Nolan's Dunkirk

Mar 2014
6,533
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
#12
I avoided this when it was in cinemas as it just seemed like it would be two hours of being bombed on a beach, which didn't seem like a good investment of either time or entertainment money.



Having finally seen it, I'm quite impressed. The aerial sequences were especially well done. This is a pretty clever bit of film-making, weaving four different stories into one connected narrative. But just like *almost* every other movie named after some battle, it's the title that's misleading. It's just vignettes that take place during Dunkirk, not a history of the battle.
 
Mar 2015
1,286
Yorkshire
#13
Good idea - chop it into four bits and paste into any war movie.

But complete junk if you want to get a flavour of Dunkirk.

That is on good authority.

I showed it to my father:

Machine gunner, rear guard through Belgium and France, Company destroyed by Guderian's tanks at Wormhout, crossed German lines, 4 hours in no-mans land, got on one of last boats out, French Destroyer, dropped off at Cherbourg, joined 52nd Division, finally evacuated again from Cherbourg in small boat, 6 soldiers.

It was nothing like his experience.
 
Jun 2010
3,326
Colorado Springs (PA at heart)
#14
Good idea - chop it into four bits and paste into any war movie.

But complete junk if you want to get a flavour of Dunkirk.

That is on good authority.

I showed it to my father:

Machine gunner, rear guard through Belgium and France, Company destroyed by Guderian's tanks at Wormhout, crossed German lines, 4 hours in no-mans land, got on one of last boats out, French Destroyer, dropped off at Cherbourg, joined 52nd Division, finally evacuated again from Cherbourg in small boat, 6 soldiers.

It was nothing like his experience.
Well when they interviewed a veteran who was actually at Dunkirk he said it was just like being there again. Other vets also said it was very accurate: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...en-sturdy-calgary_us_5975909de4b00e4363e085d8
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,692
Georgia, USA
#15
I went to see the movie in the cinema...it was boring.

Tom Hardy was totally wasted.


The who act with the soldiers hiding in a boat was just stupid.


There was no stirring action...Nolan should have watched John Mills and Bernard Lee in the 1958 version "Dunkirk" a hundred times before being let loose with a big budget movie.


There's a great story to be told about Dunkirk, sadly Nolan blew it.
 
Aug 2016
5
London Ontario Canada
#18
This movie(DUNKIRK) fails to tell the truth

This movie(DUNKIRK) fails to tell the truth about Churchill and his lying or his deliberate untruthfulness blaming the Belgian King and the Belgian army for the BEF's defeat in 1940. When in truth it was the Belgian King and the Belgian army that sacrificed themselves to allow the BEF to escape! Listen to Lord Keyes Admiral of the British Fleet as he speaks to the BBC on THE GREAT LIE!

 
Oct 2015
886
Norway
#19
Christopher Nolan is a first-rate director and I enjoyed the movie. The use of editing, time and point of view was clever. Unlike most action and war movies today, I think he used too little CGI. He should have used CGI to multiply the number of soldiers on the beach and to show a full sqadron under Tom Hardy's command.
 
Nov 2015
1,747
Bye, bye
#20
This boring movie looks a lot like a copy of Henri Verneuil's 1964 " week end in Zuydcote " but much less talented.
I'm not the only one who finds similarity striking to the point of ridicule.

A damning comparison for Nolan . In fact Henri Verneuil's film, which deals with the same subject, is much better:
:rolleyes:


I went to see it at the cinema and I feel like I've been ripped off by the trailer that promised something else and I have the impression that millions of people are in the same case.
 

Similar History Discussions