Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Master debator.
Joined
·
8,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Kind of short, 1:50, and somewhat short of epic also. It was a good movie, you have to pay attention to follow along with the characters at times. I know the history of the Dunkirk evacuation and I think that actually spoiled it somewhat for me. The attempts to build up tension and suspense were just shy of working imho, and I never really felt connected with any of the characters, I surely didn't care what happened to them for the most part. It was kind of weird that it struck me that way.

Not a lot of blood or gore, if any at all, some pretty decent use of sound to enhance the effects and heighten the drama if you were into it. Visually it is worth seeing on the big screen if not iMax if that's available to you.

I'm giving it 3.25 out of 5 stars :)
 

·
Cycling Addict
Joined
·
5,178 Posts
I also went to see it last night. They did a good job with the equipment but failed to portray the magnitude of the rescue, IMO. They mentioned it, but just did not use enough men, ships, small craft and aircraft to truly portray the size of the battle.

Another nit I have to pick is in the aerial combat scenes - there was a near total lack of the sound of the engines inside the cockpit of the aircraft. Yes, I am picking nits - but it is a family tradition (you did not want to go to a historical movie with my dad - he would explain how the buttons on that uniform were three inches too low).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
I agree with the above reviews. I was familiar with the history of the Dunkirk evacuation, and I thought more attention would have been given to the mobilization of civilian boats rather than just focusing on one. I like Kenneth Branaugh, but his character was fairly superfluous to the movie as a whole - I guess they needed a big name British actor on the cast. The parallel story lines were a bit disjointed. But it was worth seeing, from a historical standpoint if nothing else.
 

·
Doesn't like subtitles
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Spoiler: Germans lose in the end.

One of my old man Groucho complaints is the CGI rendering of aircraft in film. BITD, they would use real aircraft (Tora, Tora, Tora comes to mind) which is of course, realistic. Now they use computer renderings of aircraft and IMO, do a lousy job in that while looking real, fly in the manner in what an 8 year old must imagine. Zipping across the screen at what would be probably about 700 mph rather than the true speed of probably 200-300. Havent seen this film yet but I'm always hoping they do a better job.
 

·
Cycling Addict
Joined
·
5,178 Posts
Spoiler: Germans lose in the end.

One of my old man Groucho complaints is the CGI rendering of aircraft in film. BITD, they would use real aircraft (Tora, Tora, Tora comes to mind) which is of course, realistic. Now they use computer renderings of aircraft and IMO, do a lousy job in that while looking real, fly in the manner in what an 8 year old must imagine. Zipping across the screen at what would be probably about 700 mph rather than the true speed of probably 200-300. Havent seen this film yet but I'm always hoping they do a better job.
If they used CGI aircraft in this film they did not use them in the way that Flyboys did. My two favorite war films are Tora, Tora, Tora and The Battle of Britain, both of which used real aircraft. The aircraft in this one seemed real, unlike The Movie That Shall Not Be Named (what a military history forum I frequent calls that Ben Affleck romance). My complaint was how they silenced the sound of the engines when showing the cockpit scenes.
 

·
Eddy 53:11
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
Damn. These reviews are bad for me. I want to see; no cockpit sounds and computer flying are deal breakers . . . probably like watching BULLITT with computerized cars . . . . ****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Damn. These reviews are bad for me. I want to see; no cockpit sounds and computer flying are deal breakers . . . probably like watching BULLITT with computerized cars . . . . ****.
Don't think of it as a "special effects action movie". It's a war movie about actual historical events. It was appropriately realistic.
 

·
Cycling Addict
Joined
·
5,178 Posts
Damn. These reviews are bad for me. I want to see; no cockpit sounds and computer flying are deal breakers . . . probably like watching BULLITT with computerized cars . . . . ****.
Let me reiterate: this was not computer flying. Or if it was it was not noticeably so. The aircraft behaved like real aircraft in the dogfight scenes. I am pretty sure that they were real aircraft but could be wrong. The director just decided to leave out most of the engine noise in the cockpit scenes (obviously those scenes depicting the pilots faces in action were not shot in a real aircraft in combat).
 

·
Doesn't like subtitles
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Damn. These reviews are bad for me. I want to see; no cockpit sounds and computer flying are deal breakers . . . probably like watching BULLITT with computerized cars . . . . ****.


Just to be clear, I haven't seen this one; I was just griping about modern movies in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Fun fact: Christopher Nolan is known for using as much practical effects as possible instead of CGI. The planes used in the movie were real:

Dunkirk – Filming the Aerial Scenes for the Epic Movie | Warbirds News

In fact, the one point that I found interesting from a group of pedants on an aviation board was the fact that the planes are Spanish Buchons and not actual ME-109's. The giveaway was the ME-109 has inverted V12's.

They did use RC models for the dogfight/crashing sequences, may be why they look less than convincing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
If they used CGI aircraft in this film they did not use them in the way that Flyboys did. My two favorite war films are Tora, Tora, Tora and The Battle of Britain, both of which used real aircraft. The aircraft in this one seemed real, unlike The Movie That Shall Not Be Named (what a military history forum I frequent calls that Ben Affleck romance). My complaint was how they silenced the sound of the engines when showing the cockpit scenes.
If you mean Pearl Harbor, there were real aircraft. About 3 or 4 came over. But they used the DD963 destroyers in mothballs in Middle Loch as targets, and those don't look anything like WWII ships. They also did some explosions on the bow of one of them, and had to pay the Navy due to f-ing the ship up. (Didn't really matter as they are all sunk as targets now).

I was riding around during filming and watched the planes make their runs (I live up the hill from Middle Loch).

scott s.
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
I agree with the 3.5 out of 5 rating. The constant bouncing back and forth was a bit annoying to me.

I am a hard core aviation enthusiast. There were a few shots of the Spits that were absolutely beautiful. Seeing it in IMAX made them even better. But, the cockpit scenes and dog fighting got really old, quickly. How many rounds did the Spitfire hold? The one pilot did a lot of shooting. A lot. The bouncing back and forth made the last flying scene seem especially long.

I honestly would recommend waiting until it comes out on video and watch it for $2.
 

·
Weed
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
I agree with the 3.5 out of 5 rating. The constant bouncing back and forth was a bit annoying to me.

I am a hard core aviation enthusiast. There were a few shots of the Spits that were absolutely beautiful. Seeing it in IMAX made them even better. But, the cockpit scenes and dog fighting got really old, quickly. How many rounds did the Spitfire hold? The one pilot did a lot of shooting. A lot. The bouncing back and forth made the last flying scene seem especially long.

I honestly would recommend waiting until it comes out on video and watch it for $2.
The Spitfire MK I which was in service at that time was armed with eight .303in Browning machine guns, each with 300 rounds. IIRC each Browning .303 gun fired at a rate of around 20 rounds per second so he would have about 15 seconds of fire in total.
 

·
Cycling Addict
Joined
·
5,178 Posts
If you mean Pearl Harbor, there were real aircraft. About 3 or 4 came over. But they used the DD963 destroyers in mothballs in Middle Loch as targets, and those don't look anything like WWII ships. They also did some explosions on the bow of one of them, and had to pay the Navy due to f-ing the ship up. (Didn't really matter as they are all sunk as targets now).

I was riding around during filming and watched the planes make their runs (I live up the hill from Middle Loch).

scott s.
.
You might try re-watching The Movie That Shall Not Be Named... while the aircraft used in some scenes were real check out those dogfighting scenes. To my memory, the P40s were maneuvering in a way that no WW2 fighter could, much less a Kittyhawk/Warhawk.

I recall the destroyers subbing for battleship row... just another of the huge failings of that movie (historically).
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
36,949 Posts
You might try re-watching The Movie That Shall Not Be Named... while the aircraft used in some scenes were real check out those dogfighting scenes. To my memory, the P40s were maneuvering in a way that no WW2 fighter could, much less a Kittyhawk/Warhawk.

I recall the destroyers subbing for battleship row... just another of the huge failings of that movie (historically).
LOL. There was a great review of that movie that summed it up thusly: "It's about how on December 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack an American love triangle." :lol:

Michael Bay should be fired out of a battleship's 16-inch gun for it. Affleck too.
.
 

·
Doesn't like subtitles
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
I saw it today. Meh. There are some nice scenes and the aircraft are done nicely though IMO. Trying to focus on the glamorized individual stories robs the potential for showing what a truly epic event that was.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,426 Posts
I noticed that too. Maybe the pilot climbed out on the wing to reload three times. The sound people who added the machinegun sound in, messed up. By the time the pilot fired his guns, the bullets would have missed by 10 yards....In the final scene, a pilot would have never lowered his landing gear to land in beach sand. That would have resulted in a flip and a broken neck. The manual pumping of the gear was a good touch, though.
 

·
Doesn't like subtitles
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
I noticed that too. Maybe the pilot climbed out on the wing to reload three times. The sound people who added the machinegun sound in, messed up. By the time the pilot fired his guns, the bullets would have missed by 10 yards....In the final scene, a pilot would have never lowered his landing gear to land in beach sand. That would have resulted in a flip and a broken neck. The manual pumping of the gear was a good touch, though.
I thought it somewhat ironic in that scene, with Churchill's "never surrender" speech in the background, that the guy chose to land his plane on the beach, climb out, torch it, then meekly surrender to the German soldiers.

I originally gave the movie a "meh" but now I've decided to downgrade to "actively dislike" after giving it more thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
The Spitfire MK I which was in service at that time was armed with eight .303in Browning machine guns, each with 300 rounds. IIRC each Browning .303 gun fired at a rate of around 20 rounds per second so he would have about 15 seconds of fire in total.
Yeah. I'm guessing during the course of the one flight that he fired for more than 30 seconds total. I remember thinking about half way thru the movie - jeez, how many rounds does this guy have? But, it could be that I was over-counting his round-count, because of the way the movie jumps back and forth between perspectives so much.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top