel and the 'spirit' of Dunkirk brilliantly and, for a film, there were some very accurate portrayals. Looking forward to seeing it.
 
Last edited:






Charlies Shinpad

New member
Jul 5, 2003
4,415
Oakford in Devon
A friend of mine is a film director and he said that the director of Dunkirk hates CGI with a passion and only uses it as a last resort
Hence you only saw a few small boats and when the minesweeper sunk the oil fire was very small etc
I agree with the Spitfire ammunition and gliding and landing bit but it didn't spoil my enjoyment of an old fashioned stiff upper lip British movie
 


Garry Nelson's teacher

Well-known member
May 11, 2015
5,257
Bloody Worthing!
Entirely OT, but my stepdad had a 39 year 'cinema gap' between Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and The Fugitive. :thumbsup:

Oh that's great. By Christ it's good to hold an NSC record - but massive respect to your step-dad!
On the historical accuracy of the film, I take the points (with interest) but wonder if there's ever been a war movie that couldn't be challenged on these grounds? I write as someone who grew up thinking that John Wayne had beaten the Japanese empire more or less single-handedly and that D-Day was actually fought in black and white as per the 1960s movie.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here