Dunkirk

[zico]

8/10.

Something a bit different. The same general situation is filmed from 3 different viewpoints - air, sea and land - using 3 different timeframes (hour, day and week respectively). Gives a new twist to the usual idea of a variety of episodes that end up connecting with each other. There's no blood and gore, but pretty impressive sequences that aim to put you into the heart of the situation and give some idea of what it must have been like. There's a mixture of bravery, cowardice and selfishness on display. I particularly liked the aerial sequences which were beautifully filmed. Kenneth Branagh is in it as a naval commander (he actually looks more like a German naval commander) and he goes through an assortment of poses. There are a couple of cliched sequences in it, but overall it's pretty impressive.

[JMN2]

I saw the trailer a while back and got interested seeing it. The trailer looked very realistic so when you say no blood or gore I'd like to ask how does the realism compare to Saving Private Ryan?

[zico]

I'd say it's a similar level of realism. From memory, there was a bit of blood and gore with Saving Private Ryan. Dunkirk is more personal somehow, as it's shown from the view of each of the various people involved, so lots more confusion in the action sequences, giving you the feeling of being there and not knowing whether the next bullet or bomb might have your name on it.

An afterthought - one thing I found irritating about the movie was the music, which is going bananas to ramp up the tension. It was good at first, but it seemed to dominate the film at some points.

[JMN2]

An afterthought - one thing I found irritating about the movie was the music, which is going bananas to ramp up the tension. It was good at first, but it seemed to dominate the film at some points.

Mark Kermode liked the music and apparently the composer has used similar themes in his other famous scores. Sort of a tic tic tic ramping up sound.

[dionaeamuscipula]

Apparently "Dunkirk" is simply "Saving Private Ryan" shown backwards.

DM

[XFool]

8/10.

Something a bit different. The same general situation is filmed from 3 different viewpoints - air, sea and land - using 3 different timeframes (hour, day and week respectively). Gives a new twist to the usual idea of a variety of episodes that end up connecting with each other. There's no blood and gore, but pretty impressive sequences that aim to put you into the heart of the situation and give some idea of what it must have been like. There's a mixture of bravery, cowardice and selfishness on display. I particularly liked the aerial sequences which were beautifully filmed. Kenneth Branagh is in it as a naval commander (he actually looks more like a German naval commander) and he goes through an assortment of poses. There are a couple of cliched sequences in it, but overall it's pretty impressive.

I saw this a few weeks ago and agree with your description. I too thought the aerial scenes were particularly well done and effective. They felt genuine and convincing.

There must have been quite a bit of CGI being used in the film, but it didn't feel like that.

WRT a later post, I found the music worked for me. It was intense, it seemed part of keeping the tension up all the way through which it certainly did. It was unrelenting and I think this was all part of placing you there and making you feel as if you were experiencing the tensions of the day yourself.

[Mike88]

I saw the trailer a while back and got interested seeing it. The trailer looked very realistic so when you say no blood or gore I'd like to ask how does the realism compare to Saving Private Ryan?

Saving Private Ryan is far more realistic in my opinion although I enjoyed Dunkirk (despite the absence of a particularly interesting storyline) nearly as much.

[JMN2]

I saw the trailer a while back and got interested seeing it. The trailer looked very realistic so when you say no blood or gore I'd like to ask how does the realism compare to Saving Private Ryan?

Saving Private Ryan is far more realistic in my opinion although I enjoyed Dunkirk (despite the absence of a particularly interesting storyline) nearly as much.

Check out LindyBeige youtube channel on Dunkirk....

[XFool]

...it seemed like a slow movie, probably because it never really reached a crescendo, but the time passed as quickly as the most action packed movie you could imagine.

Completely engrossing - from Tom Hardy's ever diminishing Spitfire fuel reserves to the German sharpshooters taking potshots at the beached trawler with British soldiers (+ 1 other) hiding in the hold.

Overall, an 8.5/10. My only 'hmmm' moments were Tom's extensive glider flight and the shooting down of the German bomber at the end. Other than that, it was a fine night's entertainment.
.
.
.
Saying that, it's not really a movie I'd go out of my way to watch again. Put up against Saving Private Ryan, give me the latter ever time.

I didn't see Saving Private Ryan in the cinema so cannot really compare, but I thought Dunkirk very good. It felt quite different to most war films, in particular the aerial scenes with the British fighter planes. This seemed done in a way quite unlike the usual 'cowboys & indians in the air' - it was draining, frightening, relentless, tedious and convincing, with sudden bursts of activity and danger. It felt like war.

The only point I would make about the film, if you haven't seen it, is to try and get to understand before you see it exactly how it is going to be presented; from three different points of view, each running on a different timescale. It would, IMO, help enormously to undersatnd this in advance.