Dunkirk | Syracusefan.com

Dunkirk

Agree. Non-traditional movie in that there are no character arcs and some people are going to rebel against that, but this movie works as a suspense film as well as a war movie.
 
This was my most anticipated film of 2017. But, I have to say . . . I was a bit underwhelmed. And, yes, I saw it in 70mm.

It's a very good film, some of the combat scenes were masterfully executed (probably the best air-to-air scenes ever). But to me, it lacked scope. I know it was a deliberate choice by Nolan, but it shocked me. If I didn't know the history of Dunkirk I would probably feel differently. Just the depiction of the air element alone: in reality, the RAF flew thousands of sorties and shot down hundreds of Luftwaffe aircraft during the 9 days of the Dunkirk evac, killing them at a 2.5 to 1 ratio. The issue was that they were outnumbered better than 5 to 1 by the Germans, not that they were absent from the fight.

Again, I understand it was Nolan's choice to make this a more personal film, but narrowing down the epic scale of Dunkirk to focus on a handful of intimate struggles surprised me and left me feeling underwhelmed. I would still recommend it, but with the proviso that it is not they kind of grandly scaled war film like A Bridge Too Far or The Longest Day.
 
This was my most anticipated film of 2017. But, I have to say . . . I was a bit underwhelmed. And, yes, I saw it in 70mm.

It's a very good film, some of the combat scenes were masterfully executed (probably the best air-to-air scenes ever). But to me, it lacked scope. I know it was a deliberate choice by Nolan, but it shocked me. If I didn't know the history of Dunkirk I would probably feel differently. Just the depiction of the air element alone: in reality, the RAF flew thousands of sorties and shot down hundreds of Luftwaffe aircraft during the 9 days of the Dunkirk evac, killing them at a 2.5 to 1 ratio. The issue was that they were outnumbered better than 5 to 1 by the Germans, not that they were absent from the fight.

Again, I understand it was Nolan's choice to make this a more personal film, but narrowing down the epic scale of Dunkirk to focus on a handful of intimate struggles surprised me and left me feeling underwhelmed. I would still recommend it, but with the proviso that it is not they kind of grandly scaled war film like A Bridge Too Far or The Longest Day.
I agree. I like that it localized the greater conflict and thought that made for great storytelling, but there was something missing.
 
This was my most anticipated film of 2017. But, I have to say . . . I was a bit underwhelmed. And, yes, I saw it in 70mm.

It's a very good film, some of the combat scenes were masterfully executed (probably the best air-to-air scenes ever). But to me, it lacked scope. I know it was a deliberate choice by Nolan, but it shocked me. If I didn't know the history of Dunkirk I would probably feel differently. Just the depiction of the air element alone: in reality, the RAF flew thousands of sorties and shot down hundreds of Luftwaffe aircraft during the 9 days of the Dunkirk evac, killing them at a 2.5 to 1 ratio. The issue was that they were outnumbered better than 5 to 1 by the Germans, not that they were absent from the fight.

Again, I understand it was Nolan's choice to make this a more personal film, but narrowing down the epic scale of Dunkirk to focus on a handful of intimate struggles surprised me and left me feeling underwhelmed. I would still recommend it, but with the proviso that it is not they kind of grandly scaled war film like A Bridge Too Far or The Longest Day.

One of the reasons I enjoyed it, was because that stuff was missing.. fog of war? Because the characters wouldn't have know.. etc. I liked the choice, but understand why you didn't.

Also a history buff. Explained the whole thing to my kids, before I took them. Had them listen to Churchill's speech, before, as well. (It has always amazed me, how in defeat, while begging for help, the speech is awe inspiring...I put it to music a few years back...lol)

Knowing the rest, I guess the choice made it more realistic for me... And I really didn't want too many sappy stories.. Stressful from beginning to end. Worked , for me.

(Suppose some front line stuff, halt order, etc. Could have been nice(scope) but perhaps it would have undermined the film's perspective)
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I enjoyed it, was because that stuff was missing.. fog of war? Because the characters wouldn't have know.. etc. I liked the choice, but understand why you didn't.

Also a history buff. Explained the whole thing to my kids, before I took them. Had them listen to Churchill's speech, before, as well. (It has always amazed me, how in defeat, while begging for help, the speech is awe inspiring...I put it to music a few years back...lol)

Knowing the rest, I guess the choice made it more realistic for me... And I really didn't want too many sappy stories.. Stressful from beginning to end. Worked , for me.

(Suppose some front line stuff, halt order, etc. Could have been nice(scope) but perhaps it would have undermined the film's perspective)
Nolan made the film he wanted to make and, as I noted, he made a fine one. My response is not so much about what was on the screen as about my own expectations.

I heard "Dunkirk," "Chris Nolan," "$150M budget" and I expected a sweeping epic. Instead, I got a more personal story. Yes, this is a "me" problem, not a "Dunkirk" problem. But, for example, Nolan is getting praise for using live extras rather than CGI to film the beach scenes. But right away, it struck me as off. There were nearly 400,000 men crowding those beaches, along with much of their equipment (which they were destroying to avoid them falling into German hands). Rather than that swirling mass of men, the beach scenes struck me as a few hundred blokes lining up on the beach. For me: underwhelming.
 
Wonderfully filmed scenes...but it was too PC for me. Don't think they ever said Nazi or swore. It led us to believe the Brits were a holes for not letting French on board ships...when that wasn't the case. They also underplayed the French's role in supporting the evacuation.

Still an excellent picture for the visuals...
 
Is it OK to hope Harry Styles doesn't make it?

He was actually decent in his role. Did not even realize who it was until the movie was over.
 
Wonderfully filmed scenes...but it was too PC for me. Don't think they ever said Nazi or swore. It led us to believe the Brits were a holes for not letting French on board ships...when that wasn't the case. They also underplayed the French's role in supporting the evacuation.

Still an excellent picture for the visuals...

Not only did they not say the word but they never showed them either. Which had you told me before I saw it that we never saw the enemy I would have scoffed. It totally worked though.
 
He was actually decent in his role. Did not even realize who it was until the movie was over.

Was there a musical number at the end that finally made you notice him? I'm picturing "Springtime for Hitler."
 
It was a disaster movie about a real disaster. Other than the Mark Rylance character, we are told almost nothing about any character's background and learn little about their individual personalities except that they are doggedly trying to survive or help others to. it makes every character and "everyman" we can relate to and it thus a tribute to all of them.

I can't say I learned anything about Dunkirk I didn't know so unless you are unacquainted with it's history to begin with it's not all that educational. (The same could be said of Titanic and other disaster films.) It is too loud. I was the only one stupid enough to sit in the front section of theater seats. The musical score was unnerving. I'm still not sure of what a "Shepard Tone" is but I didn't much like it:
Dunkirk (2017 film) - Wikipedia
Watching it is a harrowing experience, unleavened by humor or romance, (the only women in it are a couple of nurses we who presumably die when their ship is bombed or torpedoed in one of several escape attempts. They play some confusing tricks with time, although it all comes together at the end.

I was glad I went but gladder to leave the theater and return to my mundane life.
 
Nolan made the film he wanted to make and, as I noted, he made a fine one. My response is not so much about what was on the screen as about my own expectations.

I heard "Dunkirk," "Chris Nolan," "$150M budget" and I expected a sweeping epic. Instead, I got a more personal story. Yes, this is a "me" problem, not a "Dunkirk" problem. But, for example, Nolan is getting praise for using live extras rather than CGI to film the beach scenes. But right away, it struck me as off. There were nearly 400,000 men crowding those beaches, along with much of their equipment (which they were destroying to avoid them falling into German hands). Rather than that swirling mass of men, the beach scenes struck me as a few hundred blokes lining up on the beach. For me: underwhelming.

I hear you... The # of boats was WAY off, too. That bugged me. I was able to shrug that off, as I appreciated the non CGI. And frankly, I was stressed enough to not care. And I had no expectations(knew nothing about the film), other than that if they made some sappy story of so-n-so reuniting with his "love of a lifetime" I would have freaking walked out. They didn't. It's why I didn't mind the lack of character development. Like I said. It worked for me. Dunno if it hit me as hard as the Saving Private Ryan scene, where they dropped the door for the landing craft... (that was ridiculous) Instead, it just kept coming.

I also would have appreciated a sweeping epic, so we could have been properly awestruck, by what many scholars/history buffs call the changing point of human history...(Nolan, too BTW) Compartmentalizing can help relate to the folks that have ZERO clue about what Dunkirk meant, or why there isn't a Nazi flag flying on their street... I had no problem with the choice, but I would have enjoyed it your way as well. ;-) And I would have appreciated more than 15, of the 800 little boats of Dunkirk... But I still really enjoyed it.
 
Thought it was cool that some of the boats used in the movie were boats used during the actual evacuation of Dunkirk.
 
I think people are missing the fact the movie was filmed as a slice of what happened, 3 different views of the event over lapping was a pretty cool way to show it. it was not meant to show the whole thing in huge scope

there are 3 beaches at Dunkirk, this took place at one..

there was little air presence at the beach "recurring theme in survivors’ accounts is that they never saw the RAF in the skies above them."

there were more than 15 boats in the movie, and while there were lots of boats, they were not all there at the same time, it took place over a week, 700 ships spread out over 7 days, not all went multiple times. many just ferried between shore and the destroyers. so at any one time you could not have had that many ships in view on any single beach.
 
I think people are missing the fact the movie was filmed as a slice of what happened, 3 different views of the event over lapping was a pretty cool way to show it. it was not meant to show the whole thing in huge scope

there are 3 beaches at Dunkirk, this took place at one..

there was little air presence at the beach "recurring theme in survivors’ accounts is that they never saw the RAF in the skies above them."

there were more than 15 boats in the movie, and while there were lots of boats, they were not all there at the same time, it took place over a week, 700 ships spread out over 7 days, not all went multiple times. many just ferried between shore and the destroyers. so at any one time you could not have had that many ships in view on any single beach.
I saw it tonight. This explaination makes sense. I enjoyed the movie. As to the noise complaint someone had in the thread, I think that was purposeful, to try to bring that experience to the audience. For me, it worked.
 
This has to be frontrunner for Best Picture. There wasn't a thing I didn't like. A+. Seeing it in 70mm made me feel like I was there.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,141
Messages
4,682,709
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
359
Guests online
1,700
Total visitors
2,059


Top Bottom