You don't know how it's going to end for the individual soldiers.Suspense film? We know how it ends.
Is it OK to hope Harry Styles doesn't make it?You don't know how it's going to end for the individual soldiers.
It's not only okay, it's required.Is it OK to hope Harry Styles doesn't make it?
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.
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.
Suspense film? We know how it ends.
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.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)
Agreed, it seems it would be sort of like Titanic that way.
Is it OK to hope Harry Styles doesn't make it?
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...
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 Someone."
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 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.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.