BOLO Posted August 4, 2017 Share #76 Posted August 4, 2017 a low budget movie, had great soundtrack an cock pit scenes with the British RAF, but the rest was pretty boring , it was almost like one of those HBO movies / tv movies the beach scenes not very realistic, just a bunch of soldiers standing in lines and a couple planes flying over once in a while dropping a couple bombs, they didnt even show the Germans except at a distance, no German dialog or acting, only as the background, the shots of the German AF was also at a distance, no close up shots of them, maybe just a glimpse at the marking on the aircraft the scenes with the boats helping evacuate the soldiers was so minimal not done on a large scale , and made it look low budget, only showed a few boats, one of the ships was hit by a torpedo, but they didnt even show any U Boat scenes (no Germans) just a torpedo heading towards their ship. without the Royal Air Force pilot scenes the movie would have been much worse not something I would recommend, save your money or wait for the DVD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILL THE PATCH Posted August 4, 2017 Share #77 Posted August 4, 2017 Went last night with my older son, it was entertaining that's it. Sought of disappointed with the beach scenes I'm pretty sure it was more chaotic then portrayed. And what only a handful of civilian boats? Even a little more cgi Would have helped in that Dept. Also I've read every post about this movie the pro's and cons. Even my son said how come that pilot didn't bail out over his own troops. Like I said I was " Entertained", but then again I get entertained watching grass grow. Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 4, 2017 Share #78 Posted August 4, 2017 "Dunkirk" is extremely good example how to waste gigantic budget of US$150 million for quasi military ahistorical surrealism as the "Dunkirk" is. WWII dedicated movies have never had such a budget as "Dunkirk". Budgets for comparison: Fury -- $80 million Saving Private Ryan -- $65 million Red Tails -- $58 million Hacksaw Ridge -- $40 million Memphis Belle -- $23 million S. Spielberg produced iconic SPR movie for less than half "Dunkirk" budget. What Nolan produced with his $150 million is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juvatwad Posted August 4, 2017 Share #79 Posted August 4, 2017 "Dunkirk" is extremely good example how to waste gigantic budget of US$150 million for quasi military ahistorical surrealism as the "Dunkirk" is. WWII dedicated movies have never had such a budget as "Dunkirk". Budgets for comparison: Fury -- $80 million Saving Private Ryan -- $65 million Red Tails -- $58 million Hacksaw Ridge -- $40 million Memphis Belle -- $23 million S. Spielberg produced iconic SPR movie for less than half "Dunkirk" budget. What Nolan produced with his $150 million is a shame. "Quasi military ahistorical surrealism" describes every movie you list. For "Red Tails", "Memphis Bell", and "Fury" you can also add "POS" to the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 4, 2017 Share #80 Posted August 4, 2017 Currently grossing over $240 million in just two weeks, where did "Fury" end up? All films have flaws and inaccuracies. So the gliding Spit was worse than a battalion of SS not being able to destroy or outflank a broken tank with a 50 year old commander? People in glass houses... Scott. The gliding spitfire shooting down a diving Stuka is beyond stupid. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 4, 2017 Share #81 Posted August 4, 2017 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 4, 2017 Share #82 Posted August 4, 2017 Beyond stupid is a great many other factors in this pitiful movie. "Dunkirk" movie is literally offensive towards the British Armed Forces and their British soldiers, i.e. also Dunkirk veterans. Stupidity of Nolanꞌs "historical" consultants is unlimited. Just take a look at scene with thousands of abandoned rifles. It is against the British Army regulations and the British soldier honor. In the British Army then there were even financial penalties for abandoning the rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 4, 2017 Share #83 Posted August 4, 2017 When a plane burns it helps that it has an engine like this especially a spitfire but maybe the Dunkirk movie spitfire ditched the engine so it could glide from one side of the beach to another. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMarineCorps Posted August 4, 2017 Share #84 Posted August 4, 2017 Went to see this movie yesterday, and I must say that it's definitely not one of Nolan's best. As others have already mentioned, the nonlinear timeline is pretty confusing (switches from night to day), but the cinematography and music are fantastic. I'm just wondering what they spent 150M USD on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 4, 2017 Share #85 Posted August 4, 2017 Not an engine for the last scene when the plane was burning that's for sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 5, 2017 Share #86 Posted August 5, 2017 I thought the sound design was amazing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted August 5, 2017 Share #87 Posted August 5, 2017 With the recent posts, me thinks that French 1964 film Weekend at Dunkirk would be better right (apart from that disturbing attempted rape scene by two deserters, and the subsequent killing of them by Belmondo to save the girl). The 1964 Trailer Done on a much grander scale I'm thinking? it was on YT by the way, but not anymore. So perhaps get on DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOLO Posted August 5, 2017 Share #88 Posted August 5, 2017 I wonder why they didnt show the other side like other WW2 movies? they didnt even show one German actor?, nothing? it made it seem there was no enemy except for a few stray attacks on the troops waiting for a ship. I think the producers tried to save money and pocketed the rest of the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 5, 2017 Share #89 Posted August 5, 2017 Almost a hundred percent of the British soldiers returned UK from Dunkirk with their rifles. And it is clearly showed in 1964 movie on Dunkirk. What Nolan showed now is like moral decay of the British soldiers. According to this quasi-artistic vision some of them have their rifles, the others no. It is nonsense and offensive for the British soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogface44 Posted August 5, 2017 Share #90 Posted August 5, 2017 Instead of keeping on saying that the movie is offensive and nonsense for the British soldiers, it could be interesting to know what British soldiers and veterans actually think about it. They surely are less dramatic than you about it. It looks like the 1964 movie is your basis for historical accuracy, that is pretty surprising. Events that took place on the mole cannot be compared to the soldiers stranded further away in the dunes. The distance from Dunkirk to Zuydcoote is about 8 kilometers. I also note that red tails is one of your reference movies. I also thought that the gliding spitfire was rather strange but after further research I read that veterans said they could glide their spitfires for about 15 minutes with no engine after an engine failure or when they ran out of gas. I still think that is was a bit far-fetched in the movie. Good WW2 movies are all too rare and we should salute the effort instead of being so negative about it.. The scenes of the spitfires landing on water were amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNY Militaria Posted August 5, 2017 Share #91 Posted August 5, 2017 All the articles I can find about actual Dunkirk vets watching this movie are positive...It seems they liked it despite all the things some find "wrong" or "offensive" about Nolan's movie. Let's remember too that these movies are made for entertainment purposes, and need to draw diverse crowds of people to make money. If it was all about accuracy you'd be watching a documentary, and we know how popular those are with the general public. NOTE: None of these Dunkirk veterans interviewed after watching the film were offended by the portrayal of British troops. I could not find any negative reviews from a Dunkirk vet. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-veteran-it-was-just-like-was-there-again.html (This vet actually refers to the other movie referenced on this topic as rubbish) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/dunkirk-veteran-victor-power-on-christopher-nolan-film/8757362 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4694498/Dunkirk-veteran-96-tells-heroic-efforts.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 5, 2017 Share #92 Posted August 5, 2017 @dogface44 Glide ratio is not measured by time in the air. 15 minutes? It is not aviation parameter. The P-51 with its laminar airfoil had glide ratio approx. 15. Spitfire had not such a sophisticated airfoil. Spitfire could have glide ratio similar to SG-38 glider i.e. about 10. Do you know what does it mean glide ratio 10 or 12 for an aircraft with stopped engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 5, 2017 Share #93 Posted August 5, 2017 I'm just wondering what they spent 150M USD on... Agree, that's right. "A Bridge Too Far" (1977) had US$25 million budget and it was monumental movie icon forever. The "Dunkirk" had $150 million budget and for whom and for what? It is middling movie only. US$ inflation since 1977 was not so great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat123 Posted August 5, 2017 Share #94 Posted August 5, 2017 $25 million in 1977 translates to over $100 million today... your inflation comment is not accurate. plenty of inflation calculators in the net, check it out for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pararaftanr2 Posted August 5, 2017 Share #95 Posted August 5, 2017 An excerp from the book "RAF Fighter Pilots in WWII" by Marin Bowman, referring to the well know ace, Robert Stanford Tuck: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 5, 2017 Share #96 Posted August 5, 2017 Did he shoot down a diving Stuka when gliding Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted August 5, 2017 Share #97 Posted August 5, 2017 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted August 5, 2017 Share #98 Posted August 5, 2017 "Pearl Harbor" had US$140 million budget and all aviation aspects in that movie were much, much better than in "Dunkirk" for $150 million. Who stole "Dunkirk" budget and where it is now? The Caymans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pararaftanr2 Posted August 5, 2017 Share #99 Posted August 5, 2017 Nope, no mention of any Stukas. It also doesn't mention what his airspeed or altitude was when his engine quit. Those factors would figure into the equation too. The information is merely provided as a real-world example that a Spitfire could remain in the air after an engine failure for a limited time without falling out of the sky like a brick. Very few, if any, Hollywood war movies that I can recall are free from an abundant use of "artistic license". Dunkirk is no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted August 5, 2017 Share #100 Posted August 5, 2017 Lot of armchair directors and move critics. Let us know when your big budget movies come out so we can be critical towards it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now