"Dunkirk" movie - Warner Bros - Christopher Nolan

[Retired Army Noncom]

Please let the admin gods kill this tread...I have never heard so much whining about a film...lol.

Just call us 'whiners'... bandits at 12 O'clock High, you'll feel better. I'd rather see a cartoon featuring Snoopy and the Red Baron than see 'Dunkirk' again.

[RustyCanteen]

I just saw it tonight. It was interesting, but like 'Flags of our Fathers' the non-linear storyline (maybe non-traditional is a better term?) probably turned a lot of people off. Personally speaking, "Flags of our fathers' was kind of a dud in that respect although I understand what they were trying to convey. This (Dunkirk) at least kept it tense through most of the movie, although the beginning was slow like most any film is. As long as you keep in mind that no movie is a 100% accurate documentary, but a vehicle for a story, then it is ok.

 

The IMAX cameras were spectacular, could definitely envision a fantastic telling of the Naval battle of Guadalcanal done with work of that quality.

 

5 out of 5 for the cameras.

4 out of 5 on the story. It was interesting, but naturally the nature of the compact story did not allow us to get to know anything of the characters. In a way, that worked out for the best which I'm sure was the intent.

3 out of 5 on the set dressing. It was good enough, but some things bothered me. Looked like modern nylon lines (rope) on the mole, little things like that mostly. Things about ships too, but it was certainly good enough. No worse than some similar issues (which I chose to believe were made for safety purposes) I noticed in 'The Finest Hours' (so I won't comment on those further.). Only a true rivet counter would catch some of it. So for the general public, it was probably a 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5 on set dressing. They did a good job, and that is all that was needed.

 

Now, many people are passionate about this issue, and it really depends on how, how much, and where, but I think it could have benefited from a little more CGI (in moderation), to create more men on the beaches. The burning spitfire was not on screen for that long, but either the director chose to accept that a few rivet counters would notice (the vast majority of the movie going public wouldn't have a clue) or the instructions given when designing the prop did not take into account the angles the director wanted. Whatever the reason, it did not bother me any more than the fake Tiger in 'Saving Private Ryan', I mean who is really going to damn a film on a prop? I'm annoyed James Cameron didn't utilize cast a real T-2000 in Judgement Day, but what can you do, it was his choice to fake one instead. I mean really! J/k.

 

I would watch it again, but mostly for the spectacular visuals. I do understand the complaints regarding the glide of the Spitfire; in my mind it was clear it was supposed to be time slowed, but yeah it should have been shorter even if time were slowed for dramatic effect. In the end it was entertaining, which is all it should be. The shooting down of the bomber while in the glide was no worse than the deus ex machina of the 'down the throat' torpedo taking out the German 'DD' (which wasn't much more than a coastal escort) in U-571, the T-rex at the end of 'Jurassic Park', or the autogyro rescue in 'The Rocketeer', or the mother of all; the force-aided 90 degree-turn exhaust shot in Star Wars(1977)!

 

Nothing in the film bothered me to the point where I would never watch it again. I would give the movie overall a 4 out of 5. Enough elements came into the story and the filming to make it watchable. You have to suspend some disbelief when you watch anything. The big question in a movie's life is how well it ages, and for that, only time will tell. There are a lot of movies which seem fantastic when they are new, but decades later will make me cringe to see. I hope this one fares well, the lack of majorly obvious in your face CGI always helps to avoid that problem. A wooden boat on screen won't age, but a CGI wooden boat will because it's always getting a little better, and eventually would look bad. Like the dinosaurs in the 1933 King Kong, but everyone still watches it.

[warroom1]

your not much of a film critic, the other movies you compared were far in way better LOL

[JasonT]

Please let the admin gods kill this tread...I have never heard so much whining about a film...lol.

+1

 

It's a movie aka entertainment. Everyone regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not should at least be happy it made a lot of money and people went to see it. Otherwise studios won't pour money into future war films. As long as they make a profit, they'll keep making them, good and bad.

[Bugme]

your not much of a film critic, the other movies you compared were far in way better LOL

None of us here are film critic's, we are historical collectors which effectively eliminates us from being anywhere close to being impartial film critic's.

[Bugme]

Please let the admin gods kill this tread...I have never heard so much whining about a film...lol.

I personally like to see myself as Thor... watch out for my hammer.

[RustyCanteen]

your not much of a film critic, the other movies you compared were far in way better LOL

 

 

Interestingly enough (and a great thing for those of us wanting future WWII films) it is tied with Jurassic Park on 'Rotten Tomatoes', both of which carry a 92% certified fresh rating. It seems the film was well liked by many. The National WWII Museum reposted (today) a review they had made back in July https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/dunkirk

 

All movies (especially war films) have their good and bad points, but history isn't made in studio by actors getting paid millions to reenact something brave 20 year olds got paid $20 a month to survive in the real world.

[kammo-man]

Rotten Tomatos is a paid by the studios review company.

The studios pay them to promote their product.

[ScottG]

Rotten Tomatos is a paid by the studios review company.

The studios pay them to promote their product.

 

So your studio paid them for a 77% on Fury?

 

Doesn't matter if there were liberties taken as there are in nearly all movies. What matters is that it was great for the genre and will by most accounts be a very strong contender at the Oscars, again, good for those of us who just enjoy a war movie. Scott

 

 

[kammo-man]

Why bring up fury

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kammo-man]

Always look at audience reviews not the critic

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cutiger83]

 

What matters is that it was great for the genre and will by most accounts be a very strong contender at the Oscars, again, good for those of us who just enjoy a war movie. Scott

 

 

 

Very true. If it does well at the Oscars then it might promote more military movies in the future.

 

It does make me curious that some of the few who disliked Dunkirk just keep responding with the same complaints over and over in this thread. If someone didn't like the movie that is certainly their prerogative but why not just say so and move on?

[z19]

Worth seeing one time...not very entertaining as far as just wanting to see a movie. The previews made it seem a lot better than it actually was for me. Heartbreak Ridge it's not as far as entertainment.

[Retired Army Noncom]

 

Very true. If it does well at the Oscars then it might promote more military movies in the future.

 

It does make me curious that some of the few who disliked Dunkirk just keep responding with the same complaints over and over in this thread. If someone didn't like the movie that is certainly their prerogative but why not just say so and move on?

Because some later responses require another response.

 

When a Hollywood movie is made about History, they that produce the movie have an obligation to present it for the viewing audience in a most authentic adaption as possible ie, The Bridge Too Far....I'd be glad to compare that movie to Dunkirk and the differences the producers took to make the Historical happenings to be as it was and not as the director wishes it had been.

 

One important aspect, I battlefield walked all over Operation Market Garden, from Hell's Highway to Oosterbeek, from all the drop zones to the Frost bridge, Eindhoven to Nijmegan more than once. I talked to many that were able to evacuate across the Rhine besides many of the civilians who were forced out by the germans. I even donated a para helmet name to a Pvt Stanley, Border Regiment that to this day is still missing. After spending all this time I was able to not only remember back to the movie when I first saw it and from then after times more but when I saw it again, the preparation and the filming locations were spot on to the actual locations, right down to the Frost Bridge. Now THAT was a great movie BASED on actual events.

 

Dunkirk falls way short of so many good fact based movies. Some here might be historians besides being collectors and have battlefield walked from Europe to the Pacific and have met and talked to veterans from all sides. So my opinion about Dunkirk is not based upon a kindergarden school book but from facts, locations and real time recollections. When I say something initially, I keep it short and sweet but now and then I have to return and clarify why.

 

I hope this clarifies why I feel Dunkirk belongs in the trash bin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bugme]

...I hope this clarifies why I feel Dunkirk belongs in the trash bin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me get this straight, on December 20th you gave this movie a 4 out of 5 star rating. Now, it belongs in the trash bin? Confusing.

[Retired Army Noncom]

Let me get this straight, on December 20th you gave this movie a 4 out of 5 star rating. Now, it belongs in the trash bin? Confusing.

I'm always in a giving mood around Christmas. If it had been any other time, maybe a 2.......but the rating always goes down when critics keep thinking it's the best ever made. There are fictional war movies out there far better than Dunkirk...IMO.

[ScottG]

Why bring up fury

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You said studios paid Rotten Tomatoes, you worked on Fury, presumably produced by a studio? So, if studios pay Rotten Tomatoes why did they pay for a 77%? Seems a bit lackluster to say the least. I suppose I could have selected another film with a low RT percentage, but the question remains the same.

Has nothing to do with the movie Fury. I aired my opinions on that years ago. It has everything to do with the fact that when negative reviews came for that movie you wanted people to stop as it was a movie not a documentary etc... Well, so is Dunkirk.

I said it before and I will say it again, I enjoyed much of Fury and bought the dvd when it came out, I enjoyed much of Dunkirk and bought the dvd last week. Neither were perfect, but both were good for the genre. I hope you continue to put your efforts into these films as I enjoy them, but for what they are which is entertainment. Take care and don't get all twisted up over a few opinions and facts. Scott

[FIGMO]

I haven't seen Dunkirk yet. But after reading all 10 pages of this thread, I will just wait until a DVD copy of this film shows up in the pawn shop I work at, As an employee of the shop, I get all the DVDs and Blu Rays I want for free. Until then...

[Bugme]

I'm always in a giving mood around Christmas. If it had been any other time, maybe a 2.......but the rating always goes down when critics keep thinking it's the best ever made. There are fictional war movies out there far better than Dunkirk...IMO.

Ok, so when you gave it 4 stars, you were lying because it was Christmas? Or are you saying your view of the movie went down because you didn't like other critics opinions of it being a good movie? Or are both now true. Still confusing.

[Retired Army Noncom]

Ok, so when you gave it 4 stars, you were lying because it was Christmas? Or are you saying your view of the movie went down because you didn't like other critics opinions of it being a good movie? Or are both now true. Still confusing.

I don't care or even didn't care how many or how much viewers fell in love with the movie but....seems others think a different way about people who negatively criticized it. My criticism was based on authenticity, it had very little...IMO.

[M422A1]

I just watched "Dunkirk" on Pay-Per-View. I enjoyed it. It is not the greatest war movie ever made and it has it's flaws (like all movies) but I think it is worth a watch. It will end up in my War Movie DVD library.

[Retired Army Noncom]

Follow up documentary:

 

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2018/02/14/pbs-great-escape-dunkirk-aims-explode-myths-about-rafs-role-evacuation.html

 

 

[ScottG]

Looks like Dunkirk took home at least 3 Oscars, not too shabby. Scott

[Retired Army Noncom]

Looks like Dunkirk took home at least 3 Oscars, not too shabby. Scott

All in editing......I usually edit and proof read all my correspondence also. If it would have received an Oscar for something more important like, Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, etc, the awarding of deserving awards for outstanding entertainment wouldn't have fell further into the septic tank than what it has.....IMO!!!!

[Bluehawk]

Looks like Dunkirk took home at least 3 Oscars, not too shabby. Scott

Not shabby at all... it was a fairly good night for military-related films in general, and Wes Studi was honored to present a tribute to such films from Oscar's past.