plasticpenguin

Dunkirk film: Is there anything right?

Recommended Posts

Okay, so I've been a bit sniffy after seeing Christopher Nolan film. I'll try and be objective as opposed to subjective, and add some flesh to the bones.

*From the first scenes, why is Dunkirk town looking so clean?

Apart from a few propaganda leaflets floating around, it looks too pristine. In reality Dunkirk was bombed to pieces.

*None of the BEF soldiers have any grime on their faces or hands

All the main protagonists look wrong: These soldiers have meant to walk for days - sometimes weeks - to reach the beaches. Only scavenging food from from houses, barns and sheds. Their hair looks like they have a recent groom.

* Wrong buildings

Some of the buildings look like they built in the 1960s.

*Wot no dialogue?

No idea what the screenwriter was doing: The dialogue is a bare minimum... the speaking was in general atrocious.

*Michael Cain? Why?

According to Nolan he used Cain's voice as a tribute to the 1969 film The Battle of Britain. Don't get the connection. If he had remade the BoB I could fully understand that.

*Kenneth Branagh

He played Commander Bolton, which was, according to production notes, based on Commander James Clouston. Why is Bolton superglued to the Mole? At any rate, James Clouston, assistant to Capt. Bill Tenant at RN Dunkirk, was ordered back to London by Tenant to update the Ministry on the progress of Dunkirk. On his way back across the channel, the motor torpedo boat he was on was bombed. Clouston died on the 3rd June as a result of the bombing.

*Mr. Dawson: The little boat Captain

Why does he have a west country brogue? Most of the little ships came from London, Kent and Essex

 I'll just sum up before I bore the s##t out of myself - there's many other issues with the film but.... given how desperate the RN and Government was, none of the chaos, panic, desperation ever comes across on screen.

Good bits:

Clear picture and decent sound quality.

For a budget of around $100-150 million, is that enough?

Well done Mr. Nolan. It's made you ever richer despite squandering squillions. Turning out a half-baked film when it should have been a genuine blockbuster. Wonder how much he payed the critics? 

Edited by plasticpenguin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been filmed all in 4k not that your notice i did buy the film but didn't think it was that great of a film to be honest i wanted to see more action in the film but maybe that's just me who likes lots of action like saving private ryan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the purpose of this interpretation of events is to show that the British are good at queuing, then the film is a success.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked it very much. I've seen it three times. The only credibility gap I had was the length of the glide of the Spitfire in the end. And the seat fabric pattern in the train at the end.

I liked the spare dialog. The shifted time. The complete lack of love interest. The no happy ending for the random accident to the lad on the boat - luck comes all ways, fortunately and unfortunately. I found it spellbinding. Subsequent viewings release more detail, there's a lot in this film.

Could have done without the America-pleasing flatulence at the very end, but all in all a class act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ff1d1l said:

I liked the spare dialog. The shifted time. The complete lack of love interest. The no happy ending for the random accident to the lad on the boat - luck comes all ways, fortunately and unfortunately. I found it spellbinding. Subsequent viewings release more detail, there's a lot in this film.

I thought I would like those things but it just didn't gel for me. I might give it another go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ff1d1l said:

I liked it very much. I've seen it three times. The only credibility gap I had was the length of the glide of the Spitfire in the end. And the seat fabric pattern in the train at the end.

I liked the spare dialog. The shifted time. The complete lack of love interest. The no happy ending for the random accident to the lad on the boat - luck comes all ways, fortunately and unfortunately. I found it spellbinding. Subsequent viewings release more detail, there's a lot in this film.

Could have done without the America-pleasing flatulence at the very end, but all in all a class act.

It is one film the more I watch, the more I dislike.

Where's the chaos? where's the despair? Where's the desperation? Where's the grubby soldiers who've marched for days without proper food, water and general cleanliness?

This film shows what the director wanted: He's had huge success with fantasy films and he's tried to implement that theory with a real situation. And it DOESN''T WORK. This is not about opinion, it's a fact. Nolan has produced a film that's limp, uninvolving and devoid of any real tension. It's too clean and pretty.

Edited by plasticpenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 16:18, plasticpenguin said:

It is one film the more I watch, the more I dislike.

Are you a masochist? it really was bloody awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pete the Feet said:

Are you a masochist? it really was bloody awful.

Yip. Can't disagree.

Like music some films can grow on you. Not this one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sat down this afternoon to watch Nolan's Dunkirk. On Amazon Prime. Some of our neighbours said it was one of the best films they have ever seen.

My conclusion: A waste of my time and someone else's one hundred million dollars. Employed a lot of people though. Dire.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked 2 things about it, it was blissfully short for a high budget film by an established director, rather than the usual tedious 3hr vanity project. And someone managed to make a modern war film where 50% of the run time wasn't dedicated to the family back home, staring forlornly out a window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Just seen this myself , not sure about it I think they focused on more personal things than making a big epic blockbuster , there were some touching issues and realistic scenes in a modern format . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the end I just wanted all the main characters to get shot and be done with it.

A flm that failed to persuade me to care - at all. 

Dire.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yip, one of the worst films we watched last year, no, actually it WAS the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.