New Dunkirk Trailer

[stuart3]

Just got home from watching Dunkirk in IMAX. The sound was absolutely incredible right from the opening gunfire. Christopher Nolan shows that you don’t have to cover the screen in fake blood (I don’t think there was any) in order to get the message across.

Having said that, I am glad that I had read a review that explained how the very different time scales of the land, air and sea components were spread equally across the length of the action. Without that, I think I would have struggled about how the spitfires were still flying the same patrol and the small boat nowhere near the French coast while the army had already had two or three night scenes.

If I had to have a quibble, it would be about the incredible buoyancy of the two spitfires that ditched in the Channel. My understanding is that they would have been much more likely to dive straight to the bottom, taking their pilots with them.

I am definitely considering a second viewing.

[goodwoodrw]

ORIGINAL: 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!

The bullets through the hull frightened the crapper out of me.[:D]
The Stukas, wow in fact the sound WOW. I just thought it was a great movie. I'm glad I read a little about the movie before going, because I think would have been a bit confused with the time line. But saying that, my 20 year old son knew very little about Dunkirk, didn't read much about the movie before going, but he loved it.He said he had no trouble following what was going on, I guess kids of today are smarter than me.[:D] One comment he did make was he loved the violins, what friggin violins [:D]

[Poopyhead]

For 76 years we've all been told that:

- Hitler was an idiot for stopping Guderian (twice) from driving his panzers through to the coast...almost ensuring the evacuation's success.

-Goering was a pompous fool for thinking that the Luftwaffe alone could keep the Brits from evacuating...which it could not.

-The French never got any credit for the success...even though their holding operation made it possible.

So...a horrible plan to move the BEF into Belgium precipitated a near disaster that was averted due to German incompetence and heroic French resistance.

Maybe someone should tell that story.

http://www.thewrap.com/dunkirk-fact-che ... y-rescued/

[warspite1]

That kind of depends on what book one reads....

So...a horrible plan to move the BEF into Belgium precipitated a near disaster that was averted due to German incompetence and heroic French resistance.....maybe someone should tell that story

I take it from the way you've phrased your post you actually believe it was a British plan?? Well it wasn't and a) it wasn't just the BEF that moved into Belgium - the cream of the French Army moved with them b) whose plan was that? Well it begins with Maurice and ends with Gamelin and c) whose Breda variant - which called for Allied troops to move beyond the Dyle was the reason there were no French reserves when the Germans breached the Meuse? Well it begins with Maurice and ends with Gamelin.

The French never got any credit for the success...even though their holding operation made it possible.

The French - along with the British and, for a while, the Belgians - all played their part in holding the Germans at bay. After the Belgians surrendered the French and the British (in smaller numbers) held the perimeter around Dunkerque. French forces were instrumental in the evacuation being capable of happening (the plan of evacuation still had to be executed - and for which the land roles were reversed - the Royal Navy provided the bulk of the ships and aircraft). I have no wish to bash the French, many of whom fought so bravely, but in addition to your false point about the march into Belgium, you singularly failed to mention - in your list of what we have been told - the truth about what led to the debacle in the first place - the crossing of the Meuse and the inability of the French to adequately defend that major river crossing. To fight the war to a WWI timetable, to fail to defend the river and adequately patrol its east bank, to fail to lay sufficient mines, to fail to man key crossing points and strongpoints, and to fail to extinguish the initial tentative bridgeheads over the Meuse.

You also fail to mention the spectacular luck that the Germans received on a number of occasions during the campaign - not limited to a) the fact that Guderian's request for a devastating aerial bombardment that shattered the French on the Meuse was overruled by von Kleist in favour of a less effective one. Why were the Germans lucky? The Luftwaffe officer ignored Kleist* and went with Guderian's plan. b) Guderian's resignation was accepted (again by Kleist* I believe who, along with a number of senior generals were far from happy with the plan to send the panzers to the coast) but fortunately again for the Germans, a compromise was worked out.

No one knows exactly who was responsible for the halt order, but it is believed it actually emanated from von Rundstedt - not Hitler - and took into account that the tanks needed R+R for the remaining liquidation of French resistance still to come.

*Need to check if this was Kleist. EDIT: Yes it was Kleist. Bruno Loerzer - Commander of Luftflotte II and Guderian had agreed upon the devastating rolling raid (developed over Poland) to neutralise the French defenders on the Meuse. Kleist countermanded the order - but Loerzer, luckily for the Germans, decided it was too late to change Guderian's plan....

[wodin]

Events in War are always alot more complicated than it may look, hence why we still have a constant supply of new books coming out WW1 and WW2.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BASB

ORIGINAL: 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!

The bullets through the hull frightened the crapper out of me.[:D]
The Stukas, wow in fact the sound WOW. I just thought it was a great movie. I'm glad I read a little about the movie before going, because I think would have been a bit confused with the time line. But saying that, my 20 year old son knew very little about Dunkirk, didn't read much about the movie before going, but he loved it.He said he had no trouble following what was going on, I guess kids of today are smarter than me.[:D] One comment he did make was he loved the violins, what friggin violins [:D]

warspite1

I really enjoyed the film in the Imax. The noise was just ... noisier! The soundtrack was even more noticeable too.

It was also good to watch the film second time around - knowing this time how the timelines intermingle - and the film, excellent first time round, was even better the second time.

And they must do something about that air quality in the cinema - once again I seem to have got something in my eye on a couple of occasions....[bottom lip has now stopped quivering [:)]]

[wodin]

DAmn I forgot to mention another great war film which I think hasn't been mentioned yet...Waterloo.

[goodwoodrw]

Steiger Napoleon yes good movie especially for its time

[radic202]

I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

[stuart3]

This isn't the history of the Dunkirk evacuation. It is the story of one spitfire patrol with three pilots with English accents, one small boat from the south coast of England with three local civilians as crew, and two English soldiers desperately trying to jump the queues on the beaches in order to to get home.

There are a lot of khaki clad soldiers in the background. One soldier reserved the queue he was in for the Grenadiers. Other than that you can make your own assumptions about which nationalities the background soldiers represented.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: stuart3

This isn't the history of the Dunkirk evacuation. It is the story of one spitfire patrol with three pilots with English accents, one small boat from the south coast of England with three local civilians as crew, and two English soldiers desperately trying to jump the queues on the beaches in order to to get home.

There are a lot of khaki clad soldiers in the background. One soldier reserved the queue he was in for the Grenadiers. Other than that you can make your own assumptions about which nationalities the background soldiers represented.

warspite1

Of the two pilots that we see (the third is quickly shot down) one is English and the other is Scottish.

[goodwoodrw]

don't forget the when the Commander said when he was asked if he was jumping on the boat.
( being a bit cryptic here so not to spoil it for those yet to see the movie).

[Yogi the Great]

Again I liked the movie and from reading some of the posts maybe I'll try to see a second time but this time at the IMAX to see what that is like. Still Have never seen any movie at a IMAX.

But back to the original debate of how great a movie was it. Personally I'm in the middle I don't think on a scale of ten it was as low as the 2 or three some do. I also don't think it was as high as the 8 to 10 some others do. I would say more like a 6 or 7. I think the problem at least for some of us gamers and old Grognards was the anticipation before it came out. Like most movies the exciting trailers were at least a bit misleading. They gave the impression that this would be a movie filled with war action scenes and covering things on a large scale not on just s few people. Also not expected was to see one of the three main stories covering soldiers you couldn't quite place as hero's as their efforts were directed at self preservation to save themselves by any means for their personal good not the good of the others. Not saying that should not be covered as it is part of war. Just old fashioned and prefer my hero being more noble and representing honor, sacrifice and dedication to his comrades.

So we can all look at the movie in different ways and understand we won't all see it the same way. Again a good movie worth seeing and I will see it again. But I just don't think it is one of the greats of all time. Sadly, that is what I was hoping it would be.

[wodin]

WOW personally it makes a change we have a war film featuring the UK troops and not about the Americans. I'm thankful for that.

ALso where Canadians ever at Dunkirk?

Plus maybe the French film industry should do a film about their War. If WW2 is abit to sore one set during WW1 would be fantastic and show the French soldier as brave as any other plus a good fighter when led properly. Look at the good result they got on the first day of the Somme compared to the Commonwealth forces.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.

[stuart3]

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

While I agree with the sentiment, I specifically omitted these two excellent mini-series from consideration. I know some consider these "movies", but I cannot.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ALso where Canadians ever at Dunkirk?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.

warspite1

Please read my post you quoted for the answer [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: stuart3

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861

warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

While I agree with the sentiment, I specifically omitted these two excellent mini-series from consideration. I know some consider these "movies", but I cannot.

warspite1

Quite, as a mini-series these have an unfair advantage in terms of length and thus character development and sheer scope of story.