Only in your head
Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan's next film
- Thread starter Nikhil
- Start date
British ignorance about their past always amazes me.
History truly written by the winners.
It's hard to find the effort to respond to your wumming.
The downplaying of Russia and China's role in World War 2 over time is a very serious problem for historic preservation. However, just read back the last few pages and you'll find discussion about Russia and how Russia vs Germany was were the most lives were lost and how Russia did more than anyone in defeating the Axis powers.
However, a huge amount of people on this site are British. Our grandparents and great grandparents may have fought in WW2 or at least lived through it. Of course that's true of anywhere; Ireland, USA, Europe, Japan, China, India... everywhere. But yeah, there is a rather large British contingent here
Anyway
Oh by the way, the proof that it's all in your head is in that, Manc Exile's post was about the Brits thinking we're the savouries of the world.... and you thought he was saying he thought we were?
Stuff of nonsense.
Yep, I did which is why I asked him if he disagreed. Also, I doubt anyone in Britain thinks they're savouries
You may not have such an inflated opinion about Britain's role in recent history but others certainly do. A society that considers Churchill as their greatest citizen ever suggests there has been a systematic revision of history.
This is off-topic but, like you said, there's a large British contingent here and it's always good for them to hear this.
thats a different argument to there being a myth that Britain was the saviour of the world. So yes I disagree. There is no myth that the british were the saviours of the world, you are the first person I have ever heard state that and I am 47 years old. What the British did was hang on for 12 months as the lone european opposition to Germany, so that when the USSR and the USA were attacked and entered the war, Germany had to fight on many fronts with a reduced industrial capacity than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore shortening the war.
To my mind the best thing about the British participation in the war was the end to the holocaust sooner than would otherwise have happened.
The end of the empire (which is without doubt a good thing) was not necessarily dependant on the second world war. For example the Indian movement for independance was very strong prior to the war and I would argue that India would have achieved independance sooner and without partition if the second world war had not happened.
If Britain and France had been better prepared, and in any way capable of aiding Poland and Czechslovakia, millions of lives could have been saved.
Or maybe it would have all somehow been worse.
Really, Britain doesn't have any basis whatsoever to call itself the most important player
Lost the most lives - Russia
(first) Broke the Enigma Machine - Poland
Turning point of the war - Battle of Stalingrad, Pearl Harbour,
Or maybe it would have all somehow been worse.
Really, Britain doesn't have any basis whatsoever to call itself the most important player
Lost the most lives - Russia
(first) Broke the Enigma Machine - Poland
Turning point of the war - Battle of Stalingrad, Pearl Harbour,
WTF? This thread took a turn.
Just finished watching this. Thought it was great. Been a bit sceptical about Nolan's recent movies but he blew me away with this one. Loved it from start to finish.
Just finished watching this. Thought it was great. Been a bit sceptical about Nolan's recent movies but he blew me away with this one. Loved it from start to finish.
If you are being wilfully ignorant about the bloodiest empire in history then you are the one wumming pal!
It's polarising because Nolan is the IMDB king and this film has jettisoned a lot of the elements that made him a reddit legend but put off those who thought he was always nearly there but suffered from indulgences.
I don't mean that to be as condescending as it comes across but it's proved to be an interesting case study between your classical film buffs and the modern wave of social media movie nerds who value detail, world building and dense storytelling.
What does the empire have to do with Dunkirk? What does the empire have to do with any of it?
Fantastic film. Absolutely incredible sound design; hairs on the back of my neck stood up when the german planes swooped down during the bombings. Not the biggest fan of Hans Zimmer as i often find his score to be distracting and normally overshadows what going on in a particular scene. But i have to say, the score in this film is great and adds to the tension that is prominent throughout the movie.
Some stunning shots and incredible cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema who eschews the war porn imagery that plagues films such as Pearl Harbour etc., and instead creates a more authentic and visceral movie.
Don't think it's Nolans best movie ( i still have a huge soft spot for The Prestige), but a great piece of work nonetheless.
Some stunning shots and incredible cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema who eschews the war porn imagery that plagues films such as Pearl Harbour etc., and instead creates a more authentic and visceral movie.
Don't think it's Nolans best movie ( i still have a huge soft spot for The Prestige), but a great piece of work nonetheless.
Afaik spitfires could glide for up to 15mins
Please tell me it's the former who liked it and the latter who didn't?
Only realised at the end that we didn't see a drop of blood spilt in any of the battle scenes. Having watched Hacksaw Ridge last weekend (the opposite extreme) I much preferred his more restrained approach.
Also very cool and original that you never see a single German soldier, even in the distance.
Exactly. It's what you would expect from Nolan really. Like him or hate him, he's a very intelligent guy who treated the story with the respect and dignity that it deserved, while also making it extremely emotive and intense without the need for gratuitous violence.
And yes, very interesting regarding the lack German soldiers being portrayed on screen. I have to say, i was so involved that i really didn't pick up on it initially. Only came to me when i was ruminating on it for a bit when i arrived home.
Yes it has a 94 on Metacritic, Nolans highest by daylight.
As someone who's always enjoyed Nolan and considered him the most capable hands with a 100m+ budget, but thought he's overreached in all his films since The Dark Knight and indulged his worst habits, this film was as a revelation. His best, the best of the year and the best big budget since Mad Max.
Agree with every word (although I wasn't a big fan of Dark Knight either)
Agree with both of these.
Terrible film for me. No characters, little dialogue, no real plot, no tension and no way to relate to the story other than my real-life knowledge of the events. Without caring about any of the characters, how are you supposed to relate to anything going on in the film? They're supposed to be the thing you grip onto to take you through the story. Without that there's no tension, and without that you don't really have a film - just a pretty looking 2 hour chain of events.
It doesn't help that whatever characters you did meet were completely pointless. That George kid who fell down the stairs and died, what was his purpose? The film would be exactly the same whether he was in it or not. You could make a similar point for the lack of plot. The idea is to evacuate these men, right? So they get on a ship, it gets blown up. They get on another ship, same thing. Then they get on another boat and get home. You could chop off the first 90 minutes of the film and the plot plays out the exact same way. It's not at all consequential to the story.
I think the lack of backstory and characterisation was deliberate. Usually you have 2 or 3 guys you care for and the rest are cannon fodder. The intent here was for you to follow the escape of a handful of soldiers without putting them on a pedestal above the thousands of others who were also enduring similar traumas. It's an approach that worked very well IMO.
Great film. Shits all over his last two, that's for sure.
Great film. Shits all over his last two, that's for sure.
Agree fully.
Exactly, it was deliberate and made the movie seem 'realer' to me.
Yeah, it helped you put yourself in their shoes. Which also explains why so much of the action was filmed from so close it felt claustrophobic. It was a movie that felt like you were living it, rather than watching a film star going through the motions.
I was slightly underwhelmed by it to be honest. Almost none of my personal preferences for what should be covered in a Dunkirk movie were met - no real demonstration of its scale, no depiction of the chaotic retreat to juxtapose with the purgatory of beach and port and the relief and exhaustion at deliverance. I was also disappointed by Nolan's decision to ignore the enormous sacrifice of those protecting the pocket - particularly the French - and there was scant recognition that almost half those rescued weren't British. Excising scale and context in favour of focusing simply on the rescue through a weird impersonal portrayal of truncated individual accounts ended up failing to do the overall historical event much justice.
As a film depicting Dunkirk I thought it was lacking, as a survival thriller it was pretty good!
I Liked the ending as well. Contrasting Hardy the Hero fighting to his last ounce of fuel on his way to capture while the protected coward Tommy was greeted as a hero was a real nice touch.
Also I have to say that I thought the aerial photography was some of the most spectacular ever committed to film.
As a film depicting Dunkirk I thought it was lacking, as a survival thriller it was pretty good!
I Liked the ending as well. Contrasting Hardy the Hero fighting to his last ounce of fuel on his way to capture while the protected coward Tommy was greeted as a hero was a real nice touch.
Also I have to say that I thought the aerial photography was some of the most spectacular ever committed to film.
Last edited:
Just because it has come up in the news recently I think this needs correction. From the accounts I've read there were 4 Indian companies (around 1-2k men) at Dunkirk, not 4 divisions (40k - 60k men). Millions of Indians fought in the war and their service is routinely and severely overlooked - but there weren't that many In 1940 France.
Laugh if you like, it's still a shit film.
I did look it up yesterday and found a quote by Nolan saying exactly this. I thought such a well respected director wouldn't have made such a basic error without meaning to, but even so that doesn't really change the fact the story was missing these elements. In my opinion it just made for a poor film.
You're perfectly entitled to think that way, but it doesn't stop the criticisms you've made of it (particularly in that second paragraph) being so bad they're funny.
What's so wrong about them?
Agree.. Pompous and just pointless..
Dunkirk was a German blunder not a British triumph.. Beyond that it's stylish and well made.. Looks more like a Hans Zimmer music video than anything else.
Ok, cool. Well that approach worked for me. I also figured that was why the main character was not a recognisable movie star. Helped with the everyman vibe. He dropped a bollock casting Harry Styles, mind you! (even though his performance was fine)
The no plot one stands out as particularly absurd. Following that logic most films don't have a plot.
I really do think that the most negative reactions to Dunkirk are issues of perception. A lot of people seem to have gone to see it expecting a film that Dunkirk does not even try to be. If you went in expecting a classic war film that conforms to the tropes and stereotypes of that genre then I can understand being disappointed by what you got, but judged by the standards of what Dunkirk is trying to be then it succeeds very well. That, of course, doesn't mean you have to like it, but it makes it easier to understand why others do.
I didn't go into it expecting anything, other than a good film. But good films tend to have things that draw you into the story, like good and well developed characters that you can relate to. Nothing really happened to them as people, they didn't change at all, there was no arc to any of them.
The audiences investment in the characters is what forms the tension, and without that you don't really care what happens to them. The whole thing ends up being a bit boring if you don't care about the outcome. I wasn't rooting for any of the characters because the film spent zero time working on any of them. When they were holed up (pardon the pun) in that boat with Germans shooting at them, I thought "wow, I'm bored". I didn't care whether they got out or not, which regardless of whether it was intentional or not surely you must agree makes for a pretty boring film, even if the visuals are nice.
Is it worth seeing this movie in a 70mm theater an hr away?
I think so, yes. If only for the aerial battle scenes. Which are the best I've ever seen. Also makes great use of the pumped up volume of an IMAX.
Cheers, think it's a go this week.