Dunkirk - Film

[Totenhead]

Late to see Dunkirk in IMAX and I have to say I really really liked it. Nothing is perfect but one of the best war movies I ever seen. The Spitfire scene in the end didn't seem right.. but I tried to over look that. Sound was extremely loud but I think the director was using sound to actually put you in the movie... use the speakers to provide concussion. The theater seemed to feel like it was shaking and also had the effect of wind... first experience with that.

I feel the director was after a first person shooter type feeling. You feel the chaos...

Anyway, I liked it alot.

I must have been watching Transformers then by mistake..

[Kyle Harrington]

Film and intellect

I worry about the seemingly endless need these days to pander to the base instincts of the human psyche with regard to film making. Sam Mendes (American Beauty) alluded to such sentiments recently. Unless there are endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence the money people, namely the investors, do not want to know. Dunkirk was a splendid film which humanised the sheer terror invoked by war; you did not need dozens of Stukas or body parts flying around on the contrary it looked at ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. No Brad Pitt with shiny teeth slaughtering untold Germans whilst simultaneously admonishing his weaker counterparts. There again to each his own I suppose. What come of Hollywood these days is mostly brain dead drivel.

[kammo man]

No Brad Pitt...........
Just a Spitfire with NO engine and a nut case who kills a kid by throwing him down the stairs.

[Totenhead]

I worry about the seemingly endless need these days to pander to the base instincts of the human psyche with regard to film making. Sam Mendes (American Beauty) alluded to such sentiments recently. Unless there are endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence the money people, namely the investors, do not want to know. Dunkirk was a splendid film which humanised the sheer terror invoked by war; you did not need dozens of Stukas or body parts flying around on the contrary it looked at ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. No Brad Pitt with shiny teeth slaughtering untold Germans whilst simultaneously admonishing his weaker counterparts. There again to each his own I suppose. What come of Hollywood these days is mostly brain dead drivel.

I disliked the film for the lack of none of the above mentioned

[WWIIBuff]

I worry about the seemingly endless need these days to pander to the base instincts of the human psyche with regard to film making. Sam Mendes (American Beauty) alluded to such sentiments recently. Unless there are endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence the money people, namely the investors, do not want to know. Dunkirk was a splendid film which humanised the sheer terror invoked by war; you did not need dozens of Stukas or body parts flying around on the contrary it looked at ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. No Brad Pitt with shiny teeth slaughtering untold Germans whilst simultaneously admonishing his weaker counterparts. There again to each his own I suppose. What come of Hollywood these days is mostly brain dead drivel.

I completely disagree. You do not need endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence to make a good war movie. In my opinion the best war movies were made in the 1940's and 1950's, and they did not an extreme amount of this. A perfect example is the 1958 version of Dunkirk. Of course it showed some death and destruction, otherwise it would not have been accurate, but no body parts being thrown around.

Oh, and the dozens of stukas, I guess those would only be needed if you wanted the movie to be accurate.

[Woolgar]

I worry about the seemingly endless need these days to pander to the base instincts of the human psyche with regard to film making. Sam Mendes (American Beauty) alluded to such sentiments recently. Unless there are endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence the money people, namely the investors, do not want to know. Dunkirk was a splendid film which humanised the sheer terror invoked by war; you did not need dozens of Stukas or body parts flying around on the contrary it looked at ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. No Brad Pitt with shiny teeth slaughtering untold Germans whilst simultaneously admonishing his weaker counterparts. There again to each his own I suppose. What come of Hollywood these days is mostly brain dead drivel.

I absolutely agree

[Totenhead]

No Brad Pitt...........
Just a Spitfire with NO engine and a nut case who kills a kid by throwing him down the stairs.

Do you not think that was included in the film to make a point about PTSD ?
I am really surprised they didn't include a gay relationship type of event to keep everyone happy also. And I amazed one of the Spitfire pilots was not black also.

It was funny last week, I was watching a 3 part BBC documentary about the Battle of Hastings and it turns out that William, the Duke of Normandie's right hand man was black, really ?
I must stress I am not racist or homophobic what so ever

Just a crap pretentious film in my opinion, nothing to do with the lack of blood and gore and senseless killing.

But wait a minute, wasn't there plenty of blood and gore and senseless killing leading up to and during the Dunkirk evacuations.
The film didn't need to show any of that of course, its a poor movie for reasons other than that

The director stated in an interview " he wanted it to appeal to modern cinema audiences "

I had in fact not been to the cinema in 10 years up until the other week to watch this nonsense.

My only conclusion is that modern cinema audience's simply want their senses bombarded by endless noises and visual effects.

I left the cinema completely bored and with no emotion what so ever
It does not convey any of the importance of the campaign or what was at stake should the evacuation fail at all

Just terribly dumbed-down for modern cinema audiences

The Spitfire scene at the end was embarrassing. I didn't need a feel good film because of Brexit, I didn't want to sit there waiving a Union flag either, I just wanted a good honest portrayal of Dunkirk and this was not it
Piss poor

[Woolgar]

No Brad Pitt...........
Just a Spitfire with NO engine and a nut case who kills a kid by throwing him down the stairs.

So that's what the film is about ?

Thanks for your learned review

[Woolgar]

Do you not think that was included in the film to make a point about PTSD ?
I am really surprised they didn't include a gay relationship type of event to keep everyone happy also. And I amazed one of the Spitfire pilots was not black also.

It was funny last week, I was watching a 3 part BBC documentary about the Battle of Hastings and it turns out that William, the Duke of Normandie's right hand man was black, really ?
I must stress I am not racist or homophobic what so ever

Just a crap pretentious film in my opinion, nothing to do with the lack of blood and gore and senseless killing.

But wait a minute, wasn't there plenty of blood and gore and senseless killing leading up to and during the Dunkirk evacuations.
The film didn't need to show any of that of course, its a poor movie for reasons other than that

The director stated in an interview " he wanted it to appeal to modern cinema audiences "

I had in fact not been to the cinema in 10 years up until the other week to watch this nonsense.

My only conclusion is that modern cinema audience's simply want their senses bombarded by endless noises and visual effects.

I left the cinema completely bored and with no emotion what so ever
It does not convey any of the importance of the campaign or what was at stake should the evacuation fail at all

Just terribly dumbed-down for modern cinema audiences

The Spitfire scene at the end was embarrassing. I didn't need a feel good film because of Brexit, I didn't want to sit there waiving a Union flag either, I just wanted a good honest portrayal of Dunkirk and this was not it
Piss poor

[Totenhead]

I completely disagree. You do not need endless scenes of destruction, massacres, and untold violence to make a good war movie. In my opinion the best war movies were made in the 1940's and 1950's, and they did not an extreme amount of this. A perfect example is the 1958 version of Dunkirk. Of course it showed some death and destruction, otherwise it would not have been accurate, but no body parts being thrown around.

Oh, and the dozens of stukas, I guess those would only be needed if you wanted the movie to be accurate.

I completely concur, well said my friend !

This new Dunkirk film could have been directed/produced by a child compared to the 58 movie !!!

[Woolgar]

Piss poor is a bit harsh ?

[kammo man]

So that's what the film is about ?

Thanks for your learned review

Who knows.


Maybe the guys standing in line on the beach are queing up for fish and chips ?

[Totenhead]

Piss poor is a bit harsh ?

nope
wasted oppurtunity in my opinion, there wont be another film about Dunkirk

[Totenhead]

Who knows.


Maybe the guys standing in line on the beach are queing up for fish and chips ?

[Totenhead]

I returned from Normandy just over a week ago

Just finished watching The Longest Day. Watched it 3 times the past few weeks.

Great film, not perfect by any means, the point is, there is no needless blood and gore portrayed, no extreme violence, no limbs flying all over the place.

But its a good honest portrayal of the Normandy Landings.

Oh and guess what, there are Germans in it !!