Return to Index  

Dunkirk

December 27 2017 at 9:51 PM
John Sliz 


Response to Just saw this now (massive SPOILERS ahead)

I finally got around to seeing this movie - my wife bought it for me - and I am sorry that I missed this on the big screen. Visually it looked great and I liked the fact that the special effects was kept to a minimal. Michael: say what you want about the Spitfire landing on the beach, but I loved it. It looked great! I actually rewound it to see it again. Sorry, I have a weakness for old planes. I once stopped a baseball game to watch a Lancaster fly overhead, but that is another story.

I looked for shoulder flashes throughout the movie and I saw very little and at first I was a little confused because all of the characters basically looked the same and were without names. I think that all of this was intentional to create a everyman sort of thing with the characters who could have been any of the 300,000. Despite the lack of names, I was cheering for each one to make it.

What is it with Christopher Nolan and time? As in Inception and Interstellar he really played with the time and it kind of threw me at first. I am anxious to watch the movie again and I am sure I will soon.

I loved the ending with Churchill's speech being read over the conclusions of stories. It was a great way to end a film. As I stated earlier I re-watched the ending.

In conclusion I loved the movie and I am glad that it isn't your typical war movie. Sure, they might have gotten a few uniform parts wrong, but it captured the spirit of what really happened at Dunkirk, which is good for the public - who has seen too many comic book heroes on the big screen - to see.

p.s. I wonder what Mr. Nolan is going to do next.



 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

  • Re: Dunkirk - Brian Bridger on Dec 28, 2017, 4:35 PM
  •  

canadiansoldiers.com