Re: Photos from the DUNKIRK film shoot
|May 30 2016, 5:01 PM |
After loving his last three movies, I can't wait for this one! He has gone from super heroes (Batman) to mind control/time (Inception) to space (Interstellar) and now a historical movie. He has done a great job with all of them so far so I am expecting that he will do a great job with Dunkirk. The photos look awesome.
|May 31 2016, 3:06 AM |
I will wait until I see the motion picture as lots of CGI and 'actors dressed in period uniforms' does not necessarily guarantee a good production no matter how many superhero or science fiction movies the director has to his credit.
|May 31 2016, 5:06 AM |
It doesn't matter what the genre is, a good story is a good movie and Mr. Nolan knows how to tell a good story.
|May 31 2016, 10:26 AM |
Glad to hear another British-Commonwealth cinema is in the making!
Re: Excellent News!
|July 10 2016, 9:58 AM |
The trouble with any modern movie about WW2 is that the hair is too long. With actors 'pumping up' for roles, fattening up, losing weight or growing facial hair, is is too much to ask to have a 'short back and sides' for the movie? Everyone looks too modern.
|July 10 2016, 10:54 AM |
After the CGI, there was probably no money in the budget for haircuts.
|July 11 2016, 9:30 AM |
You mean the cardboard cut-outs, Ed?
Helmets are the Wrong Colour
|July 11 2016, 1:58 PM |
As in a lot of movies they all seem to be wearing shiny olive green helmets - normally issued to civil defence agencies or the Home Guard. Military issue helmets of the period were usually rough-textured khaki.
...about the extras.....ruining a scene....
|August 9 2016, 11:52 AM |
|August 10 2016, 7:49 AM |
I think the comments section is more enlightening than the article!
Re: Comments section
|August 18 2016, 8:31 AM |
I think so too. Some people do strange things when they are nervous and/or scared. I bet that during the actual battle there was at least one poor guy laughing his head off.
I wonder if this extra has a book deal yet.
Just saw this now (massive SPOILERS ahead)
|July 22 2017, 4:26 PM |
The grinning soldier from the trailer was there, I remembered to watch for him. There were a couple of times extras in mortal terror were grinning at the camera.
I say if you want a good visual experience, the movie won't disappoint. The CGI was kept to minimal and realistic levels. The dogfights looked real - no Star Wars tracer effects, no skies filled with planes (or boats).
Despite jumping into the action very quickly, I didn't care about any of the characters. I don't think half of them had names. All the infantrymen looked alike and all the pilots wore oxygen masks.
The scenes were presented out of order - I suppose to build the tension - but all it did was confuse me.
Every time a British plane went after a German one, he went down. Shooting down an airplane is an incredibly hard thing to do. It's why the top 5% of pilots were recognized as 'aces' - because it was so relatively rare for anyone to do it. Movie falls victim to the trope that if you're shooting an enemy plane up, he's going down.
Without characters to care about, there was nothing at stake. And the little bit of drama they did have, didn't work. At the end they had the Spitfire pilot do the 'hand-crank the landing gear in the nick of time' thing. But so what? In Memphis Belle when they did it, they at least had some stakes as earlier in the film, another B-17 bellied in and blew up on landing. So the audience felt some drama when the Belle had to do the same thing. Not here.
And of course, the nitpicky stuff - the British colonel appeared to be wearing the wrong insignia on his BD (arm of service rank badges, OR cap badge). The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were wearing plain glengarries (unless the two visible glens were supposed to be pipers, these should have been diced). Stukas kept appearing out of nowhere - did they really not have LAA regiments at the beach at Dunkirk? Stukas just come and go at will to shock and surprise the audience.
Curious about others' reaction to this.
|This message has been edited by dorosh on Jul 23, 2017 1:09 PM|
|December 27 2017, 9:51 PM |
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.
|December 28 2017, 4:35 PM |
Thought the movie was good. The only thing I thought was really odd was the seemingly unlimited supply of ammo carried by the spitfire. Cheers Brian