|
I had a problem with everyone's location in relation to one another. I know the timelines intersected at multiple points, but it felt like the Moonstone boat shouldn't have been that close to the shore when the minelayer went down. They were close enough that the Dutch ship just floated out to them, but they still seemed to be pretty far out to sea. Also, the docks were full of French in the beginning and empty of them at the end, but they were still there. Did they literally make them wait until all but one Brit had left? The cinematography was beautiful and it's nice to see a WWII movie without any Americans. I had no idea Dunkirk was like a resort town, but I guess it makes sense.
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
They did, but the Dutch ship was close enough to shore to still be getting pinged by the German ground forces, who were apparently not close enough to engage anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Was the old guy handing out blankets at the end blind? Because that’s what it seemed like, but then Harry Styles says he just wasn’t looking at any of the evacuees in the eyes because they lost the battle. But the face feeling makes me think I missed something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Okay, that makes complete sense. And gently caress the complete lack of names because now everyone is spoken of in relation to the recognizable people in each timeline. “Yeah, the guy who didn’t like Harry Styles.” “The man next to Kenneth.” “ScareCrow guy on the boat.” I just looked up the names in IMDB and I do not recall hearing anyone actually using any of these character’s names except maybe Farrier, but that was squawked unintelligibly out of a 1930’s era wireless radio.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:Saw this in Melbourne on the IMAX 4K Laser presentation and it was pretty loving awesome. Count me as a fan. The whole experience was relentless. No one ejected back then. You opened your canopy, climbed out, and jumped. And there’s no way he could’ve pulled his chute flying that low. Also, he took out that last plane while in glider mode and probably didn’t have enough altitude to do a 180. Landing was delayed further by his landing gear screwing up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
[quote="“A Sometimes Food”" post="“474695259”"] Well they definitely wouldn’t hear him at least. [/quote] Would a Stuka hear anyone with those sirens? It was unrealistic, but not horribly so. Stukas were sitting ducks without fighter support.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:It seems like the movie missed the mark on some of the "emotional" scenes, which stick out because they cut into the tension and came across cheesy. The arrival of the small boats is this big triumphant fanfare that immediately smash cuts back to "of gently caress of gently caress oh gently caress" That had to be deliberate. George's fate is about as anticlimactic as it could possibly be. I think the fact life is cheap and easily disposable comes across multiple times. Like all that effort to get wounded onto a ship which then sinks killing all of them. There's a certain resignation and stiff upper lip that's hopelessly British.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
"Oy, me chap is waving, all's well!" Guy is frantically gesturing for help.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Cillian needed a timeline. Sticking in that night shot without any further backstory was awkward. He's the lone survivor of a whole ship and he elicits almost no sympathy. It feels like there's a 3 hour version of this movie that makes more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
There’s a problem with scale. Like there were no where near enough Germans, but there’s 300k Allied troops and we’re looking at probably 3000 at any one time. So all those Stukas are probably hitting French positions, but it means you aren’t really appreciating the sheer size of it all. And yeah, the week timeline didn’t feel like a week. Like, at least show him pooping more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Germans were intentionally off-screen the whole time. Do you just mean they should've shown more strafing runs or something? Planes mostly. I know Hitler told the army to hold back, but I we saw a handful of enemy planes and most of those were in the 1 hour timeline. It was probably a deliberate choice since it created a surreal effect, but it made the scope of the event difficult to grasp.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
I just want the Moonstone timeline for 2 hours, but without Scarecrow. Ironically the 1 hour timeline was the most dull.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Those fuel capacities always seem so low. I have to remind myself it's essentially a really large lawnmower engine that just needs to haul one pilot and an airframe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
[quote="“coyo7e”" post="“474946201”"] For sure, losing all of those troops could’ve very possibly changed the course of the war to a massive extent - Britain would have essentially lost their entire standing military forces if they hadn’t have been abel to rescue them, which would probably have meant they could’ve been invaded or at lest been forced to play turtle for the rest of the time.. [/quote] Most stuff I’ve read said losing the army at Dunkirk wouldn’t have made much of a difference. There’s even theories that Hitler let the army get away, knowing a defeat that bad could make England unwilling to negotiate. There’s a thin line between hurting your enemy so hard they give up (Japan) and hurting them so hard they never give up (Russia).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Pander posted:Uh, Russia and Japan faced adversaries with wildly different war goals. I don't think how hard they were hit has much to do with anything. There is a difference between beating someone so bad they just want out and beating them so bad they will never give up. Russia could have lost twice as many men and they still would've marched into Berlin. The US was ready to lose twice as many men invading Japan. But neither country had that kind of resolve fighting smaller countries later. Losing their whole expeditionary force could have broken England or it could have made it impossible for them to negotiate politically. Ends up it didn't matter either way, but I could see Hitler pulling his punch in hopes of negotiating a peace.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:There's nothing worse than amateur war historians Eh. If you can't hypothesize what Hitler would've done if X was Y, then what's the point. monster on a stick posted:I'd like to read the argument that losing a 300K army wouldn't have made much of a difference. Maybe 20% of their total force (think that includes Commonwealth) and less than 10% of their final fighting numbers. It wouldn't have made a huge difference because Germany didn't invade. The loss of all that officer talent would've hurt, although if anyone was getting off that beach it was probably an officer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:By the end of the War the British were being unfairly lambasted by American officers as overly cautious or lazy (see Caen). Because by the end of that point the British army had been bled white and while they were still dedicated to fighting, the officers abhorred the idea of wasting lives. Without the BEF survivors forming the backbone of the British army in the preceding years (especially the NCOs), there is no way the British army would have done as well as it did through the war, or been operating at the level it was during the push towards Germany. There's a lot of room between 'not doing as well' and failing. If it looked like I was arguing losing a whole expeditionary force was not a big deal, then that's not what I was getting at. It just wouldn't have been as big a deal as it may have seemed. Britain would still have won the war. You can lose almost your whole force and still come back. I think the RAF was pretty close to that. But sure, if Dunkirk had failed the Brits wouldn't have fought as well later on and would have lost even more men because of inexperience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
The XTREME theater I went to's speakers couldn't keep up with the bass and it was just a thudding noise that was uncomfortable. Maybe IMAX would have been better (this was more IMAX Lite).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Maybe it was to show a different perspective. We've all seen war movies where discipline is tight and everyone's fighting for God or country. Could also be a contrast to the captain of the Moonstone, who was probably a veteran and seemed dedicated to honor and order. But then again he ignored an order by not waiting for the navy to board his boat. So perhaps it's a war movie where everyone acts in their own interests for good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 17:04
|
|