Dunkirk - Film

[eubank]

If you want to watch a proper film about Dunkirk then watch the 1958 version with John Mills, I adore it

No need for all this modern day nonsense " oh lets take a simple story and rework it and make it complex " that way people will think I am clever

Pretentious Nonsense

The 1958 film is more profound in 5 minutes than this effort is in its entirety

The ending scenes of the 58 version say it all

Yes, that's a fine film too T, but a very different one. I can see that people may see this film as pretentious if they want to find it to be, but I didn't and enjoyed it ( even if jingoistic).

[Christian J]

The film did its best not to mention them at all ! Cant have the younger generation being told the Germans may have been nasty to the British can we !!!

Nolan got bashed for not doing it!

[Totenhead]

Nolan got bashed for not doing it!

Did he ??

[Woolgar]

I watched it last night, and left feeling like it could have been much better. I felt the Germans should have been included since it was their battle also. It was like watching Gettysburg with only Union soldiers. My UK brothers no doubt view this as a great deed by their fathers (and mine too) however because it focused on only a few it drew out the film, almost making it boring. I asked a German veteran who was their, why the Allies were able to get away. He stated "Because we let them, my division had orders to cease all operations against the pocket to allow the English to tend to their wounded and leave the continent. We hoped, after their withdrawal, that peace would follow."

The absence of Germans was because Nolan wanted to create a 'hidden menace' as part of the tension rather than have hundreds of Germans easily killed as in most war films

[Seigfried]

I saw it last night and went with an open mind having read reviews here. For what it was - four interconnected stories it was ok, and I mean ok. I did not feel that the film captured the magnitude of the situation, and as previously mentioned the beach shots of orderly queues were ridiculous. The whole grounded trawler with the bullet holes was also farcical. The aerial shots were terrific, I really felt as if I was flying, but the lack of Luftwaffe was unrealistic, and I felt that some defence of the shrinking perimeter could have been shown. The young lad (who died) on Tom Rylance's (brilliant) boat added nothing.

On a collector front the uniforms appeared ok although I did spot a bloke with a 44 pattern helmet on (near the end on a pier during a bombing sequence).

On balance not a bad film, but not as good as it could - and should - have been. The 1958 version has the edge I'm afraid.

[Totenhead]

The absence of Germans was because Nolan wanted to create a 'hidden menace' as part of the tension rather than have hundreds of Germans easily killed as in most war films

I think the " hidden menace " is pretentious nonsense in my opinion.

As for hundreds of Germans being easily killed, there were not, hundreds of Tommie's, indeed thousands of Tommie's died, and this film portrays none of that I am afraid

It may be controversial but I believe the Germans were not portrayed clearly in the film for political correctness, perhaps somebody in " Holywood " didn't like the idea that perhaps Dunkirk occurred because of Adolf Hitler and the German Army.

[Totenhead]

Where on earth did he get this notion from that " the hidden enemy " would make a great narrative ? I just don't it, its not a Sc-Fi movie or Batman !



Every damn person involved with the Dunkirk evacuations knew all too well who the enemy was

[eubank]

I honestly think it worked well, the concept of a sinister hidden menace, faceless etc- making them seem invincible I suppose is the idea.
You can't put everything on, especially when it has been done before.
Remember that BBC docu -drama on Dunkirk about 10 years ago? That even had the Wourmoudt massacre by 1st SS portrayed. That would have been an interesting storyline...but stylistically wouldn't fit.

[Totenhead]

I honestly think it worked well, the concept of a sinister hidden menace, faceless etc- making them seem invincible I suppose is the idea.
You can't put everything on, especially when it has been done before.
Remember that BBC docu -drama on Dunkirk about 10 years ago? That even had the Wourmoudt massacre by 1st SS portrayed. That would have been an interesting storyline...but stylistically wouldn't fit.

There was no sinister hidden menace though, the Germans did not enter Dunkirk until after the evacuations were over, they were only present in the Skies and boy did our lads know it !

I really do not see the point in trying to convey that to the audience. Its not a Horror movie

[kammo man]

Here's the really bad flight jacket worn by Hardy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WWIIBuff]

The absence of Germans was because Nolan wanted to create a 'hidden menace' as part of the tension rather than have hundreds of Germans easily killed as in most war films

I don't think the absence of the Germans was really that big of a deal, sometimes an unseen enemy can create an even more dire situation when done right, but it was not done right here.

I like the fact that the movie centered on the British point of view. HOWEVER, even if they weren't seen, the presence of the Germans should have been felt much more, (and the contributions of the French should also have been brought to light even more).

The opening scene with the perfectly groomed, undamaged town, and the lack of constant Luftwaffe attacks against the troops on the beach was a joke. This looked like a low budget film.

[Jeff V]

I would really like someone to explain what that ridiculous trawler scene was about? Who was shooting at it? What did that have to do with anything at dunkirk? Also, the death of the boy was very strange. The small boat captain and other boy don't even seem to be too bothered when he was killed.
A lot of potential wasted in this movie IMO.

[MarcRikmenspoel]

The trawler was off to the side of the main beaches, beyond the British-French perimeter. Supposedly, the Germans were shooting at it for fun, for target practice, and to make sure no Limeys would sneak into it and use it to get away. I could sort of understand this.

The part about Henry was apparently just so that he could "get in the newspaper" as he had wanted, just not HOW he wanted. An unnecessary cold irony, I suppose. But it got a little more meaning because the guy the boat picked up, with PTSD, was an example that war can make even good men do bad things, or something like that.

I agree, these were not the best parts of the movie.

[Jeff V]

The trawler was off to the side of the main beaches, beyond the British-French perimeter. Supposedly, the Germans were shooting at it for fun, for target practice, and to make sure no Limeys would sneak into it and use it to get away. I could sort of understand this.

The part about Henry was apparently just so that he could "get in the newspaper" as he had wanted, just not HOW he wanted. An unnecessary cold irony, I suppose. But it got a little more meaning because the guy the boat picked up, with PTSD, was an example that war can make even good men do bad things, or something like that.

I agree, these were not the best parts of the movie.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

[Tom M]

Overall I felt it was a pretty decent film.

The most annoying part for me was when Tom Hardy, rather than head for home on low fuel, made the choice to bank around to face the bomber. My emotions were just starting to run higher... then it cuts to another phase of the storyline. Deflated was understatement!

More importantly, I'm really glad it has done well at the box office, and I'm glad I supported it in my ticket. If this had flopped, and there were rumours from figgity producers it would, that would have been the death nail for any near future big budget WW2 films from a different perspective, other than American (as good as they are!).