Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
RE: Would you say it's too violent for a 12 and 10 year old? Â
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Oddly enough there was very little blood. I went in expecting a Private Ryan level of gore but it was not that at all. I mean, people die obviously but it was pretty tame for a war movie.
For younger kids. There isn't a lot of blood, but it is horrific non the less.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But the old Vietnam vet inlaw grandpa feels that the kids NEED to see this, even if the kids don't want to go. Effing old people.
there is no character development is he wanted the ENTIRE scope of the "Miracle" to be the focal point. That it wasn't about "one" person but the entire landscape. A different way to make this kind of film but he felt passionate about showing it this way.
If Dunkirk doesn't happen in the words of Bill Paxton from "Aliens" - "game over man". England sues for peace and Hitler wins. Massive moment in history
Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
If Dunkirk doesn't happen in the words of Bill Paxton from "Aliens" - "game over man". England sues for peace and Hitler wins. Massive moment in history
While we'll never know if you're right, there are a couple things that make your conclusion maybe wrong. Had the British army been destroyed:
1. they still would have had the airforce and navy to protect the homeland.
2. They were also sitting on radar which the Germans didn't have or know about.
3. the British could have outsourced the Army rebuild to America or their colonies to get the men.
Maybe they sue for peace but likely they would have fought on.
I don't shelter him, though. I am always there for him and explain the world honestly. There may be a few tough scenes for some kids, but nothing over the top gratuitous.
As far as the movie goes. It's beautiful and intense, at times, but I feel it's going to be overrated. For someone like me who is way too into history it looks exactly like one would expect, which can be good and bad, but it was missing so much. I don't think it conveys the true sense of scale and there is barely a few mentions of the defensive effort. For not wanting to focus on a few characters it sure felt like that, but without the development. If you are a history buff you will be left wanting much more and if you aren't the movie won't teach you enough to really understand the scale or impact of what it all meant.
Halfway through I kept hoping it would show more, go deeper. I don't feel like I need to see it again, but surely will. It was great at some things. I'm not the type of person to rate or comment negatively on movies. I am very forgiving. I expected and wanted so much more from this, though. My Dad and son felt the same. We probably just hyped it up too much in our own minds. Maybe I should say, it was great/spectacular at what it did, but it didn't do so much imho.
It felt like the budget was constrained or something. It felt like, where is the rest of it.
Just being honest. Not looking to change anyone else mind or argue. It's just how the 3 of us felt walking out.
with many above. Hitler lost the war more then any other side won. Even after Dunkirk the British airforce nearly collapsed. Then a British pilot accidentalky bombed a german city. Up to that point bith sides were avoiding non military tragets. Hitler, furious, diverted his air force to london relrisals. The diversion saved the British air force, and thus the war.
I saw Dunkirk. Frankly I thought they butchered an otherwise great story.
here's my post on the other Dunkirk thread, and Matt M's response - Â
I don't it's intended as a traditional "war movie."
RE: saw it last night (non-IMAX, unfortunately) -
Matt M. : 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13536684 Del Shofner said:
Quote: I think it's very well done and worth seeing. The bigger context of the war is assumed and not covered - which not only saves time but allows the story to be a more universal and existential one of survival. Great action scenes with the planes and boats.
Del - I just saw an interview with Nolan who said the same thing; this isn't a war movie but a movie about survival.
Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
I didn't read yours before mine or I'd have just said exactly this.
I wish they had spent more time on the story and less on the special Â
How dare they want the kids to learn about history and heroism . Give 'Em more Transformers and Batman!
I assume you were kidding?
So, I'm wrong about not necessarily wanting my 10 year old son to see a violent PG-13 movie about war that has a lot of people dying in it? But I guess you are going to assume that I don't want my kids to learn about history and heroism and just take them to see superhero movies. Nice connection.
I mean, I thought my first question was pretty clear trying to get a gauge on if it was appropriate for young kids to see the movie but please, go on.
How dare they want the kids to learn about history and heroism . Give 'Em more Transformers and Batman!
I assume you were kidding?
So, I'm wrong about not necessarily wanting my 10 year old son to see a violent PG-13 movie about war that has a lot of people dying in it? But I guess you are going to assume that I don't want my kids to learn about history and heroism and just take them to see superhero movies. Nice connection.
I mean, I thought my first question was pretty clear trying to get a gauge on if it was appropriate for young kids to see the movie but please, go on.
It's very intense, which could be a bit much for a younger kid - just my 2 cents
Theatre goers watching the premiere of “Dunkirk” at Calgary’s Westhills Cinemas on Friday night got a surprise encounter with a 97-year -old man who was at the battle in 1940.
The Battle of Dunkirk took place during the Second World War between the Allies and Nazi Germany in Dunkirk, France.
Calgarian Ken Sturdy, dressed in a jacket adorned with medals, viewed the movie and was impressed by what he saw.
“I never thought I would see that again. It was just like I was there again,” Sturdy said.
“It didn’t have a lot of dialogue. It didn’t need any of the dialogue because it told the story visually and it was so real.”
For younger kids. There isn't a lot of blood, but it is horrific non the less.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But the old Vietnam vet inlaw grandpa feels that the kids NEED to see this, even if the kids don't want to go. Effing old people.
In the theatre I saw it in at least, it's a LOUD film, consistently louder than anything else I've ever heard in a cinema.
Something to bear in mind if you are taking kids.
Dunkirk not even in top 10 of best war movies ever made Â
Did I read that right? Effing old people? What a messed up thing to write! Are there other groups (race, religion, gender etc) you also have problems with in our society? I'd be more concerned with what you may be teaching those impressionable children than a movie involving the this country.
I hope you were not serious.
Did I read that right? Effing old people? What a messed up thing to write! Are there other groups (race, religion, gender etc) you also have problems with in our society? I'd be more concerned with what you may be teaching those impressionable children than a movie involving the this country.
I hope you were not serious.
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious with this shit, Giant John? If my comment of "effing old people" really ruffles your feathers to his much then this is a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. And in true BBI fashion, great job on assuming that I'm a biggot and hateful person with all other protected groups because I said "effing old people". BBI has really become a cesspool.
And, yes, fuck old people. Because I have a dickhead of a father in law who's into war movies and will fight me on whether it's appropriate or not to take MY kids to the movie when I'm uncomfortable with it just because it's what HE wants and to do. Forget that the kids have already expressed their concern over the violence they've seen in commercials or previews. Forget that I'm their parent, not him. There's plenty of ways that we can and do learn about history. But god forbid I don't take them to THIS movie to learn about it. The BBI will explode. Holy shit.
Because you have a "dickhead" (your term not mine) father in law Â
It was good, for sure. Worth seeing. But I definitely wouldn't say it was on par with some of the best war movies ever.
Maybe for me it had to do with the fact that there was almost zero character development in the film, which made it difficult for me to connect with any of the characters on a deeper level. The movie was an event for me, not a story. It was beautifully shot, but there was almost zero connection for me emotionally.
You feel the need to denigrate a portion of society? Like I said.. you're really worried about a movie?
Grow up.
You are the one making a big deal over a comment on a message board about old people and then drawing the wild comparison to bigotry. It's a bit of a stretch there, don't you think? And I need to grow up? Lol, fucking classic.
And yeah, it's my job as a parent to be concerned about a 10 year old going by to see a violent war movie. But I wouldn't expect you to understand responsibility and shot like that.
RE: I'm not suggesting one way or another whether the movie .... Â
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Depends on the kids really. As Tommy says, it doesn't have much blood, but it is loud, and there are more than a few startling explosions. If you think your kids can handle it, they should be OK.
I guess I'm in the minority but I liked that it was a war movie Â
about the war minus some made up Saving Private Ryan narrative. The tension was great throughout. Didn't have any issues with the scaling on first viewing, although I did have to imagine that multiple waves of civilian boats (more than on screen) had to be coming for the amount of troops shown.
I had some trouble realizing who had died by the end on the Mole. Had to look up that "Gibson" was the one who had perished on the trawler, not one of the guys who wanted to throw him out to help the boat float. Perhaps some more symbolism that the the French guy (who saved them earlier) was left behind to drown while the Brits escaped.
RE: RE: Would you say it's too violent for a 12 and 10 year old? Â
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Depends on the kids really. As Tommy says, it doesn't have much blood, but it is loud, and there are more than a few startling explosions. If you think your kids can handle it, they should be OK.
that made you sound like a 14 year old and then whine that other people are off base when your're called out on it. Stop embarrassing yourself and pipe down.
I thought it was a very good movie, very tense scenes, yes the characters in the movie were hard to connect to, but I don't think in this case it was all that necessary, it was very good.
RE: Phi Psi, you came on here and made an idiotic statement..... Â
that made you sound like a 14 year old and then whine that other people are off base when your're called out on it. Stop embarrassing yourself and pipe down.
LOL, call me out for saying "effing old people"? Really? It's amazing that almost everyone else has the ability to respond with a helpful post and see through an innocuous comment but you are determined to act like a 12 year old mean girl. Classic Internet tough guy. Get lost.
I was expecting an epic war movie. Came away thinking we only saw a small visceral snap shot of a part of it. No characters to really follow. Very little dialogue. Really not much background on Dunkirk itself for those not really up to date on the story of what happened there. It was ok but I wanted a lot more.
Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
This as well. I felt like it was hard to follow at times, due to how it was pieced together. I also thought it had a bit of an identity crisis. It didn't know if it wanted to be a docudrama or a war movie and was a mix of both. It almost made you dislike a lot of the British characters when you should of been rooting for them.
Dunkirk is as mild as war movies come as far as gore goes. You will see people get blown up mostly, shot and strafed a little, but they don't focus on any of it for long and much if from a distance. Most of it is just the intensity of being in some of the situations.
That's the only way i'll watch it. There's only around 30 or so 70mm theaters in the US so the options are limited. Trying to go at some point in the next week.
Came here to see what people thought and it's mostly some stupid argument about something nobody cares about. Good grief.
Anyway, it's unique from your typical war movie and that's okay. They don't all have to have the same beats. I found it thrilling and intense and beautifully shot.
It is getting really difficult to follow threads on this board Â
It seems there are 3 or 4 posters on every longer thread that come on to do nothing but try and analyze and tear don someone they have never met based on two sentences on the internet. Everyone else has to pick through the idiocy to try and read about the actual topic being discussed.
Ahhhh, internet anonymity...
RE: It is getting really difficult to follow threads on this board Â
It seems there are 3 or 4 posters on every longer thread that come on to do nothing but try and analyze and tear don someone they have never met based on two sentences on the internet. Everyone else has to pick through the idiocy to try and read about the actual topic being discussed.
Ahhhh, internet anonymity...
Seriously. This is a perfect microcosm of the larger world of manufactured outrage. PhiPsi makes a statement that is clearly pointed at his Father-in-Law and we have a handful of assholes who latch onto a single phrase and start hammering him like he's actually some ageist piece of shit condoning government-enforced euthanasia. People need to get a grip, learn to read, and then comprehend the words they just read and the context in which they were placed before getting all uppity.
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Oddly enough there was very little blood. I went in expecting a Private Ryan level of gore but it was not that at all. I mean, people die obviously but it was pretty tame for a war movie.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But the old Vietnam vet inlaw grandpa feels that the kids NEED to see this, even if the kids don't want to go. Effing old people.
I assume you were kidding?
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
While we'll never know if you're right, there are a couple things that make your conclusion maybe wrong. Had the British army been destroyed:
1. they still would have had the airforce and navy to protect the homeland.
2. They were also sitting on radar which the Germans didn't have or know about.
3. the British could have outsourced the Army rebuild to America or their colonies to get the men.
Maybe they sue for peace but likely they would have fought on.
I assume you were kidding?
My showing had a LOT of the older generation in the seats, and the complaining about how loud the sound was in the theater was never ending lol
As far as the movie goes. It's beautiful and intense, at times, but I feel it's going to be overrated. For someone like me who is way too into history it looks exactly like one would expect, which can be good and bad, but it was missing so much. I don't think it conveys the true sense of scale and there is barely a few mentions of the defensive effort. For not wanting to focus on a few characters it sure felt like that, but without the development. If you are a history buff you will be left wanting much more and if you aren't the movie won't teach you enough to really understand the scale or impact of what it all meant.
Halfway through I kept hoping it would show more, go deeper. I don't feel like I need to see it again, but surely will. It was great at some things. I'm not the type of person to rate or comment negatively on movies. I am very forgiving. I expected and wanted so much more from this, though. My Dad and son felt the same. We probably just hyped it up too much in our own minds. Maybe I should say, it was great/spectacular at what it did, but it didn't do so much imho.
It felt like the budget was constrained or something. It felt like, where is the rest of it.
Just being honest. Not looking to change anyone else mind or argue. It's just how the 3 of us felt walking out.
I saw Dunkirk. Frankly I thought they butchered an otherwise great story.
RE: saw it last night (non-IMAX, unfortunately) -
Matt M. : 8:01 pm : link : reply
In comment 13536684 Del Shofner said:
Quote: I think it's very well done and worth seeing. The bigger context of the war is assumed and not covered - which not only saves time but allows the story to be a more universal and existential one of survival. Great action scenes with the planes and boats.
Del - I just saw an interview with Nolan who said the same thing; this isn't a war movie but a movie about survival.
Quote:
Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
I didn't read yours before mine or I'd have just said exactly this.
I assume you were kidding?
So, I'm wrong about not necessarily wanting my 10 year old son to see a violent PG-13 movie about war that has a lot of people dying in it? But I guess you are going to assume that I don't want my kids to learn about history and heroism and just take them to see superhero movies. Nice connection.
I mean, I thought my first question was pretty clear trying to get a gauge on if it was appropriate for young kids to see the movie but please, go on.
Quote:
How dare they want the kids to learn about history and heroism . Give 'Em more Transformers and Batman!
I assume you were kidding?
My showing had a LOT of the older generation in the seats, and the complaining about how loud the sound was in the theater was never ending lol
Going to assume it was because of Hans Zimmer score - which was great in the movie
Quote:
How dare they want the kids to learn about history and heroism . Give 'Em more Transformers and Batman!
I assume you were kidding?
So, I'm wrong about not necessarily wanting my 10 year old son to see a violent PG-13 movie about war that has a lot of people dying in it? But I guess you are going to assume that I don't want my kids to learn about history and heroism and just take them to see superhero movies. Nice connection.
I mean, I thought my first question was pretty clear trying to get a gauge on if it was appropriate for young kids to see the movie but please, go on.
It's very intense, which could be a bit much for a younger kid - just my 2 cents
And the score is designed to create tension, and it doesn't stop - a constant building tense humming throughout the film
The Battle of Dunkirk took place during the Second World War between the Allies and Nazi Germany in Dunkirk, France.
Calgarian Ken Sturdy, dressed in a jacket adorned with medals, viewed the movie and was impressed by what he saw.
“I never thought I would see that again. It was just like I was there again,” Sturdy said.
“It didn’t have a lot of dialogue. It didn’t need any of the dialogue because it told the story visually and it was so real.”
Quote:
For younger kids. There isn't a lot of blood, but it is horrific non the less.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But the old Vietnam vet inlaw grandpa feels that the kids NEED to see this, even if the kids don't want to go. Effing old people.
In the theatre I saw it in at least, it's a LOUD film, consistently louder than anything else I've ever heard in a cinema.
Something to bear in mind if you are taking kids.
I hope you were not serious.
I hope you were not serious.
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious with this shit, Giant John? If my comment of "effing old people" really ruffles your feathers to his much then this is a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. And in true BBI fashion, great job on assuming that I'm a biggot and hateful person with all other protected groups because I said "effing old people". BBI has really become a cesspool.
And, yes, fuck old people. Because I have a dickhead of a father in law who's into war movies and will fight me on whether it's appropriate or not to take MY kids to the movie when I'm uncomfortable with it just because it's what HE wants and to do. Forget that the kids have already expressed their concern over the violence they've seen in commercials or previews. Forget that I'm their parent, not him. There's plenty of ways that we can and do learn about history. But god forbid I don't take them to THIS movie to learn about it. The BBI will explode. Holy shit.
Grow up.
It was good, for sure. Worth seeing. But I definitely wouldn't say it was on par with some of the best war movies ever.
Maybe for me it had to do with the fact that there was almost zero character development in the film, which made it difficult for me to connect with any of the characters on a deeper level. The movie was an event for me, not a story. It was beautifully shot, but there was almost zero connection for me emotionally.
Grow up.
You are the one making a big deal over a comment on a message board about old people and then drawing the wild comparison to bigotry. It's a bit of a stretch there, don't you think? And I need to grow up? Lol, fucking classic.
And yeah, it's my job as a parent to be concerned about a 10 year old going by to see a violent war movie. But I wouldn't expect you to understand responsibility and shot like that.
You really are a moron. Making a big deal out of absolutely nothing. You are a sad person, but please carry on.
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Depends on the kids really. As Tommy says, it doesn't have much blood, but it is loud, and there are more than a few startling explosions. If you think your kids can handle it, they should be OK.
I had some trouble realizing who had died by the end on the Mole. Had to look up that "Gibson" was the one who had perished on the trawler, not one of the guys who wanted to throw him out to help the boat float. Perhaps some more symbolism that the the French guy (who saved them earlier) was left behind to drown while the Brits escaped.
Quote:
Too heavy? Too boring?
Grandfather wants to take my kids but I was hesitant about taking them to see it. Your thoughts?
Depends on the kids really. As Tommy says, it doesn't have much blood, but it is loud, and there are more than a few startling explosions. If you think your kids can handle it, they should be OK.
Thanks Section.
LOL, call me out for saying "effing old people"? Really? It's amazing that almost everyone else has the ability to respond with a helpful post and see through an innocuous comment but you are determined to act like a 12 year old mean girl. Classic Internet tough guy. Get lost.
Quote:
Development really took away from what was a well made film. They didn't really give you the opportunity to connect to any characters. I didn't really feel for any characters at all. Maybe the old man in the boat but that's about it. Although it was intense as hell at times and I really enjoyed it... just wanted a little more character development.
I would tend to agree. I wanted to love this film, and in the first half hour I thought I was well on my way. It's beutifullly shot, the accuracy is exceptional, and the tension and emotion was pouring off the screen.
But, it was quite hard to get to know any of the characters and make a connection. Much has been made about Tom Hardy being covered in a mask, but even the infantrymen were hard to tell apart, as many of the actors were pretty similiar looking to me.
The film really has 3 elements, the mole, the air, and the little ships. The mole was very well done except for my previously mentioned need for more character. The little ships was good, but I wanted more - the thread with the youngest son didn't seem to have much of a purpose, and they focused on just this one ship in a story of thousands. The pilots did really nothing for me - long stretches of them looking at their gas dials and getting into brief exchanges with German planes - the dogfighting scenes have been done better in other films.
In the end, I left with a weird feeling that was so unresolved - and yes that may have been the intention as this issn't the typical story of a great victory, but it still left me wanting.
In the end, I liked it, and respect the hell out of it, but it wasn't as enjoyable as I'd hoped
and oh - when the little ships arrived, and the soldiers cheered, it really seemed to need hundreds more ships on screen - what the film showed would only of helped the tiniest fraction of men on the shore. I wanted to see those little boats fill up the screen...
This as well. I felt like it was hard to follow at times, due to how it was pieced together. I also thought it had a bit of an identity crisis. It didn't know if it wanted to be a docudrama or a war movie and was a mix of both. It almost made you dislike a lot of the British characters when you should of been rooting for them.
The blood and gore in HR was just beyond...
Any comparisons?
The blood and gore in HR was just beyond...
Any comparisons?
Agree. HR was a pleasant surprise to me.
Dunkirk is as mild as war movies come as far as gore goes. You will see people get blown up mostly, shot and strafed a little, but they don't focus on any of it for long and much if from a distance. Most of it is just the intensity of being in some of the situations.
That's the only way i'll watch it. There's only around 30 or so 70mm theaters in the US so the options are limited. Trying to go at some point in the next week.
Anyway, it's unique from your typical war movie and that's okay. They don't all have to have the same beats. I found it thrilling and intense and beautifully shot.
Ahhhh, internet anonymity...
Ahhhh, internet anonymity...
Seriously. This is a perfect microcosm of the larger world of manufactured outrage. PhiPsi makes a statement that is clearly pointed at his Father-in-Law and we have a handful of assholes who latch onto a single phrase and start hammering him like he's actually some ageist piece of shit condoning government-enforced euthanasia. People need to get a grip, learn to read, and then comprehend the words they just read and the context in which they were placed before getting all uppity.