Dunkirk

[The Franchise]

Christopher Nolan.

[DJ's left nut]

Seriously, the opening scene was incredible enough (being essentially immersed in the middle on that street) but this scene



Right about where I queued it up; the formation flying. I saw that part and was just in awe of it. And they never overdid it; they rationed it out perfectly. Just as things started to get claustrophobic during a boat scene or a little slow on the beach, they'd flip another of these wide visuals in and I'd be snapped back into how amazing some of this stuff really was.

[DJ's left nut]

BTW - if Nolan ever wanted to do just a basic 'guys flying' movie set in WWII and do it on a similar scale, I'd probably kill a busload of nuns to watch it. Those scenes were just amazing and if we could get 110 minutes of that, it would be positively orgasmic.

EDIT: So I think I understand why I liked this movie more than some. This little video on the difference between presentations in IMAX and...well pretty much everything else, makes it pretty clear.



This movie had to be seen in IMAX to appreciate it. That was essentially Nolan's entire point in shooting it the way he did.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I can't argue against that assessment. It's really not my favorite genre. Off the top of my head, the only WWII flicks I can say I've seen are Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Basterds and Pearl Harbor.

I never watched Pearl Harbor, because Bay/Bruckheimer should never touch historical material of any type.

By far the most bleak WWII film that I've seen that focuses on combat and not the externalities of war (Schindler's List) is the 1993 version of Stalingrad. After that, I'd say Saving Private Ryan, Das Boot, and Fury are in order of descending bleakness.

Dunkirk was an extremely good film. I'm surprised that people had as many problems understanding the narrative structure as they did. My main critiques focus on the lack of claustrophobia that must have been present on that beach and, IMO, needed to be stressed in greater detail, and the

Spoiler!

Bizarre choice by Tom Hardy's character to glide directly to the enemy when there are several British ships nearby that could have rescued him had he ditched in the sea. To me, that was a nonsensical narrative device shoehorned in for the purpose of the visual of him standing by the burning Spitfire as the Germans approached.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Spoiler!

Bizarre choice by Tom Hardy's character to glide directly to the enemy when there are several British ships nearby that could have rescued him had he ditched in the sea. To me, that was a nonsensical narrative device shoehorned in for the purpose of the visual of him standing by the burning Spitfire as the Germans approached.

Spoiler!

Agreed. They also had to take some timeline liberties; why was the beach suddenly stranded within minutes of him landing? Even if he coasted out a mile or more away, he's looking at a 15-20 minute walk. No, they hadn't emptied the beaches out that quickly. You're right - lazy narrative device designed to up the 'heroism' and sacrifice of a guy who had the least real character development up to that point. Hell - don't light the damn plane on fire and the Germans probably don't find him. Just a silly turn of events at the end designed to create an admittedly poignant moment.

You look at the survival rates of folks who were taken prisoner that early in the war - they are...uh...not great. So if you have a sense of history you know the guy almost certainly sacrificed his life to make that last attack run and keep the island from getting strafed. But it still required a suspension of disbelief that I didn't care for. Have the plane damaged and him needing to fight for control and go over German lines or something. What they did just didn't make much sense.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

It was bleak as all hell. I can't imagine wanting to watch it several times over.

WWII for the most part was bleak. The Rise of the Nazis and ultimately their fall was a bloody stain on everyone. It's just the nature of the material in the movie.

If Hitler would have been paying more attention and killed those 338K men the whole war would have went differently. At a minimum, it would have lasted longer and cost more lives to finish off Hitler.

I saw this on 70MM and it was cinematically a fantastic movie. Love that format.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Spoiler!

Agreed. They also had to take some timeline liberties; why was the beach suddenly stranded within minutes of him landing? Even if he coasted out a mile or more away, he's looking at a 15-20 minute walk. No, they hadn't emptied the beaches out that quickly. You're right - lazy narrative device designed to up the 'heroism' and sacrifice of a guy who had the least real character development up to that point. Hell - don't light the damn plane on fire and the Germans probably don't find him. Just a silly turn of events at the end designed to create an admittedly poignant moment.

You look at the survival rates of folks who were taken prisoner that early in the war - they are...uh...not great. So if you have a sense of history you know the guy almost certainly sacrificed his life to make that last attack run and keep the island from getting strafed. But it still required a suspension of disbelief that I didn't care for. Have the plane damaged and him needing to fight for control and go over German lines or something. What they did just didn't make much sense.

Not being a Slav upped his chances considerably if you are a silver linings kind of guy.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I will just say one thing about WWII in general and its bleakness:

I don't want to take anything away from the sacrifices that American, British, and Western European people made during that war, but World War II was really fought on the Eastern Front. And while actions like Dunkirk, Overlord and The Battle of Bulge were dangerous and harrowing, they really pale in comparison to what happened on the other side of the continent.

If you were to take the Eastern Front, remove it from WWII and make it its own war, it is the largest in human history and deadlier than WWI on its own. Seven out of eight Germans that died did so on the Eastern Front.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I never watched Pearl Harbor, because Bay/Bruckheimer should never touch historical material of any type.

I actually wrote an 8 page paper in college detailing all the historical **** ups that were in that movie.

EIGHT PAGES.

Probably could have been longer, honestly.

[Easy 6]

Pearl Harbor was an overblown piece of shit, thats for sure

Dunkirks cinematography is as good as it gets, but the story is a bit wanting... rent for sure, but I wouldnt buy it

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I will just say one thing about WWII in general and its bleakness:

I don't want to take anything away from the sacrifices that American, British, and Western European people made during that war, but World War II was really fought on the Eastern Front. And while actions like Dunkirk, Overlord and The Battle of Bulge were dangerous and harrowing, they really pale in comparison to what happened on the other side of the continent.

If you were to take the Eastern Front, remove it from WWII and make it its own war, it is the largest in human history and deadlier than WWI on its own. Seven out of eight Germans that died did so on the Eastern Front.

****ing this.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Spoiler!

Bizarre choice by Tom Hardy's character to glide directly to the enemy when there are several British ships nearby that could have rescued him had he ditched in the sea. To me, that was a nonsensical narrative device shoehorned in for the purpose of the visual of him standing by the burning Spitfire as the Germans approached.

Absolutely. Any one of those civilians would have stepped on their own dicks for the opportunity to rescue that guy.

What was the significance of the burning Spitfire anyway? Any deeper meaning or just a cool shot?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Absolutely. Any one of those civilians would have stepped on their own dicks for the opportunity to rescue that guy.

What was the significance of the burning Spitfire anyway? Any deeper meaning or just a cool shot?

Just a cool shot, IMO, contrasting the flames against the oncoming doom in the form

Spoiler!

of the Nazis

just out of focus.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Pearl Harbor was an overblown piece of shit, thats for sure

Dunkirks cinematography is as good as it gets, but the story is a bit wanting... rent for sure, but I wouldnt buy it

It would have been fine had Nolan not thrown it in a ****ing blender in his endless quest to prove how clever he is.

[staylor26]

I’ve seen it 3 times already and I usually don’t like war movies.

Probably my movie of the year, though this hasn’t been a great year for movies (Wind River and Get Out round out my top 3).

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Absolutely. Any one of those civilians would have stepped on their own dicks for the opportunity to rescue that guy.

What was the significance of the burning Spitfire anyway? Any deeper meaning or just a cool shot?

You don't want the enemy to get a hold of your technology to find out how it works and its weaknesses. Not to mention code books, maps, etc. The US captured some Zeros and figured out they were really slow on certain turns.