I never argued the move could prove a flop for the Raiders, I simply argued they won’t be leaving Vegas before 2030.
That’s Fair and Balanced! :wink:
MOVIES 2017
-
The Battle of Britain had no fewer than 40 planes fighting in the air. That movie had 100 times the ordinance of Dunkirk. You felt the RAF and Luftwaffe fighting for the control of the sky. You even saw Germans and their point of view.
-
@Imperious:
The Battle of Britain had no fewer than 40 planes fighting in the air. That movie had 100 times the ordinance of Dunkirk. You felt the RAF and Luftwaffe fighting for the control of the sky. You even saw Germans and their point of view.
Dunkirk wasn’t supposed to be about the German’s point of view.
At this point your criticism is a difference of opinion, because the absence of large scale battle and differing national perspectives was entirely deliberate on the part of the director. Not an oversight.
-
The crew strapped freakin’ IMAX cameras onto Spitfires, if you can’t appreciate that then I don’t know what to say. You don’t see dogfights like these in any movie, be it with miniatures or with CGI.
This is very much a visceral movie, putting you in the shoes of a soldier, civilian and pilot. If you have access to 70mm or IMAX you have to see it in those formats.
-
because the absence of large scale battle and differing national perspectives was entirely deliberate on the part of the director. Not an oversight.
Nolan’s POV should have cost 30 million, because it was “JAWS on the Beaches”, with the Sharks being replaced with a few He-111’s. Nolan screwed up potential future war movies, because sinking 175 million and returning 100 million is not good business. Thanks Nolan!
Now Midway remake will go CGI. Anybody else will shun from making war movies because they were looking at this as a summer blockbuster.
Dunkirk wasn’t supposed to be about the German’s point of view.
The movie should educate people and set the stage: why they are trapped and how they got there , and whats going on in France. even a few minutes for the French defenders protecting the envelope at Pas-de-calais. Its just standing in lines and ducking a few planes, and a few boats coming , and a few boats sinking. Always too few…
-
@Imperious:
Now Midway remake will go CGI. Anybody else will shun from making war movies because they were looking at this as a summer blockbuster.
I think your statement about Midway was a given. We are talking about Roland Emmerich. They guy who made Godzilla (1998), Independence Day, The Patriot, White House Down, ID: Resurgence, etc… Is there any doubt that he uses the crutch of CGI to royally f-up Midway? I mean he gave us this: https://youtu.be/Io4QcFvhY0o?t=28. 100 Apaches flying through buildings in Manhattan and SSBNs firing torpedoes in the Hudson River.
It would be a little shortsighted to think this is the end of war movies, or WWII movies, solely because Dunkirk didn’t take $150m domestically opening weekend. It actually outperformed what industry hacks expected. They thought it would struggle to reach $40m, but instead it went over $50m. Says on Wikipedia that this is the third largest opening ever for a WWII film; behind Captain America (???) and Pearl Harbor. Plus, it is getting a near universal amount of critical acclaim. If this film is able to clean up at the Oscars, it should cement the genre as being both marketable and artistically significant.
What you should be concerned about is Emmerich’s film following up as the next major WWII picture and turning out to be a predictably hot, formulaic mess that will compare closer to Bruckheimer and Bay’s abominable Pearl Harbor. God I so hope I am wrong, but the man isn’t going to suddenly turn into a different director.
-
Dunkirk surpassed all industry expectations, and the concerns were legitimate since I was worried a film about a non-American operation with no American actors would struggle somewhat. The movie does demonstrate the power of Nolan’s brand, as well as a very effective ad campaign. There’s still room for war movies, but they better bring a lot to the table.
-
This is a very interesting article that expounds on the longevity or legacy of WWII films in American cinema. After participating in the conversation here, I think it is a worthwhile read.
https://melmagazine.com/how-the-world-war-ii-movie-has-evolved-over-the-last-75-years-13b4b49b2764
I do disagree with a couple things the author says about Dunkirk though. First, “On screen, Dunkirk depicts war against the Nazis.” I suppose that could technically be true, but as IL pointed out, we hardly ever see any Germans beyond some faceless aircraft and blurred out figures whose most distinguishingly German feature are their helmets. In reality, this film was about a flight from the Nazis, not a heroic fight against them. Other than the RAF scenes and the one soldier who tries to shoot a Stuka with his rifle, the Brits really don’t fight back much at all. They just take it. It definitely isn’t a typical bad guys vs good guys war film.
Secondly, I disagree that Dunkirk is a push back against Trump-esque fascism. No where in this film is fascism evident. The German enemy, whom all contemporary media generalize and demonize as fascist Nazis, is not even shown. The British in the film are fighting against the elements and time more than they are against Nazis. For one thing, Nolan strikes me as culturally far more British than American, even if he holds dual citizenship. To think that he would make a historical film in England/France, for English people with even subconscious commentary on contemporary foreign leader is preposterous.
Dunkirk has no American actors or characters in it. To ascribe American politics to this movie is a mistake. Dunkirk can hardly connect with modern American audiences politically when (a) the story follows only accented Europeans and (b) doesn’t involve any direct American history. Likewise a British audience, for whom this film is most poignant, American politics are in no way going to resonate. Implying as such would be a bewildering and stupid move on the part of the director. Dunkirk may be a product of Hollywood money, but it can hardly be pigeonholed into American-Hollywood groupthink. Nolan has demonstrated over years of filmmaking his careful, precise crafting of scripts and screenplays. His success has allowed studios to give him a long leash and not meddle with his creations.
These points go beyond the fact that Trump wasn’t even elected President yet by the time the movie had been made. Or that linking a WWII film to a fight against fascism is something of a cop-out; the entire war was predicated on that theme. So any film, from any era, could be interpreted as such.
The comparison that the author didn’t make, but I think far more appropriate, was to parallel the themes in Dunkirk to Britain and the entire West’s continuing fight against radical Islam. Islamofascism if you will. Post 9/11 and the transition from Al-Qaeda into ISIS, the great western powers are seemingly today under siege at home from violence and terrorism unlike any other time since the 1940s. Dunkirk is a definite analog for today’s sentiment: it doesn’t feel like we are winning. England itself is like a last bastion in a Europe overrun with failed multiculturalism and the dangers it has bred. Dunkirk is not a joyful film, but it is an unashamedly patriotic reminder of what British “Dunkirk spirit” did back then and how it will manifest itself again today. In that, it becomes a rallying cry for the West as a whole. There have been defeats, but in surviving there is yet hope.
I don’t think Nolan made the film with the above explicitly in mind. He is filmmaking is far too genuine and he strikes me as detached from the fickleness of contemporary politics. However, if a subconscious cultural impetus and resultant effect can be drawn from Dunkirk, I think my theory above is far more plausible than whatever schlocky politics the author of the article wishes to attribute to this film.
-
Is there any doubt that he uses the crutch of CGI to royally f-up Midway?
In his case he might make a non CGI, but others are going to be less willing to do a real war movie fearing millennial’s nonchalant attitudes toward war movies because they never lived thru any war and cant appreciate those old movies. Also, this movie has ZERO to do with Trump and again only a millennial could make such a comment.
-
Maybe they should have named it “our Dunkirk” then.
From what you all telling, i am going to wait until it is out on DVD and save my money.
-
@Imperious:
They needed Cuda Gooding on the beach peeling potatoes , then forced to man his 50 caliber to destroy the entire Luftwaffe.
I about lost it there…
Kinda reminded me how much Pearl Harbor sucked and Ben Affleck needed acting school, he was terrible in that film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsPrQgTO0HUAnyways, opinions seem all over… I haven’t seen the movie yet myself, but I have a strange feeling I’m going to be closer to the negative opinions… how could they spend 175 million in 2017 making a movie and have one He-111 and one Me-109 make repeated fly overs like it’s a cheap 1970s war movie? Nothing wrong with using real planes, but if you can only dig up two, and it’s 2017, just use them for closeups and CGI the rest. At least BoP had a ton of vintage planes to put into the air, but if you only have two, they really needed to CGI-it-up.
Also, we’ve come a long way from the 1960s and 70s movies where “hooray for Allies, boo-hiss Germans”… at least show both sides here and there… if there’s no Germans but the one Heinkel and one Messerschmidt, I’m probably going to have issues with this movie.
I’m beginning to think the Koreans made better use of their 25 million in “My Way” than these guys did with their 175 million.
-
… how could they spend 175 million in 2017 making a movie and have one He-111 and one Me-109 make repeated fly overs like it’s a cheap 1970s war movie? Nothing wrong with using real planes, but if you can only dig up two, and it’s 2017, just use them for closeups and CGI the rest. At least BoP had a ton of vintage planes to put into the air, but if you only have two, they really needed to CGI-it-up.
They didn’t even have a full He 111 (or CASA 2.111). None exist in flying condition. The one in the film is a flying model. Same for the Ju 87s.
And the Bf 109 was a HA-1112.
That probably is the icing on the cake for you.
-
That probably is the icing on the cake for you.
Ya, I’m kinda a stickler for proper equipment in movies… I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I see Germans driving around in American tanks in Battle of the Bulge… and mock-ups that clearly aren’t the real thing I can spot a mile away.
So while I haven’t seen the movie, I’ll accept your spotting of equipment as something I would do the same on… it might be the best movie in the world, but if I spot wrong equipment it tends to sour me on a film. I still want to see this film, if for nothing else to confirm what I have heard about it. I mean, I even saw Pearl Harbor, so if I can fathom why Michael Bey is still making movies, I should at least see Dunkirk.
-
Ya, I’m kinda a stickler for proper equipment in movies… I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I see Germans driving around in American tanks in Battle of the Bulge… and mock-ups that clearly aren’t the real thing I can spot a mile away.
So while I haven’t seen the movie, I’ll accept your spotting of equipment as something I would do the same on… it might be the best movie in the world, but if I spot wrong equipment it tends to sour me on a film. I still want to see this film, if for nothing else to confirm what I have heard about it. I mean, I even saw Pearl Harbor, so if I can fathom why Michael Bey is still making movies, I should at least see Dunkirk.
Understood. I feel the same way. BotB and Patton are particular eyesores. At least the tried in Kelley’s Heroes and Saving Private Ryan.
As for Dunkirk, I couldn’t tell that the He 111 was actually a large RC plane. They did a great job with it, like Nolan has done with models in his other films. The HA-1112 is a Spanish license built version of the Bf 109, I believe. So there is no visual difference. Looks perfect.
-
Haven’t seen it yet, but do they make the point that Hitler effectively allowed the army to escape because he though it would help to end the war? He never really wanted war with Britain and this was a gesture that he didn’t want the British army destroying.
They could have added some comic relief by having King Arthur leading the men towards the beach shouting “Run away! Run away!”.
The performance of the British army in 1940 was as poor as that of the French, but because they were allowed to run away to fight again while the French had to surrender to stop the fighting they don’t have the same lousy reputation as the French.
-
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
-
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
That was the best chuckle of the movie! Branagh is great with those subtle little cracks.
I believe the quote was closer to the effect of “Well its a good thing you are in the army then”… But yeah, great stuff.
-
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
An actual WWII quote of a similiar nature is the one from February 1940 when Philip Vian (at the time a Captain, later in his career an Admiral of the Fleet) either led or sent a boarding party onto the German tanker Altmark (one the Graf Spee’s supply ships), which had taken refuge in a Norwegian fjord. The German crew denied that there were any POWs aboard. Vian (or one of his officers) opened a cargo hold hatch and called down, “Any British down there?” Upon hearing an affirmative answer, Vian (or his officer) responded, “Well, come on up – the Navy’s here!”
-
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12954/rogoways-reviews-christopher-nolans-war-epic-dunkirk
Fair review from a more historical and military-technical perspective. A couple of these details were more noticeable, particularly after my second viewing.
And yes, Tom Hardy definitely gets a diving Stuka well after he is in a glide as I thought.
-
One last thing I’ll add to the Dunkirk discussion is yet another fantastic score from Hans Zimmer. What’s great about the Nolan-Zimmer partnership is Nolan will give Zimmer a few concepts (abstract or specific) as a springboard and Zimmer will run from there using his mastery of synth and sounds. In this case, Nolan’s directive of using Lord Elgar’s “Nimrod” was executed perfectly building up to the climax , and the amplification of a pocket watch was the perfect source of tension throughout. Definitely deserving of a Best Score nomination among others. Cinematography should be a slam dunk,
-
Yea Zimmer did the score, nothing like Gladiator however. The Battle of Britain had better music.
Suggested Topics
