New Dunkirk Trailer

[wodin]

To those who were disappointed, to get some idea which if any recent war film would you say was better than Dunkirk and why so?


What was the main issue you had with this movie?

Just with so many positive comments on the forum I'm intrigued.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: wodin

To those who were disappointed, to get some idea which if any recent war film would you say was better than Dunkirk and why so?


What was the main issue you had with this movie?

Just with so many positive comments on the forum I'm intrigued.

I haven't seen Dunkirk, but I'd like to recommend Warsaw '44 (Miasto 44 in polish), about the Home Army uprising. It has English subtitles. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3765326/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[balto]

HI Wodin. It was not a war movie. If you want to see a great movie, go see Manchester By The Sea or a pretty good movie Wonder Woman.

Your question about a recent good war movie, to me, they are few and far between. I hated the Brad Pitt, Sherman tank one. Last good war movie I saw was.., hmm, its been a while? Similar to a great western in that are both few and far between. But when you get a good Western or War movie - you think about it a lot and watch it again later on when it comes on rental.

But more importantly, it was a night out for some good clean fun. So a mediocre movie is not a bad thing.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: balto

It was not a war movie.

warspite1

You may not have liked Dunkirk - and fine that's entirely up to you - but how can you say it's not a war movie?

Perhaps for you its not historically accurate enough or you may believe the combat sequences are not believable, or you don't like the lack of CGI or you don't like the script or the acting or whatever - but, I confess I am at a loss, how is Dunkirk not a war movie?

[RFalvo69]

I'm reading "Miracle at Dunkirk", BTW, and I'm amazed by how many details Nolan was able to put in his movie. In "Dunkirk" many things happen to a small group of characters for dramatic purposes, but many, many scenes from the book (which, I guess derive from the memories of the soldiers) are there: the bombing and the strafing of the "Little Fleet" ships; the U-Boats (and torpedo boats) sinking destroyers - and what happened in their bowels with soldiers drowning while the ship was capsizing; the neat rows on the beaches... even the events on The Mole - when it is strafed and bombed - do seem to have been faithfully recreated from the book (I was amazed to discover that they actually did build pontoons using vehicles, and not only one but ten.

It is a movie, IMHO, worth watching twice: even if my eyes were, literally, glued to the screen (I don't remember even looking down once to check my backpack), there are a lot of details crammed everywhere. It is a difficult movie to absorb in a single sitting.

[warspite1]

When I mentioned in my review the absence of a soundtrack on the film - more like an incessant noise - this is what I meant. Zimmer really adds to the intensity of the battle scenes with an assault on one's eardrums to complement and compound Nolan's assault on one's other senses.

Wonderful. Crank it up to the max as it winds itself up to a crescendo.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/dunkirk-m ... ?r=US&IR=T

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

To those who were disappointed, to get some idea which if any recent war film would you say was better than Dunkirk and why so?


What was the main issue you had with this movie?

Just with so many positive comments on the forum I'm intrigued.

You made me think about this a bit, wodin. That's a good thing.

I'd have to go in the 'way back' machine to identify a war film that I thought was REALLY GOOD. There have been several that were entertaining, but not 'great'. I'd put "Dunkirk" in that batch. I'd also put "Fury" in that batch-and I am certain that the comparative will infuriate a goodly number here. I had a lot of fun with "Inglorious Basterds" too. All very watchable, but each with significant flaws that precluded greatness.

I think the last war movie that I saw that floored me was "Saving Private Ryan". I saw it several times in the theaters and afterwards. I cried, I felt nauseous, I found myself thinking-'by God that's enough! and angrily clenching my fists after watching the landing troops get slaughtered for 20 minutes. It was a visceral and transformative experience. The rest of the movie was very good too, but nothing compares to the beginning. That was the last GREAT war movie I saw.

See my previous comments regarding my greatest 'issue' with this movie.

[wodin]

Hmm..see Saving Private Ryan..except for the landing sequence..didn't do it for me.I always seem to compare it to the TV series Band of Brothers which I thought superior..SPR still for me was abit Hollywood.

I'm sure I'm in a minority but I did like This Red Line, also a lower budget film called When Trumpets Fade. The German films Downfall and Stalingrad I really enjoyed aswell. Also Cross of Iron:)Non WW2 When We Were Soldiers surprised me in a good way.


The old black and white Dunkirk movie is well worth watching!

Hacksaw Ridge was decent

[Curtis Lemay]

Band of Brothers and The Pacific are now the standard to beat.

[Challerain]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: wodin

To those who were disappointed, to get some idea which if any recent war film would you say was better than Dunkirk and why so?


What was the main issue you had with this movie?

Just with so many positive comments on the forum I'm intrigued.

You made me think about this a bit, wodin. That's a good thing.

I'd have to go in the 'way back' machine to identify a war film that I thought was REALLY GOOD. There have been several that were entertaining, but not 'great'. I'd put "Dunkirk" in that batch. I'd also put "Fury" in that batch-and I am certain that the comparative will infuriate a goodly number here. I had a lot of fun with "Inglorious Basterds" too. All very watchable, but each with significant flaws that precluded greatness.

I think the last war movie that I saw that floored me was "Saving Private Ryan". I saw it several times in the theaters and afterwards. I cried, I felt nauseous, I found myself thinking-'by God that's enough! and angrily clenching my fists after watching the landing troops get slaughtered for 20 minutes. It was a visceral and transformative experience. The rest of the movie was very good too, but nothing compares to the beginning. That was the last GREAT war movie I saw.

See my previous comments regarding my greatest 'issue' with this movie.

I guess this is where I get lost. In an earlier post you said that Dunkirk didn't express the scope of the operation. I'm not sure how part of a landing at one of 5 D-Day beaches and then a single squad traipsing across France in SPR does if Dunkirk doesn't.

I'm with Wodin on this, other than the first 20 minutes, SPR is a mediocre film with a silly plot.

[Canoerebel]

Saving Private Ryan was a great movie because those first 30 minutes put the viewer on the beach (any of the beaches, but Omaha will do). The rest of the movie had its ups and downs but did a fine job of portraying combat. (For that same reason, Titanic was a great movie because the viewer was there, on the ship, experiencing the horror, even while grimacing at parts of the plot.)

Great war movies of the past 25 years: Blackhawk Down, Gettysburg, Schindler's List (I consider it a war movie), Enemy at the Gates. Very good: Letters from Iwo Jima.

I agree with Chickenboy that Fury and Dunkirk were comparable in quality. Fury showed the grittiness of land combat; Dunkirk portrayed some of the drama of the great evacuation from France. But neither are great movies. They're "okay." The viewer watches with varying degrees of interest....but the viewer is not landing at Omaha Beach, is not in a death camp, is not crossing a mile of pasture land leading to Cemetery Ridge, and is not on Titanic's C deck.

[warspite1]

This is a great thread. It encapsulates just how difficult it is to please everyone in terms of what makes a great war film – just like how impossible it is to make a war game to everyone’s taste [:)].

Re wodin’s point:

Hmm..see Saving Private Ryan..except for the landing sequence..didn't do it for me.

I would agree with that. The opening sequence makes that film memorable, the final battle was good, but the rest of the film … it was okay. The film has to be seen as one of the best – but only because of that opening sequence. Take that away and…..

Picking up on Challerain’s point

I guess this is where I get lost. In an earlier post you said that Dunkirk didn't express the scope of the operation. I'm not sure how part of a landing at one of 5 D-Day beaches and then a single squad traipsing across France in SPR does if Dunkirk doesn't.

I am assuming this is down to the title. Dunkirk perhaps suggests it’s going to be a telling of the entire story, whereas Saving Private Ryan would have had the same expectation had it been called D-Day? Personally I don’t downgrade SPR because it didn’t show the full scope of D-Day - because that wasn’t what the film was about.

But equally I don’t downgrade Dunkirk, because it didn't show the full scope despite the title, because I don’t care. I didn’t know what exactly to expect going into the film in terms of what it covered. It quickly became apparent it wasn’t going to be an historic overview of the evacuation – and that was fine, because what I was presented with was brilliant in my view for what it was.

But the biggest shocker (sorry Canoerebel) was this (although acknowledging this is not a war film)

Titanic was a great movie because the viewer was there, on the ship, experiencing the horror, even while grimacing at parts of the plot.

Whilst I’m glad you added the last part of the sentence, from a personal perspective I cannot agree less. This film was truly Pearl Harbor on ice(berg). What was wrong with Titanic? I don’t know where to start. The oh so predictable plot – as you say – made one grimace at best, but positively hurl chunks at worst (you can only be happy and free and enjoy life if you are a poor, salt of the earth type, and you are a scumbag with a rod stuck firmly between your cheeks if you are rich. zzzzz yeah that's original blah blah blah. There was no proper recognition of the bravery and heroism – and there was much that could have been celebrated - aboard the ship that night (except of course for the ubiquitous Molly Brown – natch). The director used a real life officer, Murdoch – a hero in his Scottish home town of Dalbeattie, and whose descendants are alive today – and showed him as a bribe taking coward who shot himself – although only after he shot an Irish steerage class passenger for no good reason first (again, natch) when there is no reliable evidence to support that it happened and certainly no evidence at all that, if it did, it was Murdoch. English (Scottish) officer shoots Irish immigrant - that'll get 'em through the box office and to hell with fact. This was Hollywood – Josef Goebbels styleee. Even the director, Cameron admitted that he should not have portrayed Murdoch in this way – but that’s easy to say £2bn dollars later when the damage is done…. Hideous.

But you redeem yourself!! [:)] You mention Schindler’s List. There is something we can agree on. Best. Film. Ever. Made. FACT [&o].

[goodwoodrw]

Saw this picture today. My son and I went to the Imax theatre in Melbourne, truly a great experience. Sound, photography and music mind blowing. Loved the aerial combat or more so the aerial scenes. It's not SPR or a BTF it's a different type of war movie, just like Schindler's List was a different type of war movie.
Not to mention what they are, but there is a couple of scenes that frighten the crap out of me. [:D]
I would recommend this movie to most, if it is 100 minutes of blood, gore and endless action then you may be a little disappointed, but you want to see a movies great sound, photography, fantastic music and some very human elements of war (fear, pride, fortitude etc etc) then do yourself a favour go and see it soon.
Warspite In will be interested in your comparison between Imax and normal theatre.

[wodin]

Schindlers List is fantastic film..forgot that one!

As for SPR it's not a totally bogus plot..it's loosely based on a true event...a soldier was pulled out the line as he was the last son..but how it was portrayed in the film is fiction to what really happened (I think they had read Ambrose Citizen Soldiers and it's mentioned in the book, that's were they got the inspiration)

Regeneration is another great film..can't believe I forgot that one!

The film with Tom Cruise about the attempted assassination of Hitler was better than I thought it would be..just. Fury was OK until one tank vs a near German regiment part.

Love Peter Jackson to make a WW1 movie!

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: BASB
Warspite In will be interested in your comparison between Imax and normal theatre.

I haven't seen it in a normal theatre, but I noticed that the trailers are in "widescreen" (don't ask me about the format [:D]) while IMAX has more space above and below (almost 4:3 at my screening). This makes both the claustrofobic scenes and those where the characters experience "tunnel vision" even more realistic, IMHO.

[pkpowers]

It was so loud in Imax i think we had hearing damage. (It got better )[:'(]

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: pkpowers

It was so loud in Imax i think we had hearing damage. (It got better )[:'(]

Yell out in the theater a few times "turn it down" a few times...they will get the message. [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BASB

Saw this picture today. My son and I went to the Imax theatre in Melbourne, truly a great experience. Sound, photography and music mind blowing. Loved the aerial combat or more so the aerial scenes. It's not SPR or a BTF it's a different type of war movie, just like Schindler's List was a different type of war movie.
Not to mention what they are, but there is a couple of scenes that frighten the crap out of me. [:D]
I would recommend this movie to most, if it is 100 minutes of blood, gore and endless action then you may be a little disappointed, but you want to see a movies great sound, photography, fantastic music and some very human elements of war (fear, pride, fortitude etc etc) then do yourself a favour go and see it soon.
Warspite In will be interested in your comparison between Imax and normal theatre.

warspite1

I will let you know [:)]. In 'normal' mode the Stukas were loud and scary enough, so I am expecting 'Stukas on steroids' tomorrow [X(]

And then there's the soundtrack [:)] Really looking forward to my first taste of imax!

[pkpowers]

The gunshots sounded like right behind the seat. The merlin engine in spitfire sounded beautiful. That was true music.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pkpowers

The gunshots sounded like right behind the seat. The merlin engine in spitfire sounded beautiful. That was true music.

warspite1

There is something about the sound of the Merlin engine. Beautiful indeed, just indescribably beautiful.




Or six of them - even better [8D]