|
Simple critique - See it. In IMAX. End of message.
|
Will do
Same applies to 'Baby Driver'
|
|
There was a trailer to that. Seems like a good sound-track
|
" Tequila"
Preferably Patron Gold in my limited experience of the stuff
|
|
Watched it last night - didn't live up to the hype! - bit disjointed - dissapointing!
|
|
Going thursday, reviews seem to swing from poor to excellent. All about expectations I guess.
|
Like marriage you mean?
Tee hee
|
|
Very mixed reviews from what I've seen. Its filmed in such a way some get it some found it confusing.
|
|
I don't know what was confusing about, potentially the different time frames employed for the various storylines (boat 1 week, air sequences 1 hour) - they fused beautifully together - The 1958 original has far more depth to it, characters are more rounded and the events leading up to the evacuation are better covered. Beautifully weaved together though, the dogfighting sequences are good, with almost a "gaming" quality at times (good thing). If it was a toss up I'd take the 1958 version...
|
Heavy on the CGI. Very much enjoyed.
Just how far can a Spitfire glide at low altitude???
Reminder of how low things were for us at that point in history and the suffering of the many. Then how we picked ourselves up and fought back. With help of course.
|
|
And the burning Spitfire had no engine...I forgive it though :-)
|
|
1958 version was filmed at Rye (docks, bridge in to Dunkirk) and Camber Sands for the beach scenes!
|
And Thames Ditton/Teddington for the Thames scenes. The 58 original was a complete historical lesson covering the collapse of the French, outflanking the British, reasons for withdrawal, retreat across Belgium, preparations at home, gathering the little ships getting there, getting them off, and getting them back.
As far as I can tell, the 2017 film is just about the beachhead.
|
|
You're right Zero. Due a re-visit. The bike and I are sailing into Dunkirk on Thursday - always give a thought to the guys when I pass through.
|
>> I don't know what was confusing about, potentially the different time frames employed for the
>> various storylines (boat 1 week, air sequences 1 hour) - they fused beautifully together -
Pretty much that yes, some found it confusing or not particularly well stitched together.
|
|
....my dad didn't enjoy the original, so I doubt he would have been impressed by the remake........
|
|
My Uncle was there for the Original - got talking to my father about it tonight.
|
I did a boat trip a few years ago from Scarborough. Apparently the boat was used to cross the channel to rescue some soldiers at Dunkirk. Except it then returned multiple times which was not the plan.
No idea if true.
On my way back from Zebrugge on Friday, chap ahead of me in the passport queue was a good age. He was a WWII veteran - his badge on the blazer said as much. Wish I was a bit closer to speak. I lost one grandfather to WWII.
|
Two consequences of Dunkirk that are somewhat downplayed in the usual heroic story are
1) that lots of the French who were evacuated were allowed to opt to return to France and subsequently joined the Vichy forces.
and
2) against advice that it was a futile gesture a second BEF was returned to France and driven back by the Germans to the Atlantic coast and had to be evacuated all over again. Private pleasure craft from the Channel islands played a similar role as at Dunkirk.
|
|
I think we need an Antony Beevor book on the subject.
|
Chap I knew took out two German tanks with a single rifle shot at Dunkirk. I didn't know until I read his obituary, of course.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9207599/Lt-Col-Michael-Mann.html
|
>> Chap I knew took out two German tanks with a single rifle shot at Dunkirk.
>> I didn't know until I read his obituary, of course.
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9207599/Lt-Col-Michael-Mann.html
>>
Hell. That's some obit.. should be forced down the throats of the tiresome oiks that pervade these green lands.
|
|
A remarkable story of bravery, there's plenty in today's armed forces that have been as brave. Wellington was a tad more eloquent about the tiresome oiks in his world beating army. They've always been around !
|
>> Wellington was a tad more eloquent about the tiresome oiks in his world beating
>> army. They've always been around !
People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got b****** children -- some for minor offences -- many more for drink.
But rum, the lash and sodomy fixed that
Oh sorry, that was the scurvy bunch of low lifes that were press ganged into the Navy.
|
>> 2) against advice that it was a futile gesture a second BEF was returned to
>> France and driven back by the Germans to the Atlantic coast and had to be
Most the 51st (Highland) Division who had been in France since January, though, I thought? Any idea on the numbers of troops in the second BEF? lmgtfme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)#Second_BEF
suggests just a brigade group (which it puts at 5,000 men). In the end almost 200,000 British troops (Wiki again) were evacuated from France after Dunkirk.
|
|
The 1958 version is on one or other of the free channels next week, can't remember which one or what day though.
|
ITV4 on 29/07 at 15:15. With a 5 minute gap at 16:25 for FIY Daily and then it finishes at 18:00.
Probably loads of adverts too.
|
>> ITV4 on 29/07 at 15:15. With a 5 minute gap at 16:25 for FIY Daily
>> and then it finishes at 18:00.
>>
>> Probably loads of adverts too.
>>
Thank God for recorders.
|
Adverts and such like interruptions spoil movies.
But maybe the breaks are useful to some for toilet breaks? This is on for 2.75 hours but the original is showing as 2.25 hours. So titles plus adverts equals 30 minutes!
|
>> but the original is showing as 2.25 hours.
3,146 m (13 reels) of 35mm film apparently
|
>>
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)#Second_BEF
>>
>> suggests just a brigade group (which it puts at 5,000 men). In the end almost
>> 200,000 British troops (Wiki again) were evacuated from France after Dunkirk.
>>
"In 1953, L. F. Ellis, the British official historian, wrote that by the end of the informal evacuations on 14 August, another 191,870 men had been evacuated after the 366,162 rescued by Operation Dynamo, a total of 558,032 people, 368,491 being British troops".
|
Cover of Private Eye today shows hundreds of soldiers at Dunkirk crouching whilst under attack , one is saying......
'It's harder to leave Europe than we thought.
Made me smile...
|
Yes indeed. Which included a large number of men who were still in France after Dunkirk. Only those trapped there needed evacuating, the balance (most notably the 51st Highland) continued fighting in Northern France.
My question was: how many men were returned to France under BEF2, was it more than the single brigade group suggested by Wiki?
|
I left the cinema stunned.
It is without doubt the very worse film I have ever seen in my life. And I have seen some stinkers. Its only redeeming feature is that it is mercifully short.
|
|
Could you give us some reasons why you disliked it so much? Your view seems violently different from most reviews I have read. I intend seeing the film next week.
|
|
The Grauniad's damning critique is the funniest I have read for years.
|
>> The Grauniad's damning critique is the funniest I have read for years.
They gave it five out of five:
www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jul/17/dunkirk-review-christopher-nolans-apocalyptic-war-epic-is-his-best-film-so-far
Or do you mean this bizarre article "How the right-wing press view Dunkirk." I can't imagine the right-wing press caring about - much less publishing it!
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/21/dunkirk-movie-rightwing-writers-reaction-christopher-nolan
|
>> Could you give us some reasons why you disliked it so much?
I could, but I am not going to till you see it. You watch, I'll give you my thoughts, and then you can agree or not.
|
Finally got round to seeing this yesterday afternoon.
I found the film rather moving. I thought it portrayed the confusion, fear and despair rather well. The photography was briiliant with a minimum of CGI. All a mainstream blockbuster should be. Inrlligent and entertaining. I enjoyed it
|
|
Well said. I may get it on some format or other when it's released and watch it again. I think the confusion, fear and despair must have been very real.
|
>> Well said. I may get it on some format or other when it's released and
>> watch it again. I think the confusion, fear and despair must have been very real.
>>
As I've referred to up-thread (and elsewhere), I have my Father's diary covering the retreat and evacuation from Dunkirk.
He didn't tend to overplay it, and the daily entries (short, probably of necessity) are mainly low-key.
The feeling of fear (or at least, repeated and intermittent scary patches as they were, for example, bombed) certainly survives the low-keyedness, but I would struggle to find large elements of confusion or despair.
Remember, many of these people had been in France for over 6 months, surviving a dreadful winter, and were fairly young and by that point army-conditioned. They were 'used to' poor conditions and the system largely taking care of them.
From the record, it is very clear that they knew of the retreat. It is also clear that, though they may not have known exactly what they were to be doing days ahead, the chain of command was still in place. Accordingly, they moved backwards, camped, awaited new orders (which always seemed to arrive) and continued like that for some days. I suspect any feelings of despair were completely suppressed by the physical exertions and the job in hand.
I have to say that, short though the entries are, they really do make you look at that generation through completely different eyes!
|
Ok Here is my review.
I was expecting no historical accuracy, no explanations of how we got to the situation of an army on the beach. I wasn't fazed when the lead up was 3 lines of text on each of three title screens.
Ok Its drama I thought, drama and pathos. Ok fine bring it on. Happy with that.
So we got to our opening scene of our "stars" making their way through the rear guard. My "oh no" radar lit up with views of perfectly groomed soldiers, not even a days stubble or dirt on stiffly pressed uniforms making their way through untouched streets, no damage, no rubble looking like it was ready for the next days holiday season.
Stress? pathos? drama? any sign of any acting or scene setting at all? None. Not a bean.
great special effects? shots from a drone flying over a beach with three lines of soldiers (all in pristine uniforms) lining into the sea. THREE LINES? there were 10 of thousands of people there for christs sake and we get three straggly lines from a wide angle lens smeared in vaseline!!
well that was it, I knew where this was heading (more later)
We have wishy washy very poor CGI of spitfires "flying" for hours with no engines, we have one ruddy main ship, we have main characters we care nothing about because the script was rubbish (more later) so it turned into a three man side show. We have the bloke in his little ship who seemed to do rugger all apart from spout sage remarks in a questionable country accent, we have Biggles - aka Tom Hardy - performing unbelievable acts and we have (here comes the more later) commander Henry V. aka Kenneth Branagh reprising his role on a beach, I fully expected him to trot out the St Crispians day speech.
In Summary if you want to disperse with historical accuracy you need believable scene setting, characterisation - characters you care about, a back story, great script and great acting
All of it missing in spades.
As I said, possibly the worse film I have ever seen. And I have seen Michael Douglass play Liberace. At least when Quentin Tarantino interweaves different timescales into his films he gets continuity right.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 23:00
|
|
Ooh, thanks for the review, zero. I'd entirely forgotten I wanted to see that Liberace film. I must find it somewhere.
|
|
Sorry you didn't like it. Can't agree with oyour criticism though. I thought it one of the better film I gave seen this year. I guess different things appeal to different people
|
OK Zero you didn't like Dunkirk.
This afternoon I had the pleasure of seeing a film that even you might like. You need to find a child to accompany you but I promise it is absolutely brilliant.
It's "Captain Underpants"
Truly funny if you are 6 or sixty
|
|
I'll pass and stick with Despicable Me 3 and the minions, thanks
|
' Capt Underpants', 'Despicable Me' mit Minions. What's this forum coming to?
I say again... 'Baby Driver' with Jamie Foxx as the maddest, baddest mofo of the year
Even 'The Big Sick ' was far more enjoyable than 'Dunkirk', and that's a chick flick. For which I got brownie points.
|
I sent the harsh Guardian critique linked by Mike to my friend who went to see the film a few days ago with his wife. He's a bit of a film buff and capable of being critical.
Here's what he said:
[We] thoroughly enjoyed it. There was a good level of tension all the way through and it should be viewed as entertainment, not a Dunkirk documentary. If you can suspend disbelief that a ditched Spitfire would float for fifteen minutes - for dramatic effect - you'll be fine!
That's not enough to make me rush off and see it, I'll catch up with it eventually.
|
>> [We] thoroughly enjoyed it. There was a good level of tension all the way through
>> and it should be viewed as entertainment, not a Dunkirk documentary. If you can suspend
>> disbelief that a ditched Spitfire would float for fifteen minutes - for dramatic effect -
>> you'll be fine!
You also have to believe a spitfire will fly, climb, bank and shoot down an ME109, when it ran out of fuel and the engine stopped 30 minutes and 200 miles ago. You also have to accept the weather changes from calm seas and blue skies to grey skies and stormy seas at the same time and the same place. Continuity must have a been a dirty word in the cutting room.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jul 17 at 15:04
|
|
"very worse film" - worst...
|
>> "very worse film" - worst...
Blutwurst
|
>>All about expectations I guess. <<
Not up to expectations then I guess! ;-)
|
>> >>All about expectations I guess. <<
>>
>> Not up to expectations then I guess! ;-)
Having seen the reviews, I went in with completely open expectations.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jul 17 at 11:10
|
|
SWMBO was just pointing out yesterday that my Father was only 22 when he was evacuated from Dunkirk. (Younger than my lad, which makes an interesting comparison). Hadn't really thought about the age factor until then, it's all rather disturbing and humbling.
|
I've heard some criticisms of this film along the lines of:
The same Stuka was shot down three times.
There was only one plume of smoke rising from the beach.
You could see there was no engine in the burning spitfire, just a broom handle supporting the prop.
I'll wait 'til it comes on Free-view, but can appreciate if you ain't got Spielberg's clout, this is what you get.
|
>>I've heard some criticisms of this film along the lines of:
The same people will wax lyrical about the original Doctor Who episodes where the Daleks are made with odds and ends from the bathroom cabinet.
|
Somebody mentioned that Anthony Beevor should write a book about it. I read this book a few years ago
www.amazon.co.uk/Dunkirk-Fight-Last-Hugh-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/0241972264
Pretty good read, well researched.
One book that was written at the time, or shortly afterwards was
www.amazon.co.uk/RETURN-VIA-DUNKIRK-Gun-Buster/dp/B000XYW25Y
A pretty dark, but first hand report. Some unbelievably poignant bits about the artillery men shooting their horses. I'm sure I had some sand in my eye when I read it
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40852280
>>
Hmm. Guy Farrer, unusual surname. I was at school in the Richmond area with a Roly(sp?) Farrer. Any relation, I wonder?
|
Dunkirk. - legacylad
