Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
So educate me. Seriously. Ok the 400,000 weren't all on the beach at once, I know it took a week or so but other than that please enlighten me beyond your smug yep.
I grew up with the war in my house 24/7. My old man was in the Royal Engineers from 1943 and my mother was evacuated from Guernsey in 1940. So, my house was full of "the war" since I was born. Everywhere I looked there were books on it, every Sunday there was a war film on the tele, a large proportion of conversation was about it, etc. I've been studying the war since, so while not trying to be smug about it, I can claim a bit of knowledge on the subject.
While 'Dunkirk' has its share of problems, the ones you've outlined aren't indicative of them. The real Dunkirk never had 400,000 men packed together in one group. To do so would have been stupid, even if it would have looked cool in a film 70 years later. They were spread out over a very large area. This is borne out by photographic evidence.
Also, it was actually largely a "bloodless" affair, as far as war goes. The Germans halted their advance and confined their assaults to pin pricks and nuisance attacks, harrying shipping and the like and most dogfights took place far away from the actual beaches. But, by and large, the men of the BEF waited patiently to board their transports and head back to England. There were no 'Saving Private Ryan' moments and Stukas didn't dive bomb in their hundreds. Dynamo may have been an "astounding" feat, but it was so, precisely because of the lack of any real action to stop it - The Germans were probably unable to do so, if they'd really tried anyway. The Germans also didn't drive home their attacks and were reluctant to commit the bulk of the airforce. Hitler was largely happy to simply see the British gone from France. In fact, both sides used their forces quite sparingly.
So, while 'Dunkirk' looks pallid compared to the bombastic nature of something like 'Enemy at the Gates', 'Memphis Belle', Pearl Harbor' or the aforementioned 'Saving Private Ryan', it is, in fact, closer to depicting its true life events than any of those films, all of which are highly fictionalised takes on the war.
But, as said, it's certainly not without issues. The aerial scenes being the worst offenders, with Hardy's super shot Spitfire pilot downing suicidal Luftwaffe pilots, like he was flying in a computer game. The Germans never once seem to be acting like there real counterparts in any of those scenes and are there as simple targets for Fighter Command to do away with. The final sequence of Hardy downing a Stuka while out of fuel was laughable, at best and insulting at worst. There's also some guff from Brannagh that should have been left out of the film entirely, as well. A bit too movie and at odds with the rest of the film, I felt.
But, apart from that, Nolan does a great job. He admirably restrains himself from cliche (for the most part) and refrains from making it a hollywood bloodbath. Yet, he manages to keep the tension active superbly. It's shot well, acted convincingly, avoids "drama", eschews schmaltz and lets the events speak for themselves.
It's certainly not "best war movie of all time" and I haven't heard anyone actually say that, although there are sure to be some engaging in that type of hyperbole, no doubt. But it is a very good film, all the same.0 -
-
I grew up with the war in my house 24/7. My old man was in the Royal Engineers from 1943 and my mother was evacuated from Guernsey in 1940. So, my house was full of "the war" since I was born. Everywhere I looked there were books on it, every Sunday there was a war film on the tele, a large proportion of conversation was about it, etc. I've been studying the war since, so while not trying to be smug about it, I can claim a bit of knowledge on the subject.
While 'Dunkirk' has its share of problems, the ones you've outlined aren't indicative of them. The real Dunkirk never had 400,000 men packed together in one group. To do so would have been stupid, even if it would have looked cool in a film 70 years later. They were spread out over a very large area. This is borne out by photographic evidence.
Also, it was actually largely a "bloodless" affair, as far as war goes. The Germans halted their advance and confined their assaults to pin pricks and nuisance attacks, harrying shipping and the like and most dogfights took place far away from the actual beaches. But, by and large, the men of the BEF waited patiently to board their transports and head back to England. There were no 'Saving Private Ryan' moments and Stukas didn't dive bomb in their hundreds. Dynamo may have been an "astounding" feat, but it was so, precisely because of the lack of any real action to stop it - The Germans were probably unable to do so, if they'd really tried anyway. The Germans also didn't drive home their attacks and were reluctant to commit the bulk of the airforce. Hitler was largely happy to simply see the British gone from France. In fact, both sides used their forces quite sparingly.
So, while 'Dunkirk' looks pallid compared to the bombastic nature of something like 'Enemy at the Gates', 'Memphis Belle', Pearl Harbor' or the aforementioned 'Saving Private Ryan', it is, in fact, closer to depicting its true life events than any of those films, all of which are highly fictionalised takes on the war.
But, as said, it's certainly not without issues. The aerial scenes being the worst offenders, with Hardy's super shot Spitfire pilot downing suicidal Luftwaffe pilots, like he was flying in a computer game. The Germans never once seem to be acting like there real counterparts in any of those scenes and are there as simple targets for Fighter Command to do away with. The final sequence of Hardy downing a Stuka while out of fuel was laughable, at best and insulting at worst. There's also some guff from Brannagh that should have been left out of the film entirely, as well. A bit too movie and at odds with the rest of the film, I felt.
But, apart from that, Nolan does a great job. He admirably restrains himself from cliche (for the most part) and refrains from making it a hollywood bloodbath. Yet, he manages to keep the tension active superbly. It's shot well, acted convincingly, avoids "drama", eschews schmaltz and lets the events speak for themselves.
It's certainly not "best war movie of all time" and I haven't heard anyone actually say that, although there are sure to be some engaging in that type of hyperbole, no doubt. But it is a very good film, all the same.
I accept all your well made points no problem but still ask Huh ? 8.3 on IMDB ?
It was a lacklustre movie. I disagree that there was any tension at all. The score drove the tension into scenes that weren't tense at all. Take that score out and you have a bunch of lads looking up. While it was a fantastic endevour in real life maybe it just doesn't make for a good film because in reality it was a bit boring ? Obviously not for anyone there but from an audience POV 70 odd years later.
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/peter-travers-dunkirk-may-be-greatest-war-film-ever-w492668
I have no idea if you rate Rolling Stone but thats just one quick google of Dunkirk reviews calling it the best thing since sliced bread.
A quote:From first frame to last, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is a monumental achievement, a World War II epic of staggering visual spectacle (see it in IMAX if you can) that hits you like a shot in the heart.
It's shot well, acted convincingly, avoids "drama", eschews schmaltz. Agreed.0 -
I expected not to like Dunkirk, as I really don't like Nolans style, but I loved it with some reservations. Apart from the dogfights it was visually awful. Just awful. I'm all for minimal cgi but little of it looked authentic. At times it was laughable. Clothes and paintjobs all gleaming! The modern looking set of Dunkirk itself.
It kept pulling me away from the immersion.
The unrelenting score took the edge off scenes where it was supposed to build tension. The silence was a relief when I switched it off.
Apart from that it was great. I like that there was little or no character development. The story worked well, moved at a nice pace and there was enough there to know what the key characters were about. I found myself rooting for everyone half way through! 4/50 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
"A Breed of Heroes" (1994) BBC NI - on YouTube.
Gritty British army drama about the Northern Ireland troubles as things were kicking off in the early 1970s. A group of young officers react to their hostile surroundings in different ways. Starts off with a wobble but improves steadily and is well worth a look. It's a hard one to find as it never had a video or DVD release; it's only up a short time on YouTube and will probably be taken down before long.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement