|
|
Post by mangekyoalleluia on Aug 8, 2017 9:09:45 GMT
Finally caught this on Sunday, Nolan films are events now pretty much and I feel compelled to see the. Anyway it was good, nothing earth shattering but engaging, had some incredible audio and visuals that really draw you in and Nolan again excels at tugging at your heart strings, I could maybe criticise it for being a bit short (one of Nolans shortest films for sure) but the story was told pretty much effectively and there wasn't much else to tell.
It's definitely divisive for audiences though most people seem to like it, because of its sentimentality and if you're not a fan or war films, you wont care for it. 7/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 8, 2017 12:23:50 GMT
Odd film. Tons of tension yet not compelling due to an emotional disconnect with the characters. There's very little dialog so you don't feel like you're with them on the journey. For a film about hope, it's strangely devoid of emotion. Also, you never got a solid sense of scale. It felt like the war was being fought by 10 planes, 30 guys in town and the rest of the men just lined up on the beach. I think Nolan tried to narrow the scope to pull you into the story of those few men; but if you're going to do that, you have to give them personality. At the end of the film you don't really care if they make it home or not. Hardy's character is the most compelling and he's barely in it.
I did appreciate the stuff at the end, the crowds cheering and the exchange with the person handing out blankets.
I know it would've been corny but I wish they'd have played Churchill's speech word for word instead of having a character read about it in a newspaper. It's still rousing today. As an American, I enjoy the parts where he directly/indirectly calls out the US for not officially joining the war effort. He does it twice in the speech, it's great. Americans don't understand or appreciate GB's part, particularly in the early years of WWII. I'd love to see a big budget modern film on The Battle of Britain. Much like Dunkirk, survival was victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Aug 8, 2017 12:34:50 GMT
I'd love to see a big budget modern film on The Battle of Britain. Much like Dunkirk, survival was victory. It would be interesting to see a new version but 1969's The Battle Of Britain is still first class even now. |
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on Aug 8, 2017 12:39:31 GMT
I'd love to see a big budget modern film on The Battle of Britain. Much like Dunkirk, survival was victory. Ridley Scotts doing a BoB movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 8, 2017 12:43:00 GMT
I'd love to see a big budget modern film on The Battle of Britain. Much like Dunkirk, survival was victory. Ridley Scotts doing a BoB movie. I was about to say it may not need a remake, but this is great news. It will be visually stunning, if nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Aug 8, 2017 13:02:19 GMT
"It will be visually stunning, and nothing else."
Fixed!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 8, 2017 13:14:12 GMT
"It will be visually stunning, and nothing else." Fixed! Three years ago I would've agreed with you, I thought Ridley had lost it. He hadn't made a good movie since the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. Then I saw The Martian. Great visuals and compelling characters. Sure it's based on a book, but he nailed it. The way I felt for Damon's character is how I should've felt for the guys in Dunkirk. I'm willing to give Ridley the benefit of the doubt on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Aug 8, 2017 13:17:00 GMT
Martian was OK. I wasn't really hooked by it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Aug 8, 2017 14:44:28 GMT
Ridley Scott is very hot and cold. He's done more movies I've disliked in the last 15 years than ones I've liked. Not exactly a safe pair of hands anymore.
As for Dunkirk, it was good but I agree with some of the criticisms. I'd have liked to see more character development and more scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by WullieFort on Aug 8, 2017 19:59:30 GMT
I was stunned by the dogfights between the Spitfires and the Messerschmitts (I think) and immediately started thinking about somebody making a film about the Battle of Britain.
Dunkirk was a good movie, not great but very good. Only iffy note was the Cilian Murphy character. I understood he was there to draw attention to PTSD but the fatal fracas with the son wasn't needed.
It has to be said that the Germans missed an opportunity there by not attacking those troops with more firepower. As I understand it, it was the local German general who decided not to go all out, for whatever reason and Hitler thought it wasn't too important. He assumed we were done.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Aug 8, 2017 20:32:32 GMT
How the story went according to the German POV: there was a major stand off between Hitler and his generals - about who is really in charge.
His generals wanted to press on, hence Hitler denied it to show them who is the boss.
In the end Dunkirk is utterly overrated: you lost a lot of equipment anyway, but still had to feed your soldier who stayed the next years on your island (maybe some took part in the African campaign, but the allies were outnumbering us by far. You were never short of men. Maybe in particular situations, but only if the advanced too far too fast.
But if we had had them, we would have had to feed them, to take care for them (camps, medical staff, red cross visits and all this stuff you denied our boys when you let them die in the Rheinwiesen camps) and appoint thousands of soldiers to guard them.
In the end the US had entered the war anyway, and they had plenty of fresh men.
It was a great PR stunt, a major morale boost. But for the actual outcome entirely meaningless.
The entire war was decided by the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 8, 2017 20:52:23 GMT
How the story went according to the German POV: there was a major stand off between Hitler and his generals - about who is really in charge. (...) The entire war was decided by the US. Twenty million Russians would disagree with that assessment. |
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Aug 8, 2017 22:22:11 GMT
I was stunned by the dogfights between the Spitfires and the Messerschmitts (I think) and immediately started thinking about somebody making a film about the Battle of Britain. Dunkirk was a good movie, not great but very good. Only iffy note was the Cilian Murphy character. I understood he was there to draw attention to PTSD but the fatal fracas with the son wasn't needed. It has to be said that the Germans missed an opportunity there by not attacking those troops with more firepower. As I understand it, it was the local German general who decided not to go all out, for whatever reason and Hitler thought it wasn't too important. He assumed we were done. That fracas on the boat was the weakest part of the movie. Seriously, a boy going blind and dying by being accidentally knocked over? The funny thing is, seeing the blood from the back of his head made it the bloodiest scene in the film as well. |
|
