# Dunkirk



## T & P (Jul 17, 2017)

Wow. Early reviews just out are pretty much raving about this, with the likes of the Telegraph and Guardian both calling it Christopher Nolan's best work and giving it five out of five stars.

I thought the WWII genre had surely been done to death but this sounds promising.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2017)

There was a long trailer for it before the last Star Wars film (so around Xmas time). Definitely had an air of being something special about it, the surround sound and direction/cinematography made me make a mental note it's probably one to see in the cinema


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 18, 2017)

I read blitzed a little while ago which kinda referenced  Reichsmarschall Goring's drug fuelled lunacy for allowing the escape of the BEF rather than its destruction


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2017)

Looking forward to this on Friday.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2017)

T & P said:


> I thought the WWII genre had surely been done to death ...


You think?

Sci-fi is the one that's overdone, for me. The Normandy landings and Dunkirk have had their fair share of films but there are loads of other WW2 stories that have never been done.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You think?
> 
> Sci-fi is the one that's overdone, for me. The Normandy landings and Dunkirk have had their fair share of films but there are loads of other WW2 stories that have never been done.


a bridge too far could stand a remake imo. Not well known enough is that story (not sure why yoda mode was enabled there).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2017)

going by the trailers - there don't seem have been any regional or working class accents heard on the beaches of dunkirk. (im not counting mark rylance's weird thespian mumbling)


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 18, 2017)

Sci-Fi and fucking comic bukes have been done to death and hold zero appeal for most people I know in my age group. Given the popularity of CoD / Medal of Honor/ battlefield games, I am surprised how few war movies there are about


----------



## flypanam (Jul 18, 2017)

T & P said:


> I thought the WWII genre had surely been done to death but this sounds promising.



With Brexit approaching, the proles need to be reminded of the time Britain stood alone against evil Europe.

Still as it's Nolan I'll go along and gleefully enjoy it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2017)

He might be good with a war film - real war is full of screaming and muttering where you can't hear what anyone's saying and you can't work out what the fuck is going on. Nolan's definitely the man for the job.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2017)

I haven't grit my teeth and looked at prices/availability for the BFI Imax yet. I saw Interstellar on that screen and it was (literally and figuratively) immense.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> a bridge too far could stand a remake imo ...



The Tirpitz, Crete, Norway, Greek resistance, Malta, Taranto, night-fighters, Hess, aircrew evasion, a decent Barbarossa yarn ... all underdone on film.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2017)

St Nazaire Raid - Wikipedia

EDIT: Ah, it's been done Attack on the Iron Coast - Wikipedia


----------



## ffsear (Jul 18, 2017)

Crispy said:


> St Nazaire Raid - Wikipedia
> 
> EDIT: Ah, it's been done Attack on the Iron Coast - Wikipedia




Great documentary on that here.. (if you can stand Clarkson)


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2017)

I can't stand Clarkson


----------



## hot air baboon (Jul 18, 2017)

funny I thought he did the one on the Cockleshell Heroes Raid - I saw that quite recently but seems it was a 2011 one done by Paddy Ashdown

Peter Jackson was supposed to be doing a remake of the Dambusters wasn't he ? Ambivalent about the idea tbh

saw the Dunkirk trailer at the BFI Imax before ALien & was _slightly_ offput by Rylance appearing like he was on mogadon & not being much of a fan of Branagh's doughy face 100 feet across


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 18, 2017)

i dont even know what a dunkirk is, trailer looks shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2017)

Crispy said:


> St Nazaire Raid - Wikipedia
> 
> EDIT: Ah, it's been done Attack on the Iron Coast - Wikipedia


That could do with a remake. Always had a bit of a B-movie feel to it, imo.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jul 18, 2017)

£22 at the Waterloo iMax next Wed evening - I want to see the film not buy a boat.


----------



## phillm (Jul 18, 2017)

It's got Harry Styles in it....and I've just wasted 5 minutes of my life with Fake News as he doesn't walk out...


----------



## mather (Jul 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You think?
> 
> Sci-fi is the one that's overdone, for me. The Normandy landings and Dunkirk have had their fair share of films but there are loads of other WW2 stories that have never been done.



Rather than Sci-Fi I think comic book and superhero movies have been done to death and would be glad to see the fucking back of them, not to mention I'm fed up of seeing sad twats dressed up in silly superhero outfits at their fucking conventions or whatever.


----------



## mather (Jul 18, 2017)

BTW, Dunkirk is on my list of films to see at the cinema, so far it looks good.


----------



## phillm (Jul 18, 2017)

I'll wait for the Yify Blu-ray rip..


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 21, 2017)

Saw it tonight.

It's really very, very good. Make sure you go and watch it at a cinema as soon as possible. The best work by both Nolan and Zimmer. Excellent.

Now searching for the closet cinema showing it in 70mm/imax


----------



## mather (Jul 22, 2017)

I'm going to see it on tomorrow with some friends at the Imax cinema at the Science Museum. I was surprised to find out that the Science Museum has it's own cinema, of all the museums that would have had one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2017)

mather said:


> I'm going to see it on tomorrow with some friends at the Imax cinema at the Science Museum. I was surprised to find out that the Science Museum has it's own cinema, of all the museums that would have had one.


The aquarium has one too. An IMAX one i mean.


----------



## mather (Jul 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The aquarium has one too. An IMAX one i mean.



What is the aquarium? Is it like that one in Brighton?

I have never been to an Imax before, apparently the screen is curved which may or not be a good thing as I have only ever seen films in regular cinemas with flat screens.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2017)

mather said:


> What is the aquarium? Is it like that one in Brighton?
> 
> I have never been to an Imax before, apparently the screen is curved which may or not be a good thing as I have only ever seen films in regular cinemas with flat screens.


Just realised it's the same place as you were talking about.


----------



## mather (Jul 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Just realised it's the same place as you were talking about.



Lol ok. I thought you meant a London version of the sea life centres.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 22, 2017)

mather said:


> I was surprised to find out that the Science Museum has it's own cinema, of all the museums that would have had one.


a lot of the early IMAX films were science/nature documentaries so many science museums do have IMAX cinemas.


----------



## felixthecat (Jul 22, 2017)

Just seen this. Absolutely engrossing - I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. There wasn't one single standout performance, this wasn't a Best Actor Oscar film - the entire cast was fucking great. Harry Styles a bit of a revelation tbh - the boy did good whilst soaking wet for the most part

The score btw was magnificent, just magnificent. Well done Mr Zimmer


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 22, 2017)

I'm searching to see where I can see it again but in 70mm, ideally Imax - appears only in London


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 22, 2017)

Ive seen it tonight. I was blown away. Best Nolan film Ive ever seen. Hans Zimmer score was overwhelming-I have heard such a deeply affecting score like that since There Will Be Blood. I dont think I took a breath during the entire film. The cinematogrophy is top notch. Editing fantastic and theres some real edge of the seat moments that you will never forget. Best war movie Ive ever seen. Period


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 23, 2017)

Ive just booked to see for the 2nd time in Imax. Theres no Imax in swansea so Im driving to cardiff to watch it. Ive got a feeling in Imax it'll blow me away


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2017)

Haven't seen it yet but I loved the Ealing Studios Dunkirk movie. That had some great cinematography in it.

Before Nolan's epic, Ealing Studios told the tale of Dunkirk


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 23, 2017)

If like me, you now want to see this in 70mm IMAX

Here’s where you can see Dunkirk in 70mm


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 23, 2017)

This is a REALLY good interview:


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 23, 2017)

I've not seen this yet so NO SPOILERS please


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jul 23, 2017)

I don't think I've ever been to an imax cinema and seen a "proper" film. I'm actually quite tempted.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 23, 2017)

Off to see this now in Peckham...


----------



## smmudge (Jul 23, 2017)

Just booked to see it on Weds with 2 for 1, £25 all in for 2 IMAX tickets, not bad


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 23, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I read blitzed a little while ago which kinda referenced  Reichsmarschall Goring's drug fuelled lunacy for allowing the escape of the BEF rather than its destruction



 More the fact the panzer armies needed resupply and the country around Dunkirk was not ideal tank country.  Destroying the Army at Dunkirk while possible would come at a price and might give the French the time to rally and if that happens you could lose the war.


----------



## Cid (Jul 23, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> I've not seen this yet so NO SPOILERS please



The evacuation is broadly successful, though with substantial losses...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

Cid said:


> The evacuation is broadly successful, though with substantial losses...


The Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks


----------



## A380 (Jul 23, 2017)

I don't normally write gushing posts, laconic cynicism ( ie being a supercilious twat) is more my normal style. But go and see this, at the cinema.

Saw the film on Friday. It is a fantastic piece of work and really needs to be seen at the cinema. Really gave an impression of what it might have ben like.

The cast were amazing with Rylance brilliant; even Kenny Branagh channelling Noel Coward as Captain Kinross was amazing. Harry Stiles as a panicky young boy soldier has changed my opinion of him. And even without being able to see his face much Tom Hardy is excellent.

The flying sequences match anything seen before,

Not a spoiler as there are captions in the very first scenes, but I thought the 1 week on the beach, 1 day on the boat, and 1 hour in the air intercut timelines worked brilliantly.

Go and see it. At the cinema.


----------



## tony.c (Jul 23, 2017)

So is it likely to be better on 70mm IMAX screen or in 3d?


----------



## felixthecat (Jul 23, 2017)

I would love to see this again at an IMAX but there's a bit of an IMAX dearth in the west country

If its still on when im up in London in 2 weeks I'll be a happy chappie.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 23, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> I've not seen this yet so NO SPOILERS please


Don't read the fucking thread if you don't want spoilers ffs


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2017)

I had to stop watching _the very last over_ of the cricket on my phone when this started.


----------



## rekil (Jul 23, 2017)

The gentlenazi officer straight out of central casting for the big "for you, the war is over" scene with Stylesy was a bit much. 



Spoiler



The depiction of the perimeter defence was rubbish too.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 24, 2017)

Great film. Loved the three timeline storytelling, and how they crossover.

It's edge of your seat stuff but really grounded. 

The opening with the guy legging it from gunfire was a great scene...


----------



## Conrad Jaeger (Jul 24, 2017)

Stunning film and can't believe Christopher Nolan had the foresight to make what must be one of the best action-driven war films of all time. I've been mildly obsessed by the Dunkirk evacuation since reading an equally stunning novel a few years back. This film works so well because we are right in the very midst of the action. If you love the film as much as I now do and want to fill in the blanks, please let me recommend Dunkirk Spirit by Alan Pearce.


----------



## Cid (Jul 24, 2017)

Thought it was great... Although er... childhood sensitivity to sudden loud noises appears not to have gone away as much as adult me had confidently assumed.

I hope 20 years on clickbait will have stuff saying 'can you believe Harry Styles was in this band as a kid?!'. Well, I hope 20 years on clickbait has been purged in the fires of revolution, but you get what I mean.


----------



## mather (Jul 25, 2017)

I saw it on Sunday at the Imax at the Science Museum and I loved it. For a war movie it had the right amount of action and tension that made it believable, something you don't really get in American films which can be over the top. The flying scenes were great and captivating. Great acting from Branagh, Hardy and Murphy.

Unfortunately we could only book seats for the third row which was too near the screen and being Imax I had to keep moving my head to see the entire screen, Imax works best from a distance so if you do see it at an Imax cinema, try to book seats in the centre or at the back if you can.


----------



## T & P (Jul 25, 2017)

In the opinion of those of you who've seen it, does it feel too overwhelming/ violent for someone in their late seventies? My mother in law is coming to visit from overseas and she likes to go to the cinema when in Blighty. She's a strong-charactered lady anyway but doesn't like anything too grim.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Should I watch it in 2D or 3D? Not been that impressed with 3D so far


----------



## gosub (Jul 25, 2017)

Not seen it yet but glad they've done a proper job.  The real thing created bonds that literally lasted a life time (with our family anyway)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Should I watch it in 2D or 3D? Not been that impressed with 3D so far


It's not in 3D is it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's not in 3D is it?


apparently not:
Dunkirk is playing in a lot of formats. Here’s how each affects your viewing experience.
I foolishly assumed it was cos it's showing in IMAX theatres


----------



## T & P (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> apparently not:
> Dunkirk is playing in a lot of formats. Here’s how each affects your viewing experience.
> I foolishly assumed it was cos it's showing in IMAX theatres


I've watched 70mm films at the IMAX in 2D before. I know next to fuck all about film formats so I could be talking bollocks but I believe you can watch a 70mm film in 2D, but only on a large screen with a 70mm projector such as the IMAX has.

3D sucks cocks in hell and I wouldn't want to watch any film in that format. But AFAIK this film has not been optimised for (or even offered in) 3D.


----------



## mod (Jul 25, 2017)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Off to see this now in Peckham...



I seen it at the Plex last night. Not been entertained liek that for a fiver for a very long time.


----------



## mather (Jul 25, 2017)

T & P said:


> In the opinion of those of you who've seen it, does it feel too overwhelming/ violent for someone in their late seventies? My mother in law is coming to visit from overseas and she likes to go to the cinema when in Blighty. She's a strong-charactered lady anyway but doesn't like anything too grim.



No, not at all, One of my mates who saw it with me actually said that he was expecting more blood and gore in it.


----------



## Cid (Jul 25, 2017)

Er... I'd still call it overwhelming. This may be a kind of undiagnosed asd type thing, but the noise and general feel of it was pretty intense for me. There is very little gore (none really), but scenes emphasising the disorienting effects of being in water, scenes emphasising fear of unpredictable gunfire. As I say the latter effects me more than most (mate was totally unphased), but in general it definitely ramps up the tension.


----------



## chandlerp (Jul 26, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> I'm searching to see where I can see it again but in 70mm, ideally Imax - appears only in London



IMAX at Printworks in Manchester is the full  70mm experience.  Going on Monday night.  It's around £16 for VIP seats.

Second largest screen in Europe apparently


----------



## A380 (Jul 26, 2017)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 26, 2017)

Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk:” The outbreak of World War II without history or politics

somewhat critical reveiw- *has obvs spoilers* ( it was a disaster ) but interesting points about lack of background. Not sure if justified as I havent seen it.


----------



## Cid (Jul 27, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk:” The outbreak of World War II without history or politics
> 
> somewhat critical reveiw- *has obvs spoilers* ( it was a disaster ) but interesting points about lack of background. Not sure if justified as I havent seen it.



It's justified in that there isn't any political background, it's not justified in that that would have ruined the film.

I would argue that some political points could have been dealt with better, though this is a little hard to discuss without spoilers. Sufficient to say that there is a jingoistic note that is perhaps at odds with the overall feel. But broadly it works on its own merits; 3 er... vignettes that give a window onto a certain set of interactions. Exposition on political background would be totally out of the film's character. There is perhaps room for a little more, but not much.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 28, 2017)




----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 28, 2017)

By Giles Coren.(couldn't edit the above)


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 28, 2017)

Definitely a film for seeing at the cinema, in 70mm if you can. Upthread people have praised the acting, the cinematography, the music... I'd add the sound, and the stunts.

I wouldn't say it was jingoistic, although it portrays jingoism in places, and the jingoism is clearly at odds with the experience of the soldiers. The whole thing is immersive, confusing, tense and immediate.  Pretty distressing for anyone sensitive, and you come away with a sense of bloody waste and convinced of the ruling classes' cynicism and incompetence.


----------



## Cid (Jul 28, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Definitely a film for seeing at the cinema, in 70mm if you can. Upthread people have praised the acting, the cinematography, the music... I'd add the sound, and the stunts.
> 
> I wouldn't say it was jingoistic, although it portrays jingoism in places, and the jingoism is clearly at odds with the experience of the soldiers. The whole thing is immersive, confusing, tense and immediate.  Pretty distressing for anyone sensitive, and you come away with a sense of bloody waste and convinced of the ruling classes' cynicism and incompetence.



I don't think it's a jingoistic film, but...



Spoiler: bit at the end



There's a pretty hefty dose of feel good at the end. And they do read out the fight them on the beaches speech... That's the element that struck me as out of place and a bit jingoistic. No hint that they'll be back in 4 years.



Other than that I completely agree... I'd also say the focus on the water was brilliant and horrible. Ship casualty figures are something I've always found shocking (e.g Hood - three survivors. Of 1418 crew. Three.), and that sensation of a total loss of control; walls where the floor should be, the world at an angle, no sense of direction. That was exceptionally well done. And the scale of the sea. With that it really, really didn't need gore.

My mate found it a bit dull though...


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 28, 2017)

Cid said:


> I don't think it's a jingoistic film, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler: Spoiler response



I dunno: I found that section, and the Nimrod variations, really ironic rather than uplifting. But that might be just me and my companion. As for the reception of the soldiers on the train, wasn't that meant to be jarring, and full of dramatic irony?



No accounting for people like your mate.


----------



## Cid (Jul 28, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Spoiler: Spoiler response
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I dunno - I mean having just experienced the other 1 hour 45 minutes of draining cinema I maybe wasn't 100% in the right place to judge. But I did _want_ to see the cynical reading. Just didn't seem like it was there. That and Branagh's 'i'm staying for the French'. My irony detectors were dialed up but still not firing.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 28, 2017)

Cid said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno - I mean having just experienced the other 1 hour 45 minutes of draining cinema I maybe wasn't 100% in the right place to judge. But I did _want_ to see the cynical reading. Just didn't seem like it was there. That and Branagh's 'i'm staying for the French'. My irony detectors were dialed up but still not firing.


I grant you that sentence was a bit stirring.  It seemed a bit rich given the earlier scenes with the French.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2017)

Spoiler: Churchill 



According to a podcast I heard recently, that famous Beaches speech wasn't actually recorded at the time and Churchill didn't record it for posterity until a few years after the war


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 28, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Spoiler: Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> According to a podcast I heard recently, that famous Beaches speech wasn't actually recorded at the time and Churchill didn't record it for posterity until a few years after the war





Spoiler: Churchill



The original speech was given in the Commons, which wasn't broadcast or recorded back then. I can just imagine him relishing the opportunity to run it again.





Spoiler: ETA



It was recorded in writing in Hansard of course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Spoiler: Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> The original speech was given in the Commons, which wasn't broadcast or recorded back then. I can just imagine him relishing the opportunity to run it again.





Spoiler: Churchill



He repeated many of his speeches in Parliament later that day on live radio (which was presumably also recorded), but not this one


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2017)

Cid said:


> Er... I'd still call it overwhelming. This may be a kind of undiagnosed asd type thing, but the noise and general feel of it was pretty intense for me. There is very little gore (none really), but scenes emphasising the disorienting effects of being in water, scenes emphasising fear of unpredictable gunfire. As I say the latter effects me more than most (mate was totally unphased), but in general it definitely ramps up the tension.



That is what I liked about the film, it made good use of sound and visuals to give you a feel for the film. The music gave the feel of being surrounded and under siege even despite the lack of land combat shown, plus the sound those german dive bombers (JU 87s) made was chilling.


----------



## A380 (Jul 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Spoiler: Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated many of his speeches in Parliament later that day on live radio (which was presumably also recorded), but not this one





Spoiler:  Fun Facts



Didn't he also have an actor / impersonator,  Norman Shelly, who re-recorded some speeches for radio broadcast because Churchill was often a tad busy during the war. Further confused as after the war Churchill then re-re-recorded some of the speeches for the BBC.

Fun facts. 1. Norman Shelly was in the Archers for years; 2. Robert Heimlein's book Double Star takes this as its starting point.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2017)

Great film, though pretty much in 2 halves....  



Spoiler: musically



Felt like you were watching a depiction of war for the first half. Plenty of tension, but things just _unfolding_.  When the Elgar kicked in it felt like a different film, following a predictable narrative


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2017)

Aside from that, I liked that it wasn't too flashy.  Beautifully filmed, but didn't go overboard on special effects.


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Aside from that, I liked that it wasn't too flashy.  Beautifully filmed, but didn't go overboard on special effects.



Agreed. It was both subtle and intense at the same time, not something you really get in Hollywood war movies for example.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2017)

mather said:


> Agreed. It was both subtle and intense at the same time, not something you really get in Hollywood war movies for example.


Apparently the growing intensity of the first hour was a kind of auditory sleight of hand, a 'Shepard tone':
The sound illusion that makes Dunkirk so intense and even influence the screenplay


----------



## Cid (Jul 29, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Apparently the growing intensity of the first hour was a kind of auditory sleight of hand, a 'Shepard tone':
> The sound illusion that makes Dunkirk so intense and even influence the screenplay




Ah that's interesting... But...



Spoiler: what I was on about earlier



At Churchill speech point we're certainly fully off tick, dunno about the Shepard tone because obviously I wasn't listening for it, but I'm guessing we'd gone full Elgar by then... That's an environment for relief, I don't see how the irony reading can fit in there. It's full on hope because the tension has been released.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 29, 2017)

Cid said:


> Ah that's interesting... But...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: what I was on about earlier
> ...





Spoiler: Elgar



It's hard to hear that Elgar without putting a distancing frame round it, though, isn't it? I can't imagine Zimmer hears it the way Elgar's first audience did, any more than we do. Don't you think there is some shared expectation here? Maybe it's elitist though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2017)

That last bit is horror - not relief - nimrod aside -  it means he's just thought, _fuck, i have to do that again._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2017)

Like the end of carrie or something


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Exactly.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 30, 2017)

Spoiler: On the 2 (musical) halves of the film



When I posted I hadn't read the earlier contributions on this page. But the music really did seem to create 2 halves in all kinds of ways. The film began with the guy running and you pitched into something being experienced along with the characters. It was just them running/flying/sailing - quite existential with no narrative or context.  There was no politics, families waiting for loved ones back home, just people staying alive in real time (well, 3 lots of real time iyswim). And the music added to that. But with the Elgar, ironic or otherwise, history came back in... which got even more so with the Churchill speech. And in the last 5 minutes or so, you could see history's lasting judgement falling into place.  Not a 'defeat' but something that did look to the future.  In all that it did get a bit mushy, and played to the 'legend of Dunkirk'. I'd have preferred it if they'd avoided all that to be honest.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Spoiler: On the 2 (musical) halves of the film
> 
> 
> 
> When I posted I hadn't read the earlier contributions on this page. But the music really did seem to create 2 halves in all kinds of ways. The film began with the guy running and you pitched into something being experienced along with the characters. It was just them running/flying/sailing - quite existential with no narrative or context.  There was no politics, families waiting for loved ones back home, just people staying alive in real time (well, 3 lots of real time iyswim). And the music added to that. But with the Elgar, ironic or otherwise, history came back in... which got even more so with the Churchill speech. And in the last 5 minutes or so, you could see history's lasting judgement falling into place.  Not a 'defeat' but something that did look to the future.  In all that it did get a bit mushy, and played to the 'legend of Dunkirk'. I'd have preferred it if they'd avoided all that to be honest.





Spoiler: Response



Interesting. That's completely different from how I reacted to it, and I want to see it again to see how it works through your lens. 
Eh, why are we doing this through spoilers when everyone knows how it ends? Because we don't: the film shows us how the official story manipulated failure and defeat to make it look like some sort of success. The surviving soldiers themselves saw that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 30, 2017)

Well I've been waiting for someone to post something about this other than glowing praise but it seems like it's not going to happen!

I was disappointed.

Yes, it's beautifully shot, particularly the flying and shipboard stuff, the Spitfires were awesome and the Buchon even made a passable (though wrongly painted) 109. I'd also agree that the sound (saw it in 70mm IMAX) and certain scenes created an extraordinarily immersive experience, but a lot of that was simply volume.

Lots of flaws that detracted from it though.



Spoiler: plot stuff



The lack of character development and dialogue was an issue for me. I know Nolan says he made it that way in order to concentrate on the sounds and visuals but it didn't work like that, imo. It just meant that you didn't care about the characters. The lad that died on the boat for example. That was a pastiche of the scenes in the 1958 film where Attenborough's factory youngster signs up to go across with Bernard Lee's character. But that wasn't clear in this film. You just thought 'why's the kid jumping on the boat, and why are they leaving the navy guys on the quayside?' The upshot was that we didn't give a toss when the kid died because we didn't know who he was or why he was there.

For a film with this budget I'd also expect not to be seeing modern buildings in the shots of the Dunkirk seafront and there's a similar issue with a shot of the British port they leave from (block of flats or offices in the background). The train carriage that they end up in looks to be from the 70s/80s. Check out the out-of-period sliding windows, aluminium window frames, and blue chequed seat coverings that I remember on BR trains in the early 80s.

In 1940 the beaches at Dunkirk were jam-packed with troops and chaos reigned. Watching this you'd be forgiven for thinking that only a few hundred men were evacuated and the beaches were a model of tidiness and perfect organisation.

The Spitfire shooting down the JU 87 whilst in a glide was taking the piss, as was the wheels down landing in soft sand and surf.



All that said, it was still a good film and I'll probably see it again soon just for the aircraft, but it was over-hyped for me.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well I've been waiting for someone to post something about this other than glowing praise but it seems like it's not going to happen!
> 
> I was disappointed.
> 
> ...





Spoiler: meta spoiler






> You just thought 'why's the kid jumping on the boat, and why are they leaving the navy guys on the quayside?' The upshot was that we didn't give a toss when the kid died because we didn't know who he was or why he was there


That doesn't necessarily follow. I don't think we have to know who people are to care what happens to them.


----------



## Cid (Jul 30, 2017)

I really don't get how people are reading the end of this... Maybe I have to see it again, but several points stand out:



Spoiler



- The most memorable elements of dialogue are (paraphrased); <officer> what can you see? <branagh> home; <Branagh> I'm staying for the French; Chuchill's speech. I mean Churchill's speech, if you know a lot about the context and have a cynical (well, realistic) approach to the man could have two readings. But the film gives me no reason to see the ironic interpretation. And the vast, vast majority of people would take that at face value unless given some very obvious ques.
- Sound ques. Danger is defined by the ticking, and by the Shephard tone wilf mentioned upthread. That's gone. The ticking very deliberately stops as I recall... What we have instead is the interpretation of Nimrod. I think that has a redemptive quality. At the same time it is melancholic, but to me that's reflecting on what's gone before.
- The Right Choices. Tom Hardy's character stays to shoot at the Heinkel... Peter learns about trauma, and lies to Cillian Murphy's character. I mean yes there's complexity in there, thingy drowns, Hardy's actions can only have a limited effect, George dies, Rylance appears not to have accepted his older son's death. But Hardy and the other RAF bloke live (albeit Hardy is captured), Styles and Whitehead live. Father and son bond. To me that feeds into redemption; the characters are certainly traumatised and tarnished by experience. But they get cider and a newspaper through the train window... They go from fearing vilification to knowing everyone loves and respects them, because of Churchill.

For me the main thing is the sound though. If Nolan wanted the end to have a hint of coming trauma, he'd have used the tick... Maybe in a very subtle way, a guy looking at his watch or something, but it would have been there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2017)

Ok, does Nolan think the war stopped in may 1940? Does he think we do? If the answer is no then dramatic irony is drectly in play.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well I've been waiting for someone to post something about this other than glowing praise but it seems like it's not going to happen!
> 
> I was disappointed.
> 
> ...


In terms of what you at about character development, I think you are right - but that was one of the strengths of the film (at least for the bulk of the action on the beach). It got into having somebody with you for an hour, they get shot, you don't have time to grieve, somebody else dies in your peripheral vision etc. Pretty much ignoring the bloke in the 'queue' who gets shot was probably how it was. You were just staying alive.


----------



## Cid (Jul 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, does Nolan think the war stopped in may 1940? Does he think we do? If the answer is no then dramatic irony is drectly in play.



Dramatic irony requires more than simple audience knowledge. Everything in the film is telling me not to see it that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2017)

Cid said:


> Dramatic irony requires more than simple audience knowledge. Everything in the film is telling me not to see it that way.


That's all it requires. Again, does the war end in may 1940? Does the last shot, where what 'never surrender' and what that means becomes clear to 'tommy' -the one that looks directly at it's informed audience and  effectively says 'oh shit' really tell you different?


----------



## Cid (Jul 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's all it requires. Again, does the war end in may 1940? Does the last shot, where what 'never surrender' and what that means becomes clear to 'tommy' -the one that looks directly at it's informed audience and  effectively says 'oh shit' really tell you different?



There are endless stories of redemption/heroism that take place within a wider framework where the protagonists have a high chance of dying at some later point. And Dunkirk's actions are very much set within a specific moment, there is very little reference to time as it exists outside of the film. As to a moment of clarity, maybe I missed it. Would have to watch again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2017)

This asks what now?



Does't dunkirk too?


----------



## Cid (Jul 30, 2017)

I'll watch it again one day, see if my opinion changes with less noise.


----------



## gosub (Jul 30, 2017)

Think there was too much ariel machine gunning

Ie more than 30 secs


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2017)

Saw it this afternoon.
It's not too long, which is good, and there's not a dull moment. 
It's alright.
6 popcorns out of ten


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Think there was too much ariel machine gunning
> 
> Ie more than 30 secs


i used to know someone who was at dunkirk, and i think he would have agreed with you


----------



## gosub (Jul 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i used to know someone who was at dunkirk, and i think he would have agreed with you


Instead in the film they asked where were the RAF?  Answer should have been 'reloading'


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

I don't know how we can joke about it tbh. It was appalling. And how it came to be something to be proud of - that is really weird. Was it all down to the Ministry of Information and The Daily Mail?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 30, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> I don't know how we can joke about it tbh. It was appalling. And how it came to be something to be proud of - that is really weird. Was it all down to the Ministry of Information and The Daily Mail?


What do you mean?


----------



## donkyboy (Jul 30, 2017)

sounds a boring film.

watch kelly's heros instead.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What do you mean?


I mean simply that there's this idea of the Dunkirk spirit, and it's still spoken of in tones of awe - but how and why did that come about? There was some serious image manipulation going on to make such a massive humiliation, defeat and retreat look anything to be proud of. It must have already been underway between the time the evacuation started and when the first lads fetched up in Blighty.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Obvs the small boats thing gave a lot of people (but not a huge number) a stake in and ownership of part of the story, and the cumulative effect of all that can't be overestimated. Nevertheless...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 30, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> I mean simply that there's this idea of the Dunkirk spirit, and it's still spoken of in tones of awe - but how and why did that come about? There was some serious image manipulation going on to make such a massive humiliation, defeat and retreat look anything to be proud of. It must have already been underway between the time the evacuation started and when the first lads fetched up in Blighty.


Are you familiar with what happened before, during, and after the evacuation?


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Are you familiar with what happened before, during, and after the evacuation?


No need for that tone of voice.  It was a defeat. As the soldiers in the film knew, it was a defeat that they expected to be treated with humiliation. How that was spun into something heroic is a matter of interest.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> No need for that tone of voice.  It was a defeat. As the soldiers in the film knew, it was a defeat that they expected to be treated with humiliation. How that was spun into something heroic is a matter of interest.


It was a genuine question, didn't mean to offend.

It was obviously a catastrophe as regards the French campaign but the _Dunkirk Spirit_ you mention, refers to perseverance in the face of extreme adversity, not crowing about a victory. The so called _miracle_ was that the Germans didn't press home their advance to capture or destroy the BEF in it's entirety; the fact that ten times the number of troops than initially hoped were evacuated in just over a week (almost the total number of British military personnel killed in the whole of WW2); how they were evacuated whilst under attack; and the possible consequences of saving them.

What's remarkable was the scale, organisation, and speed of it, none of which came across in the film.


----------



## chandlerp (Jul 31, 2017)

Off to see this tonight on the 70mm IMAX at Printworks, Manchester.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

chandlerp said:


> Off to see this tonight on the 70mm IMAX at Printworks, Manchester.


Take earplugs.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2017)

The use of the Elgar and the Churchill speech leave me a bit unsure as to Nolan's line, but I'm still tending towards thinking it was a fairly conventional redemption flavoured take on Dunkirk.  I'm unsure though because the Elgar seemed a bit heavy handed as musical cues go - the Churchill speech too, but that still seemed to me a case of translating the soldiers view of a 'defeat' into the myth of Dunkirk.  The other bit that made me think that is worth putting in the spoiler...


Spoiler: t'other thing



the kid who was killed by a traumatised Cillian Murphy was transformed into a hero with the local paper story at the end


I think the key thing is the timescale: the film covers the period from the panicked retreat, through the small boats to ideological translation of defeat into a plucky middle finger at the Germans.  You don't get what happens next - the focus is on 'victory' from the jaws of defeat.  At one level it's about the dishonesty of casting a retreat as victory, but in turn that _itself_ is part of the conventional story of Dunkirk. It sort of makes explicit what everybody knows.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2017)

Random thought: I've been banging on about the 2 musical halves of the film having a different flavour, the first half being a real time, staying alive retreat. What added to that focus on the troops as they dodged bullets and stood in queues was the absence of ... everybody else.  Apart from the planes that strafe them, you don't see any German military at all - and you don't see any French civilians (as far as I can remember).


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> At one level it's about the dishonesty of casting a retreat as victory, but in turn that _itself_ is part of the conventional story of Dunkirk.


In what way has this ever been done though?

Even Churchill, in the "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, described it as "a colossal military disaster".


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> In what way has this ever been done though?
> 
> Even Churchill, in the "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, described it as "a colossal military disaster".


In the creation of the 'Dunkirk Spirit', where the defeat at the actual _Battle of Dunkirk_ has been replaced by 'Dunkirk'.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> In what way has this ever been done though?
> 
> Even Churchill, in the "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, described it as "a colossal military disaster".



And Churchill knew a few things about beaches and colossal military disasters.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In the creation of the 'Dunkirk Spirit', where the defeat at the actual _Battle of Dunkirk_ has been replaced by 'Dunkirk'.


But how is that casting the event as a _victory_?

The _Dunkirk Spirit_ refers to the evacuation itself, and the circumstances in which it was done. Do you not think that returning 340,000 men was an outstanding achievement?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But how is that casting the event as a _victory_?
> 
> The _Dunkirk Spirit_ refers to the evacuation itself, and the circumstances in which it was done. Do you not think that returning 340,000 men was an outstanding achievement?


Firstly, yes, it was an outstanding achievement from the small ships. Despite the news management of the time, I imagine they pretty much knew what they were sailing into - astonishing bravery.  I don't know the details, but it must also have been a success for the British High Command, to make it happen.  It mitigated what had happened in the Battle of Dunkirk.  But I suspect we are talking past each other on this.
_
Literally_, Dunkirk has never been presented as a victory, though slightly contradicting my own point above about 'everybody knows', I suspect a lot of people today confuse Dunkirk and the Normandy Landings.  And whilst Dunkirk Spirit refers to strength and 'pluck' in adversity, that confusion is in part because 'Dunkirk' has come to mean something other than a well organised retreat. It also feeds into the myth of Churchill who was a never a particularly good wartime leader in terms of actual military decisions, afaik.  With 'the speech' Dunkirk becomes the turning of the tide, the point where he lead the country towards an inevitable victory.  It wasn't that - something that Churchill himself recognised at the time when he criticised press coverage of the event (source, Wikipedia  ). Anyway, all of that - the issue of when an event becomes part of a _narrative_ - is essentially what we are discussing on this thread.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 31, 2017)

Thought it was ok, but i was in the front row of an imax and could see the pixels...would have been better with a higher frame rate perhaps as it was quite flickery.

Most of the soldiers looked the same, and I was getting them mixed up but turns out it didn't really matter as there was no character development.

I thought the wide shots on the beach and the dogfights were the best parts, again probably because I was too close to the screen.



Spymaster said:


> It just meant that you didn't care about the characters. The lad that died on the boat for example. That was a pastiche of the scenes in the 1958 film where Attenborough's factory youngster signs up to go across with Bernard Lee's character. But that wasn't clear in this film. You just thought 'why's the kid jumping on the boat, and why are they leaving the navy guys on the quayside?' The upshot was that we didn't give a toss when the kid died because we didn't know who he was or why he was there.



I gave a toss because I thought he was the skipper's other son. Then I was a bit perplexed that his brother didn't seem to give many fucks.


----------



## lefteri (Jul 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Thought it was ok, but i was in the front row of an imax and could see the pixels...would have been better with a higher frame rate perhaps as it was quite flickery.



I thought IMAX's were showing a 70mm print i.e. actual film - mind you all films are digitally processed these days so I suppose there could still be visible pixels


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 31, 2017)

lefteri said:


> I thought IMAX's were showing a 70mm print i.e. actual film - mind you all films are digitally processed these days so I suppose there could still be visible pixels



Pretty sure it wasn't a reel. It's a brand new imax just been fitted out and Dunkirk is their first film. I just assumed it was a digital projector and the film had twice the vertical resolution compared to the standard showing. It was a bit disappointing and if that wasn't due to sitting too close perhaps it was a bad conversion or upscaling or something.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The Tirpitz, Crete, Norway, Greek resistance, Malta, Taranto, night-fighters, Hess, aircrew evasion, a decent Barbarossa yarn ... all underdone on film.



I'd like to see a film done of the Battle of Kursk, or the  campaign in Crimea. Also: a film about the Russian push as they ejected the Germans from Russia, and followed them home to the Chancellery.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2017)

The bulk of the war was fought in/against the Soviet Union; but all we get are the same old stories of the British and Americans.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd like to see a film done of the Battle of Kursk, or the  campaign in Crimea. Also: a film about the Russian push as they ejected the Germans from Russia, and followed them home to the Chancellery.


Kursk would be too expensive to do justice now without a shitload of CGI. But yes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Kursk would be too expensive to do justice now without a shitload of CGI. But yes.



If they could make Lawrence of Arabia, or The Longest Day, back in the days before CGI, they should be able to do something with Kursk.

I think it's more a matter that Hollywood or British filmmakers, won't be making many films about the great Soviet/German battles of WW2.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2017)

Osvobozhdenie


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 31, 2017)

Has anyone seen many of these?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Osvobozhdenie


I just found that too. Looking for a stream now.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Osvobozhdenie



I was just looking at that. Might try and download them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Might try and download them.


From where?


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 1, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Has anyone seen many of these?



A few.  Some of the USSR's best films.  Have a look at Mosfilm's YouTube channel, where many of its films are available with English subtitles.

Also, here.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 2, 2017)

Saw for 2nd time tonight. Bloody great film. Can't believe I missed Michael Caine the first time around.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Saw for 2nd time tonight. Bloody great film. Can't believe I missed Michael Caine the first time around.


I wouldn't have noticed that in any number of viewings if I hadn't been told about it.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 3, 2017)

Saw it last night and can only echo what other reviews have said. Great score and visually brilliant. Am not big on war films but this is worth seeing. Would be worth going to the IMAX for if you can.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Aug 3, 2017)

That Heineken got shot down a lot. I actually thought the skies would be busier with more attacks on the beach, but attacking the boats makes sense. I don't actually think a bit of CGI would have been terrible. 

It was quite cool seeing it on Imax, but actually it would have been fine at home.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I wouldn't have noticed that in any number of viewings if I hadn't been told about it.



I was in a cinema with really good sound in Northampton....and I was like 'that's Michael Caine!'


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 3, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> That Heineken got shot down a lot. I actually thought the skies would be busier with more attacks on the beach, but attacking the boats makes sense. I don't actually think a bit of CGI would have been terrible.
> 
> It was quite cool seeing it on Imax, but actually it would have been fine at home.


I think you must mean Heinkel? Heineken is a revolting Dutch lager.
I think there must have been some CGI, esp with sinking ships and crashing planes, just very subtly used.
And it would certainly have been a much diminished experience at home - it wouldn't have been immersive as it was and the sound wouldn't be up to it. (also, I find a lot of films tend to be quite murky when viewed on a telly or computer screen, or is that just me?)


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 3, 2017)

Sky's Entertainment Reporter, Duarte Garrido isn't a fan....

Dunkirk is Nolan's biggest trick - not his best


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I think you must mean Heinkel? Heineken is a revolting Dutch lager.
> I think there must have been some CGI, esp with sinking ships and crashing planes, just very subtly used.
> And it would certainly have been a much diminished experience at home - it wouldn't have been immersive as it was and the sound wouldn't be up to it. (also, I find a lot of films tend to be quite murky when viewed on a telly or computer screen, or is that just me?)


There was some CGI but it was very limited. The crashing planes were large RC models filmed from multiple angles so the same crash could be used several times.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I was in a cinema with really good sound in Northampton....and I was like 'that's Michael Caine!'


I knew where it was before I saw the film but pretty sure it wouldn't have clicked otherwise.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Aug 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I think you must mean Heinkel? Heineken is a revolting Dutch lager.
> I think there must have been some CGI, esp with sinking ships and crashing planes, just very subtly used.
> And it would certainly have been a much diminished experience at home - it wouldn't have been immersive as it was and the sound wouldn't be up to it. (also, I find a lot of films tend to be quite murky when viewed on a telly or computer screen, or is that just me?)



Bloody auto correct! I even googled to get the spelling right. I thought they used models for the crashing planes, but may be wrong. 

I've got a 50" Plasma at home, which whilst not the cinema is good enough for most stuff, but obviously imax is next level. My speakers can't quite compete with that level of surround sound either. Did cost me £36 for two tickets though, so expect it to be good!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> Bloody auto correct! I even googled to get the spelling right. I thought they used models for the crashing planes, but may be wrong.


I thought it was an attempt at a humorous play on the name.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 3, 2017)

Caught this evening. Big screen & Big sound. The first stuka bombers bit is terrifying with all the heightened soundtrack, makes Star Wars seem like the playschool.

Not sure what to make of it really. I'm not sure what it's trying to do. It doesn't really the tell whole story, these are the good bits but then there are moments when it's really laying on the story of the whole national miracle of Dunkirk etc, so it seems a bit confused.

It did look like hell though and the weather looked crap......if only they'd managed to stitch the weather together a bit better


----------



## gaijingirl (Aug 4, 2017)

We went to see this last night and it slightly traumatised me.  It was so incredibly intense - I think largely due to the musical score.  One of my companions felt that the score was too relentless and that the lack of relief from the tension was a failing.  Certainly I was physically tensing throughout most of the film myself.  My other companion felt that there should have been more in the way of context to the Dunkirk evacuation but I wonder where would that end?  It set out to be a snapshot of an hour/day/week and that's what we got.  In terms of wider context there was enough given away in the newsreel scenes and also the homecoming scene I thought.  We did also find the last bit with Tom Hardy a bit...  (not wanting to give too much away here) but after all - it _is _Tom Hardy!  I also agree with the poster about the actual buildings/settings/train seeming too modern - but these are small quibbles.

I'm not sure I could watch that film again.  I thought it was amazing and I am very glad I saw it - but I found it physically quite exhausting to watch - which is probably right - how else to convey something so traumatic and physically exhausting?  I haven't stopped thinking about it actually.


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 4, 2017)

Anybody else spot Sgt Bob Crier out of The Bill as the old chap in the hat banging on the train window near the end?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 4, 2017)

chandlerp said:


> Anybody else spot Sgt Bob Crier out of The Bill as the old chap in the hat banging on the train window near the end?


Yep! Though I still can't remember Michael Caine.


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 4, 2017)

No I don't remember seeing Michael Caine at all


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2017)

You don't see him, you just hear his voice - he's an RAF radio controller talking to the men in the fighters.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2017)

I liked it a bit more than Richard Kovitch, but I am much in agreement with him here:






It's definitely no Come & See


----------



## Cloo (Aug 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You don't see him, you just hear his voice - he's an RAF radio controller talking to the men in the fighters.


I thought the voice sounded familiar!

Certainly the most tense film I have ever seen, and among the best I've seen.

Interesting to be watching it with my 92-year-old grandfather, who was enlisted to the RAF two years after the Dunkirk evacuations. He thought it was great but was quite shaken by it - 'almost too realistic' as he put it. He was fortunate not to see much action himself (he was posted to Egypt and then Aden guarding oil reserves), but I guess he must have been trained for some of the scenarios involved.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 5, 2017)

Wilf said:


> the British High Command,


"high command is generally a German term, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Oberkommando des Heer, OKH and OKW. The British term would have been the Imperial General Staff. 


> , yes, it was an outstanding achievement from the small ships. Despite the news management of the time, I imagine they pretty much knew what they were sailing into - astonishing bravery


Most small ships were crewed by Navy. That said the civilians would have had a very large number of WWI veterans who would have had a crystal clear idea of what war was. 
Among the civilians who did sail was a man who was featured in another Hollywood blockbuster. Charles Lightoller First Officer of the Titanic who was given a pretty rough treatment in the Cameron film.


----------



## Borp (Aug 5, 2017)

I'm also on the side of meh it was ok.

Seemed more like a filmmaking exercise rather than a telling of dunkirk. Which is fine. But the story of dunkirk is more interesting than the film was.


----------



## felixthecat (Aug 8, 2017)

Cloo said:


> I thought the voice sounded familiar!
> 
> Certainly the most tense film I have ever seen, and among the best I've seen.
> 
> Interesting to be watching it with my 92-year-old grandfather, who was enlisted to the RAF two years after the Dunkirk evacuations. He thought it was great but was quite shaken by it - 'almost too realistic' as he put it. He was fortunate not to see much action himself (he was posted to Egypt and then Aden guarding oil reserves), but I guess he must have been trained for some of the scenarios involved.


My sister took my 82 year old mum after she demanded to go. She had a much older brother who, at 19 years old, didn't come home from France. 
My sister said she didn't take her eyes off the screen or speak, just silently cried

I'm glad it was my sister and not me who took her


----------



## Cloo (Aug 8, 2017)

I asked whether my granddad knew anyone who was there... he didn't, my my grandmother's first cousin was married to a young Canadian guy who died there.


----------



## gaijingirl (Aug 8, 2017)

There were quite a few very old people at the showing I attended - one lady had to be helped very slowly into the auditorium - she must have been in her 90s.  Given how intense and painful I found it, I imagine it must be almost unbearable viewing for some people of that generation.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 9, 2017)

Not seen the film yet. Would like to, yet family history and the tales I heard growing up would be buzzing in my head.
My dad's eldest brother was in the Territorials and was with the BEF, he survived Dunkirk only to die on Convoy PQ18 in September 1942. The stories my dad retold me still put the wind up me. Also my grandmother's cousin was one of the last army nurses to be evacuated. She went on to serve throughout the North African and Italian campaigns. She returned home and never recovered from the horrors she witnessed. She died a recluse in the seventies.
It may, reluctantly have to be one to view in private, though of course the big screen experience would be missing.
I hope it brings the reality of how close to utter defeat we were.


----------



## Thora (Aug 9, 2017)

I'm not generally a fan/watcher of war movies but saw this last night and really enjoyed it.

They didn't spend the budget on the script though and some of the lines (particularly delivered by Harry S) were a little bit painful.

I did see some online complaints that there wasn't enough historical explanation/exposition but I only have a GCSE understanding and found the situation more than adequately explained.

*SPOILER*
I did think Mr Dawson taking a random neighbour's son with him was a bit bizarrely irresponsible though, and his subsequent death was a bit


----------



## Grandma Death (Aug 9, 2017)

tony.c said:


> So is it likely to be better on 70mm IMAX screen or in 3d?




IMAX. Its not available  in 3D

I watched it for second time in IMAX and its blew me away even more than the first time


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 9, 2017)

I saw it on Saturday and thought it was good, almost brilliant in fact. The music kept the tension high throughout and the slowed down Nimrod was spine tingling towards the end too. My only gripe is that they didn’t try and disguise any of the modern buildings particularly around the start of the film, there were too many perspex windows and some of the architecture clearly dated from the 1990s or 2000s. Much of the filming was done in Dunkirk so perhaps Nolan was making some kind of statement by leaving it as it is today. The train they were on at the end of the film was far too contemporary as well… although I’m sure only a nerd like me would have noticed that.

My late father was at Dunkirk and wrote down some of his experiences. He took part in the perimeter defence for a short time and said there were “no more than a few thousand or so” on the beach and snaking out to sea when he got there. He was eventually picked up by a Navy corvette after waiting in line for about a day. He remembers the small fishing boats waiting out at sea too.

Like the man in the film giving them beers (yes, it was bob Cryer off The Bill), my dad remembered an elderly lady standing in her garden holding up a sign saying THANK YOU as they pulled out of Dover on the train and thought: “Thank you for what? We’ve just been beaten and we’re coming home with our tails between our legs.” His mum had friend living in Redhill at the time and their train stopped there. He managed to write the address and a quick note on a piece of paper and pass it to a lady on the platform and that’s how his family actually found out he was ok.

He kept a diary from the start of the BEF, which was mostly about where his unit were and where they slept etc, it doesn’t describe much in the way of fighting and it certainly doesn’t reveal what he must have been going through emotionally, but what is striking is how it starts off with a neatly written and methodical entry every day, but then becomes sparser and more scribbled before stopping altogether several days before the evacuation. He was 20 at the time and my aunt always said that he was a completely different person when he came back.

No doubt my dad would have been fuming at this idiot…

Nigel Farage thinks all 'youngsters' should watch Dunkirk because of Brexit, proving he's entirely missed the point

Farage just doesn’t get history.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 12, 2017)

I am on meh+ for this. Music was superb, Noise was great but overall , didnt do much for me. i think I am of that generation that was spoiled by too many war filums


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Like the man in the film giving them beers (yes, it was bob Cryer off The Bill), my dad remembered an elderly lady standing in her garden holding up a sign saying THANK YOU as they pulled out of Dover on the train and thought: “Thank you for what? We’ve just been beaten and we’re coming home with our tails between our legs.” His mum had friend living in Redhill at the time and their train stopped there. He managed to write the address and a quick note on a piece of paper and pass it to a lady on the platform and that’s how his family actually found out he was ok.
> .


Thanks for that. It's always nice to hear family details amid the bigger picture.



> Nigel Farage thinks all 'youngsters' should watch Dunkirk because of Brexit, proving he's entirely missed the point
> 
> Farage just doesn’t get history


 There was always going to be some idiot coming out with that. And here's an idiot.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2017)

Saw this last night at the BFI Imax. In terms of transportive cinematic experience, Dunkirk is a triumph. The tension, panic, drama, relief cycle was superbly put together. Editing, score and sound effects all deserve oscars. Everything looked and sounded utterly real and authentic. No impossible camera moves, no wires, no CGI, no gasoline vaapour fireballs. I had to run from my bus to catch the start, and I felt just as breathless and sweaty when the credits rolled.

But: The only character with any character was Mark Rylance, and even he didn't really have any progression. Some of the dialogue was clunky.

But those are small buts. A superb war movie.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 17, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I saw it on Saturday and thought it was good, almost brilliant in fact. The music kept the tension high throughout and the slowed down Nimrod was spine tingling towards the end too. My only gripe is that they didn’t try and disguise any of the modern buildings particularly around the start of the film, there were too many perspex windows and some of the architecture clearly dated from the 1990s or 2000s. Much of the filming was done in Dunkirk so perhaps Nolan was making some kind of statement by leaving it as it is today. The train they were on at the end of the film was far too contemporary as well… although I’m sure only a nerd like me would have noticed that.
> 
> ....



Some history spod I follow on twitter reckons the whole film is about 'myth and memory' - which might explain some of this - also the use of Elgar/sentimentality/burning spitfire etc.

If this is the 'correct' interpretation... then I've loads more time for the film.  I enjoyed it as a spectacle... but as history and story at the time, it left me a tad meh..


----------



## gosub (Aug 18, 2017)

Well Tom Hardy's magic machine gun is definitely in the myth category.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2017)

Why did those lads in the grounded ship think it would make a difference kicking one bloke off when the hold was already half full of water?

Beyond sheer visceral impact there really wasn't a lot to this IMO. The way it was all shot and assembled was impressive and I'm sure technical Oscars will pour in but Hans Zimmer's blunt instrument of a score was not as good as I had been led to expect and where there was any characterisation it fell a bit flat. 

Historical inaccuracies have probably been covered elsewhere but a few were particularly glaring.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why did those lads in the grounded ship think it would make a difference kicking one bloke off when the hold was already half full of water?



Yeah, that kind of annoyed me too... And no pump?


----------



## spitfire (Aug 18, 2017)

I just got back from Waterloo Imax. Soundtrack blew me away, I like a blunt instrument.

Not much else to say as I'm not sure on what's a spoiler and what isn't.


----------



## felixthecat (Aug 19, 2017)

Cid said:


> Yeah, that kind of annoyed me too... And no pump?



That's you thinking. That's not a terrified 18 year old who's only experience of boats was the one that took them to France in the first place thinking.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2017)

felixthecat said:


> That's you thinking. That's not a terrified 18 year old who's only experience of boats was the one that took them to France in the first place thinking.



As I recall there's still a member of the crew on board.


----------



## A380 (Aug 19, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You don't see him, you just hear his voice - he's an RAF radio controller talking to the men in the fighters.


I think he's actually the pilot of the lead aircraft of the three, who gets shot down almost at the very start (so not really a spoiler).


----------



## A380 (Aug 19, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The bulk of the war was fought in/against the Soviet Union; but all we get are the same old stories of the British and Americans.


Enemy at the Gates, with the background of Stalingrad was pretty good although flawed in places.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 19, 2017)

A380 said:


> I think he's actually the pilot of the lead aircraft of the three, who gets shot down almost at the very start (so not really a spoiler).


nope. an 84 year old pilot? come off it
(he's credited as 'radio communication', though not in the credits on screen, just on IMDb)


----------



## A380 (Aug 19, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> Bloody auto correct! I even googled to get the spelling right. I thought they used models for the crashing planes, but may be wrong.
> 
> I've got a 50" Plasma at home, which whilst not the cinema is good enough for most stuff, but obviously imax is next level. My speakers can't quite compete with that level of surround sound either. Did cost me £36 for two tickets though, so expect it to be good!


But this fokker was flying a Heinkel !


----------



## A380 (Aug 19, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> nope. an 84 year old pilot? come off it
> (he's credited as 'radio communication', though not in the credits on screen, just on IMDb)


He's defo using Red 1* or Vic 1 or what ever the flight is called as a call sign.

*That may be Star Wars creeping in...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 19, 2017)

I've noticed that various idiots have been trying to cast this movie as a brexit metaphor of some kind. The resonance it had for me was with the people who are still trying to get to the UK from those same beaches. The scene with the soldier walking into the sea, and those men trying to get tiny boats to stay afloat amongst the breakers in the desperate hope of rowing home, I know people who have experienced exactly that on that same scrap of coast just in the last year or two. Not all of them are still alive. No flotilla of little ships was waiting for them.


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2017)

Really fucking dull


----------



## phillm (Dec 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> I'll wait for the Yify Blu-ray rip..



I waited it and it was well worth it was well worth it - and on a minor note Harry Styles didn't disgrace himself. Found myself welling up when the Elgar remix by Hans Zimmer played...


----------



## cybershot (Dec 31, 2017)

Watched it yesterday, or the day before, can't remember.



Spoiler



Unfortunately I just couldn’t forgive the inaccuracies which is obviously common in film versions of such events but I expect better from Nolan. I appreciate he doesn’t like using CGI but this film needed it so badly in an attempt to make it more authentic. I didn’t watch this at the cinema as I expected I’d be a bubbling mess but I just didn’t connect emotionally with it at all. 

Pretty much the lack of everything which would have actually made this epic. More boats, more explosions, more people on the beaches, more RAF (my main grievance with the film as the RAF were made to look piss poor) and those little boats were made out to be saviours of the mission when in reality, yes they helped but not really that much, the ships at the mole were made out to be little when in reality the large ships docking there provided the majority of the evacuation, and oh yeah. Everyone was white.

Everything just looked so small scale due to his reliance of actual objects and it let it down, for youngsters watching this, they just won't appreciate just how actually a massive operation this was, and that's a darn right shame.


----------



## ringo (Jan 8, 2018)

Enjoyed this, really well done.

As a kid I was always told that my great Aunt Ella was a spy in the war. My Mum told me she always arrived at the farm via some unusual river route or back path, giving them the impression that she didn't want to be followed. They thought it was very exciting. I remember trips to visit her in London as a kid and the most terrifying African mask hanging above her front door. I loved it, and later collected loads myself from travels in West Africa. When she died she left it to me but it was stolen before I could get it. No idea if she was a spy, I suspect not, but who knows. I've now discovered that she worked for the Department of Transport at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation.

I'm the family record keeper and family tree compiler, so a suitcase of her papers came to me when my Uncle died a year ago. Included in it are a large number of records of British motorway expansions from the period as well as detailed records of boat requisitions and all of the payments she authorised for the Dunkirk boat owners and details of the damage done to the boats which needed repair.

I'm guessing the papers are also held by the Dept of Transport and are now in the public domain, but at some point I need to check, just in case these are the only surviving records of exactly who and which civilian boats took part.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 8, 2018)

Downton, Victoria, Dunkirk, Churchill etc. Biopic of Cromwell next?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 8, 2018)

ringo said:


> I'm guessing the papers are also held by the Dept of Transport and are now in the public domain, but at some point I need to check, just in case these are the only surviving records of exactly who and which civilian boats took part.



These folk will be able to help I expect

Association of Dunkirk Little Ships

Contact: archivist@adls.org.uk


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Downton, Victoria, Dunkirk, Churchill etc. Biopic of Cromwell next?


Ken Loach does a two hour film 'Peterloo'. 


or, more likely, a film about the battle of Trafalgar. Which I would also watch tbf


----------



## ringo (Jan 8, 2018)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> These folk will be able to help I expect
> 
> Association of Dunkirk Little Ships
> 
> Contact: archivist@adls.org.uk


Thanks, I've just emailed them. I've done a bit of Googling and have found out that most of the data on the Little Ships came from the Orde report, compiled just after the operation. Seems that much of the data he used was later lost though, so some of this might now be unique. There are long lists of what damage was sustained by each boat and details of payments made to the boat owners. I only looked briefly, it was all still a bit raw after my Dad and Uncle died, so I put it all away until I felt more like looking through it all. I seem to remember carbonless copy paper receipts of payments to Little Ship owners, as well as ledger entries. Whether all of this was handed in to the Department too or whether she had the only copies I have no idea. I'll get the suitcase down from the loft later and have another look.

Given the importance of Dynamo, arguably the turning point in the second world war, this has got the archaeologist/archivist in me very excited. Proud to have a family member involved too. Would be great to add something to what we know about it.


----------



## ringo (Jan 8, 2018)

It's a an amazing archive, I'll start a new thread in the transport forum.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 15, 2020)

got round to watching this. Its a really quite brilliant bit of filmaking. I was expecting a big spectacular, gung-ho war movie - all explosions and heroes (with full backstories) and adventure. Its actually far more like Das Boot - gripping, cinema verite where the heroism is understated and you are immersed in the tension, fear and desperation.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2020)

Watched a couple of short bits from this yesterday, whilst channel flicking and avoiding adverts.

Spotted a real howler.
At the point I'm talking about, the narration / camera was following one of the "Little Ships" ... 
Firstly, she was flying a blue duster on the stern. I'll have to check that out, but it made me wonder a bit. 
Secondly, I caught a glimpse of what I thought was a "little ships" or similar plaque in the wheelhouse.
Thirdly, and most glaring to a boatie, there were four (!) modern white plastic cylindrical fenders roped to her bow rails (two per side), just aft of the pulpit. 
[surely, they could have been found somewhere to hide below decks ...]

I might watch it, but that ^^^ has put me off.


----------

