• 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.

HardRojo

Member
What happened to
Tom Hardy at the end? Was he snatched away by the enemy?
And I totally missed the cranes some people are mentioning, any pictures of that? Love the movie and didn't realize there were time jumps and returns to a previous scenario till halfway into the movie lol.
 

JB1981

Member
What happened to
Tom Hardy at the end? Was he snatched away by the enemy?
And I totally missed the cranes some people are mentioning, any pictures of that? Love the movie and didn't realize there were time jumps and returns to a previous scenario till halfway into the movie lol.

He was being captured yea.
 
So I told my friend to watch this movie and he absolutely hated it. He only watched about 2/3rds of it because the movie projector blew up but he hated it and said he will not rewatch it to see the rest of it. He said there was absolutely no storyline, characters, or any emotion. The characters never overcame any kind of obstacles and the cinematography was terrible. He said the RAF scenes were the worst by having uninteresting dogfights with only a couple of planes. He said he thought it would be the next Saving Private Ryan. He hated the fact that the British never actually fight the Germans and points this out that the movie was 'boring'

Oh well, I loved the movie.
 

Blader

Member
So I told my friend to watch this movie and he absolutely hated it. He only watched about 2/3rds of it because the movie projector blew up but he hated it and said he will not rewatch it to see the rest of it. He said there was absolutely no storyline, characters, or any emotion. The characters never overcame any kind of obstacles and the cinematography was terrible. He said the RAF scenes were the worst by having uninteresting dogfights with only a couple of planes. He said he thought it would be the next Saving Private Ryan. He hated the fact that the British never actually fight the Germans and points this out that the movie was 'boring'

Oh well, I loved the movie.

But...the whole movie is nothing but characters overcoming obstacles!
 
The more I think about the movie, the more its flaws become apparent.

Ex:
1. The entire subplot with the beached boat and the target practice and the hole plugging. That whole thing is just stupid AF. As if one person leaving the boat was going to save it? The needless death of the hero French guy? F this whole scene.

2. In a vacuum I love the soundtrack. Been listening to it for two weeks straight now. But I actually don't like its use in the movie that much. We praise how the film has this "always on" feel where it's tension every second, but post-hoc I feel that isn't successful. It starts to feel like an EDM song where the bass never drops. It strings you along for too long, especially in scenes that don't have tension but are still playing the ticking sound, etc.

3. The timeline for the mole is still ???????? Where is there a week of activity there ????? Tommy's story seems to last at most two days ???????? Was Branagh standing on the pier for seven whole days ??????????

----------------

What it still does right is it being more of a film about pure, visceral experience rather than character development or plot, per se. I've recently been feeling a.. malaise with films RE: how they're just telling stories that could easily be told in any other format. I want to see more movies use film for its unique properties.
 

TheMan

Member
Was there a scene where they explained why he didn't parachute out when the plane was out of fuel and over friendly grounds?? Seems like the most logical thing to do.

his altitude was pretty low, maybe too low for the parachute to activate.

that said, you're right it doesn't make sense that he didn't at least try to land near friendlies.
 

Dany

Banned
his altitude was pretty low, maybe too low for the parachute to activate.

that said, you're right it doesn't make sense that he didn't at least try to land near friendlies.

Maybe he couldn't maneuver to turn without losing speed and altitude (idk)
 

Number45

Member
He coasted for a while because he struggled to get the landing gear down and I assume he needed to come in flat because he had no fuel to maneouvre. I guess he could have tried to turn and perhaps set it down in the water (because other than that the beach was his only option, and a good chunk of it was occupied by allied soliders) but I think his sacrifice plays well with his earlier decision not to put it down when he still had fuel.
 
Considering he was coasting on fumes when he took down that last fighter, I assume he kept coasting until he could no longer, and then attempted his landing away from the very few remains troops, knowing he was sacrificing himself, as he did the entire movie.

But, it's a minor plot point so who cares.
 

ogbg

Member
3. The timeline for the mole is still ???????? Where is there a week of activity there ????? Tommy's story seems to last at most two days ???????? Was Branagh standing on the pier for seven whole days ??????????

I thought about this as well. Either the Tommy story is 2 days or the part where you see the 3 of them sitting on the beach is meant to stand in for the passing of a few extra days. If it is just 2 days then the extra few days must take place between Tommy's evacuation and Branagh's final scene (the one with the sleeping soldier).
 
Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell thoughts ("Straight to the good stuff") on Dunkirk. (they are actual film theorists and scholars).



edit: of course I posted this at the end of the thread. oh well.

Bordwell texts about Nolan are some of the best online. Will read thoroughly. He actually has an e-book only about him where he goes in-depth over his films and form. His Prestige one is particularly fascinating as it becomes evident how meticulous that film was constructed.
 

HariKari

Member
So I told my friend to watch this movie and he absolutely hated it. He only watched about 2/3rds of it because the movie projector blew up but he hated it and said he will not rewatch it to see the rest of it. He said there was absolutely no storyline, characters, or any emotion. The characters never overcame any kind of obstacles and the cinematography was terrible. He said the RAF scenes were the worst by having uninteresting dogfights with only a couple of planes. He said he thought it would be the next Saving Private Ryan. He hated the fact that the British never actually fight the Germans and points this out that the movie was 'boring'

Oh well, I loved the movie.

Does this person watch a lot of reality TV?

I thought the artistry and tension was on full display with Dunkirk. It was well shot, well paced, and pretty interesting with the 3 different time paces. The Spitfires in particular were absolutely fantastic.

It's not really a war movie, but a movie about desperation.
 
Although I enjoyed the film I was somewhat shocked at the lack of scale. Anyone who has seen photos of Dunkirk will know how packed and chaotic it was. The movie seemed to cover a couple of thousand soldiers; I couldn't believe it when all of a dozen civilian boats turned up for the grand evacuation.

I know this movie was done relatively cheaply but I think this was a severely restricted vision.
 

JB1981

Member
Was there a scene where they explained why he didn't parachute out when the plane was out of fuel and over friendly grounds?? Seems like the most logical thing to do.

Was there a scene that explained it? I mean, did you see the movie? Because if you did you would know that there is indeed no scene that verbally stated why he didn't parachute. That being said, yes there is the scene preceding the ending where the other pilot is shot down and during his descent Ferrier tells him to eject but the pilot opens his canopy and assessed that his altitude is too close to the ocean so closes the canopy and attempts the ocean landing. Similarly Ferrier opens is canopy as he's gliding, looks down and sees that he is also too close so closes up and lands. This is a movie that tells its story non-verbally and gives a lot of subtle visual information that you might not pick up on without a few viewings.
 
Although I enjoyed the film I was somewhat shocked at the lack of scale. Anyone who has seen photos of Dunkirk will know how packed and chaotic it was. The movie seemed to cover a couple of thousand soldiers; I couldn't believe it when all of a dozen civilian boats turned up for the grand evacuation.

I know this movie was done relatively cheaply but I think this was a severely restricted vision.

Yeah but the movie is at least consistent with it's presentation of that small slice of activity. The movie never attempts to try and paint the full picture of all the activities at Dunkirk and I think that actually fits to its advantage. They did probably need more boats than were show to even get the few people they showed on the beach off lol
I would have been dismayed to see like 10 boats coming to get a few thousand people
 

NateDog

Member
What it still does right is it being more of a film about pure, visceral experience rather than character development or plot, per se. I've recently been feeling a.. malaise with films RE: how they're just telling stories that could easily be told in any other format. I want to see more movies use film for its unique properties.
This is one of the reasons why I loved the movie. It was an entirely different experience from any other movie I've seen, and that's what it really was: an experience. Rewatching it I'm sure I'll nitpick a fair bit and people have already noticed some plotholes and strange design choices, but that was never the focus of this movie.
 
Enjoyed the Movie but didn't love it.

Felt like it did lots of things but barely told any actual story. Slightly reductive but I feel it was an excuse to basically have lot's of set pieces.

The choice to break the story into 3 different timelines is jarring and odd. At times it doesn't stay at the forefront of your mind and you are thinking "oh sweet some RAF support" only to quickly remember that 2 of those planes are down and out.

Tom Hardy was the worst Pilot I've ever seen. He didn't lead a single shot and wasted tonnes of ammo and tops it off by gliding around while everyone got on boats and fucked off before landing on the beach. He had the option of ejecting above water during the evacuation or landing in the water but instead his character for NO Reason waits around (with no fuel) until everyone has left and lands on the beach much further down from everyone. It seems illogical at best and nonsensical at worst.

Nothing super compelling and dragged down by some poor story choices. Visual pretty nice. Very poor job of scale. Beach looked considerably less than 100,000 men never mind 400,000

That said I think the run away actor here was Mark Rylance. His performance was rock solid and I bought into him above everyone else.
 

dmshaposv

Member
Tom Hardy was the worst Pilot I've ever seen. He didn't lead a single shot and wasted tonnes of ammo and tops it off by gliding around while everyone got on boats and fucked off before landing on the beach. He had the option of ejecting above water during the evacuation or landing in the water but instead his character for NO Reason waits around (with no fuel) until everyone has left and lands on the beach much further down from everyone. It seems illogical at best and nonsensical at worst.

Most bizzare criticism of the film yet.

The film is flawed but the aerial dogfights were the highlight. Nolan was clearly going for realism and I appreciated the fact how clunky and difficult aiming felt (unlike other war films where pilot control stick like a video game).

As for not ejecting, I believe Hardy's character was essentially boosting the morale of the stranded soldiers as being their only air support. They even showed how with no fuel he was taking out a dive bomber to reassure the soldiers on the beach.
 

Kin5290

Member
Yeah, I noticed how bad of a dog fighter Tom Hardy's character was. Actually, all of the dogfighting was pretty disappointing. No fighter tactics, no deflection shots, just hugging the enemy's tail and banging away with gunfire.
 
Was there a scene that explained it? I mean, did you see the movie? Because if you did you would know that there is indeed no scene that verbally stated why he didn't parachute. That being said, yes there is the scene preceding the ending where the other pilot is shot down and during his descent Ferrier tells him to eject but the pilot opens his canopy and assessed that his altitude is too close to the ocean so closes the canopy and attempts the ocean landing. Similarly Ferrier opens is canopy as he's gliding, looks down and sees that he is also too close so closes up and lands. This is a movie that tells its story non-verbally and gives a lot of subtle visual information that you might not pick up on without a few viewings.

I have no knowledge of aviation so opening the canopy then looking at this altitude doesn't mean jack shit to me. The confusion could have been avoided if the first pilot had said he didn't have enough altitude and then did the water landing.

Or when the little boat captain saw him get shot down and didn't see a parachute. The captain could have said, he might not have enough altitude to eject instead of acknowledging his son that the pilot could be dead.

Or they could have had the pilot from the German plane they shot down eject at a low altitude and die to show the audience that they can't eject too low to the ground. As it stands right now, the visual info is just too subtle for idiots like me to pick up on.
 

JB1981

Member
I have no knowledge of aviation so opening the canopy then looking at this altitude doesn't mean jack shit to me. The confusion could have been avoided if the first pilot had said he didn't have enough altitude and then did the water landing.

Or when the little boat captain saw him get shot down and didn't see a parachute. The captain could have said, he might not have enough altitude to eject instead of acknowledging his son that the pilot could be dead.

Or they could have had the pilot from the German plane they shot down eject at a low altitude and die to show the audience that they can't eject too low to the ground. As it stands right now, the visual info is just too subtle for idiots like me to pick up on.

Do you think he opened the canopy to feel the cool breeze or something?
 
What it still does right is it being more of a film about pure, visceral experience rather than character development or plot, per se. I've recently been feeling a.. malaise with films RE: how they're just telling stories that could easily be told in any other format. I want to see more movies use film for its unique properties.

See Baby Driver.
 

Shredderi

Member
The choice to break the story into 3 different timelines is jarring and odd. At times it doesn't stay at the forefront of your mind and you are thinking "oh sweet some RAF support" only to quickly remember that 2 of those planes are down and out.

Yeah this was the big problem in it for me. Pretty much killed it for me.
 

cLOUDo

Member
Great movie, not sure if the best of Nolan



I have a doubt
What was the timeline of Cillian Murphy's character?
He was the whole movie in the civilian's boat
But in one scene he is in the boat returning to the beach.
 

daviyoung

Banned
Great movie, not sure if the best of Nolan



I have a doubt
What was the timeline of Cillian Murphy's character?
He was the whole movie in the civilian's boat
But in one scene he is in the boat returning to the beach.

he escaped on the same boat as the boy soldiers, then when that got sunk he escaped on a lifeboat (we see him tell boy soldiers to do one), then the lifeboat got torpedoed by a u-boat and the civilian boat (the dad and the boys) pick him up on the way to Dunkirk

I think
 

JB1981

Member
he escaped on the same boat as the boy soldiers, then when that got sunk he escaped on a lifeboat (we see him tell boy soldiers to do one), then the lifeboat got torpedoed by a u-boat and the civilian boat (the dad and the boys) pick him up on the way to Dunkirk

I think

He was not on the same boat. He was on a lifeboat heading to a large transport ship after the ship the boys were on got torpedoed. The boys wanted the crew on his lifeboat to make room for them but he told them to float until another boat came. He was on another ship that was destroyed off screen.

Nevermind I think I misread what you wrote
 

inm8num2

Member
My brother's seeing this in 70mm IMAX later today. I'm slightly envious. ;)

Would like to catch Dunkirk again soon in theaters. I also saw it in IMAX but I think it was Xenon which still looked and sounded amazing. I saw TDK, TDKR, and Interstellar 2-3 times each (2x IMAX for TDKR and Interstellar, 1x IMAX for TDK). Sadly just one theatrical viewing for Inception. Regardless, it is my duty to see Nolan movies multiple times in theaters.
 

PnCIa

Member
So, this movie has an RT score 93. It sure does not deserve that.

What an empty, needlessly convoluted "spectacle". And it wasn't even a great spectacle to begin with.

It also takes "cant understand shit" from Interstellar to the max. Not that it matters here, but still.
 

entremet

Member
Beautifully shot and scored film that lacked heart and soul. I didn’t feel any sense of why this story needed to be told. Nolan didn’t sell me on it.

C+
 

M.W.

Member
So, this movie has an RT score 93. It sure does not deserve that.

What an empty, needlessly convoluted "spectacle". And it wasn't even a great spectacle to begin with.

It also takes "cant understand shit" from Interstellar to the max. Not that it matters here, but still.

Brilliant film from start to finish. Nolan's best. Should be closer to 100%
 

Drifters

Junior Member
Had to see this today as it's on my list of movies for 2017. Saw it in 70mm IMAX so take it as you will.

Quick hits:
- The 3 story narrative while nice made no sense in terms of how the action was cut. Nolan seemed to realize that 2/3rds of the way through he had to mesh them together in order to clue the audience into what the fuck was actually happening.
- The plot or lack of exposition of it. Hi, I'm Dunkirk. I'm a skank piece of land somewhere in Europe that is across the English channel. Now that we have that out of the way, why exactly am I to care about this? Now, I'm a WW2 buff and I get the whole narrative of how Germany was swallowing Europe whole but the intensity of the Germans advancing on Dunkirk was the plot-- it never was fully fleshed out. We had one off lines about "Why aren't the tanks coming? dot dot dot "No need since they can just pick us off..." Seriously, I had flash backs to Inglorious Bastards where the german propaganda film was showing the soldier shooting people from the bell tower over and over and over and over with people cheering. If I were the Germans, why wouldn't I send enough planes to simply wipe out a majority of the troops waiting on the beach head? We'll put in a pin in that.
- Tom Hardy was miscast for this movie and I feel sorry for him actually. I starting laughing towards the end when I heard his breathing sounds and wanted him to say in his Bane voice "Ahhh yes, I was wondering what would break first...." seriously, should have been someone else. Also, the title of the film should have been "BaneMan - Wonder Floating across the Sea" -- I mean what in the living fuck? Tom Hardy's plane flew west, it flew east, it flew higher than a god damn eagle on no fucking gas AND.... oh yes, and shot down a german fighter just because why not? The story arc ending to his character landing I'm guessing somewhere in Belgium while interesting, led me to ask, what happened to him next? In fact, Tom Hardy captured in German occupied territory could have been wholly more exciting than the movie itself.
- Which leads me to my final point. Boats and how they work. If Saving Private Ryan was wandering around Europe trying to find cows, then Dunkirk was wading across the sea trying to find a boat. Not only do our dear friends get into boats multiple times and allow sudo meta sub-plots take over, they absolutely make no sense given the circumstances. The whole "He's a german spy!" bit at the end almost made me want to walk out of the movie. Not so much that the movie was not capable of taking an interesting twist (which, it still didn't... OHHH he's french!!! Queue Leonardo DiCaprio screaming "Thanks to you FRENCH BOY!" but honestly, why Nolan? Why in general? The only interesting piece of the movie was the story of the Dad and his sons. Someone who lived through World War I and knew what his duty was to his country. If the movie had solely be focused on that narrative, it may have actually been a decent flick.

Other nitpicks are the return of "InterDunkirk" music being too loud over the GD dialogue. Nolan, stop, just stop. The ChurchHill quotes at the end were also an odd touch since you leave the movie not knowing to feel sorry that you spent $20 bucks on IMAX or if Patriotism was Nolan's main point of which he pounds that drum the loudest in the final scene. The last funny thing that happened was someone was pissed because they quickly looked up if there was something at the end of the movie.... I shit you not.

Solid C - from me and I never need to see it again, save the time with my wife when it hits bluray. Too bad since it had potential.
 

Lima

Member
- The plot or lack of exposition of it. Hi, I'm Dunkirk. I'm a skank piece of land somewhere in Europe that is across the English channel. Now that we have that out of the way, why exactly am I to care about this? Now, I'm a WW2 buff and I get the whole narrative of how Germany was swallowing Europe whole but the intensity of the Germans advancing on Dunkirk was the plot-- it never was fully fleshed out. We had one off lines about "Why aren't the tanks coming? dot dot dot "No need since they can just pick us off..." Seriously, I had flash backs to Inglorious Bastards where the german propaganda film was showing the soldier shooting people from the bell tower over and over and over and over with people cheering. If I were the Germans, why wouldn't I send enough planes to simply wipe out a majority of the troops waiting on the beach head? We'll put in a pin in that.

This complaint makes no sense, especially when you say you are WW2 buff. I mean the tanks that steamrolled through Belgium and parts of France could have easily wiped out he entire British force on that beach if they weren't ordered to halt for several days. The same can be said about the planes. They were extremely shitty at the time, had limited range and a majority of destroyed vehicles during Dunkirk were actually planes because it was so easy to destroy them. Even historians aren't exactly sure why Hitler and his goons did what they did when they had these men agains their backs at that beach. They could have easily delivered the killing blow but didn't.
Complaining about this is just weird. I mean did you want Nolan to make up some kind of explanation for this?
 

Drifters

Junior Member
This complaint makes no sense, especially when you say you are WW2 buff. I mean the tanks that steamrolled through Belgium and parts of France could have easily wiped out he entire British force on that beach if they weren't ordered to halt for several days. The same can be said about the planes. They were extremely shitty at the time, had limited range and a majority of destroyed vehicles during Dunkirk were actually planes because it was so easy to destroy them. Even historians aren't exactly sure why Hitler and his goons did what they did when they had these men agains their backs at that beach. They could have easily delivered the killing blow but didn't.
Complaining about this is just weird. I mean did you want Nolan to make up some kind of explanation for this?

Maybe that's a fair statement. I guess my point in all of that is there was little to lead up to the dread of being killed at Dunkirk and the hopelessness of it all. The lines of dialogue (to me anyways) rang a little thin but if Nolan is calling that his exposition, then fine I suppose. I don't personally feel like the setting ever was setup for success as a meta-character of what the others were dealing with.
 

JB1981

Member
Maybe that's a fair statement. I guess my point in all of that is there was little to lead up to the dread of being killed at Dunkirk and the hopelessness of it all. The lines of dialogue (to me anyways) rang a little thin but if Nolan is calling that his exposition, then fine I suppose. I don't personally feel like the setting ever was setup for success as a meta-character of what the others were dealing with.

I actually do agree that the movie did not do an effective job of depicting how dire their situation was. I agree with some others here that Nolan seemed to impose this abitrary rule on himself where he would not show the enemy positions and their proximity to the British. All we get is the boys in the boat getting shot at from the dunes and then we get the naval commander saying "this is it" after seeing their boat taking fire and that was the extent of it.
 

Caturro

Member
Jesus this movie bored me to tears. The lack of character development couldn't keep me invested in the characters. There was severe lack of scale in every single scene. I love Nolan but this was very disappointing.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
I actually do agree that the movie did not do an effective job of depicting how dire their situation was. I agree with some others here that Nolan seemed to impose this abitrary rule on himself where he would not show the enemy positions and their proximity to the British. All we get is the boys in the boat getting shot at from the dunes and then we get the naval commander saying "this is it" after seeing their boat taking fire and that was the extent of it.

That entire scene I could have done without. It was sloppy and by that time, we had seen 4 or more boat sinking sequences so having another one was a little much.

I would have made the scene around the boat captain that came back and wanting to get the boat actually operational again and then having him get shot and trying to keep him quiet vs. the teenage angst amongst the other soldiers. Again, I don't mean to nitpick at the movie but it just seemed dull in terms of how it pulled you in within the scenes.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU

I will say though, Atonement's 5 minute Dunkirk scene really shows off the scale and direness of the situation much better than Nolan's Dunkirk. I still really enjoyed both movies

I was hoping someone was going to post this besides me bringing it up. This captures the grittiness of desperation the English had in trying to get home and all of them being victim of their circumstances.
 

kanuuna

Member
Saw the movie a second time (IMAX Laser, as opposed to regular 70mm 1st viewing).
I still don't know how to feel about the soundtrack as a whole though I will still say I really dislike the music that plays over
the torpedo scene
.
That track felt so out of place and honestly I wish they'd have just cut music during that scene altogether
.
 
Top Bottom