Jump to content


"Dunkirk" movie - Warner Bros - Christopher Nolan

Started by antek , Jul 17 2016 02:56 AM

  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#176 bobgee

bobgee

    MODERATOR

  • Moderators
    • Member ID: 503
  • 5,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:10 PM

I'm with Garth as well. I went with a collector buddy and we were entertained. Cinematography was great. Had a number of discussions about historical lapses. Didn't take away from the entertainment value. A comment of no real value: I had an Irish uncle that was in the RAMC-BEF evacuated at Dunkirk after having"two ships blown out from under him" Met him once - didn't talk about his wartime experiences. Pity. BTW - I think this thread is more entertaining than the Shelton Helmet threads! Just my 2-Cents. Bob



#177 BOLO

BOLO
  • Members
    • Member ID: 1,885
  • 5,963 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2017 - 02:42 PM

the air combat scenes were the only thing that kept me awake, I actually dozed off for short periods during the last half of the movie

 

it seemed like a patriotic movie for the Brits, thats probably the main audience , most Americans prefer movies about US involvement.


Edited by BOLO, 15 August 2017 - 02:45 PM.


#178 Thor996

Thor996
  • Members
    • Member ID: 30,395
  • 2,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North of the Mason Dixon

Posted 15 August 2017 - 05:24 PM

I paid my $8 for the week day matinee, bought my drink and popcorn, sat back in the plush seats the theater had just up graded to and was entertained for a couple of hours. That is exactly the point of going to the movies. Historical facts I get from books. The armchair experts can go pi$$ off.

 

what he said!!!!



#179 cutiger83

cutiger83
  • VOLUNTEERS
    • Member ID: 5,589
  • 7,099 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 August 2017 - 07:00 PM

I don't believe it's a generational thing. I think though that with Saving Private Ryan and BoB the bar on war films has been raised so high where too many people try to compare each new film to previous ones. 

 

I think it is a combination of a generational thing (I have always loved all of the movies Beast mentioned) and the internet. Now people can search the internet to look at WWII pictures. They believe looking at pictures on-line and reading small historical blurbs makes them an "expert" on anything to do with WWII. 



#180 kammo-man

kammo-man
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,009
  • 10,325 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:weirdville

Posted 15 August 2017 - 08:58 PM

That's not true at all
Where are you getting this information from ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#181 Gregory

Gregory
  • Members
    • Member ID: 75
  • 2,854 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw, Poland

Posted Yesterday, 05:17 PM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.

 

Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.

 

"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.



#182 David D

David D
  • Members
    • Member ID: 151,093
  • 4,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

Posted Yesterday, 07:46 PM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.
 
Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.
 
"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.


You're taking this way to far. It's a movie get over it

#183 ScottG

ScottG
  • Members
    • Member ID: 104,832
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grass Lake Michigan

Posted Yesterday, 09:21 PM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.

 

Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.

 

"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.

 

   Meanwhile, Poland is just cranking out the technically correct movies, please give us a glass for your whine Gregory. Or as Vintage said, make your silver screen epic. At least Owen did that.   Scott



#184 ScottG

ScottG
  • Members
    • Member ID: 104,832
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grass Lake Michigan

Posted Yesterday, 09:24 PM

   $375.70 million isn't too bad for a boring movie to take in. Hasn't even been out 4 full weeks yet.   Scott



#185 CNY Militaria

CNY Militaria

    SENIOR MODERATOR

  • Senior Moderators
    • Member ID: 94
  • 11,210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.
 
Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.
 
"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.


Since we are talking about cinematic masterpieces, I believe a reference to the movie "Stripes" is appropriate...

"Lighten up, Francis."

#186 Thor996

Thor996
  • Members
    • Member ID: 30,395
  • 2,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North of the Mason Dixon

Posted Today, 02:42 AM

You're taking this way to far. It's a movie get over it

 

 

yah its getting redundant man. Get over it, move on. World has bigger problems and you are taking this MOVIE way to personally.  sheesh.



#187 Dogsbody

Dogsbody
  • Members
    • Member ID: 169,612
  • 117 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ETO

Posted Today, 03:34 AM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.

 

Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.

 

"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.

This is getting ridiculous. If you keep scrutinizing every movie you go to, the way you do with this Dunkirk movie there won't be much fun to be had in the cinema. It is very clear that you don't like it and that's fine. But to categorize this film as 'boring movie for the children' is taking it one step too far in my opinion. (Luckily I still haven't lost my inner child :lol:)

 

Just my 2cts.

 

 

Rene



#188 Bugme

Bugme

    ADMINISTRATOR

  • Administrators
    • Member ID: 1,726
  • 13,983 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin Shoreline

Posted Today, 06:43 AM

Time to get over this stuff. One of my favorite movies was Patton. I managed to get over the M-48(German) Pattons getting destroyed by the M-47 and M-48(American) Pattons in an epic Patton on Patton depiction of Patton fighting Rommel in North Africa with his own namesake tanks. If I can do it, ya'll can get over the Yaks.

Attached Images

  • M-48 Patton used in movie.jpg


#189 Retired Army Noncom

Retired Army Noncom
  • Members
    • Member ID: 169,486
  • 73 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted Today, 07:14 AM

Time to get over this stuff. One of my favorite movies was Patton. I managed to get over the M-48(German) Pattons getting destroyed by the M-47 and M-48(American) Pattons in an epic Patton on Patton depiction of Patton fighting Rommel in North Africa with his own namesake tanks. If I can do it, ya'll can get over the Yaks.

OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That nightmare will start all over again now!!! Thanks a bunch!!!  :unsure:  :lol:



#190 ScottG

ScottG
  • Members
    • Member ID: 104,832
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grass Lake Michigan

Posted Today, 09:31 AM

 

 

yah its getting redundant man. Get over it, move on. World has bigger problems and you are taking this MOVIE way to personally.  sheesh.

   Love it!  Scott.



#191 fstop61

fstop61
  • Members
    • Member ID: 35,406
  • 2,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:south metro Atlanta

Posted Today, 01:16 PM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.

 

Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.

 

"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.

 

ad nauseam



#192 kammo-man

kammo-man
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,009
  • 10,325 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:weirdville

Posted Today, 08:05 PM

Completely pointless argument is talking that "Red Tails" is poor due to CGI applied but Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" is good movie because its viewer can see authentic airworthy Spitfires and their dog fights. Really? How many seconds these authentic Spitfires can be seen? 10, 20 or maybe 25 in entire movie? The rest are RC models (ditching Spitfire) and Spitfire cockpit mock-up on the ground. By the way, Spitfire (RC model) ditching in "Dunkirk" is as artificial, unnatural as possible. "Dunkirk" producers did not do their own homework. Not to compare with Spitfire ditching in "Pearl Harbor" movie for instance.

 

Dog fights in "Dunkirk" were taken between Yak-52 and Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and it is clearly seen in this movie. So, where are these "values" of "Dunkirk"? Nolanꞌs "Dunkirk" has much in common with history as abstract LC code letters painted on Spitfires in this movie.

 

"Dunkirk" is a very poor movie also from technical point of view. Boring movie for the children.

 

I like it more because you dislike it so much.



#193 ScottG

ScottG
  • Members
    • Member ID: 104,832
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grass Lake Michigan

Posted Today, 08:30 PM

 

I like it more because you dislike it so much.

 

    Now that's funny! :P :P  Scott



#194 TheMariner

TheMariner
  • Members
    • Member ID: 160,496
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NY,ME

Posted Today, 08:55 PM

Just made it to see it today! Overall i found it to be very entertain and worth my 2 hours and the 10 bucks it cost! As many stated i felt the aerial combat scenes were very good and i enjoyed them the most! I do agree for someone who isn't a military history buff it might be a little hard to catch on to what is actually going on at first! 

I think the movie did a fairly good job portraying the hardships of the British Army during the evacuation. One thing i didnt see mentioned anywhere was if any of these people are portraying actual veterans? The cinematography i felt was very good and the movie at times had a lot of suspense! 

 

Another part i had a hard time getting was when the french kid drowned, did the one british soldier trap him or was he somehow caught in the rigging ?

 

Overall a decent movie worth watching if you are interested in Dunkirk. I felt the ending was very good and i liked how the incorporated Churchill's famous quote! 



#195 TheMariner

TheMariner
  • Members
    • Member ID: 160,496
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NY,ME

Posted Today, 09:17 PM

I did find that Commander Nolan portrayed Captain William Tennant, the main pilot's story (Tom Hardy character) loosely portrays Pilot Alan Deere who was from New Zealand. Though he was never captured and escaped in a life boat, he was awarded for heroic action and continued to fight on even when he knew he would run out of fuel. He landed wheels up on one of the evacuation beaches! 

 

170719_CLAY_MOVIES_dunkirk-side.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg tmhrd.jpg




4 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    SFC, Google (1)

In Memory of Co-Founder GREG MILLS ROBINSON, a.k.a. "Marine-KaBar"
(February 17, 1949 - March 5, 2011)