Jump to content

Dunkirk


Recommended Posts

One complaint I have is the volume. Nolan pushed that way too far (or at least the theater I was in did). The explosions actually hurt my ears at times and felt the soundtrack to my core. I'm lucky to have had hearing protection (left in my wallet after a concert).

Every guy should have some of protection in his wallet. ;)

Edited by JARG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I absolutely loved about this movie was the Spitfire scenes! Very well done!

 

 

 

I don't know how aerodynamic that plane is, but the fact that it seemed to fly with the engine out for so long, and still shoot down a bomber down seemed a stretch to me.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I absolutely loved about this movie was the Spitfire scenes! Very well done!

 

 

 

I don't know how aerodynamic that plane is, but the fact that it seemed to fly with the engine out for so long, and still shoot down a bomber down seemed a stretch to me.

 

 

 

 

Me too, and why didn't he land near all the friendly troops?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I absolutely loved about this movie was the Spitfire scenes! Very well done!

 

 

 

I don't know how aerodynamic that plane is, but the fact that it seemed to fly with the engine out for so long, and still shoot down a bomber down seemed a stretch to me.

 

 

 

It was. But I wasn't referring to that specifically. I really enjoyed the dog fighting scenes and even the Stukas with their sirens, which was amplified to show the audience how it was a physiological weapon as well.

 

The Spitfire is arguably the best fighter plane of WW2 and I say that because it was in operation for the whole war, unlike the P-51. The ME109s were at a disadvantage and it was fun to watch them go at each other.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I absolutely loved about this movie was the Spitfire scenes! Very well done!

 

 

 

I don't know how aerodynamic that plane is, but the fact that it seemed to fly with the engine out for so long, and still shoot down a bomber down seemed a stretch to me.

 

 

 

 

Me too, and why didn't he land near all the friendly troops?

 

 

 

He was too low to make another turn by the time he shot down the other plane.

 

Edited by workingcinderellaman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

 

Nolan hates CGI. He uses real vehicles or model miniatures whenever possible. From everything I've read so far, Dunkirk is old school filmmaking. Real boats, real planes, real explosions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I absolutely loved about this movie was the Spitfire scenes! Very well done!

 

 

 

I don't know how aerodynamic that plane is, but the fact that it seemed to fly with the engine out for so long, and still shoot down a bomber down seemed a stretch to me.

 

 

 

 

Me too, and why didn't he land near all the friendly troops?

 

 

 

 

Yes, he would have had plenty of time to swing back. Maybe he didn't want to risk landing on them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

 

Nolan hates CGI. He uses real vehicles or model miniatures whenever possible. From everything I've read so far, Dunkirk is old school filmmaking. Real boats, real planes, real explosions.

 

I'm watching some behind the scenes footage, and he actually put giant Imax cameras on the wings of Spitfires and inside the cockpit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he took real ships and sank them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

 

Nolan hates CGI. He uses real vehicles or model miniatures whenever possible. From everything I've read so far, Dunkirk is old school filmmaking. Real boats, real planes, real explosions.

 

I'm watching some behind the scenes footage, and he actually put giant Imax cameras on the wings of Spitfires and inside the cockpit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he took real ships and sank them.

And that's what I love about Nolan. The cinematography and lack of CGI made the movie IMO.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

 

Nolan hates CGI. He uses real vehicles or model miniatures whenever possible. From everything I've read so far, Dunkirk is old school filmmaking. Real boats, real planes, real explosions.

 

I'm watching some behind the scenes footage, and he actually put giant Imax cameras on the wings of Spitfires and inside the cockpit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he took real ships and sank them.

And that's what I love about Nolan. The cinematography and lack of CGI made the movie IMO.

 

I agree. Some of the things that made the movie good, imo, were the subject material and some of the technical elements.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

 

Nolan hates CGI. He uses real vehicles or model miniatures whenever possible. From everything I've read so far, Dunkirk is old school filmmaking. Real boats, real planes, real explosions.

 

The dead stick Spitfire at the end was probably a large scale RC plane. I say that because it looked like one and he probably couldn't risk deadsticking a real Spitfire. Either way, it was really cool.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

^^^ That was very moving, AG. Thanks for posting!

 

 

ETA: It strikes me that, because of the director's choices, some people will leave the theater feeling like they weren't entertained enough. As the 98yo veteran above notes, Nolan has artfully presented a realistic glimpse of what it means to be in combat. That is no small achievement.

Edited by goose
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it today in 70mm. I for one enjoyed the lack of dialogue. Nolans direction just threw me into the fray and made me feel a part of it. The 70 mm brought me back to that feeling of epic movies of the past. It's rare when characters can show such emotion without saying a word. Mark Rylance is so believable and compelling without saying much at all. Tom Hardy along with perfect direction makes you feel like your flying with him.

 

Easily an instant classic.

Edited by alphseeker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

^^^ That was very moving, AG. Thanks for posting!

 

 

ETA: It strikes me that, because of the director's choices, some people will leave the theater feeling like they weren't entertained enough. As the 98yo veteran above notes, Nolan has artfully presented a realistic glimpse of what it means to be in combat. That is no small achievement.

 

It truly is remarkable that some would watch a movie like that and want to be "entertained". I put that in quotation mark because the kind of entertainment I'm referring to, is that kind of Hollywood entertainment were facts take the back seat. Imagine if Michael Bay had directed this movie - it would have been awful at best.

 

The human race has a collective Shadow and a capacity for complete evil, and for someone who has tapped into that monstrous side of mankind, and seen it unfold around him, I can't imagine the hurt and disbelief he might have felt to see it happen over and over again.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

^^^ That was very moving, AG. Thanks for posting!

 

 

ETA: It strikes me that, because of the director's choices, some people will leave the theater feeling like they weren't entertained enough. As the 98yo veteran above notes, Nolan has artfully presented a realistic glimpse of what it means to be in combat. That is no small achievement.

 

It truly is remarkable that some would watch a movie like that and want to be "entertained". I put that in quotation mark because the kind of entertainment I'm referring to, is that kind of Hollywood entertainment were facts take the back seat. Imagine if Michael Bay had directed this movie - it would have been awful at best.

 

The human race has a collective Shadow and a capacity for complete evil, and for someone who has tapped into that monstrous side of mankind, and seen it unfold around him, I can't imagine the hurt and disbelief he might have felt to see it happen over and over again.

 

 

:goodone:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see that movie again.

 

I do, too! Can't wait til it's on disc!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a couple of days the movie has grown even more on me. I noticed how everything looked very real, and not CGI made. Most movies now have the problem that the effects are looking so fake, so they just make the rest of the movie look like a computer game. In Dunkirk it really looked like they went out and got real airplanes, and real ships to sink.

 

Bravo!

 

Critics can say what they want, but the approval of a veteran who was there is enough for me:

http://youtu.be/uc4wBfh3lwk

^^^ That was very moving, AG. Thanks for posting!

 

 

ETA: It strikes me that, because of the director's choices, some people will leave the theater feeling like they weren't entertained enough. As the 98yo veteran above notes, Nolan has artfully presented a realistic glimpse of what it means to be in combat. That is no small achievement.

 

Yes indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it today in 70mm. I for one enjoyed the lack of dialogue. Nolans direction just threw me into the fray and made me feel a part of it. The 70 mm brought me back to that feeling of epic movies of the past. It's rare when characters can show such emotion without saying a word. Mark Rylance is so believable and compelling without saying much at all. Tom Hardy along with perfect direction makes you feel like your flying with him.

 

Easily an instant classic.

 

Heartily agreed on all counts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a popular part of history to cover, but the way Nolan made fear and desperation palpable makes me think of when the Russians were closing in on Berlin, and the extreme fear of retaliation. A movie like that will never be made, but I think it's important to tell stories from sides not explored from wars. I know it doesn't fit well with the good vs evil narrative, but I'm still curious.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a popular part of history to cover, but the way Nolan made fear and desperation palpable makes me think of when the Russians were closing in on Berlin, and the extreme fear of retaliation. A movie like that will never be made, but I think it's important to tell stories from sides not explored from wars. I know it doesn't fit well with the good vs evil narrative, but I'm still curious.

 

Have you seen The Book Thief? It's set in Germany during the war and follows the lives of some German families and touches on the fact that not every German during the war was thrilled about Hitler and the Nazi party. It's an excellent movie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It truly is remarkable that some would watch a movie like that and want to be "entertained". I put that in quotation mark because the kind of entertainment I'm referring to, is that kind of Hollywood entertainment were facts take the back seat. Imagine if Michael Bay had directed this movie - it would have been awful at best.

This is actually the main critique I have of the film. I didn't want to be "entertained", I wanted to experience a historical event that has been largely neglected. I felt that Nolan was trying too hard to make this a masterpiece of film rather than to tell a story. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it could have been done better. This is my opinion after all, but I feel like he missed a great opportunity.

 

And I'm not saying that the movie was bad at all because I thought it was a very good movie (for what it was). I'm just not on board with all of the Nolan worshiping that seems to be going on. It's funny, when I'm with people who didn't like the movie, I find myself defending it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a popular part of history to cover, but the way Nolan made fear and desperation palpable makes me think of when the Russians were closing in on Berlin, and the extreme fear of retaliation. A movie like that will never be made, but I think it's important to tell stories from sides not explored from wars. I know it doesn't fit well with the good vs evil narrative, but I'm still curious.

 

Have you seen The Book Thief? It's set in Germany during the war and follows the lives of some German families and touches on the fact that not every German during the war was thrilled about Hitler and the Nazi party. It's an excellent movie.

That was a great book and a great movie. I'm a huge fan of Geoffry Rush. This is one of the only films that I've seen that attempts to tell the story of the atrocities of WW2 from the German side and I think it did a good job.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...