Dunkirk - Film Review

[DeeJay]

I just took the youngest lad out to IMAX to see this film.
Pretty spectacular effects but maybe I was expecting more? They used little graphic effects which was a pity as I got the impression that money was tight for some scenes which I'm sure wasn't the case.
I'm seeing it again at the local flicks with my daughter & am looking forward to it. Maybe the IMAX $64 cost plus $28 for 3 hours parking plus travel & freeway tolls plus the usual ripoff ice creams etc was the downer for me..
The next time the tickets are free!! I'll probably really enjoy it. The air combat was the best part for me.

[Eevo]

a film i want to see

[Tins]

I just took the youngest lad out to IMAX to see this film.
Pretty spectacular effects but maybe I was expecting more? They used little graphic effects which was a pity as I got the impression that money was tight for some scenes which I'm sure wasn't the case.
I'm seeing it again at the local flicks with my daughter & am looking forward to it. Maybe the IMAX $64 cost plus $28 for 3 hours parking plus travel & freeway tolls plus the usual ripoff ice creams etc was the downer for me..
The next time the tickets are free!! I'll probably really enjoy it. The air combat was the best part for me.

Were there any British people in it?

[DeeJay]

Were there any British people in it?

Yes, it was lacking Yank speak....

[Pickles2]

Ain't seen it yet. My son in law is taking me to see it on Monday, after which I shall give my opinion, however in advance of actually seeing it, I expect it to be good, having noticed several 5 star reviews (5 out of 5!),.....which is highly unusual.
Pickles.

[Gordie]

Ain't seen it yet. My son in law is taking me to see it on Monday, after which I shall give my opinion, however in advance of actually seeing it, I expect it to be good, having noticed several 5 star reviews (5 out of 5!),.....which is highly unusual.
Pickles.We won't tell you how it ends then.

[101 Ron]

I have just finished seeing it.
No way for 5 stars.........More like 3.
I am into war movies and war history, but this one just didn't do it for me.
It lacks true story line or in depth study of the characters.
The visual effects of the ariel flighting was very good.
I feel some some other recent war movies are better, Like saving private Ryan.

[Dark61]

I used to live next door to a Dunkirk vet - Mr Walker - I was up for a chat or two about it from his perspective but all i got was how he had terrible constipation from his diet of boiled eggs and chocolate. I think he was on the sand for 4 days.
I would have thought the opposite effect would have been in evidence given the circumstances!
cheers,
D

[rocmic]

Going to see it this afternoon with my daughter. She saw it during the week with a friend and loved it. She is very keen to see it again. Will let you know what I think of it.
cheers
Mike

[incisor]

I used to live next door to a Dunkirk vet - Mr Walker - I was up for a chat or two about it from his perspective but all i got was how he had terrible constipation from his diet of boiled eggs and chocolate. I think he was on the sand for 4 days.
I would have thought the opposite effect would have been in evidence given the circumstances!
cheers,
D
funny how the human mind focuses on odd things when stress is involved

mate of my father who was a tobruk rat used amuse us with his odd recollections of obscure things that appeared to cover up the terrible bits.

more power to them, if it worked for them.

[grey_ghost]

I watched it yesterday. Quite like it - didn't love it. It just made me think how lucky we all are and how sad war is...

[Hall]

Being a bit of a keen war film watcher I am a bit wary about this film. To much these days where the true story is deemed too boring and replaced with special effects or a cheesy contrived love angle. The latest pearl harbor film and the one with the tank come to mind. That one with the tank was a real shocker. As posted saving private Ryan was pretty real for a film. Hill 6O is another great film. Has any one watched the 1958 Dunkirk film? That was true to the events and relied on story telling, not effects.
Cheers Hall

[Pickles2]

Being a bit of a keen war film watcher I am a bit wary about this film. To much these days where the true story is deemed too boring and replaced with special effects or a cheesy contrived love angle. The latest pearl harbor film and the one with the tank come to mind. That one with the tank was a real shocker. As posted saving private Ryan was pretty real for a film. Hill 6O is another great film. Has any one watched the 1958 Dunkirk film? That was true to the events and relied on story telling, not effects.
Cheers Hall
Pretty good cast in that one.
Pickles.

[Tins]

There's quite a good review here:

Nocookies | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/dunkirk-with-harry-styles-and-kenneth-branagh-a-topshelf-war-film/news-story/3314acbd1b82ff14e8dd6ca64563c9b0)

Probably paywalled though.

[Eevo]

^^ yep

[Tins]

Review of Dunkirk, by Stephen Romei. Source: The Australian Weekend Magazine, 22/23 July 2017.


Five star cinematic epicStephen Romei July 22nd, 2017
Dunkirk is a war film that is not a war film, yet will immediately enter theranks of the best war films made.


“You can practically see it from here,’’ says Commander Bolton, thehighest-ranking officer on the sparse white beaches of Dunkirk. “What?’’asks a soldier. “Home.”
Home. That is the anchor of Christopher Nolan’s remarkable Dunkirk, awar film that is not a war film and yet will immediately enter the ranks ofthe best war films made so far.
I walked out of the VMAX screening — and this is a movie that must beseen on a large screen — thinking it deserved 41⁄2 stars. The next morning Idecided on five. This score does not mean it’s perfect. What film is? But it is movie-makingat the highest level. The last film I thought on the cusp of five stars wasRichard Linklater’s Boyhood in 2014. Before that, Terrence Malick’s TheTree of Life in 2011, though I did not review it.



Dunkirk in northern France is 26 miles — as the British measure it (42kmfor us) — from England. It is 10km from the Belgian border.



As the Germans blitzed Europe in the opening months of World War II,about 400,000 soldiers, most of them British but including some French,Belgian and Canadian troops, were stranded at Dunkirk, “fish in a barrel”,as one puts it in this film, for the Luftwaffe.
The evacuation of Dunkirk took place from May 26 to June 4, 1940. Itinvolved more than 900 ships, including lots of small craft, some crewedonly by civilians. On June 4, Winston Churchill, prime minister for 16 dayswhen Operation Dynamo started, made his famous “we shall fight them onthe beaches” speech. The line that is less often quoted is his warning that“wars are not won by evacuations”.
London-born Nolan is a deliberate director. Everything that is in one of hismovies is there for a reason, as is everything that is not. Dunkirk excels onboth counts, but it is the second that I keep thinking about. The war is eight months old. Here are some of the people we never see orhear: Churchill, Adolf Hitler, politicians, war room generals. We do not seeGerman soldiers (until a brief final scene) or hear the word Nazi. They are“the enemy”. The valiant rearguard troops, mostly French, are not in themix. We do not see much blood, unlike say Mel Gibson’s fine World War IIdrama Hacksaw Ridge, and yet the building tension and constant fear isalmost unbearable.



There is little dialogue. There is no backstory for any of the characters; notone, which is something I don’t think I’ve seen in a war movie. We don’tknow where they come from, beyond their country (and that twists towardsthe end). Often we don’t know their names.
Character development is minimal to the point of non-existent. That’s not acomplaint. This is one almost unimaginable week in the lives of men we donot know, told in 106 minutes. When we do learn a tiny bit about a few ofthem near the end, particularly the civilian sailor Mr Dawson, it isrealistically simple and deeply moving. I haven’t mentioned the actors because this film is so immersive it’s almost as though they are not there. Itis the young soldiers who are there, unhardened boy-men who do not yetknow, as we do, the future enormity of this war. We care about them. Withthe exception of the outstanding Kenneth Branagh as Commander Bolton,the actors are hard to see.



The lead, if there is one, is a private named Tommy (20-year-old FionnWhitehead in his film debut). Star singer Harry Styles is another private,Alex. Cillian Murphy from Peaky Blinders is a near-mute shell-shockedsoldier with no name. The quietly commanding Mark Rylance is MrDawson, a tie under his jumper. That chameleon Tom Hardy is a Spitfirepilot, so we rarely see his face and when we do it’s masked. The onlywomen are nurses. This is a male-dominated film. This war is man-made.
All of these absences are there for Nolan’s reasons. He did not want tomake a sentimental movie, or one defined by heroism. He didn’t want tomake one about a victory. This is about the soldiers stranded on a beachand the civilians who helped rescue them.
The absences also counter one of the challenges in making a movie aboutsuch a well-known historical moment. Anyone who paid attention at schoolknows that Dunkirk is one of the largest military evacuations in history.But it’s not the result that matters here. It’s the days, hours, minutes on thesand, on the pier, in the water, in the sky. This time is precious andperilous. Quiet moments are harrowing, such as when Tommy and twomates sit on the beach and watch, without reaction, another soldier wadeinto the sea, seeking oblivion.
So are the action scenes, especially an extended one that parallels a groupof soldiers going underwater on a bullet-riddled small boat and a Spitfirepilot going underwater in his downed plane. Hans Zimmer’s heart-thumping score underpins every moment.
Nolan has a fascination for blurring time and memory, points of view and identity. As a cinematic technique this perhaps reaches its high point in hismind-boggling 2000 film Memento, starring Australia’s Guy Pearce. Hereit is more subtle but dramatic and poignant. Mr Dawson’s perception of theSpitfire hitting the water is not the same as the pilot’s, and the difference isamazing to watch.





Nolan tells the story from three perspectives: land, sea and air. There issome repetition and this, too, is quite deliberate. It underscores theendlessness of what the men are enduring, an endlessness that could endin a second. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema shot most of the movie,location Dunkirk, on IMAX 65mm film and the result is spellbinding.
The aerial battle scenes feel so real that viewers will check under theirarmrests for the cockpit release lever. Hardy’s pilot is calm, certain, doingwhat he knows he has to do. There is no bluster, no cheering, no jokes. Wesee how hard it was for a plane to shoot down another plane, the sort ofreality war films often avoid. Similarly, at sea, we see how quickly boats cansink when bombed or torpedoed. Nolan was able to put into the film 12 boats that were there at Dunkirk in 1940, historical vessels now. I suspectthese ones were not torpedoed.



The behaviour of the men on the beach is also unlike what we are used toseeing on the screen. They wait in queues, patiently, in Brodie helmets andcombat gear, for boats to take them home. When the Stukas drop bombsthe soldiers huddle on the sand or pier or, if on the sea, dive into the oilywater. What else can they do? There is nowhere to go. They are men whofollow orders, yet sometimes their raw humanness, their need to survive,comes out. One scene, where some soldiers decide one man must besacrificed so the rest can live, took me back to William Golding’s Lord ofthe Flies.
Nolan, 46, is the sixth highest-grossing film director. He has made the bestBatman movie, The Dark Knight, and sophisticated sci-fi films such asInception and Interstellar.
He might not be the first director who comes to mind for a war film. Nor isthe highest-grossing director, Steven Spielberg, yet he made one of thebest, Saving Private Ryan, as well as Schindler’s List. Nor is StanleyKubrick, who made two masterpieces 30 years apart, Paths of Glory (1957)and Full Metal Jacket. Like them, Nolan has used an outsider’s intuition tocreate something that will live inside viewers.
Dunkirk (M)
5 stars
National release






https://youtu.be/F-eMt3SrfFU

[landy]

I really liked this film. But I wanted to love it, I was really looking forward to it too. It just doesn't really have a story. It just sort of carries on from the opening scene. And it's a bit confusing how it follows a thread from one view then how's it again from another point of view.
but he biggest let down is it a. Didn't show the shear carnidge and military hard wear left on the beach and b. The heroic actions of the hundreds of small craft owners that went back and forth for days to save the men on the beach.

[Tins]

Those who want a different perspective, try Mrs Miniver, (1942). Neat bit of propaganda that bolstered the British and regarded by some as being a help getting the Americans to help in Europe.

[Pickles2]

Watched it compliments of my son in law this afternoon.
Five stars from me.
I guess any film cannot be "ëverything to everyone", and IMHO this film did not attempt to do that, but what it did do, is demonstrate, & show, very graphically, what it was like for individual people who were at Dunkirk, some of whom survived, and some who didn't, to be at the hell that was Dunkirk.
Dunkirk is mostly looked at in a "glorious heroic" light, but the reality, for the people that were there, was so much more,....and I believe that this was demonstrated very well by this film.
Pickles

[gofish]

Have not seen it but would like to. Also really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates.

[Eevo]

Also really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates.
terribly inaccurate but i love it.

[Pickles2]

Forgot to mention.
When we were in London several years ago, we went for a cruise on the Thames on a small boat. On the entrance to the cabin was a small plaque denoting that this boat had taken part in the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Pickles.

[S3ute]

Were there any British people in it?

I read in today's paper that a US film critic was disappointed in there being no women or people of colour in leading roles.

Apparently, there were few of either in the real thing...... perhaps we could rewrite some more history.

Cheers,

Neil

[Gordie]

I read in today's paper that a US film critic was disappointed in there being no women or people of colour in leading roles.

Apparently, there were few of either in the real thing...... perhaps we could rewrite some more history.

Cheers,

NeilWell I think the Germans should complain about being stereotyped as losing the war...lets make a movie where they win...just so we can be a bit more PC.

[Tins]

Well I think the Germans should complain about being stereotyped as losing the war...lets make a movie where they win...just so we can be a bit more PC.

Len Deighton wrote quite a good book where that had happened. SS-GB tells of a Scotland Yard officer trying to do his job, with the SS in charge in London. Quite a chilling picture of what would have happened if the Nazis had not stopped at the channel.

Not a PC book, by any means. Doubt if Len ever heard of that particular maligncy.

[S3ute]

It just made me think how lucky we all are and how sad war is...

Hello from Brisbane.

Tend to be in full agreement on that sentiment.

Cheers,

Neil

[stealth]

Len Deighton wrote quite a good book where that had happened. SS-GB tells of a Scotland Yard officer trying to do his job, with the SS in charge in London. Quite a chilling picture of what would have happened if the Nazis had not stopped at the channel.

Not a PC book, by any means. Doubt if Len ever heard of that particular maligncy.

Isn't that now a TV show now?

[cripesamighty]

Its a 5-part TV Series. There were some complaints about the 2nd(?) episode being too dark and the dialogue was too mumbly. Have yet to see it, but the book was good.

[rocmic]

Watched it compliments of my son in law this afternoon.
Five stars from me.
I guess any film cannot be "ëverything to everyone", and IMHO this film did not attempt to do that, but what it did do, is demonstrate, & show, very graphically, what it was like for individual people who were at Dunkirk, some of whom survived, and some who didn't, to be at the hell that was Dunkirk.
Dunkirk is mostly looked at in a "glorious heroic" light, but the reality, for the people that were there, was so much more,....and I believe that this was demonstrated very well by this film.
Pickles
Yep, my thoughts as well. Set out to tell the story through the experience of a few. No need for back stories or a lot of dialogue. This was about a brief but horrible episode. I think it has been done very well.
Cheers
Mike

[cripesamighty]

Also brings home with stark realisation the disposability of men/soldiers in wartime.

[DiscoMick]

Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation

Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation | Rafael Behr | Opinion | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/26/dunkirk-brexit-retreat-europe-britain-eec?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard)

Interesting review about the possible significance of Dunkirk.

[Hall]

Seems that the French are less than impressed with the film. Spitting frog legs more like it.
However, some French critics are saying that Nolan seriously underplayed one important historical fact: the role of the French military in helping Allied forces to evacuate Dunkirk. French historian, Dominique Lormier, points out to HuffPost France (translated into English from French) “the sacrifice of 30,000 French soldiers who prevented the total surrender of the British troops, who were already having trouble defending their territory.” In its review of the film, Le Monde asked the question, “Where in the film are the 120,000 French soldiers who were also evacuated from Dunkirk?”

just can`t please every one. Must say though it is a fairly big omission and could have been easily part of the film, even if it was some dialogue.
Cheers Hall

[bob10]

The greatest tactical blunder the Germans made in WW2. [ perhaps apart from invading Russia].Stopping short of the coast with their armoured divisions. Although at that time a large part of their supply chain was horse and cart. Some intelligence suggests that the Germans had a deal with sympathisers in England to put Edward on the throne in a Nazi occupied England, and expected an easy occupation. Along came the man of the moment, Churchill, and a band of heroes sailing small vessels to rescue a large part of their expeditionary force. No major heavy equipment came back, most did not have their personal weapons, and England needed a miracle to survive. They needed time, and the RAF gave them that. Along with hundreds of Commonwealth and foreign airmen, especially the Polish. This story is about those heroes in their little boats, and the soldiers who were rescued. In effect, a miniscule part of a huge War, but one of the most important . Britain should as be proud of their band of heroes in their small boats, as they are of the RAF, and Commonwealth Airmen.

[Hall]

The reason to some extent that they stopped short of the coast is what has got the French all fired up. 30,000 French died stopping the Germans long enough for the British to retreat and not a single mention in the film. I would also be a bit miffed.
Cheers Hall

[cripesamighty]

Some recently released/translated documents from several historians showed that Hitler knew EXACTLY what he was doing by not going in for the kill. It was plainly obvious to both him and his generals that sending the tanks in and ending the fight was the right thing to do. He deliberately didn't do this so as to show the generals who was ACTUALLY in charge and so would accept no dissent, no matter the outcome. He gambled that Great Britain was effectively finished and it didn't matter either way. History of course proved otherwise. It also lead to him playing musical chairs for the bulk of the war with Generals in the field so they could not get too established anywhere.

Another plan that got shelved at that time was once the Germans hit the French coast, they would head South, go through Spain and Portugal and then cross into North Africa. From there they would head East and take the Suez Canal and oil refineries in the Arab states. As Great Britain was in disarray they could have done this without too much trouble using the aircraft and pilots that ended up being needlessly sacrificed in what turned out to be The Battle of Britain. It would have given them the entire Mediterranean and a soft route into Russia in a two prong thrust. Luckily for the rest of the world that didn't happen.

A couple of presentations by historians for anyone who is bored as they are over an hour each!
The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg)
World War II Myths, Misconceptions and Surprises - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4)

[Rat_RR02]

I took my 14 yo son on the weekend and paid a little extra for the Vmax theatre. Glad I did that as the seats are better. Anyway, the movie was ok. I fully agree with 101 Ron when he said "No way for 5 stars.........More like 3" Yep, or if I was feeling generous 3 1/2 stars.

Best parts were watching the spits take on some Messerschmitt ME109s. Showed those dogfights pretty well with genuine tactics and flying portrayed. (Spits and Me109s were very similar in performance, the difference was pilot skill and numbers)
Worst parts were the directing and story line (or more precisely the lack of a story line) and how the movie seemed to ignore the French. My biggest peeve though was the films characters. I will not say more since I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone.

I can see how some people will like this movie, it was just not my cup of tea. All in all it is an ok movie and it is worth seeing once. (I am not racing out to buy a DVD or Bluray copy) My son liked it but I could sense that he wanted to see more story and less personal rubbish. He loves WWII history and he could tell me more about what happened than you see in the movie.

Cheers, Mick

[bob10]

Some recently released/translated documents from several historians showed that Hitler knew EXACTLY what he was doing by not going in for the kill. It was plainly obvious to both him and his generals that sending the tanks in and ending the fight was the right thing to do. He deliberately didn't do this so as to show the generals who was ACTUALLY in charge and so would accept no dissent, no matter the outcome. He gambled that Great Britain was effectively finished and it didn't matter either way. History of course proved otherwise. It also lead to him playing musical chairs for the bulk of the war with Generals in the field so they could not get too established anywhere.

Another plan that got shelved at that time was once the Germans hit the French coast, they would head South, go through Spain and Portugal and then cross into North Africa. From there they would head East and take the Suez Canal and oil refineries in the Arab states. As Great Britain was in disarray they could have done this without too much trouble using the aircraft and pilots that ended up being needlessly sacrificed in what turned out to be The Battle of Britain. It would have given them the entire Mediterranean and a soft route into Russia in a two prong thrust. Luckily for the rest of the world that didn't happen.

A couple of presentations by historians for anyone who is bored as they are over an hour each!
The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg)
World War II Myths, Misconceptions and Surprises - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4)

Good stuff, but it depends on what historian you read. This link tells it as I remember reading about it. I actually wasn't aware the British opened up a second front, after Dunkirk. To no avail.

Did the British abandon France by withdrawing in Dunkirk? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/Did-the-British-abandon-France-by-withdrawing-in-Dunkirk)

[Ausfree]

I also saw the movie, generally wasn't too bad. I liked the music which gave a sombre tone to the movie. The beaches looked a bit bare of equipment that was supposed to be abandoned by the Brits......guess the budget didn't allow for too much in the way of old tanks and and trucks scattered along the beach. When the second spitfire pilot went down in the channel and he was trying to get out of his cockpit before he drowned....didn't he have a sidearm to fire at the cockpit to break it, instead of banging at it with his fists.

BIG MISTAKE was to forget to make mention of the French except at the end when the officer was standing on the wharf and mentioned them.

Three and a half stars from me.

[DeeJay]

It seems it won't be long before there are no WW2 veterans around to pass on their views...


\97-year-old Canadian veteran shares his thoughts after watching the movie "Dunkirk". [VIDEO] (https://www.wimp.com/97-year-old-canadian-veteran-shares-his-thoughts-after-watching-the-movie-dunkirk/)

[Eevo]

since when is flying the white flag considered fighting?

[Dark61]

I was always under the impression that the French fought a tremendous rearguard action to buy time for the poms (and quite a number of French) to get away.
cheers,
D

[cripesamighty]

Not as much as would be hoped, although there were some standout units. Large sections of the French Army and Belgian army surrendered without much of a fight. Very poor High Echelon Staff decisions (both British and French) effectively had them fighting WW1 all over again and the new (yet to be termed) Blitzkrieg tactics meant lots of confusion on the ground and in the air. They incorporated no lessons learned from the Polish campaign and even collapsed quicker than did the Poles, especially given the unexpected thrust of the main attack (Ardennes forest). Many small debacles eventually led to a bigger debacle. It's a pity they didn't show some of the French and British units which actually DID slug it out and gave the Germans a bloody nose, especially some of the tankers and professional units (ie 51st Highlanders, see 'Dunkirk, the men they left behind' and 'Forgotten voices of Dunkirk') that held on weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, and fought a valiant rearguard action.

[DiscoMick]

Dunkirk offers a lesson – but it isn’t what Nigel Farage thinks | Zoe Williams | Opinion | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/dunkirk-lesson-nigel-farage-brexiters-war-stories-british)

[Homestar]

Well, finally got around to watching this - glad I didn't pay to go see it...

Wasn't aweful, but wasn't great either IMO. Almost fell asleep...

[Classic88]

I also found it very dull (apart from the Spitfire shots). I think it was because the characters involved were so anonymous or little explained. I'm not even sure the viewer knew any of their names. Which meant that quite frankly I didn't care whether they made it off the beach or not.

[landy]

I also found it very dull (apart from the Spitfire shots). I think it was because the characters involved were so anonymous or little explained. I'm not even sure the viewer knew any of their names. Which meant that quite frankly I didn't care whether they made it off the beach or not.

Couldnt agree more. Woeful film.

[TimNZ]

1 out of 5 for me. Yeah, the spitfire shots were great but that was about it.

[Tins]

1 out of 5 for me. Yeah, the spitfire shots were great but that was about it.

Generous IMV. The Spit was gorgeous, but a Spit had at most 15 seconds of firing from it's wing mounted .303s, while the plane in that film had about 15 MINUTES.

Also, fighters would rarely operate at sea level, which the "hero" seemed to do for most of the film.

( Yes, I know that various parts of the film were 'revisited for dramatic purposes' .)

If you want a romanticised version of the events of Dunkirk, I would suggest "Mrs Miniver". It had at least some of the emotions right.

1/2 out of 5 for me. Romanticised crap with some good cinematography. Best avoided.

[Tins]

Which meant that quite frankly I didn't care whether they made it off the beach or not.

Strangely, I believe that may have been what the director was aiming for. Anonymity. Seems he achieved it. Terrible film, yet so much potential.

[Eevo]

what did people want to see in the film?
epic story?
epic explosions?
more sex scenes?

[Tins]

what did people want to see in the film?
epic story?
epic explosions?
more sex scenes?

Accuracy perhaps?

It was a pivotal moment in the history of our society. Maybe you should do a little more reading, as I have suggested before. The evacuation of Dunkerque was a rallying call to all of Britain's allies. Sadly, modern teachings deny this, as your question implies.

[TimNZ]

what did people want to see in the film?
epic story?
epic explosions?
more sex scenes?

More epic story would have been nice. I'm just disappointed about the film being a missed opportunity, ie, my preference would have been more Saving Private Ryan, less, um, Pearl Harbour.

edit, scratch the epic story bit, the film lacked direction, it was all over the place. If the writers/director had stuck to historical accuracy they could have produced a better film.

Cheers,

[Tins]

More epic story would have been nice. I'm just disappointed about the film being a missed opportunity, ie, more Saving Private Ryan, less, um, Pearl Harbour.

Cheers,

"Saving Private Ryan" has about as much to offer as "Dunkirk". The only saving grace for that piece of Spielberg dross is how good Tom Hanks was. If you, or anyone else, believes that there was anything accurate about that film then I believe all those people in WW2 died for nothing, and John Wayne was President.

As for 'Pearl Harbour'. There was a film, "Battleship". That might be to your taste.

Battleship (2012) - IMDb (https://www.google.com/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjGw-nRk8nbAhWLVLwKHR_YC_IQFjACegQIARBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt1440129 %2F&usg=AOvVaw26rOzRCvtRHBxw27fEsuwI)

[TimNZ]

As for 'Pearl Harbour'. There was a film, "Battleship". That might be to your taste.

Battleship (2012) - IMDb (https://www.google.com/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjGw-nRk8nbAhWLVLwKHR_YC_IQFjACegQIARBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt1440129 %2F&usg=AOvVaw26rOzRCvtRHBxw27fEsuwI)

Thanks John, but I think I'll pass on "Battleship"....

Cheers,

[Tins]

Thanks John, but I think I'll pass on "Battleship"....

Cheers,

Well done. It was far, far worse. At least Dunkirk 'tried' for realism. Pity it missed. It could have been great, given the production.

It is possible I misconstrued your post. I hated Private Ryan as well, perhaps you did not. Hanks was brilliant.

[Eevo]

More epic story would have been nice. I'm just disappointed about the film being a missed opportunity, ie, my preference would have been more Saving Private Ryan, less, um, Pearl Harbour.

edit, scratch the epic story bit, the film lacked direction, it was all over the place. If the writers/director had stuck to historical accuracy they could have produced a better film.

Cheers,

the film was an accurate story, and they story wasnt epic. it wasnt all over the shop, it was three separate yet intertwined stories.

[RANDLOVER]

I watched the movie "Churchill" Churchill (film) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_(film)) on SBS the other night and was disappointed, as it actually seemed like an attempt to tarnish the great man. Dunkirk doesn't feature in it as it deals with the D-Day invasion, I posted here as it is about WW II.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

I thought Gary Oldman was great as Winston in "Darkest Hour",

[biggin]

I watched the movie "Churchill" Churchill (film) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_(film)) on SBS the other night and was disappointed, as it actually seemed like an attempt to tarnish the great man. Dunkirk doesn't feature in it as it deals with the D-Day invasion, I posted here as it is about WW II.

The programme wouldn’t have been shown on SBS if it hadn’t tarnished the great man. It’s just the way your tax dollar works.