Dunkirk

[Buc Wheat]

I was really looking fwd to this movie. Appeared on HBO last night
and... meh!

I don't think Nolan was the right guy to direct this. Zero sense of
drama or urgency throughout.

The initial flashbacks are damn confusing cuz you don't know
they're flashbacks!!! I was like, 'why is it night outside here but
still daylight there?! Not like it's that far from England to be in a
different time zone!??!" it was only later on that you realize,
duh! some of this is taking place the day before!

This movie needed a good director... Spielberg or Howard or Gibson...
someone who could direct a big number of moving parts. ie Saving
Pvt Ryan, or Braveheart big.

Whenever I saw all these troops lined up in lines along the beach, I
was like, huh?! (sorry, but it reminded me of how we teased Marines
on ship. Stand in a passageway for 5 minutes and 20 Marines will
line up behind ya!!)

Where were the Germans??! Where was the urgency to get them off
the beach?! It wasn't there. Really disappointing!

Buc

[Stormheart]

I felt the same way after I watched it On Demand. All of the pieces were there for a great WWII movie, but it just never materialized out of the haze of bad storytelling.

[Scott M]

Saw it in IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it. The aim of this film was not to "involve" the viewer with certain characters on a deeply emotional level, it is to show what a massive undertaking the evacuation of these British troops was against overwhelming odds and it succeeds in that aim. On a visual and visceral level, this is the most realistic war film we have seen yet on the big screen - especially the aerial warfare involving Tom Hardy's character. I thought the movie succeeded quite well in its aim, and no other director but Nolan could have pulled it off as successfully. It was also a damned good history lesson for my 18 year-old daughter and for myself. Between this movie and "Darkest Hour", I have a much fuller understanding of the enormity of what happened at Dunkirk and how it very likely changed the eventual outcome of WW II.

[Buc Wheat]

Re: Scott.... wow! you are EASILY impressed then.

becuz I couldn't agree anywhere near your above!! IMHO of course.

[derekc62]

I was really looking fwd to this movie. Appeared on HBO last night
and... meh!

Where were the Germans??! Where was the urgency to get them off
the beach?! It wasn't there. Really disappointing!

Buc

With all due respect I think you missed the point of who the enemy was in this film.
The enemy was the sea, specifically the English Channel.
The 400,000 men trapped in Dunkirk were in full retreat but trapped by the sea.
They could literally see home, they just couldn't get there.
As for the flash backs, Nolan sets it up right from the start: The Mole - One week; The Sea - One Day; The Air - One Hour.
The story of Dunkirk is riveting and told from a variety of points of view, each with it's own timeline.
The soldiers spent a week on the beach waiting their turn on the pier (Mole) to evacuate, some so desperate and out of their minds with fear and desperation they walked into the sea.
The civilian craft sent to rescue the men (because there weren't enough British Navy ships with suitable draft available) made the return crossing in a day. And the cast conveys the sense of real danger these sailors exposed themselves to in unarmed boats.
The Spitfire pilots had only enough fuel to last an hour (and only enough ammunition to last 15 seconds) and the sequences with Tom Hardy trying to do calculations while under fire after his fuel gauge is destroyed lends a sense of urgency and, ultimately, sacrifice.
I thought the film was brilliant and didn't need a Hollywood director, fight scenes or anything else.
Frequently we criticize films for not being the film we would have made instead of appreciating the film others did make.

[resin addict]

I agree with Derek and Scott...I thought it was a phenomenal film. Yes, you other guys are right, it wasn’t just a straight forward action film, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film...sometimes a film that forces the viewer to think rather than be strictly entertained is a good thing.
I saw it twice...enjoyed it the first time, but was a little confused with the timeline, but then heard the review on NPR explaining the 1 week, 1 day, one hour concept, saw it a second time with my wife and really appreciated it.
And I agree completely with Derek’s observation that the true enemy was the sea...that really puts it in perspective.

[Stormheart]

With the exception of the one portrayed by Tom Hardy, I was never drawn in by any of the characters, and I think that's where the film failed for me personally. I just never felt the gut level terror and desperate need to escape like you guys did. Maybe, if it had been told in a linear fashion where I knew what led up to each character's actions before they happened, it would have worked better for me? I'm glad you guys liked it, but it just didn't work for me...

[Buc Wheat]

The Mole - One week; The Sea - One Day; The Air - One Hour.

Totally missed the importance of this. (again, reinforces that the director sucks)...but
admit I probably would have at least followed the action better if I knew the above
timeline.

Still was underwhelming.... but glad you guys liked it.

[derekc62]

The Mole - One week; The Sea - One Day; The Air - One Hour.

Totally missed the importance of this. (again, reinforces that the director sucks)...but
admit I probably would have at least followed the action better if I knew the above
timeline.

I think you have to keep one very important detail in mind with respect to the timeline and director Christopher Nolan - he's British.
Operation Dynamo - the Dunkirk evacuation - is a British story and tens of millions of British - and Commonwealth - citizens know it well.
The story of the evacuation (May 26/7- June 4, 1940) is less well known in the United States primarily because it pre-dates U.S. involvement in the war by a year and a half (FDR's lend-lease policy wouldn't be enacted until almost a year later).
But it is vitally important to British and world history.
As we all know know it involved primarily British soldiers, seamen and airmen, but there were also Canadians, Indians, French, Dutch, Belgians and Poles and the film will have much more significance for them.
So I think you'd be hard pressed to find a someone in one of those countries - who's armed with the history lessons of the evacuation - who would agree with your observation that 'the director sucks.'
It's all about perspective.

[Scott M]

The Mole - One week; The Sea - One Day; The Air - One Hour.

Totally missed the importance of this. (again, reinforces that the director sucks)...but
admit I probably would have at least followed the action better if I knew the above
timeline.

I think you have to keep one very important detail in mind with respect to the timeline and director Christopher Nolan - he's British.
Operation Dynamo - the Dunkirk evacuation - is a British story and tens of millions of British - and Commonwealth - citizens know it well.
The story of the evacuation (May 26/7- June 4, 1940) is less well known in the United States primarily because it pre-dates U.S. involvement in the war by a year and a half (FDR's lend-lease policy wouldn't be enacted until almost a year later).
But it is vitally important to British and world history.
As we all know know it involved primarily British soldiers, seamen and airmen, but there were also Canadians, Indians, French, Dutch, Belgians and Poles and the film will have much more significance for them.
So I think you'd be hard pressed to find a someone in one of those countries - who's armed with the history lessons of the evacuation - who would agree with your observation that 'the director sucks.'
It's all about perspective.

The director definitely doesn't suck. And as I mentioned earlier, as an American, I was pretty damned ignorant about the particulars of this historic event. The patriotism of the citizens who participated in the flotilla is quite moving all by itself.

[Buc Wheat]

It's ok shippies... differences is what makes the world go round.

(and speaking for my generation, we were properly taught World History and
covered WWII quite well...thankyouverymuch. Since most of our parents were
in it) And yes, we were up on Dunkirk and the story surrounding it. Nolan still
f'ed it up.

again... I'm happy you guys liked it!* Really!! Makes me giddy, it does!!

Buc









(*probably loved Thor too)

[resin addict]

"...Nolan still f'ed it up..."
Buc

Unless your job title is "Film Critic for the New York Times" I'd recommend adding an "In my opinion" in front of this...otherwise you come across as an authority, and I'm sure that's not your intent.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is an authority or expert on all topics.

[Buc Wheat]

I'd recommend adding an "In my opinion" in front of this...

and you're the reason emo-ties are around in today's world!!

anything ANYONE types in these forums are 'opinions'... therefore having to put
IMHO or YMMV after each and every sentence is rather irrelevant duplication.








imho

[resin addict]

Maybe so, but at least it’s polite.

[Todd P.]

Haven't seen the film so I have no opinion about it. But I DO have an opinion about opinions, and my opinion is that most of what we say in day-to-day life is opinion, especially if it's not mathematically quantifiable. Therefore, with respect to all involved, I believe that "in my opinion" is almost always unnecessary. I doubt you'd have heard Siskel and Ebert saying it, and they slammed lots of movies I enjoyed.

[derekc62]

I doubt you'd have heard Siskel and Ebert saying it, and they slammed lots of movies I enjoyed.

But I never heard either one of them say a director sucked because he/she didn't make the movie without the action, antagonist or ending that they would have made...
Just a guess on my part but I'm going to venture that Ebert - with his own screen writing credit - would have had some measure of respect for another's vision.

[temperflash]

The evacuation of Dunkirk is very well known to Americans of my generation. Exact details were sparse in available historical accounts but we all knew about it.
The heroes were the unarmed civilians who swarmed to do whatever they could to rescue the troops.
The Troops who fought hopeless rear guard actions should be given more credit.

[ausf]

I put Dunkirk in the same class as 2001.

Impeccably executed film, but not for everyone. The goal of both directors was not to hit you over the head with narrative, but to immerse you in the events and leave the rest up to the viewers interpretation.

Kubrick used breathing, silence and carefully framed shots to convey emotion and isolation.

Nolan did the same, especially showing the difference in perspective and views without exhaustively explaining what was happening. It was up to the viewer to grasp via offhand comments like the Merlin engine sound and number of planes at each interval, the IP clock, the tide, etc.

As far as where were the Germans, they were held back by the high command, exhausted coming off their meth-infused Blitzkrieg, waiting on fuel and letting the Goring's promise of the Luftwaffe run out.

Three (two, one) Spitfires feeds into the comments of the soldiers about the RAF abandoning them, but in reality, they were fighting the hard fight inland, out of sight of the beaches. That didn't need to be explained, it was evident in Hardy's decision to give himself up instead of going back home as well as one last flyover to show his presence to the troops.

Personally, I much prefer a film like this over a tired old narrative following a straight line like Spielberg would served up.

[derekc62]

As far as where were the Germans, they were held back by the high command, exhausted coming off their meth-infused Blitzkrieg, waiting on fuel and letting the Goring's promise of the Luftwaffe run out.

Three (two, one) Spitfires feeds into the comments of the soldiers about the RAF abandoning them, but in reality, they were fighting the hard fight inland, out of sight of the beaches. That didn't need to be explained, it was evident in Hardy's decision to give himself up instead of going back home as well as one last flyover to show his presence to the troops.

To separate history from movie story telling, Nolan uses the Germans as the enemy only when he needs to.
At the beginning , chasing the men to the beach.
On the beach with strafing runs.
At the end when Tom Hardy's character is captured.
We don't need to see their faces or hear their stories because as I mentioned earlier, the real enemy was the sea.

Nolan uses amalgams of real men in his story telling, not wanting to single out any one person.

But for what it's worth check out Guy Martin's Spitfire on Netflix to see the similarities between the events surrounding Tom Hardy's character and Squadron Leader Geoffrey Stephenson.

Also, Google J. Campbell Clouston, unquestionably the man played by Kenneth Branagh (although Branagh plays a character).
Like Stephenson, his was a true sacrifice and I had the pleasure of meeting his son and grandson when a plaque was installed in his memory in a local park.