• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dunkirk |OT| You can practically see it from here...home.

T

Totakeke

Member
One (1) Giant Size Novelty Sexual Device said:
I'm going to spoiler some of this, because I used the film situation to explain why this was probably the most accurate depiction of aerial combat/maneuvering I've ever seen on film.

I actually trained on Corsairs which while vastly different from Spitfires, the avionics are fairly the same and literally everything you want to do requires altitude which means gas.
That's why the most tense shots inside his cockpit where when he increase his engine speed. He knew what he was doing, which was basically signing up for a suicide run.

When he ran out of gas it looks like he was at an altitude of ~300 ft based on how small the soldiers on the ground looked. That means he did have some mobility. Flaps are altered by gears and pullies, but since he lost the ability to speed up, turning the way he did cost him a significant amount of height.

He was on approach to make a soft landing, see also: crash (like his wingman did in the water) and could have hopped on a boat and escaped, but he used nearly all of his altitude turning to make that one final gun run on the approaching Stuka. This was why he closed his canopy and decided to go for an actual landing. He was too low to bail out without serious injury, and was also too low to turn again. Dipping his wings at that low of an altitue would have resulted in him slicing the ground and it would have likely cost him his life.

So he took a gamble and went for the landing in enemy territory, which didn't work out for him, but better to have a shot at survival than a pretty much guaranteed death if he tried to turn at a low altitude.



It's not danger, it's acceptance. He knows he's fucked because he used the last of his altitude and has no choice but to ride it out.
Click to expand...

This is awesome explanation. Cool stuff. I saw the levers being pushed the second time around and knew it was signifying something.
 
S

snoopeasystreet

Member
Incredibly intense film but after thinking about it for a few hours, I don't really know if I like it.

I think it's purpose with the nonlinear storytelling and the sound/visuals is to leave you feeling shellshocked by the end. But like, outside of that, there doesn't seem to be much there. To me, it's ultimately a disjointed experience that is carried by being an audiovisual spectacle.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
So how did you Brits feel when
the armada of civilian boats showed up? Many of which were flying the Union Jack?

Because as an American I got a lump in my throat.
 
J

JB1981

Member
Albino_Yeti said:
So how did you Brits feel when
the armada of civilian boats showed up? Many of which were flying the Union Jack?

Because as an American I got a lump in my throat.
Click to expand...

I'm an American, I got feels when I heard Churchill's speech at the end but the moment when the civies show up felt like it happened too early and was an anti climax
 
S

Sanjuro

Member
Very Berry Sunday said:
Can you describe the differences between the 2 formats, in terms of visuals and sound?

Also, where did you sit in each showing, what row? Somewhere in the middle?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the cinema you are at. 70mm wasn't equipped to have a great sound system, but I got a great picture in the second row.

IMAX I sat five rows up and had a better sound system and incredible picture.
 
F

ffejeromdiks

Banned
Hip Hop said:
one of my friends said it was a really boring movie.
Click to expand...

Had one of these friends with me at my screening. Basically his complaints were incredibly stupid "why didn't they just stand their ground instead of running the whole movie" (prompting several 'the fuck?''s from the rest of us) He also had no idea that the 3 plots were weaving in and out of one another.

I'd be skeptical of anyone saying this movie is "boring"

This is the same friend who thought Wonder Woman was set during WW2 so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the total ignorance of history.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
JB1981 said:
I'm an American, I got feels when I heard Churchill's speech at the end but the moment when the civies show up felt like it happened too early and was an anti climax
Click to expand...

Interesting you say that. I thought it was the perfect time for them to show up, because the gunfire from the Germans just over the ridge, so the Brits knew they were just about to get annihilated, then when all hope seemed lost the civilians showed up.
 
A

Azzanadra

Member
Woo I feel blessed living 5 minutes away from a theatre doing the 70mm thing.

Mississauga isn't completely useless after all!
 
J

JB1981

Member
Albino_Yeti said:
Interesting you say that. I thought it was the perfect time for them to show up, because the gunfire from the Germans just over the ridge, so the Brits knew they were just about to get annihilated, then when all hope seemed lost the civilians showed up.
Click to expand...

I thought Nolan could have done a better job of showing the German advance on the remaining men at the mole. Less shots of Branagh staring at the sky and more shots of Germans marching on the beach.
 
F

ffejeromdiks

Banned
JB1981 said:
I thought Nolan could have done a better job of showing the German advance on the remaining men at the mole. Less shots of Branagh staring at the sky and more shots of Germans marching on the beach.
Click to expand...

That would throw a pretty big wrench in the whole movies idea of not actually showing the germans throughout the movie until the silhouettes at the end.
 
S

SugarDave

Member
I really, really liked this. I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan, especially his tendency to include a lot of inelegant expository dialogue in his films, but while that's present here too, it's kept to a minimum and the film primarily focuses on placing you right there on the beach, the Channel and the cockpit. I appreciated a lot of the decisions made; the relentless pace, the claustrophobic spaces, the lack of any contrived monologue about the horrors of war and the portrayal of the Germans as a mostly unseen enemy. The audio has been lauded enough, those Stukas were terrifying. Mark Rylance was the standout performance and credit to Tom Hardy for expressing so much with just his eyes. Speaking of which, the Spitfire scenes were glorious, I really want to play a WWII dogfighting simulator now.

I'm a little surprised at some of the complaints about people finding it hard to follow. The film was about as clear as it could have been regarding the three periods of time.

If you have even a vague interest in seeing the film, make sure you do so in the cinema.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
JB1981 said:
I thought Nolan could have done a better job of showing the German advance on the remaining men at the mole. Less shots of Branagh staring at the sky and more shots of Germans marching on the beach.
Click to expand...

I think not showing the Germans was a deliberate design choice to emphasize the terror of an unseen enemy. Even when you finally see them at the very end, they are out of focus and in the background.
 
L

Lys Skygge

Member
Just got back from a 70mm showing. Fantastic film! Easily my favorite film of the year so far and ranks as one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films.

Christopher Nolan Ranking
1. The Prestige
2. Dunkirk
3. Interstellar
4. The Dark Knight
5. Inception
6. Memento
7. Batman Begins
8. The Dark Knight Rises

Albino_Yeti said:
I think not showing the Germans was a deliberate design choice to emphasize the terror of an unseen enemy. Even when you finally see them at the very end, they are out of focus and in the background.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I personally loved how the Germans were portrayed.
 
SlimySnake

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Did anyone here watch this in 70mm instead of IMAX? Anyone watch this in Colmubus' Gateway Film Center's 70mm screen? Before this week, I didnt know we had a 70mm screen in town. it's not IMAX but is it better than LieMax?

i have free tickets to AMC theaters so I can watch the LieMAX version for free, but at the same time i am curious to see what this $15 70mm screen looks like. Never heard of Gateway film center so i am not sure if it's really 70mm or fake 70mm.
 
V

Very Berry Sunday

Member
SlimySnake said:
Did anyone here watch this in 70mm instead of IMAX? Anyone watch this in Colmubus' Gateway Film Center's 70mm screen? Before this week, I didnt know we had a 70mm screen in town. it's not IMAX but is it better than LieMax?

i have free tickets to AMC theaters so I can watch the LieMAX version for free, but at the same time i am curious to see what this $15 70mm screen looks like. Never heard of Gateway film center so i am not sure if it's really 70mm or fake 70mm.
Click to expand...

70mm >>> LieMax
 
H

hockeypuck

Member
First time seeing an IMAX 70mm film. It was worth the hour drive. In terms of knowing where to sit, it was helpful to look at where all the seats were congregating in an earlier show. I noticed that for my particular theater, most of the allocated seats focused on the 3rd and 4th rows from the back, further back than I would've expected. So I knew where to reserve my spots for a show many days later.

Angry Fork said:
The plane fights were just straight up bad, not exciting at all, very simple. Nolan has always been bad at action though so I'm not really surprised by this including in the batman movies. The editing/plane scene at the end was especially bad when
Tom Hardy is veering off after he runs out of gas, going lower as his plane is gliding, then it cuts to a plane coming out of the sky from above, much higher and further right than where we see Hardy go, and then ...the enemy plane just gets shot and falls out of nowhere to the cheers of everyone. How? Not only did we not see it happen on screen but it makes no sense based on the directions they were going and the fact that Hardy had no gas. It seems like an entirely different plane shot it down.
It didn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
Completely agree on these points.
Hardy's character was too good for me to suspend my disbelief. At least 3 airplane kills on a single sortie, including one while in glider mode against a diving Stuka at what appears to be near perpendicular attack angle? If only Nolan showed how he did it; it was hard for me to believe it to be anywhere near realistic. Hardy's character's actions were worth like 2 Victoria Crosses.
Angry Fork said:
There were a couple moments where the cockpit's crosshair is literally on the enemy plane and holds there for at least 3 seconds and Hardy doesn't shoot because Nolan wants to force drama or extend the scene longer or something. I don't know what the thought process was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, by the second time the cross-hair on the Me109 was shown on screen, I was telling myself in my head "why aren't you leading in or pushing the damn trigger already???" If we're going for historical accuracy, the advanced gyroscopic gunsight that took into account for lead-in was not really in place in Spitfires until 2 years after the Dunkirk evacuation, so that shouldn't explain why the pilot didn't pull the trigger until the cross-hair was directly over the target.

Overall though I very much enjoyed the movie.

Edit: One more air force nitpick.
Lowden's
character could've used more force during his act of desperation. Like, put some muscle into it, my good man.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
More_Badass said:
He, Denzel, and Mads are the three actors I can watch in anything. Taboo was great for the grimy Victorian setting and the intrigue and whatnot. but Hardy doing his "grizzled badass who says more with his actions than his words", like in Mad Max and Revenant, is magnetic
Click to expand...
I need to get on the Taboo bandwagon. Sucks I dont have FX. Hoping it ends up on Netflix or amazon.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
The shot of
Tom Hardy gliding his plane over the beach at the end of the movie
was absolutely the best shot I've seen in a movie in a looong time. Even better in Imax.

Also, was the clock ticking the entire movie?
 
S

Supa Necta

Banned
Looking for some help choosing a showing tomorrow. At AMC Westminster Promenade it's showing in 70mm and IMAX. Which is the preferred experience? Thanks!
 
S

Supa Necta

Banned
Looks like this theater has a digital IMAX so 70mm it is.

Edit: I can drive 30 minutes to see it on a 70mm IMAX but it's playing at a less convenient time and costs $20 vs $5.
 
D

Davide

Member
Watched it in IMAX, t moved at a great pace, I thought it was great throughout, yet somehow I felt a little cold/empty at the end like it was missing something. I think it wrapped up quicker than I expected. Anyone else feel the same way?

Not the type of movie to watch tons of times like Inception, but maybe I'll like it more if I see it a second time. It's difficult to compare to his other films but at the moment I prefer Inception, Interstellar, The Dark Knight, Memento, Prestige.
 
V

Very Berry Sunday

Member
Supa Necta said:
Looks like this theater has a digital IMAX so 70mm it is.

Edit: I can drive 30 minutes to see it on a 70mm IMAX but it's playing at a less convenient time and costs $20 vs $5.
Click to expand...

Do the 70mm IMAX. 30 minutes isn't far, plus there are other showings the next few weeks. 4x cost is worth it.

Some people got plane tickets to see Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX.
 
F

FreshCakes

Banned
Didn't see this posted yet, but I thought this was pretty cool:

http://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-sunken-footage-2017-7

"Dunkirk" didn't just mark the first time Christopher Nolan had made a war movie; it was also one of the rare times a filmmaker had ever shot a majority of a movie with an Imax camera.

So, Nolan did a lot of things he didn't know were possible until he actually did them.

And in one instance, a blunder on set led to a fascinating discovery.

In exploring the historic evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk, France, during World War II, the movie highlights British pilots fighting German planes to protect the Allied troops on the ground. The dogfight sequences in the movie are thrilling and in some cases very authentic. The production stayed away from CGI as much as possible, and in one sequence Nolan had a replica Spitfire plane perform a landing in the English Channel.

An Imax camera was strapped into the cockpit, filming as actor Jack Lowden struggled to get out. Viewers watch as the water begins to fill the cockpit, delivering one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.

During filming, however, the plane with the camera still inside sank quicker than anyone on the crew thought possible. Nolan was certain the footage had been lost.

"In the hours it took to retrieve the Imax camera, its housing, which was a big plastic barrel, actually had a hole in it and the entire thing filled with water," Nolan told Business Insider.

Imax told Business Insider an Imax camera of the kind used on the movie cost about $1 million.

"But we called the lab and they clued us into an old-fashioned technique that used to be used on film shoots," Nolan said. "You keep the film wet, you unload the camera, and you keep it damp the whole time. We shipped it back to Los Angeles from the set in France, and they processed it before drying it out, and the shot came out absolutely perfect and it's in the film."

"Try doing that with a digital camera!" Nolan said with glee. In the age of digital, the director is one of the last to be a major supporter of shooting on film. Though shooting digitally is cheaper and provides more flexibility in the kinds of shots you can do, Nolan's footage from inside the cockpit really would have been destroyed if "Dunkirk" weren't shot on film.
Click to expand...

The shots that were recovered:
dunkirk%20cockpit%201%20final.jpg

dunkirk%20cockpit%202%20final.jpg
 
holygeesus

holygeesus

Banned
I live in a pretty backwards town, and can only get basic IMAX or standard 35MM. Surely it is still worth an extra few £s for the bog-standard IMAX?
 
J

Jack Scofield

Member
Is there a reason why the German planes didn't use their machine guns during their strafing runs?

Also, I enjoyed the movie but I agree with the recent posts about the weird editing. Especially when Tom Hardy's character shot down that plane at the end. That was just confusing.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
Jack Scofield said:
Is there a reason why the German planes didn't use their machine guns during their strafing runs?

Also, I enjoyed the movie but I agree with the recent posts about the weird editing. Especially when Tom Hardy's character shot down that plane at the end. That was just confusing.
Click to expand...

They did though. The very first strafing run involved machine guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Who Can Afford These Homes Anymore? USA/Costal States
2
58
3K
Vyse replied
How are you tracking your gaming list, watchlist, and other gaming-related news, info, etc?
2
81
2K
Tell’em Keb replied
Work from home - do you drink booze while working?
2
60
2K
gaming_again replied
Dead Parent(s) Society |OT|
42
2K
OmegaSupreme replied
Dune: Part Two - Review Thread
News 6 7 8 9 10
496
27K
Ulysses 31 replied
Top Bottom