Dunkirk

[riskllama]

i thought we all agreed this thread got hijacked for vegetable lasagnes' made up doughnut shop...
*shrugs*

[MTIceman41]

i thought we all agreed this thread got hijacked for vegetable lasagnes' made up doughnut shop...
*shrugs*

Doughnut shop?
2017 is all about gluten free...doughnut shops are too much 2004...get with the times llama...and less forum more gameplay.
You missed your turn jerk

[riskllama]

i deserved that.

[riskllama]

in my defense, so did you.

[Symmetry]

I just assumed it was Thorth being Thorth.

[Cade Weston]

There are quite a few quotes inside a quote LOL.

I need to quote this. LOL

Quoteception

Avoid both plagiarism and original thought. Use quotes.

Avoid Hypocrisy. Use quotes.

My mang. #quotesforlife

[Cade Weston]

There are quite a few quotes inside a quote LOL.

Welcome to Conquer Club, Cade! We hope you enjoy your foray into the forums!

Thank you so much

[strike wolf]

So I know this thread isn't about it anymore but I will say I greatly enjoyed the movie.

[patches70]

Now, I know I sometimes give the French a bunch of shit, and I haven't seen the movie, but there is one thing. In regards to The Battle of Dunkirk, the French were the true heroes of that battle.

40,000 French troops held the perimeter as the British were evacuated and they held until every last British soldier who was still alive had escaped. Every single one of those 40,000 French troops were either killed or captured by the Germans. But if the French hadn't held as long as they did the Germans would have swept down upon that beach and massacred every last man there. The French troops held against overwhelming odds. Most other armies of the time would've folded before the onslaught those French troops fought against.

For once, the French fought well, bravely and with honor. They saved a whole shitload of valuable, battle hardened British soldiers who would go on to train more men that would finally end the German threat. For this, I salute the French as should every freedom loving carbon unit.

[Symmetry]

Now, I know I sometimes give the French a bunch of shit, and I haven't seen the movie, but there is one thing. In regards to The Battle of Dunkirk, the French were the true heroes of that battle.

40,000 French troops held the perimeter as the British were evacuated and they held until every last British soldier who was still alive had escaped. Every single one of those 40,000 French troops were either killed or captured by the Germans. But if the French hadn't held as long as they did the Germans would have swept down upon that beach and massacred every last man there. The French troops held against overwhelming odds. Most other armies of the time would've folded before the onslaught those French troops fought against.

For once, the French fought well, bravely and with honor. They saved a whole shitload of valuable, battle hardened British soldiers who would go on to train more men that would finally end the German threat. For this, I salute the French as should every freedom loving carbon unit.

They did, and while the movie almost has no roles for the French and even the Germans (French soldiers appear at the very start and Germans at the very end), the end scenes do mention the alliance.

It is a very compact film though. The wider story is important, and you're right to signpost, but great as it is- it's not a broad take on history. The movie focuses on individuals.

[Dukasaur]

Well, I finally saw it. I was looking forward to it a long, long time. Sadly, I was tremendously disappointed in many ways.

First, the parts I liked. They did a good job at telling the story from the point of view of an individual infantryman. The sights and sounds of combat, the feeling of breathlessness and fear, and the use of first-person views was quite effective at making you feel like you were there. Second, and related to this, I think they did an amazing job at characterization while spending very little time on it. None of the characters had much backstory, and yet within a few seconds of meeting each one you formed an opinion of what kind of character he was. (Cowardly, brave, earnest, opportunistic, friendly, nasty, etc.) I think that was where the movie shone -- good acting and an amazing economy of visual storytelling that managed to say a lot about a person in very little time.

Now, for the many parts I didn't like. First and foremost, the ceaseless drone. It was like the Velvet Underground Meets Saving Private Ryan. Everything was overshadowed by the ceaseless drone. About a quarter of the way through the movie, I was desperately wishing for ear plugs. Shortly after that, I realized ear plugs wouldn't help. The deep bass in the drone would go right through your chest and bypass your ears. I understand they were trying for a specific artistic effect -- never letting the dread go away, just like the soldier who was really there could never relax. Still, too much of a good thing is, well, too much. It's like, "Okay, I get the point. The soldier was constantly in danger. Now can you shut up?"

The drone overshadowed all the dialogue. The dialogue was difficult to follow anyway, with the English accents, but it would have been discernible if that damn racket didn't drown it out. As it was, I think I got less than 50% of the dialogue. Maybe even 30 or 40%. The movie would have been much more enjoyable if at least during key conversations they shut off that damn drone synthesizer.

(At this point, though, I should mention the one and only funny line in the movie:)

Admiral: We'll get more of them off when high tide comes in six hours.
Colonel: I thought high tide was in three hours.
Admiral: Then I suppose it's a good thing that you're in the Army and I'm in the Navy.

Most of the movie had a good degree of realism, but there was one scene that was stupidly unrealistic and really annoyed me. There's men stuck on a boat that's full of holes, and they decide the boat is too heavy and they're going to force the Frenchman to jump overboard to lighten the load and keep the boat from sinking. We're not talking about a dinghy or a life raft. This was a boat of significant size, looked like a river launch or a patrol boat, of probably 15 to 30 tonnes. One man more or less wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Not only was it stupidly unrealistic, but it was quite gratuitous, too. I think they were trying to portray mistrust between the British and the French, and that really wasn't the case that early in the war. Later, yes, but at Dunkirk history tells us that the British and the French had excellent co-operation.

The aerial combat was disappointing. There was a lot of it, but it was really the same shot over and over. (British pilot sees German aircraft. Fires. Misses. Looks at his fuel gauge and realizes he doesn't have much time. With a determined look, grabs the throttle, lines up for another shot and shoots again. Hits this time. Smoke billows out of German aircraft.) A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. (Maybe it even was the same scene, and they were saving money on extra filming.) A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene.

I gladly paid the extra money to see it in Imax instead of on the regular screen, because I knew there would be aerial combat, and I know the Imax screen can exploit your peripheral vision and create the illusion that you're actually flying. I should have save the cash and watched it on the regular screen. There was no illusion of flying. The whole technological miracle of Imax was completely wasted.

Last, but definitely not least, is the fact that the movie was just tiny. This is an operation that involved thousands of ships. We saw half a dozen. This is an operation that involved hundreds of thousands of men. We saw a few hundred. I knew the movie was going to focus mainly on the small-scale human story, but I thought the epic-scale story would still be shown. I've seen many movies -- Deep Impact comes immediately to mind -- that manage to show very close-up intimate stories, and still effectively show the large-scale picture. This movie did a good job on the small scale, but the grand epic backdrop of the overall operation was not even attempted. Overall, a colossal disappointment.

[Symmetry]

Well, I finally saw it. I was looking forward to it a long, long time. Sadly, I was tremendously disappointed in many ways.

First, the parts I liked. They did a good job at telling the story from the point of view of an individual infantryman. The sights and sounds of combat, the feeling of breathlessness and fear, and the use of first-person views was quite effective at making you feel like you were there. Second, and related to this, I think they did an amazing job at characterization while spending very little time on it. None of the characters had much backstory, and yet within a few seconds of meeting each one you formed an opinion of what kind of character he was. (Cowardly, brave, earnest, opportunistic, friendly, nasty, etc.) I think that was where the movie shone -- good acting and an amazing economy of visual storytelling that managed to say a lot about a person in very little time.

Now, for the many parts I didn't like. First and foremost, the ceaseless drone. It was like the Velvet Underground Meets Saving Private Ryan. Everything was overshadowed by the ceaseless drone. About a quarter of the way through the movie, I was desperately wishing for ear plugs. Shortly after that, I realized ear plugs wouldn't help. The deep bass in the drone would go right through your chest and bypass your ears. I understand they were trying for a specific artistic effect -- never letting the dread go away, just like the soldier who was really there could never relax. Still, too much of a good thing is, well, too much. It's like, "Okay, I get the point. The soldier was constantly in danger. Now can you shut up?"

The drone overshadowed all the dialogue. The dialogue was difficult to follow anyway, with the English accents, but it would have been discernible if that damn racket didn't drown it out. As it was, I think I got less than 50% of the dialogue. Maybe even 30 or 40%. The movie would have been much more enjoyable if at least during key conversations they shut off that damn drone synthesizer.

(At this point, though, I should mention the one and only funny line in the movie:)

Admiral: We'll get more of them off when high tide comes in six hours.
Colonel: I thought high tide was in three hours.
Admiral: Then I suppose it's a good thing that you're in the Army and I'm in the Navy.

Most of the movie had a good degree of realism, but there was one scene that was stupidly unrealistic and really annoyed me. There's men stuck on a boat that's full of holes, and they decide the boat is too heavy and they're going to force the Frenchman to jump overboard to lighten the load and keep the boat from sinking. We're not talking about a dinghy or a life raft. This was a boat of significant size, looked like a river launch or a patrol boat, of probably 15 to 30 tonnes. One man more or less wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Not only was it stupidly unrealistic, but it was quite gratuitous, too. I think they were trying to portray mistrust between the British and the French, and that really wasn't the case that early in the war. Later, yes, but at Dunkirk history tells us that the British and the French had excellent co-operation.

The aerial combat was disappointing. There was a lot of it, but it was really the same shot over and over. (British pilot sees German aircraft. Fires. Misses. Looks at his fuel gauge and realizes he doesn't have much time. With a determined look, grabs the throttle, lines up for another shot and shoots again. Hits this time. Smoke billows out of German aircraft.) A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. (Maybe it even was the same scene, and they were saving money on extra filming.) A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene. A few minutes later, repeat the same scene.

I gladly paid the extra money to see it in Imax instead of on the regular screen, because I knew there would be aerial combat, and I know the Imax screen can exploit your peripheral vision and create the illusion that you're actually flying. I should have save the cash and watched it on the regular screen. There was no illusion of flying. The whole technological miracle of Imax was completely wasted.

Last, but definitely not least, is the fact that the movie was just tiny. This is an operation that involved thousands of ships. We saw half a dozen. This is an operation that involved hundreds of thousands of men. We saw a few hundred. I knew the movie was going to focus mainly on the small-scale human story, but I thought the epic-scale story would still be shown. I've seen many movies -- Deep Impact comes immediately to mind -- that manage to show very close-up intimate stories, and still effectively show the large-scale picture. This movie did a good job on the small scale, but the grand epic backdrop of the overall operation was not even attempted. Overall, a colossal disappointment.

Meh- I've heard a few people say they didn't really like it. I didn't see it in IMAX though, just in a regular cinema. Weirdly enough, one of the first screenings was seen by some of the surviving veterans of Dunkirk. They thought it was pretty faithful to what it was like, but said the movie was noisier than the battle.



That's about 3:44 in to the clip.

I'm not sure that it was really meant to be an action flick a la Top Gun, but I thought the aerial scenes were pretty nerve-wracking. Part of that is definitely the Zimmer score, which is frankly terrifying even without the movie-



But also the fact that this isn't the kind of film that has missile locks and planes flying through explosions. It's horribly claustrophobic in the cockpit. Keeping track of fuel is just one of the ways that Nolan emphasises that time is running out. The planes can only cover the boats for so long. No inverted polaroid shots of MIG pilots followed by a volleyball scene in this movie.

In wasn't a huge fan of the boat scene either, although I think you're placing a bit too much faith in the characters involved as acting rationally. I won't spoil any more of the movie, but they're basically terrified youngsters who want to go home. Accurate calculations of buoyancy aren't really in their wheelhouse.

If you're going in looking for a blockbuster like Deep Impact, which I found, ironically, pretty shallow- you will be disappointed, I guess.

[Thorthoth]

Nobody cares about your stupid movie, so lets start using this thread to talk about donuts.

Ultimately, I was right all along.
Stupid. Movie.

[Dukasaur]

They thought it was pretty faithful to what it was like, but said the movie was noisier than the battle.

I believe them!

Ultimately, I was right all along.
Stupid. Movie.

Utterly wrong. A very flawed movie, in my opinion, but definitely not stupid.

[Symmetry]

They thought it was pretty faithful to what it was like, but said the movie was noisier than the battle.

I believe them!

Ultimately, I was right all along.
Stupid. Movie.

Utterly wrong. A very flawed movie, in my opinion, but definitely not stupid.

I guess it's flawed if you're looking for Deep Impact stuff. It was never gonna be that kind of movie, but to be honest, the kind of things that you didn't like about it- that it wasn't a spectacle like Deep Impact, were the things that I liked.

[Dukasaur]

They thought it was pretty faithful to what it was like, but said the movie was noisier than the battle.

I believe them!

Ultimately, I was right all along.
Stupid. Movie.

Utterly wrong. A very flawed movie, in my opinion, but definitely not stupid.

I guess it's flawed if you're looking for Deep Impact stuff. It was never gonna be that kind of movie, but to be honest, the kind of things that you didn't like about it- that it wasn't a spectacle like Deep Impact, were the things that I liked.

Yeah, I would have liked to see the big picture. There were over a thousand ships. It wouldn't be asking a lot for the picture to show a hundred. I think the most we saw in close proximity was six. In a different scene, there were possibly twenty on the horizon, but they were so far away that they might as well have been flies. Also, the view from the high command, the decisions being made. I know they were focusing on the small picture, but it would not be much to ask that the big picture be allowed 10% of the total footage.

[ConfederateSS]

-----------A neat fact about the battle.......Not all the British got away...For the gun Hitler used to kill himself with...Was a side arm taken off a British officer ,prisoner of war,from Dunkirk...Sort of Ironic in the end of all things... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... .....Yes,many consider the Stand of the French at Dunkirk...to be as GREAT OF A STAND AS THE 300......... ...Although the Germans didn't kill them all ,they took them prisoner...

[Thorthoth]

Stop mincing words, it's just stupid.

[Symmetry]

They thought it was pretty faithful to what it was like, but said the movie was noisier than the battle.

I believe them!

Ultimately, I was right all along.
Stupid. Movie.

Utterly wrong. A very flawed movie, in my opinion, but definitely not stupid.

I guess it's flawed if you're looking for Deep Impact stuff. It was never gonna be that kind of movie, but to be honest, the kind of things that you didn't like about it- that it wasn't a spectacle like Deep Impact, were the things that I liked.

Yeah, I would have liked to see the big picture. There were over a thousand ships. It wouldn't be asking a lot for the picture to show a hundred. I think the most we saw in close proximity was six. In a different scene, there were possibly twenty on the horizon, but they were so far away that they might as well have been flies. Also, the view from the high command, the decisions being made. I know they were focusing on the small picture, but it would not be much to ask that the big picture be allowed 10% of the total footage.

The English Channel looks kinda small on a map, but it's not and the boats were small, and it's not as if they were all there at the same time.

I guess something stirring like a big finish with thousands of boats all sailing at once in close formation as some sort of organised armada would have been nice, but it would have been a bit silly too. I liked that the movie resisted a blowhard kind of ending. It was after all, a retreat after a military disaster.

I genuinely get that why you wanted something a bit bigger and more bombastic. I think it would have undermined the film.

I guess my nearest point of comparison would be something like the movie Pearl Harbor. A defeat that was weirdly portrayed as some kind of victory, with FDR standing up out of his wheelchair at the end and declaring that he's going to order a strike against Japan- "a pinprick, but a pinprick straight to the heart".

Not that that necessarily undermined that film- it was kinda dumb from the start, but still...