New Dunkirk Film

*btw what a load of old cobblers this story is. ffs talk about a nothing story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861

I watched it earlier in the week.Nothing more than OK.

Visually very impressive but very little character development.

The kind of film you'd happily watch once but not a classic.

7/10 from me.

All the critics loved it; if you read your link, even the Indians love it.

Not seen it (yet) but a couple of people at work were raving about it. They saw it at an imax if that makes a difference.

Apparently filming was incredibly scary and lifelike and the actors were petrified.

Not for nothing is he now nicknamed Harry Stools.

old one with john mills was far better

I'm seeing it tomorrow afternoon at The Brixton Ritzy so will give my critique when I get home. £27.60 for two tickets

That Harry Styles is a talented lad tbf to him

Haven't seen it yet but mate seen it and said it was ok, and the hype worked because the cinema was full, said the old film was far better and more emotional. This is just a load of action with explosions and planes flying.

Still intend to see it but reckon the Imax experience might be best, although not expecting the epic some critics have called it.

Great film by Nolan, a consistently prodigious director. A couple of gripes for me though, for a war film there is precious little blood or guts to be seen, hence the 12A certificate, more bums on seats I suppose, and the rumbling low bass soundscape in the soundtrack, that was used to such great effect on Interstellar, really grated on my nerves here and gave me a sore head. 4/5

Now that lemmy's dead, we need someone to bring oppressive rumbling low bass to the masses!

I saw it last night. Was completely underwhelmed.

Before I waste my critique only to be told "You cannot edit this post"... I'll try a test post first.

Oh dear, not what I wanted to read Clerkmore

Well that worked so...

Dunkirk?? A bit of a waste of money TBH.  It's a film for the touchy feely generation and more PC than most. The film opens with a statement, "British and French forces are forced back to the coast by the "enemy"! I know we voted for Brexit and are supposedly still part of the EU family but I think you're allowed to say "Germans" or "Nazis". Next scene, a group of armed British soldiers making their way through the streets of the town when they come under fire from behind. What do they do? Run away of course and all bar one gets shot in the back. Then the film got worse.

@badjoe --  the rumbling low bass soundscape in the soundtrack, that was used to such great effect on Interstellar, really grated on my nerves here and gave me a sore head

That's worrying. I've heard people raving about the soundtrack and I've made a note to back the composer for the Oscar -- but maybe it depends on your cinema's sound system.

Maybe war films have peaked with Shaving Ryan's Privates? Pearl Harbour was sh1t.

Fury was awful, Heroic Brad Pitts sherman tank attacked by wave after wave of crack SS troops who for some reason repeatedly attacked the disabled and immobile tank's front with small arms, even trying to clamber onto it, rather than walking round the back and putting a panzerfaust up it's Shermany poop pipe.

The A Team was more realistic.

Saw it last Sunday. Disappointed. Maybe cos I looked forward to it for a year or so.

The music is so loud it was unbearable at times. Very gripping film but I thought it missed the point.

Nolan said he wanted it to be all about the survival of the soldiers. Fair enough but the Dunkirk story is all about the rescue of the British Army by CIVILIANS.. 700 boats in fact. I think I counted 10 in the film...

He focuses on one of these and it's very good but downplays the magnitude of the rescue operation. 700 boats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thin we see as much of the navy as we do of the small boats.

We don't see the 300k men on the beach. Maybe a few hundred in one scene. At other times just a few.

It's a very tense film and on imax the scenes are incredible to watch. Nolan wanted the younger generation to learn what happened and I think they'll be none the wiser as to the size of the civilian led operation.

I'm in no rush to watch it. I'll either wait for a decent copy on the kodi, or for it to come on Sky.

On a different note, I've just watched the trailer for Atomic Blonde (when I first saw the cover I presumed it was a Debbie Harry bio) and read a couple of decent reviews. It sounds like there's some Charlize Theron, girl on girl action in it!

The music is so loud it was unbearable at times

That's why I hate going to the cinema, maybe because I'm getting on but the sound is always unnecessarily loud.

"........for a war film there is precious little blood or guts to be seen, hence the 12A certificate, more bums on seats I suppose"

Hard to show the true horrors of war with a 12A certificate, but with Harry in it (gimmick or what ?) I suppose they didn't want to eliminate the younger audience. Although good in a way so young kids get to know about the war. Some interesting comments on here,  haven't seen it yet, I was looking forward to seeing it but now seems it might be a totally overrated film (?)

a fake rolex

o/p

I watched Original Last week John Mills ETC  8/10 , Waiting for Slips Update

Booked tickets for tomorrow regardless but looking forward to SlippyBlues review.

I'll let you know tomorrow night nanny what I thought of it when I get home

It has got 8.6/10 on IMDb which is a very huge score for that site.

Seeing it tomorrow, I somehow lost a day !

93% rotten tomatoes

It's a very good war film. At the time Dunkirk was a military disaster. Looking back it was a huge victory, won by civilians.

I just think the sheer scale of the rescue mission was underplayed, which is a shame.

Havent seen it yet. I have 'altered' (i wont say lowered) my expectations based on a few things i know already..

1. The running time is short because Nolan didnt intend it as 'an epic warfilm'. He wanted a Nolan film set in Dunkirk.
2. Ive never liked his over-dynamic volume, inception was the worst for turning the volume up to hear people speak and then turning it back down for explosions.
3. Expecting him to over-compensate for the accusations of lack of emotion in his previous films.

I think hes a cracking film-maker on the whole though.

Surely worth watching just to see Harry Styles!!!

(Sitting here waiting for the flak - excuse the pun!!!)

LOL Slip   93%

Just got back from the cinema.....dont fall for the hype ffs........Average at best.....5-10.

thx

Dunkirk - 1958 -  John Mills, Richard Attenborough, Bernard Lee

war surplus was still around. uniforms. arms.

authenticity ?

but you can watch the remake, the shine on the t u r d is better

Thanks ACEY RT generally a decent Guide

Saw it a the Letchworth Broadway this week, beautiful art deco theatre well modernized and only £12 for to tickets.

Very little plot, story or character development, star of the picture was Mark Rylance's jumper.

Great sound and special effects.

Still trying to work out why Tom Hardy was still wearing his Bane mask

Good ,but not brilliant or memorable. For realism, not a patch on SPR.

Bad timing with the racing from Ascot, but the original 1958 film Dunkirk starring John Mills is on ITV4 this afternoon at 3-15.

Not worth the trip to the cinema.
Relies on the scenery.
Little substance .
Save your cash.
No sign of the Hurricanes that actually played an important tole.
The only Royal Navy ships were drifting waiting
for a luftwaffe plane to finish them off --
unless an odd spitfire  shot them down first.
In real life the Royal Navy saved over 270,000 of the 330,0000 saved.
The true story of the Officer running the Mole is even more exciting than
Kenneth Branagh's man, Gibson.
Unfortunately..., he didnt make it.

I'm off out to Brixton now to see it, I'll give my tuppence worth on what I thought when I get home.

Dont expect to much Slippy.

Garbage with a Capital G.

@Injera -- re little ships -- yes they were important but most were crewed by the Royal Navy, not their owners; most shuttled soldiers from the beach to the big ships; most soldiers were picked up by the navy from the mole.

The common complaint at the time was the RAF was nowhere to be seen but as a C4 documentary proved recently, they were mainly too high up and too deep into France to be seen from the ground. The air battle is a significant part of the film and somewhere there was an interview with Nolan saying they compromised historical accuracy by giving the German planes yellow noses to make it easier to see who was on which side.

watching Mills etc in the old Dunkirk as I type

Search Youtube for war walks dunkirk for Richard Holmes's documentary (25 mins). It is a shame the BBC never released War Walks on DVD.

Thanks Ram - didn't know that.

@Injera -- having said that, Holmes says largely civilian crewed, so take your choice. (Punting at Ascot not helped by typing here.)

"they compromised historical accuracy by giving the German planes yellow noses to make it easier to see who was on which side."
Not sure how historically inaccurate that is, it actually was quite common for 109s anyway to have yellow painted noses to prevent friendly fire thought sometimes just the bottom.

I wondered about that myself years ago as it seems strange to do a nice cammon job then stick a hi vis vest on the ****ing front of it, but that's the reason.

Knock yourself out, first image;
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/02/stuff_eng_profile_bf109.htm

Half way down concrete example, Caffiers, France, October 1940, yellow nose.

No -- Holmes says civilian crews were often replaced for subsequent trips. (Still no winners.)

@Just Checking -- yes, German planes did have yellow noses but that was later in the war. Nolan knew that but needed them to distinguish their planes from ours.

The first example on that page is 1939 and the one half way down clearly says france 1940?
Susprisingly for your by-the-book-follow-orders germans they seemed to have huge freedom in each squadron to paint them how they liked, so it varied.

(Those black and white stripes you see on allied planes were for the same reason, added time of D Day onwards to identify allies to stop friendly fire)

Though now I read that middle example it does say "I have decided to include this 109E-4 of 2./JG 52 to illustrate the use of large areas of yellow paint introduced in the Autumn of 1940 in the later stages of the Battle of Britain.". I'll shut up now . But the first one IS poland and 1939, which is pre dunkirk so .. maybe there were some

I would have said the Spitfire was rather obviously British...

I think the best part of the film was watching those scenes. A beautiful aircraft.

It's hard when similar planes shoot by to ID them, some troops would shoot at anything. As I think that page said, the germans in poland were apparently losing more planes to friendly fire than to the poles.

Another interesting one is if you ever look at the british / australian planes in the far east in ww2, they removed the red dot from the RAF roundel,it's just a blue circle with a white filling. Even seeing a glimpse of a red circle and be mistaken for japanse was considered bad enough to warrant that, that's why they were different.

e.g.
http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/NewsStoriesF/RoundelRou...

Well, we have just got home. It's difficult to know where to start about the film 'Dunkirk'.
It was so appallingly mind numbingly tedious and boring I very nearly fell asleep half way through.

I'd give it 1/10 and that's only because I'm in a good mood after a really lovely Mexican meal in Acre Lane in Brixton afterwards.
http://www.barriobars.com/brixton I would heartily recommend that place to anyone, I wouldn't however recommend 'Dunkirk' to anyone. It truly was an absolutely dreadful film and that is 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.

Don't bother wasting your time seeing it, it's an absolutely meaningless croc of the highest order.

Had a feeling it was just popular amongst the left wing media.

Slippy, the new Barry Norman.

Could you elaborate Slippy? (On the film not your splendid Mexican).

I thought it was embarrassingly awful, 400,000 on those beaches and yet in Nolans view a few lines of blokes looking as if they're queuing for a p**s. The whole thing looked cheap, impossible to suspend disbelief when something is so lacking visually. No characters, no plot, incoherent pointlessly jumbled structure, and as a spectacle it failed on every level. Really looking forward to it too. A complete shame.

Just look at the Dunkirk scene in Atonement for a glimpse of how it should have been done...

A few lines of blokes looking as if they're queuing for a p**s does not a visual spectacle make, impossible to suspend disbelief when confronted by such cheapness. No characters, no plot, pointlessly jumbled incoherent structure... at least the sound design had a go at doing something interesting (if not always successfully). So looking forward to seeing it and I couldn't have been more disappointed.Shame.

For a glimpse of how it should have been done look at the Dunkirk scene in Atonement Mr Nolan...

Apologies, thought it hadnt posted so did it again but couldnt remember what I wrote the first time exactly...

I saw on the news or something else they interviewed a 100 year old Dunkirk veteran just after he'd seen the film, he was in tears saying that's just how it was and he lost so many friends, seems obligatory for every war film made now, do the film producers scout around to find veterans just to get some cheap promotion for their films?

That Atonement scene is in a different league lux.

Thought it was outstanding. The pace, the acting, the cinematography, the script, the score, the impending dread, all done magnificently.

Lux summed it up perfectly imo.

1/10 slippy

shows you critics can be wrong,they raved about it

Slippy obviously hasn't seen the film imo. A phroum blagger it seems.

I've just got back from watching the film. First half an hour or so i thought there is no thread to this story and that it was a bit of a mess and a typical modern over the top drama. By the end i thought that it was in fact a decent/good film and imo well worth a watch.


Key points:

Don't forget this is a 12A rated film.

Those that say where are the 300,000 soliders. They were never all on the beach at the same time ffs. The evacuations lasted over a week! Look at the picture on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

Personally i'd rather watch a documentary than a film but i enjoyed this for what it is a 12A film.

This is not for the Mongs who like Tarantino.

I'm going to give this film 7.5/10

For under a tenner well worth a trip to the cinema.

Saw it tonight on I-max screen. It was ok , nothing special, all the hype in the papers I was tbh a bit disappointed 6.5/ 10

looks like a marmite film

I wonder what the german for marmite is? Probably "Lookslikeshitmarmalade" or something

Extrakt aus Hefe?

It's a 19th-century German invention, oddly enough. It was Justus Freiherr von Liebig, possibly the greatest chemist who ever lived imo, who discovered how to concentrate and bottle brewer's yeast. He also invented the Oxo cube.

It was all part of his efforts to educate people in where the actual nutrition comes from in food. He got frustrated by people pouring away the fat and juices from meat, for instance, as that's where the goodness lies, hence the Oxo cube to restore those juices.

He discovered all the secrets of what makes crops grow (basically, if a single vital mineral is lacking in the soil, then it doesn't matter how much of everything else you have - nothing will grow).

Without his research there'd be none of the reliable crop yields we now take for granted.

I don't know what he would have thought of Dunkirk though.

Sounds like he had a brain, so I'd have said he'd have been a fan

Think I will give it a Miss ,Slip

Read 2 articles in The Guardian on this film.

First one headline 'With Dunkirk has Nolan proven he is as great as Kubrick?' Which is like arguing Jordan Henderson has reached the level of Hagi .

The other article totally demolished the movie , laughing that the Luftwaffe only had 7 planes etc

@tobermory -- Read 2 articles in The Guardian on this film.

First one headline 'With Dunkirk has Nolan proven he is as great as Kubrick?' Which is like arguing Jordan Henderson has reached the level of Hagi .

The other article totally demolished the movie , laughing that the Luftwaffe only had 7 planes etc

That article really seemed to be complaining that Nolan had not made a completely different film -- possibly even the BBC Dunkirk drama-doc with Benedict Cumberbatch which has been rushed out on DVD. If the Luftwaffe had only seven planes, we had only three Spitfires. Nolan has chosen three stories, with three main characters. To complain that in real life there was lots of other stuff going on misses the point.

And the complaint about not enough soldiers being on the beach is misguided -- a better point is how congested with ships the Channel was.

The irony of Dunkirk that Nolan missed is that it worked because we did what the Germans are stereotypically supposed to be good at. British planning and efficiency won the day and the Nazis were a shambles.

The Guardian's critical article is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

A blog about historical accuracy (and where it is lacking) in the film is here:
http://www.griffonmerlin.com/2017/07/19/dunkirk-does-historical-accuracy-matter/

Of course a film will focus on characters, that's what good films do? Iv'e not read the article and refuse to give the Guardian my traffic but to say there weren't enough planes as they seem focussed on characters is ridiculous.

It's like saying Band of Brothers was bad as it only focused on some characters in one company, or George Lucas did the rebel alliance an injustice by focusing on Han Solo and the Millenium Falcon. (Which was real by the way).

Not necessarily a shambles on the part of the Germans. Their armoured columns had already suffered casualties pushing the BEF back to the coast, there was heavy rain which made mechanized forces less effective and there was still the small matter of preserving strength in order to conquer the rest of France. They weren't to know at that point that so much of the French army was just going to melt away in a drunken shambles, to the extent that many French towns welcomed the Germans as a means of restoring order.

And far too many in the French establishment looked on Dunkirk as a political opportunity: the British, they said, had run away, leaving the French to their fate. So here was a chance to fill the vacuum under a new, German-organized system, with the British as the now irrelevant, untrustworthy neighbour across the Channel, desperate to negotiate peace terms. A sort of beta-version of the European Union, if you like.

But yes, there were a lot of German failings. Responsibility for dealing with the situation at Dunkirk was handed over to the Luftwaffe, to a large extent because the Luftwaffe had been created under the Nazis, unlike the army, which obviously pre-dated them. This looked like a good opportunity to give the newsreels a Nazi Party victory.

And it's also been suggested that while a seafaring nation such as ourselves would look on a beach as an exit door, to a Continental people it looked like the end of the world. The evacuation was simply not foreseeable to a German mind.

just saw this in the cinema, loved it, first 15mins were particulary awesome

Yeah and we know what sort of Judge you are Grant.

Jul 31, 2017 -- 11:06AM, acey deucy wrote:

Yeah and we know what sort of Judge you are Grant.

no idea what that means

Seen lots of good war films over the years,
BUT ONLY ONE GREAT WAR FILM WORTH WATCHING IMO,
NO BLOOD, NO GUTS, BUT A BRILLIANT STORY AND BRILLIANTLY ACTED..
.................DOWNFALL.............
WATCH IT, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY...

i heard it was a brilliant film dambuster,i hope to see it soon.

sounds like the remake is poor.
what a surprise - i expect a lot of whiz bang and poor characterization

cross of iron

enemy at the gates

paths of glory

all quiet on the western front(first version)

hell in the pacific

Jul 28, 2017 -- 7:35PM, zorrostrikes wrote:

Dunkirk - 1958 -  John Mills, Richard Attenborough, Bernard Lee war surplus was still around. uniforms. arms. authenticity ?but you can watch the remake, the shine on the t u r d is better

That movie was directed by Leslie Norman  (Barry's dad) .I watched that when i was 9 , thought it was very exciting at the time , small band of soldiers behind enemy lines trying to get to the beach. . Helped that it was the first i had heard of Dunkirk , not knowing how it turned out .They were suspicious that Germans may be wearing British uniforms , so they had a password question : 'Who won the league last year ? '

The Guardian is still churning out articles about this movie .........

One of their columnists has gone into full pc rage mode

'a racist brexiteer fantasy'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk...

In addition their are no lesbians in it - a shocking omission. Were their any capitalist grasping munition factory owners in it?

SlippyBlue 28 Jul 17 14:45 Joined: 11 Jun 12 | Topic/replies: 22,561 | Blogger: SlippyBlue's blog
I'm seeing it tomorrow afternoon at The Brixton Ritzy so will give my critique when I get home. £27.60 for two tickets

I rather wait for the network premier in 4 years time on Channel 5

Tobemory - Incredible how she gets Farage and Brexit into that article!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Went to see it last night, and after reading this thread my expectations weren't that high, but it wasn't bad, not that good either. I think they missed a trick because this could have been a lot better than it was. 6/10. Certainly not a classic war film (Bridge On The River Kwai, Ice Cold In Alex, Tora ! Tora ! Tora !)

went to see it last night. When I see a film like this I always have  the same feeling , something is missing.It was very poor nothing about it was good
and it would have been better if it had never been made.
0/10

There is no point making films if you don't have the aptitude to make films , the same thing with music or any art form today .no one in this film has that facility on the evidence of this one film.