MOVIES 2017

Dunkirk was a terrible movie. No explanation of why or how 400K got to the beach, in reality Goering tells Hitler that his Luftwaffe will take care of the beaches… what do we get… a constant repeat of the same Heinkel He-111 flying over, getting shot down, then another reappearing to get shot down. Then a Bf-109 ( just one that’s all they had, like the He-111) gets shot down every which way, then another BF-109 gets shot down by guys in planes that have no gas. Excellent. I never knew Hermann had 5 total planes, you got a real appreciation of the great trouble these guys got. Kenneth Branagh is the only redemption to keep this thing going. Nolan should never be able to get a hold of 175 Million to make these kinds of movies. This wont even clear 100 million back and everybody here writing these CNN reviews knows it.

Watch

Battle of Britain

if you want to see how a real movie is made. I think they spent the 175 million of guys lining up for boats in British uniforms, nothing more. Avoid at all costs.

@Imperious:

Dunkirk was a terrible movie. No explanation of why or how 400K got to the beach, in reality Goering tells Hitler that his Luftwaffe will take care of the beaches… what do we get… a constant repeat of the same Heinkel He-111 flying over, getting shot down, then another reappearing to get shot down. Then a Bf-109 ( just one that’s all they had, like the He-111) gets shot down every which way, then another BF-109 gets shot down by guys in planes that have no gas. Excellent. I never knew Hermann had 5 total planes, you got a real appreciation of the great trouble these guys got. Kenneth Branagh is the only redemption to keep this thing going. Nolan should never be able to get a hold of 175 Million to make these kinds of movies. This wont even clear 100 million back and everybody here writing these CNN reviews knows it.

Watch

Battle of Britain

if you want to see how a real movie is made. I think they spent the 175 million of guys lining up for boats in British uniforms, nothing more. Avoid at all costs.

In fairness, he wasn’t trying to make a 70s WWII epic. The lack of backstory and exposition was deliberate. The style and austereness gave it an independent film flavor, but one that I think worked to convey the basic emotions of war.

Battle of Britain is one of the all time greats in its own way, but it is a narrative mess; too many main characters with almost as little exposition on them as those in Dunkirk. Its 133 min runtime feels far longer because there is so much film of battle footage. Thrilling stuff, but it becomes fatiguing. Say what you will about Nolan’s film, but it was tight for sure. There is no bloat in it. Painting a smaller picture (of the battle) excellently trumps painting a larger picture shoddily.

I saw Dunkirk tonight - it was pretty good, not great. One problem was that I had a hard time understanding the British accents - my wife and I were only catching about 1/2 of what they said. Then the scenes that I expected to be epic were kind of underwhelming - I saw about 7 or 8 rescue boats in any one scene, not hundreds. Men were lined up on the beach by the hundreds, not thousands. CGI would have helped a lot there. Some scenes were drawn out way too long, like the Spitfire pilot that ran out of gas seemed to glide forever - my wife and I finally chuckled “What? He’s STILL gliding?” Another strange thing was that no Germans were shown (other than their machines) until the very last scene and even then they were out of focus. Was this to make them more scary and inhuman? Maybe. Then all the soldiers were really hard to tell apart - I kept thinking “Is that the one guy? No - I think that’s the other guy.” Then to make it even harder everyone got coated in black oil. It was still pretty good  - I’ve seen worse…it was worth paying for to support the genre.

Caught “Dunkirk” yesterday and it is a solid/good war picture. The issue for me is its biggest strength is also it’s biggest weakness. It is a rather tight picture with a small primary cast. So you follow a few guys through various spans of time which the film handles editing together very well without turning the picture into straight up flashbacks and “Groundhog Day” sorts of repeats.

But this closeness also doesn’t always convey the particular scale that is being dealt with or the broader events.

Very tense movie with terrific flying sequences. Way too much shaky-cam though especially given that it is already on the water. Solid film.

I really enjoyed it. Very glad I got to see it.

@Der:

I saw Dunkirk tonight - it was pretty good, not great. One problem was that I had a hard time understanding the British accents - my wife and I were only catching about 1/2 of what they said. Then the scenes that I expected to be epic were kind of underwhelming - I saw about 7 or 8 rescue boats in any one scene, not hundreds. Men were lined up on the beach by the hundreds, not thousands. CGI would have helped a lot there. Some scenes were drawn out way too long, like the Spitfire pilot that ran out of gas seemed to glide forever - my wife and I finally chuckled “What? He’s STILL gliding?” Another strange thing was that no Germans were shown (other than their machines) until the very last scene and even then they were out of focus. Was this to make them more scary and inhuman? Maybe. Then all the soldiers were really hard to tell apart - I kept thinking “Is that the one guy? No - I think that’s the other guy.” Then to make it even harder everyone got coated in black oil. It was still pretty good� - I’ve seen worse…it was worth paying for to support the genre.� �

He likely traded altitude for velocity which would allow him to stay in the air longer but that was a bit poorly handled. Most of the timing synced up fairly well except for that.

@frimmel:

He likely traded altitude for velocity which would allow him to stay in the air longer but that was a bit poorly handled. Most of the timing synced up fairly well except for that.

You can do that maybe once before your energy is bled out. I was trying to get my head around how Farrier lost his engine at what looked like less than 2000 AGL then a couple cuts later maneuvers to shoot down a Ju87 or Bf 109 and then still has the altitude to make a landing farther down the beach. This was a little confusing but I think I need to see it again to understand.

Somebody should make a war real war movie with 175 million. Nolan should have gave 125 million back to the studios and used only 50 million and done the 2,000+ extra central casting call along with CGI. The 125 could have financed a real war movie where we see Goering’s Luftwaffe consisting of perhaps 20 He-111 AT THE SAME TIME, and like a dozen Me-109 fighting a dozen Spitfires/Hurricanes. They would also show Germans and how the French fought to keep the Germans away from the beaches and what they were up against. The Germans is this movie were treated like Gremlins and Foo fighters… never seen or heard, but machines grazing the beaches occasionally with bullets. It made 50 million so far and it wont ever make its 175 back. Also, they did another stupid feel good " turning what is a disaster into a victory ala Pearl Harbor with the cook shooting down 400 Japanese fighters thing"  Because they left out the part of the reality where hundreds of thousands got left behind and the 145+ lost British planes, and the loss of thousands of artillery and tanks, etc.

I saw about 4 lost spitfires and like 8 German planes shot down. They needed Cuda Gooding on the beach peeling potatoes , then forced to man his 50 caliber to destroy the entire Luftwaffe.

@LHoffman:

@frimmel:

He likely traded altitude for velocity which would allow him to stay in the air longer but that was a bit poorly handled. Most of the timing synced up fairly well except for that.

You can do that maybe once before your energy is bled out. I was trying to get my head around how Farrier lost his engine at what looked like less than 2000 AGL then a couple cuts later maneuvers to shoot down a Ju87 or Bf 109 and then still has the altitude to make a landing farther down the beach. This was a little confusing but I think I need to see it again to understand.

He was shown switching to a reserve tank at one point though but that seemed to come on top of lots of scenes with the prop not turning. This was the only place I think the editing was sub-par.

@frimmel:

@LHoffman:

You can do that maybe once before your energy is bled out. I was trying to get my head around how Farrier lost his engine at what looked like less than 2000 AGL then a couple cuts later maneuvers to shoot down a Ju87 or Bf 109 and then still has the altitude to make a landing farther down the beach. This was a little confusing but I think I need to see it again to understand.

He was shown switching to a reserve tank at one point though but that seemed to come on top of lots of scenes with the prop not turning. This was the only place I think the editing was sub-par.

Trying to recall the order things occurred in this movie, after only one viewing, is difficult. That said, I think he switched to reserve just before engaging the second He 111; the prop did sputter just before he switched. At some point he was basically over the beach and his engine cut out, but somehow (not shown) he was able to gain altitude and/or orient himself for a shot to knock out one more German fighter before making his turn to land. It struck me as a bit implausible.

@LHoffman:

You can do that maybe once before your energy is bled out. I was trying to get my head around how Farrier lost his engine at what looked like less than 2000 AGL then a couple cuts later maneuvers to shoot down a Ju87 or Bf 109 and then still has the altitude to make a landing farther down the beach. This was a little confusing but I think I need to see it again to understand.

Movie editing can produce some very odd situations.  It’s a cliche, for example, that in old horror films or old sci-fi films, a lumbering mummy or lumbering bug-eyed monster will invariably manage to catch and pick up the attractive young female co-star, no matter how fast the girl runs or how slowly the creature walks.  (If that wasn’t the case, the studio’s publicity department would be cheated out of the opportunity to design a movie poster that includes a dramatic shot of an unconscious woman being carried in the arms of a scary monster.)

@Imperious:

Somebody should make a war real war movie with 175 million. Nolan should have gave 125 million back to the studios and used only 50 million and done the 2,000+ extra central casting call along with CGI. The 125 could have financed a real war movie where we see Goering’s Luftwaffe consisting of perhaps 20 He-111 AT THE SAME TIME, and like a dozen Me-109 fighting a dozen Spitfires/Hurricanes. They would also show Germans and how the French fought to keep the Germans away from the beaches and what they were up against. The Germans is this movie were treated like Gremlins and Foo fighters… never seen or heard, but machines grazing the beaches occasionally with bullets. It made 50 million so far and it wont ever make its 175 back. Also, they did another stupid feel good " turning what is a disaster into a victory ala Pearl Harbor with the cook shooting down 400 Japanese fighters thing"  Because they left out the part of the reality where hundreds of thousands got left behind and the 145+ lost British planes, and the loss of thousands of artillery and tanks, etc.

I saw about 4 lost spitfires and like 8 German planes shot down. They needed Cuda Gooding on the beach peeling potatoes , then forced to man his 50 caliber to destroy the entire Luftwaffe.

Heck, even The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe had a couple German bombers. (it’s been a while since I’ve seen that one so I’m not sure which type they were.

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.