Dunkirk

Good movie. If you like good war movies, you'll like it.

Very tense. Considering how many characters we follow and what's going on, legit do not know who is going to make it out alive.

The dive bombers were crazy nerve-wracking. They make you just sit there and listen to those engines scream down in an ever increasing hellish wail while you and everyone stuck on screen just wait with nowhere to go for the bombs to hit.

Edit: Apparently the JU 87 (the German dive bomber) actually had a siren mounted on the landing gear to make that hellish trumpeting wail as psychological warfare. Dear gods. ::Shudder::

I just got back from watching it and loved it, all except the flashbacks or different viewpoints they threw in.

They just cut from the present to another viewpoint that was presented 20 minutes earlier and you were just somehow supposed to know that's what was happening.

I didn't get it till about the 3rd flashback. I only got it when the they kept showing 2 spitfires flying instead of one (that won't give away anything) and I decided it had to be a different viewpoint of something we'd seen much earlier.

The boat sinking scene was the same way (still something that won't give away anything). It took forever to realize they were one & the same.

They obviously filled the movie with with real Brits. The list of actors was about 6 columns long and went on for several screens.

What no after credits preview of what was coming next? How do they intend to make any money unless they can do F&F type spin offs for at least 14 more movies.

In reply to carguy123:

At the very beginning they spell it out:

Air - 1 hour
Sea - 1 day
Mole - 1 week

It was a bit confusing, but ultimately don't think it detracted because the movie was more about feeling in the tension and nervousness of what was happening.

Is this perhaps the 1st WWII movie with no 'Mericans in it?

M2Pilot wrote: Is this perhaps the 1st WWII movie with no 'Mericans in it?

The actual events transpired before the US was officially involved in the war.

I thought it was amazing. Very little dialogue, and what there was needed subtitles half the time.

Yes, the Stuka had a very distinctive howl when it was in a dive. The sounds were a huge part of the movie, from the planes to the sounds of rounds hitting the side of a boat, to the silence when a plane's engine stops. No melodrama, no backstory, just people trying to survive and do their jobs.

And there's some great Spitfire porn, too.

the "little ships" of Dunkirk are quite celebrated and cherished. It is amazing how many of the small boats that crossed the channel to bring their soldiers home are still afloat

M2Pilot wrote: Is this perhaps the 1st WWII movie with no 'Mericans in it?

From an American studio? Possibly. In general? Not even close, Das Boot, Come and See, Downfall, etc.

There where Americans over there (see what I did there) at the time. They were flying for the volunteer Eagle Squadron (same concept as the Flying Tigers).

I just saw it. Some very impressive visuals. I loved how they shot the flying sequences, some really good angles.

Almost more of an experience then a story, but there is a story, it is quite literally history.

DEFINITELY a movie you want to see in the theater. Some of the flying sequences would be much less impressive on even a large TV.

As far as sequels are concerned: there is about 4 years of material with many millions of stories....

Watched it with the daughter-unit the night it came out. Zero idea what I was off to watch.

We are still discussing it and looking into some of the details.

This should do.

carguy123 wrote: I just got back from watching it and loved it, all except the flashbacks or different viewpoints they threw in. They just cut from the present to another viewpoint that was presented 20 minutes earlier and you were just somehow supposed to know that's what was happening. I didn't get it till about the 3rd flashback. I only got it when the they kept showing 2 spitfires flying instead of one (that won't give away anything) and I decided it had to be a different viewpoint of something we'd seen much earlier. The boat sinking scene was the same way (still something that won't give away anything). It took forever to realize they were one & the same. They obviously filled the movie with with real Brits. The list of actors was about 6 columns long and went on for several screens. What no after credits preview of what was coming next? How do they intend to make any money unless they can do F&F type spin offs for at least 14 more movies.

Woody wrote:

M2Pilot wrote: Is this perhaps the 1st WWII movie with no 'Mericans in it?

The actual events transpired before the US was officially involved in the war.

It's a prequel to "Saving Private Ryan".

mad_machine wrote: the "little ships" of Dunkirk are quite celebrated and cherished. It is amazing how many of the small boats that crossed the channel to bring their soldiers home are still afloat

Many years ago my parents owned a cottage on the Ottawa River, west of Montreal. Nearest neighbor was a marina , where we often hung out. One night an older cabin cruiser was docked and the owner was telling us it's history. Boat was built in the early 1920s, was confiscated by the RCMP during Prohibition off the coast of Nova Scotia, was used as a patrol boat by the Canadian navy , and subsequently ended up in England during the war. It was one of the small boats sent to evacuate Dunkirk. The guy had an album of photos of the boat from various previous owners and a copy of some navy documents to support the story.

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to carguy123: At the very beginning they spell it out: Air - 1 hour Sea - 1 day Mole - 1 week It was a bit confusing, but ultimately don't think it detracted because the movie was more about feeling in the tension and nervousness of what was happening.

That didn't spell it out at all because they didn't tell you what that meant and they'd still show the air and then 20 minutes later show the same thing from the ground after lots of story line had played out. The jumping back and forth in time with no break so you'd think it was a continuous time line was disconcerting and was hard to follow.

It's a movie that once you have seen it once, watching it a second time you'll "get it" more. Much like Pulp Fiction without the wierd drug scenes. Watched it Sat. Fantastic movie. Several scenes made me very uneasy (Stuka's, artillery). It was a really well done film.

And what the heck was "Mole"?

carguy123 wrote: And what the heck was "Mole"?

Wikipedia to the rescue! My understanding is that it's a common British term for something we'd call a pier or breakwater in the US.

In reply to carguy123:

Here's a good explanation. Its part of the jetty where they evacuated the troops from. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/21/16010992/mole-dunkirk-meaning-spy-jetty

Understanding that really wouldn't have helped the continuity problems. My wife & I guessed it was ground troops since the other 2 were obvious and that was the only other choice based upon the viewpoints.

I still loved the film and recommended it to my kids whilst warning them to be watching out for unexplained jumps in time so they didn't get confused either.

Bobzilla wrote: Several scenes made me very uneasy (Stuka's, artillery). It was a really well done film.

Reminds me of the artillery air bursts in the Band of Brothers when they were near Foy.

carguy123 wrote: That didn't spell it out at all because they didn't tell you what that meant and they'd still show the air and then 20 minutes later show the same thing from the ground after lots of story line had played out. The jumping back and forth in time with no break so you'd think it was a continuous time line was disconcerting and was hard to follow.

Call it artsy, but I think that being disconcerting and hard to follow was probably the point. The goal was to stick you in the chaos and make you tense and unsure of what was going on, how much time had passed, and how much longer it would take to resolve what was going on. Because... that's sort of how how all of the characters felt. "How much fuel do I have? How long will it last? How long have I been flying? It feel like forever and no time at all.", "Are we going to get there in time?", "How much longer am I stuck on this berkeleying beach? How long have I been stuck on this berkeleying beach?"

Wasn't a single story. It was 4 stories (three individual stories and the overarching events). They weren't edited chronologically. They were edited based on where each story was in narrative arc. Again, not really so you could "understand" what was going on, but so that the level and point of tension stayed pretty constant. Finish a dogfight and making distance? Let's be hiking across a beach at night and/or sitting in the boat talking about how this guy is shell shocked.

In reply to Beer Baron:

YEP. This movie was all about the feels.

Wife and I saw this, decided to try it in 4DX. Great movie, the way ti was shot for many of the parts put you right there.

4dx was very cool for this, although not in 3d (i was worried it would not be as good wo/ the 3d also) but the flying scenes were soo cool. Banking and rolling with the camera, fan blowing wind, very cool.

I think it's interesting that the brits re-framed a full on retreat into a narrative of a win in extracting troops. As I understand it, they were very lucky the germans had run out of steam blowing through france which gave them enough of a reprieve to get out. Cool movie - that the action is the main character instead of following a couple of people's story lines.