"Dunkirk"

[PJ Hardtack]

Well, do so and get back to us.

[Buffalo Creek Law Dog]

I won't be watching it in a theatre.  I have H2 hearing, aka Artillery hearing and, I would still need ear protectors.  Last movie I saw in a theatre was the Unforgiven, 25 yrs ago and my ears are still ringing.    I'll wait for the DVD but, yes I will see it and report back.

Cheers!

[Mean Bob Mean]

PJ, have you seen the last version of The Four Feathers and The Lighthorsemen? Both are very good films, while The Four Feathers is slow in spots the British Squuare battle is great. The Lighthorsemen is about the Australian mounted infantry, the horse charge at Beersheba is absolutely amazing. If you dont get moved as they charge across miles of nothing, thundering hooves, cut to the artillery gunners cranking down on the elevation until the horsemen are 'under the guns' and the shells exploding harmlessly behind them.  Don't know how much was cgi but sure looked real to me.

The Lighthorsemen is one of the most underwatched and underappreciated films for guys like us.  Highly recommend it. 

[Mean Bob Mean]

My friend's father felt it was fairly accurate, and he was one of those who took the small boats over there in 1940.

I liked the movie for this reason:  it doesn't stand around telling you what to think or feel.  Watch all those other films and you get so much expositional dialogue that you cannot form your own opinion.  This film allows you to feel it without having it explained to you.  You could not drag my daughter to a war movie but she went and she fell over about how great it was.  There are quiet scenes of tension that if you go with no expectations are really powerful.  Most Americans go with a desire to see some 1950s war movie, that aint this, not at all.  

Oh, and the small boats he used? All made the trip in real life. 

[PJ Hardtack]

Agree on "The Lighthorsemen". One of the greats. I don't agree with the comment that other flicks tell you how to think or feel. In "Saving Private Ryan" for instance, you get a perspective from many points of view as to the motivation for the mission. The beach landing was horrific, almost shocking in it's brutality and violence.

As for "Dunkirk", had it been advertised as an intimate look into the experiences of a few who were there, it would have been less of a disappointment. Jumping back and forth to these vignettes made it difficult to follow and seemed interminable.

As for the small boats , there were HUNDREDS of them that crossed the channel - tugs, ferries, yachts, sailing vessels, fishing boats, etc. In the movie they showed a pitiful handful of pleasure craft out for a day trip.

I'm still chuckling over the burning Spitfire with no engine and it's incredible dead stick flight during which it shot down a HE 111. The pilot deserved a DSO at least for that feat.

[Crow Choker]

Coal Creek-Your post #17 where you reported on the interview of the writer/director hit my thoughts on the movie. Not much character development, it did jump around a lot from area to area, a lot of scenes that jumped from one day to the next and back again, daylight to night time. You had to pay attention to that or it left you wondering. If I were a movie critic I'd put this one at a 5. Not a block buster, must see, nor a real loser. My previous rating of a 3 out of 10 still stands. The number and types of boats going to the rescue is a poor representation of the historical fact. Disappointed in the movie--had high hopes for it.

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

  Saw it last Sunday. As a WW2 buff, I thought was probably the worst movie I have ever seen on the subject...absolutely horrible. Soldiers meaninglessly lined up on the beach while the evacuations were occurring on distant jetties, an agonizingly long scene of the Spit I trying to shoot down the He-111 in which it would be overcast from one angle of the scene, then immediately clear in the next angle of the fight, and yes, what seemed like an hours long dead-stick flight in which the Spit shot down a Ju-87, on and on and on.

CHT

[Harley Starr]

I went and saw this movie three times and enjoyed it every single time. Best $5.95 I spent too.

I read that the owner of a period correct Spitfire Mark 1 actually landed his priceless airplane, dead stick, on the beach.

Yep, worth every penny.

[38OVI]

Saw it this morning and if you realize how it is put together, it makes sense.  Also, look at the pictures from the time, and they were lined up on the beach waiting for the boats.  Yes, they did take off almost 400,000 during the evacuation (not 4,000,000) including the French, which is mentioned as the last British ship leaves.
If you watch it carefully, the scenes overlap.

[Harley Starr]

Saw it this morning and if you realize how it is put together, it makes sense.  Also, look at the pictures from the time, and they were lined up on the beach waiting for the boats.  Yes, they did take off almost 400,000 during the evacuation (not 4,000,000) including the French, which is mentioned as the last British ship leaves.
If you watch it carefully, the scenes overlap.

Exactly. I was confounded at first, but I caught on to the direction. Everything fell into place as it should have.

[PJ Hardtack]

I read that the owner of a period correct Spitfire Mark 1 actually landed his priceless airplane, dead stick, on the beach.

Then they ruined the sequence by burning a mock up without a simulated engine.

I think the movie was fractured and amateurish in the editing and told only a fraction of the enormous story.

Think of "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day"  and other such epic stories to see how it could have been done better.

[Baltimore Ed]

Trying to tell a truly epic story without enough resources. If you can't hire enough extras and material' you use cgi to fill in the gaps or just tell a smaller story. Think of Gettysburg. A lot of small stories wrapped up in an epic struggle. I doubt if there was any cgi in it but if there was I couldn't tell. 

[PJ Hardtack]

If you can't hire enough extras and material' you use cgi to fill in the gaps or just tell a smaller story.

That's my major complaint - the movie told too many smaller stories and the greater story was lost as a result. The movie gave the impression of being very low budget.

[Harley Starr]

Then they ruined the sequence by burning a mock up without a simulated engine.

Hollywood got it wrong again. I've got to lie down.

[PJ Hardtack]

Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.

Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.

As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.

[Scattered Thumbs]

Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.

Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.

As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.

Well, CAS people shoot long arms in .45 Colt. Shoot handguns two handed. Shoot 1897 pump action shotguns. Shoot loads that are one point over a squib... So, they have no ground to complain much about anything incorrect. Just saying.

I intend to buy the Dunkirk DVD when available.

There. I said it. And feel better already.

[PJ Hardtack]

You mean SOME people shoot long arms in .45 Colt, and with light bullets to boot.

'97 shotguns are Mexican Revolution, close enough to "Cowboy" for me. I just dislike seeing them shot as single shots, loaded from a bandolier at bra height over a paunch.

Loads "one point over squib" definitely ain't Cowboy.

Pointing out the flaws in a movie that purports to be historical is justifiable when so many others have done the job well.

[Scattered Thumbs]

You mean SOME people

Yes that.

And some people shoot duelist style as they did back then.

Not so many others have done the job well.

[Harley Starr]

Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.

Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.

As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.

I've come to a point in my life where I take movies with a grain of salt.

Some armchair aviators get twisted at the sight of a Spanish-built Hispano HA-1112 "Buchon" wearing Luftwaffe markings. Not me.
A genuine Bf-109 is a rarity not to be risked.

Just look at the movie Red Tails. All the aircraft looked authentic down to the smallest details but people still found something wrong with it.

[PJ Hardtack]

Bottom line - "Dunkirk" sucks by any standards, the apologists wailing notwithstanding.