"Dunkirk"

Didn't some Hollywood flakes complain that there weren't sufficient females and blacks represented in the movie ??
And as I just now learned that Justine wasn't invited to have a role, I guess I must have missed the CBC's complaint.
 
DaveF said:
Didn't some Hollywood flakes complain that there weren't sufficient females and blacks represented in the movie ??
And as I just now learned that Justine wasn't invited to have a role, I guess I must have missed the CBC's complaint.
Click to expand...

The USA Today review very briefly mentioned that, but the backlash was kind of overkill really. Plus the movie already made an effort to include some black Tirailleurs Sénégalais (in the scene where French soldiers are trying to get onto the mole and was held back a British officer), so it's not a big deal
 
Sqr said:
Unfortunately it's important to ensure the correct timeline props are utilized when making movies, eg "Fury". (A Real Tiger and STG44). In a flick with very little dialogue this is crucial.

It may be an attempt to trick to the IPhone crowd, but it's very important to viewers who go to the movies and observe too appreciate the effort making the film as original as possible.

This was a terrible result IMO.
Click to expand...

The only people who really care about the most exact uniform/gear are the very few who can identify it. The reality is they got the bigger picture and didn't make a mockery of it. Considering how most kids get there visions of what WWI or WWII looked like from video games (which are almost all complete crap) movies like this matter more and more.

Is it something I would rewatch again? No. That being said, I felt it was pretty good at capturing the overall concept, as it is the bigger picture that matters. There is only so much money in a budget, and pretty much all the stock of cheap, available, WWII surplus are gone. Sometimes you have to make do as the only way someone can afford to make a 100% accurate movie now is to spend some pretty big bucks or use CGI.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
There is only so much money in a budget, and pretty much all the stock of cheap, available, WWII surplus are gone. Sometimes you have to make do as the only way someone can afford to make a 100% accurate movie now is to spend some pretty big bucks or use CGI.
Click to expand...

Yep. So it was better left undone. A vast project started with half vast resources.
 
Finally went and saw it last week. Awesome flick, really pulls you in. And 5 mins in with those SCREAMING Stuka sirens? Oh my god.

The only parts I scoffed at a bit was landing the Spitfire on a beach with gear down, and seemingly gliding forever AND shooting down another Stuka in the process, as many before me have said. Glad I went to see it in theatres tho :3
 
Last edited:
I don't think I have ever seen a war movie that didn't get some things wrong and stretch the true for the sake of the story. Should they not have made The Longest Day, a number of errors, Stalingrad, lots, Battle of Britain, wrong planes, among other things. Midway, Pearl Harbour etc etc etc. Even documentaries frequently get parts wrong depending on the slant of the production crew. So Sharps 74 none of these should have been made because they have errors? Should they not have used real SMLE's because over time the wood has darkened so that it is now too dark to be period correct. In addition there are often no absolute known truths about these events as it depends on who you are and what view you saw things from. The perspective of a grunt is very different from a pilot is different to senior officers. Personally I thought they did a reasonable job considering all the conflicting descriptions and they went to a lot of trouble to use as much real stuff as they could. I think they deserve praise not condemnation.
 
Sharps '74 said:
The movie was a low budget travesty. It was an epic event that kept Britain in the war and it appeared to be a weekend excursion in the movie. Compared to other war stories - "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day", "Saving Private Ryan" and others, it was an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Three of the most error riddled war movies of all time.
 
Just be glad the movie was made about Dunkirk.

It's the story that matters.

No movie will ever be 100% unless you were actually there in the 1940's and were part of the real thing.

Now for the rest of you grumpy old bastards complaining, carry on!
 
The large budget movies you mentioned gave an impression of the epic size of the battles of the times, error riddled or not. "Dunkirk" failed to deliver a sense of that.

A low budget movie that succeeded was "Casablanca". Shot on a back lot in Hollywood, it has become iconic and a favourite to this day. "Dunkirk" will be forgotten (hopefully) in a couple of years.
 
So the movie was about the evacuation that's it? So nothing about the mission of going in to take the decoder they were after? And the warship they used had a shallow hull to go in shallow water to go after the decoder? It was more of a James Bond secret service mission with a battle diversion. I haven't seen it but that is really what was going on not some lame little battle and a rescue. Why else would England and Canada send so few troops to invade Europe? I better watch the movie.
 
I would have thought with all the Enfield rifles on the beach,they would have emptied their magazines on the Stukas
 
stencollector said:
I suspect that is the closest any Trudeau has got to serving in uniform.
Click to expand...

Actually, Justin's younger brother Alexandre was an OCdt in the RCH and spent a summer in the late 90s on RESO training. I was at the Armour School as an instructor then and I saw Pierre (who attended the grad parade) at the post parade reception.
 
I was horrifically dissapointed by this movie.
I even had trouble telling who the actors were and WTF was going on with the
"cut and paste" of scenes like in the movie "pulp fiction"

The movie lacked the true emotion and fear of say "saving private ryan"
and it was really hard to sympathize with any of the umm "primary characters"

Editing was sloppy, the acting horrible, I thought it made a mockery of what really happened.

They earn a "Razzie" for worst movie & for most overhyped move in my books



Sharps '74 said:
The movie was a low budget travesty. It was an epic event that kept Britain in the war and it appeared to be a weekend excursion in the movie. Compared to other war stories - "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day", "Saving Private Ryan" and others, it was an embarrassment.

A few clips of Spitfires lazily going through the motions of aerial combat with Swiss Buchon 109's, model He 111's and Ju 87's, the longest 'dead stick' of a Spitfire ever, culminating in a beach landing and burning of a 3/4 size mock up without an engine.

Disjointed editing, poor dialogue, etc., etc. Bottom line - don't take on a vast project with half vast ideas and resources.
Click to expand...
 
You're supposed to look at a piece of art as independent of any reality - kind of like when people always say "the book was better." It's special pleading, you really can't compare one medium to another medium, or real life to fantasy, even if it is loosely based on it. Treat it as a movie, not as an account or a documentary.

Anyway, it was great, and definitely what I would expect from the great Chris Nolan, he never lets me down. Excellent use of colour and camera work.
 
I was glad to see Dunkirk recognised in a movie. It could have used another 200,000 extras. The only parts that bothered me was the gliding forever (I have glided a plane after en engine failure and "gliding" isn't really the best word. "Going down" is more like it.) And the burinng of a plane with no engine. Surely they could have at least stuck an old V8 in there with a set of headers.
 
peterem said:
I was horrifically dissapointed by this movie.
I even had trouble telling who the actors were and WTF was going on with the
"cut and paste" of scenes like in the movie "pulp fiction"

The movie lacked the true emotion and fear of say "saving private ryan"
and it was really hard to sympathize with any of the umm "primary characters"

Editing was sloppy, the acting horrible, I thought it made a mockery of what really happened.

They earn a "Razzie" for worst movie & for most overhyped move in my books
Click to expand...

Best commentary on the movie to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom