RedHeadKevin Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I thought the aerial battle footage was gorgeous in IMAX. Did they actually find flying Me109's, Spitfires, Mosquitos, and He111's? The rest of the movie was okay. I do have a question for WWII RAF buffs: How far can a Spitfire actually glide? The guy was at no more than 2000 feet AGL when his gas ran out, and he made 3 passes over the beach, in different directions, and shot down an He111, before landing safely with no engine and presumably inoperative hydraulics. I have some serious doubts about being able to do that. Also, why wouldn't he bail out and get back to the lines of friendly troops being evacuated? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, RedHeadKevin said: Also, why wouldn't he bail out and get back to the lines of friendly troops being evacuated? That wouldn't have fit the story line. Seriously, no writer or director ever let reality or facts get in the way of a script or "documentary". Ditto for "journalists" and "news stories". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedHeadKevin Posted July 23, 2017 Author Share Posted July 23, 2017 But his story line was literally over when he shot down the He111. It's like he was trying to land his plane way away from the friendly troops and got captured. Maybe they're setting him up for a sequel. (kidding.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 You obviously didn't follow the timeline then. The director stretches time. 2 of the Spitfires in the movie actually fought at Dunkirk. One of them was recovered fro the beach in 1980 and was restored. The director was depicting this. That aircraft was taken down with 1 lucky round. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 42 minutes ago, Scooby said: You obviously didn't follow the timeline then. The director stretches time. 2 of the Spitfires in the movie actually fought at Dunkirk. One of them was recovered fro the beach in 1980 and was restored. The director was depicting this. That aircraft was taken down with 1 lucky round. That's awesome! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I dunno about this movie. USA Today has some reservations. The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. I think I'll pass... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raptor01 Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Just saw it in IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it. It kept my interest start to finish! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) x Edited July 23, 2017 by phantom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 2 hours ago, 11bee said: I dunno about this movie. USA Today has some reservations. The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. I think I'll pass... The truth is you wouldn't have found many people of color at Dunkirk and women were kept away from the front, there were nurses on the hospital ships. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Locally, a 97 year-old veteran who took part in Dunkirk attended the movie and gave it the thumbs up, very touching story. http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/calgary-veteran-who-survived-dunkirk-causes-a-stir-at-movie-premiere/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 15 hours ago, Scooby said: The truth is you wouldn't have found many people of color at Dunkirk and women were kept away from the front, there were nurses on the hospital ships. Exactly what I was thinking. It's not a slur against anyone, it's just the reality of who was there. Just like the film about the battleship Yamato contained entirely actors/actresses of asian descent. Wasn't a slap in the face to anyone who looked like me, it's the reality of who was there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) Not sure but I THINK 11Bee may have been using sarcasm in his post. However USA Today probably was not unfortunately. Bill Edited July 24, 2017 by niart17 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 43 minutes ago, niart17 said: Not sure but I THINK 11Bee may have been using sarcasm in his post. However USA Today probably was not unfortunately. Bill Right on both counts.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, niart17 said: Not sure but I THINK 11Bee may have been using sarcasm in his post. However USA Today probably was not unfortunately. Bill It's mind blowing. The "anti racists" are as racist as the virulent racists. What a brave new world we live in. Went for the Spitfires, left more than satisfied. Lots more than I expected. Good stuff, would recommend with the caveat that it is not a conventional war movie. It's by movie definitions a survival movie. Edited July 24, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 20 hours ago, 11bee said: I dunno about this movie. USA Today has some reservations. The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Ten years ago this would have been satire. Can't wait for the next wwii flick to have "Not enough black nazis" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 If you actually read the USA Today review, it's not hard to see the reviewer was taking a swipe at big, dumb Hollywood movies that would fit that kind of thinking. The only people upset are the ones who took his one line literally as what he thought. Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) On 7/23/2017 at 11:22 AM, RedHeadKevin said: I thought the aerial battle footage was gorgeous in IMAX. Did they actually find flying Me109's, Spitfires, Mosquitos, and He111's? The rest of the movie was okay. I do have a question for WWII RAF buffs: Hide contents How far can a Spitfire actually glide? The guy was at no more than 2000 feet AGL when his gas ran out, and he made 3 passes over the beach, in different directions, and shot down an He111, before landing safely with no engine and presumably inoperative hydraulics. I have some serious doubts about being able to do that. Also, why wouldn't he bail out and get back to the lines of friendly troops being evacuated? Symbolism mostly. I forgive it because it's a dramatic point more than a technical error. If you are "with" the movie you suspend disbelief. If you are not you are unhappy basically. If you notice several times the pilot has a chance to get away clean and decides to stick it out (opens canopy, closes and rides it out/ previous fuel decision) could also say he is symbolic of those that are left. Again decides to stay with his boys Also the timeline is jumbled. What seemed like 20 minutes could be 45 seconds...? YMMV Edited July 24, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Alvis 3.1 said: If you actually read the USA Today review, it's not hard to see the reviewer was taking a swipe at big, dumb Hollywood movies that would fit that kind of thinking. The only people upset are the ones who took his one line literally as what he thought. Alvis 3.1 Sorry saw no link. Took it at face value Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said: Sorry saw no link. Took it at face value Should have provided the link. I assumed the tongue in cheekyness of the quote would have translated well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 So So IMO. Cinematography was good. Story line and phasing of movie takes some getting used to. Dialog hard to hear/understand at some points. If you know the history of this situation, you can make it all work. Anyone that doesn't (like my wife sitting next to me)....she would have been lost if I hadn't explained what happened in a historical sense at Dunkirk (before the movie). For the flying parts, most excellent Spitfire action that any aviator will enjoy.....up to a point. Not going to spoil it, but any of you will know when to suspend a little physics. Cheers Collin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 45 minutes ago, 11bee said: Should have provided the link. I assumed the tongue in cheekyness of the quote would have translated well. As I have had to learn many many times over, sarcasm rarely translates on the internet. :D Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viper730 Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I saw it. I won't watch it again. In fact I dozed off a few times. It was just BORING. you know how sometimes the previews are the best parts. well this is one of them. but please please go see it and judge for yourself... I just hope we see more WW2 flicks in the future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) All of these posts are accurate, even though they seem discordant. It is NOT what I was expecting. I was thinking the story of how the soldiers were saved at Dunkirk was going to be told, but that's not what happened. In fact, they almost completely left out the whole story of the flotilla coming across the Channel to save the soldiers. THAT'S what the major story of Dunkirk was. Instead, you get one story arc of one boat coming across, and for a brief, 10 second period, they show a bunch of boats coming to help. They didn't show the call going out in England. All they really showed was the Navy taking control of boats, which doesn't tell the story. This was not a war movie, it was an artistic movie. The story arcs/timing took some getting used to. It was confusing at first. I also almost drifted off, and the dialogue was quite difficult to understand at times. With that said, I think if I watched it again, knowing what the timing was, it would be much more interesting. The one thing I really didn't like was the scene when the soldiers go to the grounded boat. Maybe I missed something artsy-fartsy, but that whole story arc could have been left out. I mean come on, the boat is filling with water from bullet holes and you stay there trying to plug the holes? Really? So instead of taking your chances getting out of the boat and coming under fire, you drown. Also, I agree with a previous post. If you didn't know the story of Dunkirk, you would be very confused. Edited July 24, 2017 by Darren Roberts Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 5 hours ago, 11bee said: Should have provided the link. I assumed the tongue in cheekyness of the quote would have translated well. I missed it, sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Darren Roberts said: All of these posts are accurate, even though they seem discordant. It is NOT what I was expecting. I was thinking the story of how the soldiers were saved at Dunkirk was going to be told, but that's not what happened. In fact, they almost completely left out the whole story of the flotilla coming across the Channel to save the soldiers. THAT'S what the major story of Dunkirk was. Instead, you get one story arc of one boat coming across, and for a brief, 10 second period, they show a bunch of boats coming to help. They didn't show the call going out in England. All they really showed was the Navy taking control of boats, which doesn't tell the story. This was not a war movie, it was an artistic movie. The story arcs/timing took some getting used to. It was confusing at first. I also almost drifted off, and the dialogue was quite difficult to understand at times. With that said, I think if I watched it again, knowing what the timing was, it would be much more interesting. The one thing I really didn't like was the scene when the soldiers go to the grounded boat. Maybe I missed something artsy-fartsy, but that whole story arc could have been left out. I mean come on, the boat is filling with water from bullet holes and you stay there trying to plug the holes? Really? So instead of taking your chances getting out of the boat and coming under fire, you drown. Also, I agree with a previous post. If you didn't know the story of Dunkirk, you would be very confused. The story was about survival. The director didn't want to show the faces of the enemy, as he didn't want the focus on them. He also wanted to limit dialogue, as he wanted the actions to tell the story. He stretched and altered time, the shortest event took the longest. And vice versa. The story was based on ten days (soldiers), 1 day (boat), 10 minutes (Spitfires). He didn't go Hollywood, Al Deere kept his mask on until he landed on the beach. The beached boat revealed the desperation and the fear. I liked it, it didn't have Pearl Harbors multiple romances and Top Guns "02 masks are optional," in order to show the stars face. Edited July 25, 2017 by Scooby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.