Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think if there had been some movement in the control surfaces to hint at the effort needed to keep the Spit aloft would have gone a long way.  The shipping container cranes in the background threw off a few shots for me.  Overall I understood the effect but had wished for a little more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

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.

I think that's where some of the "disappointment", if you can call it that, comes from. I think most, after watching the trailer, expected it to be the story of how they got the soldiers off the beach. Now that I know it's about survival, fear, sacrifice, and human reactions in the face of death, I think I will enjoy it much more. This is one movie that I think may take multiple views to fully comprehend and appreciate the depths that Nolan took the viewer to. Most expected a summer popcorn flick and instead got Shawshank Repemption or Schindler's List instead. That's not a bad thing. It just takes some readjustment of expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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

What else do you expect, from FAKE "News"? :whistle:

 

Larry

Edited by ReccePhreak
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

I think that's where some of the "disappointment", if you can call it that, comes from. I think most, after watching the trailer, expected it to be the story of how they got the soldiers off the beach. Now that I know it's about survival, fear, sacrifice, and human reactions in the face of death, I think I will enjoy it much more. This is one movie that I think may take multiple views to fully comprehend and appreciate the depths that Nolan took the viewer to. Most expected a summer popcorn flick and instead got Shawshank Repemption or Schindler's List instead. That's not a bad thing. It just takes some readjustment of expectations.

 

I went in open minded... I didn't really expect a big action flick. Don't know why. Got more than I bargained for with the air to air on fact

 

I remember being extremely disappointed by thin red line thinking it was going to be action. 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

I think that's where some of the "disappointment", if you can call it that, comes from. I think most, after watching the trailer, expected it to be the story of how they got the soldiers off the beach. Now that I know it's about survival, fear, sacrifice, and human reactions in the face of death, I think I will enjoy it much more. This is one movie that I think may take multiple views to fully comprehend and appreciate the depths that Nolan took the viewer to. Most expected a summer popcorn flick and instead got Shawshank Repemption or Schindler's List instead. That's not a bad thing. It just takes some readjustment of expectations.

 

I'm currently reading the book written about the movie. Nolan also didn't show the German soldier because most the soldiers on the beach didn't see them face-to-face. They were confused as to why they were retreating, the actual enemies of most the soldiers were aircraft, artillery, submarines, gunboats, and mines. They couldn't fight an unseen enemy.

 

The evacuation was a race against time. Thus the time line.

 

Nolan also didn't want to inform his audience, he wanted them to be confused. He wanted them to be as baffled and uniformed as the men queing under fire for a boat ride home. They didn't know who or what was coming for them, so Nolan wanted the same for the audience.

 

The more I read the book, the more fascinated I am with the movie. Honestly, I too was a little underwhelmed after first seeing the movie, now I want to return and observe what I am reading in the book.

 

Nolan states it was more a horror story than a war story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 4:20 PM, 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 writer was taking his que from some of the internet cowboys who apparently didn't know (or even care) that there were a bunch of white guys waiting for some boats in Northern France during the summer of 1940. Keep in mind that these are the same brickbats who raise Hell over the sex or race of fictional characters (you know, people who never existed) in movies.

 

 

8 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

 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

 

2 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

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.

 

 

As Scooby stated, the three stories started off at three different times, however, I liked how Nolan got the stories to intersect at one particular incident in the movie, then moved on to three different endings. If you seen any of Nolan's previous movies, you'll notice that he likes to play with timelines to make his movies more interesting. For instance, he used four different storylines, using the same characters, at the same time, to achieve the same goal in Inception. For Interstellar, he back timelined his story to show how a scene toward the end of the movie had a direct impact of the beginning of the story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it last night. I really enjoyed the cinematography and the mood that was created. The aerial scenes were very well done. I was also very impressed with how the sinking ships were done. 

 

I get that he didn't want to do a documentary and I believe he made a good film considering the facts.  But to be honest, I felt the movie, while beautifully shot, just dragged on. Then again, there are only so many ways to tell a story about a bunch of guys standing on a beach or slowly sailing their little boats across the channel. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw it last night in our local AVX cinema. That is supposed to be the theatre with really big screen and big sound.

 

The visuals were very nice but as others have said it was confusing a bit with the overlapping time lines. Once I figured it out I thought it was great to see the different perspectives of the various battles. The air battle from the cockpit and the air battle from the boat for example. Neat stuff.

 

Once thing I did find very interesting was the fact that it is hard to lock on to an enemy aircraft in a dog fight. Not like Hollywood usually does and the hero gets the bad guy with his first shot. I also thought there should have been more maneuvering between the two aircraft but maybe there was just the perspective masking it? I also loved the exterior views from outside the Spitfires. That was cool. I don't think Nolan used too much CGI here.

 

One big thing for me was the amount of troops on the beach. Should the beach not have been more crowded? There were supposedly over 400,000 troops to be evacuated. Beach did not look as if there were that many but this may have been the timeline thing once again.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2017 at 2:44 PM, 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.

Actually, that's not true.  While you are correct that there are currently two flying Mk.1 Spitfires flying in the world that were shot down and crash landed on French beaches during the time of Dunkirk, neither one was used in the film.  There were 2 Mk.1s used for the film (X4650 which appeared as LC/R9612 and AR213 which was marked as LC/R9632).  X4650 was delivered to the RAF in October 1940 and AR213 was delivered to the RAF in July 1941 so neither were around for Dunkirk.  The third Spitfire used in the movie (EP122) is actually a VB and although the cannon barrels were removed, you can still easily pick it out of the formation because of the cannon bulges on top of the wings.

 

Regards,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:12 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

I went in open minded... I didn't really expect a big action flick. Don't know why. Got more than I bargained for with the air to air on fact

 

I remember being extremely disappointed by thin red line thinking it was going to be action. 

Ditto for me on both counts. I know Nolan tells unconventional stories, so I wasn't sure what to expect, but enjoyed what I saw. 

 

And The Thin Red Line did drag on forever.  I went to see it with a friend who had invited me, so even though I wanted to leave partway through, I didn't say anything because I thought he wanted to see it.  After the movie he told me the same thing, so that's 3 hours of our lives we'll never get back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-29 at 7:21 AM, kstater94 said:

Actually, that's not true.  While you are correct that there are currently two flying Mk.1 Spitfires flying in the world that were shot down and crash landed on French beaches during the time of Dunkirk, neither one was used in the film.  There were 2 Mk.1s used for the film (X4650 which appeared as LC/R9612 and AR213 which was marked as LC/R9632).  X4650 was delivered to the RAF in October 1940 and AR213 was delivered to the RAF in July 1941 so neither were around for Dunkirk.  The third Spitfire used in the movie (EP122) is actually a VB and although the cannon barrels were removed, you can still easily pick it out of the formation because of the cannon bulges on top of the wings.

 

Regards,

John

 

Yeah, I have since found that out. I was repeating what I read in another post at another site. I trusted the source.

 

I've seen one of those Spits (Dunkirk survivors) in person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night an loved every minute of it.  Full of suspense, horror, beauty, and bravery.  

 

The mutuple timeline's of the air, sea, and land battles challenged me just a little but it all paid off and I applaud that artistic direction.

 

Wow, critics (like that USA Today peice) and SJW's will find anything to complain about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am compelled to ask: has anyone actually heard any of these supposed complaints?  The reviewer simply said "some pople" probably won't like it due to the predominantly white male cast.  All I've been able to find online are rants about "whiney SJWs and their PC crap," but I have yet to see any actual complaints about the ethnicity or gender of the cast (except a few who felt the French and Germans were under-represented.)   The only actual complaints I've seen are just some people complaining about the complaints they assume other people are making.   For the record, I consider myself a liberal, and I thought the film was excellent.

 

SN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night.   It was "ok".  Had some dramatic scenes but just seemed to be going in circles.   I get that was what the director intended but it just seemed tedious.   Also, if any movie needed some serious CGI, it was this one.    Empty skies except for 3 Spits, a single 109 and a single He-111.   109 gets hit, trails white smoke from under fuselage. Repeat 10 more times.  

 

The "massive" rescue fleet consisted of a dozen boats.   It's almost like they ran out of money halfway through production. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Saw it last night.   It was "ok".  Had some dramatic scenes but just seemed to be going in circles.   I get that was what the director intended but it just seemed tedious.   Also, if any movie needed some serious CGI, it was this one.    Empty skies except for 3 Spits, a single 109 and a single He-111.   109 gets hit, trails white smoke from under fuselage. Repeat 10 more times.  

 

The "massive" rescue fleet consisted of a dozen boats.   It's almost like they ran out of money halfway through production. 

 

12607019231_SPLASH.jpg

 

 

Here ya go

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

12607019231_SPLASH.jpg

 

 

Here ya go

Not just for Sci-fi anymore TT.   The upcoming HBO series on the 8th AF is supposed to have some incredible scenes showing hundreds of aircraft in combat.  No reason this movie couldn't have done the same.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 11bee said:

Not just for Sci-fi anymore TT.   The upcoming HBO series on the 8th AF is supposed to have some incredible scenes showing hundreds of aircraft in combat.  No reason this movie couldn't have done the same.  

 

They use CGI in wwii movies? No way?!

 

You missed the whole point. It's not supposed to have hundreds of aircraft. It's supposed to have just a few so you don't lose focus on the humans inside them. It's a slice of what's happening and it's supposed to feel like they are all alone

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

They use CGI in wwii movies? No way?!

 

You missed the whole point. It's not supposed to have hundreds of aircraft. It's supposed to have just a few so you don't lose focus on the humans inside them. It's a slice of what's happening and it's supposed to feel like they are all alone

 

 

Ahh..   Thank you for explaining it.  It all makes sense now.  

 

What a great concept. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 10:12 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

I remember being extremely disappointed by thin red line thinking it was going to be action. 

 

That was a terrible match of director and story.

 

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Blue World 

8 hours ago, 11bee said:

The upcoming HBO series on the 8th AF is supposed to have some incredible scenes showing hundreds of aircraft in combat.  No reason this movie couldn't have done the same.  

Dark Blue World has some amazing CGI flight scenes; they apparently also used scenes from Battle of Britain and Memphis Belle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 2:46 PM, 11bee said:

Ahh..   Thank you for explaining it.  It all makes sense now.  

 

What a great concept. 

 

 

 

 

hero_EB20120118REVIEWS120119986AR.jpg

 

Red Tails is always here if you need to scratch that CGI itch :thumbsup:

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...