MOVIES 2017

@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.

@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=SsPrQgTO0HU

Anyways, 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.

@Wolfshanze:

… 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.

@LHoffman:

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.

@Wolfshanze:

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.