Dunkirk IMAX Screening

[Twin30mm]

Finally saw Dunkirk in IMAX yesterday and wondered what people's reactions were.

Personally, I found it stunning.
There's been some criticism of lack of character back story etc., but it didn't effect my enjoyment of the film.
The cinematography and sound were on a different level......and the Spitfires.....my God the Spitfires.
Don't mind admitting I was a blubbering mess at the end :lol:

 

[r1hvy]

im pleased to read this as im looking forward to seeing it myself soon. still unsure to go cinema or wait for home release though

 

[Twin30mm]

im pleased to read this as im looking forward to seeing it myself soon. still unsure to go cinema or wait for home release though

You must see it at the cinema. Biggest screen possible. Preferably IMAX.

Don't go in expecting a traditional war movie. It's told in a non-linear fashion, with minimal dialogue. Some have not liked this approach and found it confusing. I loved it. Very tense.

 

[ScruffyLookingNH]

Finally saw Dunkirk in IMAX yesterday and wondered what people's reactions were.

Personally, I found it stunning.
There's been some criticism of lack of character back story etc., but it didn't effect my enjoyment of the film.
The cinematography and sound were on a different level......and the Spitfires.....my God the Spitfires.
Don't mind admitting I was a blubbering mess at the end :lol:

Exactly this. I saw it at IMAX yesterday. Tears in eyes by the end. The cinematography was nothing short of beautiful. The acting was flawless. And the sound, the sound! IMAX is the only way to see this. Remove the soundtrack to this film and it's pretty pictures. Put that drum heart beat in the background and it's quite literally edge of your seat stuff. Without doubt my favourite parts were the Spitfires. Just amazing. Again, you feel like you're in the cockpit with them.

This blows Saving Private Ryan away for me. No, it's not even a similar movie but in terms of emotions it runs deeper. Also, despite all the mud and blood in SPR it still has something of the Hollywood about it. This didn't for me. I actually think the lack of character development was deliberate. I don't mean deliberate as in "let's not bother" but deliberate because it's meant to be about any Tommy that was there. They were representations of a typical Tommy, not named characters. In fact, I think you only hear one single name in the entire movie and he.....I'll say no more.

I loved almost everything about this movie . But don't get me wrong, it's not flawless. There are a fair number of grumbles I have with it (everyone's a critic) but my biggest is the fact it's a little too orderly. It failed to catch the chaos of Dunkirk and it absolutely and spectacularly failed to catch the scale. In the end when they talk about nearly 300,000 soldier they got off the beaches you struggle to count a dozen you saw make it successfully. It's like they had a serious lack of extras and somebody forgot to tell the navy and small boats to show up. Half the time the beaches are deserted. I'm not insistent it is historically accurate: it's entertainment, not a documentary. However, Dunkirk is memorable for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat on a spectacular scale, and this lacked the spectacular scale.

A beautiful film and I don't think it disrespects the memory of those who had to go through it. It doesn't glorify any particular service. Quite rightly so, too. Christopher Nolan did OK by them,

 

[Twin30mm]

I loved almost everything about this movie . But don't get me wrong, it's not flawless. There are a fair number of grumbles I have with it (everyone's a critic) but my biggest is the fact it's a little too orderly. It failed to catch the chaos of Dunkirk and it absolutely and spectacularly failed to catch the scale. In the end when they talk about nearly 300,000 soldier they got off the beaches you struggle to count a dozen you saw make it successfully. It's like they had a serious lack of extras and somebody forgot to tell the navy and small boats to show up. Half the time the beaches are deserted. I'm not insistent it is historically accurate: it's entertainment, not a documentary. However, Dunkirk is memorable for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat on a spectacular scale, and this lacked the spectacular scale.

Completely agree, no film is perfect and I have similar nitpicks.

Not sure if this was intentional or not, but I found the dialogue barely audible at times.

Nolan is famous for his dislike of CGI, but you would have thought they could have added more background troops and debris (abandoned vehicles etc.) to heighten the sense of scale and chaotic nature of the retreat. Probably constraints of the budget.

The last act was stunning, but I have to admit I found the following scene a bit unbelievable......

Spoiler

Farrier shooting down the Stuka whilst gliding his Spit down.

Minor nitpicks aside, I think this is going to take some beating for my film of the year.
Haven't watched a film that's effected me this much, in a long time. When that certain piece of famous music swells at the end, that finished me off.
Still find it amazing that it got the green light. An arthouse blockbuster with no American stars, regarding a subject that probably the majority of America is totally ignorant of.
Give that man an Oscar!

 

[ScruffyLookingNH]

Still find it amazing that it got the green light. An arthouse blockbuster with no American stars, regarding a subject that probably the majority of America is totally ignorant of.
Give that man an Oscar!

Absolutely. And I hadn't even considered that aspect of it! Not an American saving the day in sight!

I can't get the "Spoiler" to reveal! PM me

 

[Robstyley]

SPOILERS!!! I went to see it yesterday afternoon, on my own, and I thought it was amazing. The intensity maintained all the way through the film with the camera work, music/sound and editing was very original. It very cleverly held your attention and you could feel the desperation. I love the way it followed the young lad all the way through right from the first scene but kept showing other things going on. It was like 3 or 4 stories all going on at the same time and intertwined. The spitfire aerial sequences were so realistic and so well shot... and the sound of the engines Superb!

Agree there wasn't enough men and ships. The Navy big cheese said there's 400,000 men on the beach but you saw them at the start and there was prob about 10,000 on there :lol: The size of the civilian armada was way too small too, in reality there were **** loads of boats - not a dozen. Also I noticed a lot of modern things, benches and buildings etc the were not WW2 era and when matey was gliding in at the end there was a block of flats behind the beach that looked well new! Aside from the odd inaccuracies though it was a bloody good watch and I will be purchasing for sure.

 

[SAVORY100]

Sorry guys I disagree on most levels and I'm stunned that this has so much hype about it, let alone almost everyone I meet telling me that thy thought it was amazing... c'mon, its like Avatar, a very average film that no one dares speak out against and a year or two later everyone will see just how average it really is/was.

Its not tripe by any means, its merely an OK film at best, cut together in a frustrating way that disrupts the story/timeline and although thankfully short in today's epic era is littered with pretty poor acting across the board (the exception being Mark Rylance who was exceptional); John Boyega would've looked good compared to most of that cast... he can pant just about as well...

Personally, I think the biggest problem with the mass hysteria about this film (and this is not a personal comment on anyone individually here or my friends either) is the general lack of education/knowledge about the events and therefore how easily this poor attempt at telling a small part of the story has been taken to the heart of most that have seen it. It overly stylises the moment without taking the leap that a traditional war film does in adding the Hollywood flair, so it fails on both angles. It does sound good though, no question there.

Simon & Rob's point about the sheer scale (and disorder) of the rescue is totally lost in this film and that sadly is the actual story itself... that is the Dunkirk story FFS! The beach has what 5k, maybe 8k at a push in the film, theres meant to be over 400k! let alone the c350k they actually rescued... the flotilla of rescue boats was in the many hundreds (c700 all told of which more than 200 sunk!) not a few dozen that the film depicted (again Rylance's telling of one of those boats was the best bit and the better film would probably have centred around his story in the main)... pretty disrespectful to all involved IMO... There wasn't even a factual scroll at the end to correct the films woeful storytelling. I left quite angry rather than tearful.

IMO The best option for anyone that enjoyed this really wants a real experience of what actually happened and to truly be emotionally drained (in a much shorter time) then get to Dover Castle and take the hour to complete the War Time tunnels tour. Dover was the home of Operation Dynamo (the little ships and broader Dunkirk rescue) and the experience they deliver there is second to none and unlike the film is guaranteed to really move you to tears.

 

[Twin30mm]

Went for a second viewing yesterday at a 'normal' screening.
Although it lost a bit of the impact of the IMAX screening, I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

Sorry guys I disagree on most levels and I'm stunned that this has so much hype about it, let alone almost everyone I meet telling me that thy thought it was amazing... c'mon, its like Avatar, a very average film that no one dares speak out against and a year or two later everyone will see just how average it really is/was.

Whilst I respect your opinion, "average" is the last thing this film can be described as.
Yes, it has it's flaws and some of the reviews have been over-the-top, but the cinematography and sound alone, set it above anything else in recent times. Nolan has to be applauded for not churning out a bland "Hollywood" war film, with over-the-top heroism and forced sentimentality.
It wasn't afraid to show the not so heroic side of war, which I found refreshing.

Whilst I have some cosmetic niggles e.g. lack of troops/debris on the beach, I didn't have a problem with the small amount of 'Little Ships' arriving.
As the operation lasted a week, I never assumed all 700 vessels turned up at once. Rather a steady flow over the period.

Sorry, but your comments regarding people being afraid to speak out and "general lack of education/knowledge about the events" sound a bit pompous. Perhaps the majority of people really do like the film and find it a god-send from the constant stream of superhero films.
It was never meant to be a documentary, rather an experiential film, where the viewer is thrown into situation.
If this film encourages people to enhance their knowledge of this important event, then that can only be a good thing.

Hopefully, Ridley Scott's proposed Battle of Britain movie will have the same impact.

 

[SAVORY100]

Went for a second viewing yesterday at a 'normal' screening.
Whilst it lost a bit of the impact of the IMAX screening, I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

Sorry guys I disagree on most levels and I'm stunned that this has so much hype about it, let alone almost everyone I meet telling me that thy thought it was amazing... c'mon, its like Avatar, a very average film that no one dares speak out against and a year or two later everyone will see just how average it really is/was.

Whilst I respect your opinion, "average" is the last thing this film can be described as.
Yes, it has it's flaws and some of the reviews have been over-the-top, but the cinematography and sound alone, set it above anything else in recent times. Nolan has to be applauded for not churning out a bland "Hollywood" war film, with over-the-top heroism and forced sentimentality.
It wasn't afraid to show the not so heroic side of war, which I found refreshing.

Whilst I have some cosmetic niggles e.g. lack of troops/debris on the beach, I didn't have a problem with the small amount of 'Little Ships' arriving.
As the operation lasted a week, I never assumed all 700 vessels turned up at once. Rather a steady flow over the period.

Sorry, but your comments regarding people being afraid to speak out and "general lack of education/knowledge about the events" sound a bit pompous. Perhaps the majority of people really do like the film and find it a god-send from the constant stream of superhero films.
It was never meant to be a documentary, rather an experiential film, where the viewer is thrown into situation.
If this film encourages people to enhance their knowledge of this important event, then that can only be a good thing.

Hopefully, Ridley Scott's proposed Battle of Britain movie will have the same impact.

Totally cool with you disagreeing with me, thats what makes the world a more interesting place, but I stand by my comments.

Totally agree that its refreshing to not have to sit through a single hero taking on all comers in an over the top fashion that the more recent Hollywood tradition seems to ram down our throats, but I felt it went too far the other way, with no real line of story to follow 'on the beaches' as they focussed attention between three characters with no real development on any of them for the viewer to get their teeth into, add to that the boats story and the spitfire story, so the immersive mission that Nolan purports to have sent the viewer on failed for me as there is no single person, item or character to cling to or use as a guide to that immersive experience; I suppose that on that note it could be claimed he does highlight some of the disorder, but I didn't really get that feeling.

Regarding the volume of rescue being spread over a week... yes of course it was, it was an 8 day mission... Day one of Operation Dynamo saved c7,000, that leaves 331,000 to be saved over the next seven days, this thing was massive, something I strongly believe that the film totally failed to show and that is the point that grates for me.

Here's the approx breakdown of the volume by day:

Day one - c7k
Day two - c18k
Day three - c47k
Day four - c54k
Day five - c68k
Day Six - c64k
Day seven & eight - c75k across the two days; I hasten to add that the last two days were the French troops and the records are not so accurate per day.

Branagh's line at the end of the film was something along the lines of "I'm staying for the French..." so does it depict day six? Did it feel like c64,000 men were being saved at any point in the film? No it didn't.

The officially recorded 700 British vessels (there were many unrecorded and an additional c170 allied vessels on top) was of course over many days too and only 300 of those were random British little boats, but across the board, most made multiple trips, many without stopping for no more than minutes to disembark and refuel before heading back, the sea would've been awash with boats and ships of all scales, not the handful passing each other we saw on screen.

As for me being pompous; yep I probably am, I'm not ashamed of it and I stand by the comment that make you say that about me - its pretty fair of you. I'm probably too invested to enjoy it for what it was and for that reason my review is maybe a little unfair too. When that film has a slightly more gritty bent and the subject matter feels that it should be respected, there will be a sort of reverence created for it without the knowledge to see through it and voice concerns for the accuracy failings. Although it will, I'm sure, make more people take a small or passing interest in this period of history, which is a very good thing, I do feel that we shouldn't let such failings shape our view of what the truth was, let alone celebrate them in the way this film has been lauded.

I will watch it again, despite being down on it, I didn't hate it, it just irritated me in part that it felt like a let down, maybe a second viewing with lower expectations will actually let me appreciate the film making skill more.

 

[Robstyley]

Ah sorry it didn't do it for you Steve. I like your review of it, each to their own. It's good to discuss these movies, it gets you thinking about them in more depth. I don't think it was intended to be accurate, more a snippet of the experience of it from a few different people who were involved's points of view (a soldier, a pilot, a rescuer and a Naval officer). As you say though, they missed by a mile with the scale of the evacuation and I'm also sure there would have been dozens of planes swarming all over the sky and we only ever seemed to see 3 or 4 at most in each skirmish. Still, I did enjoy the planes.

I have been aware of Dunkirk for as long as I can remember as my Dad told me all about it when I was young and he once gave me a framed photo of a small boat involved called Endeavour which is still moored in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex where my folks live. I must admit I was unaware of the numbers of men evacuated each day over a week though, very interesting, thanks for that

 

[SAVORY100]

Well it's stirred up a family memory/ connection so in many ways it's actually a massive success in my house afterall!

I got chatting with Mum about seeing the film, the evening that I saw it as I thought my Grandad had told me a story as a child that there had been a family connection and I get this response from her:

"My mum's brother, Leonard "Roy" Bale who was only a lad at the time went across with an uncle who had part ownership of a boat which sailed from Sheerness. My Nan was worried about him because he didn't come home that night. She had no idea where he had gone. The family was sworn to secrecy. When my Mum told me she said, " Oh I wasn't supposed to tell anyone". He must have been one of the youngest to go across..."

So it appears my Great Uncle was on one of the boats, bit close to the film that... and now I know, I wonder if my future viewing will be with a different perspective!

 

[Robstyley]

Mate that's awesome! And quite strange. Very similar, who's to say your Great Uncle didn't kind of sneak on the boat or something last minute like the lad in the film? I love stories from parents and older people. I only wish I'd picked my Nans brains more before they passed. Modern history is fascinating to me, love it.

 

[Twin30mm]

Well it's stirred up a family memory/ connection so in many ways it's actually a massive success in my house afterall!

I got chatting with Mum about seeing the film, the evening that I saw it as I thought my Grandad had told me a story as a child that there had been a family connection and I get this response from her:

"My mum's brother, Leonard "Roy" Bale who was only a lad at the time went across with an uncle who had part ownership of a boat which sailed from Sheerness. My Nan was worried about him because he didn't come home that night. She had no idea where he had gone. The family was sworn to secrecy. When my Mum told me she said, " Oh I wasn't supposed to tell anyone". He must have been one of the youngest to go across..."

So it appears my Great Uncle was on one of the boats, bit close to the film that... and now I know, I wonder if my future viewing will be with a different perspective!

Apologies for the "pompous" comment. Glad you didn't take offence.

Wow. What a family revelation.
If you find out any more info, please let us know. I find these wartime stories incredibly inspirational and emotional.
Truly the 'greatest generation'.

Your story reminds me of my Mum mentioning that she's related to Group Captain Stagg. He was the RAF meteorologist who persuaded Eisenhower to launch the D-Day landings on the 6th June. Eisenhower had originally wanted to go on the 5th. Stagg is portrayed in the film 'The Longest Day'.
Keep meaning to do some research on him.

I can't imagine the pressure he would have been under to get the decision right. A decision that would potentially send thousands of men to their deaths.

 

[SAVORY100]

Well it's stirred up a family memory/ connection so in many ways it's actually a massive success in my house afterall!

I got chatting with Mum about seeing the film, the evening that I saw it as I thought my Grandad had told me a story as a child that there had been a family connection and I get this response from her:

"My mum's brother, Leonard "Roy" Bale who was only a lad at the time went across with an uncle who had part ownership of a boat which sailed from Sheerness. My Nan was worried about him because he didn't come home that night. She had no idea where he had gone. The family was sworn to secrecy. When my Mum told me she said, " Oh I wasn't supposed to tell anyone". He must have been one of the youngest to go across..."

So it appears my Great Uncle was on one of the boats, bit close to the film that... and now I know, I wonder if my future viewing will be with a different perspective!

Apologies for the "pompous" comment. Glad you didn't take offence.

Wow. What a family revelation.
If you find out any more info, please let us know. I find these wartime stories incredibly inspirational and emotional.
Truly the 'greatest generation'.

Your story reminds me of my Mum mentioning that she's related to Group Captain Stagg. He was the RAF meteorologist who persuaded Eisenhower to launch the D-Day landings on the 6th June. Eisenhower had originally wanted to go on the 5th. Stagg is portrayed in the film 'The Longest Day'.
Keep meaning to do some research on him.

I can't imagine the pressure he would have been under to get the decision right. A decision that would potentially send thousands of men to their deaths.

Blimey! that's some revelation yourself...
So many men and women gave so much and had so many ridiculously hard decisions to make with so many lives depending on them.. we walk so many steps in the footsteps of uncelebrated greatness

 

[weasel]

Saw it yesterday and I have to say I thought it was really good.

I even thought Harry Styles, who I wouldn't be a massive fan of, did well. Normally those sort of cameos ruin films but he was as good as most of the rest of the cast.
I did think the number of small ships was ridiculously low, and also the aircraft. I assumed the last few days would have been spent dodging dive bombers and the like but we only saw a few planes. It did detract from the film a bit for me, but it definitely didn't ruin it. I've never seen a film where everything is perfect (Ewoks, anyone!?) so I'll give it a slight bye ball on that.

I can see why the French hate it. They are a small bit part of the film, but I guess the intent is to tell the story of British escape rather than the entire events surrounding Dunkirk.

One other thing that bugged me, and I'm happy to be corrected on this, but I thought Spitfires only had something like 12 seconds worth of ammo. Yer man in his Spitfire seems to have the Hollywood "unlimited bullets" thing going on. Granted he doesn't hold his finger down on the trigger for minutes on end, but he has a hell of a lot of pot shots. Just me knit picking.

I was also glad that we didn't have the Yanks swanning in at the last minute to save the day as seems to happen in EVERY SINGLE ****ING WAR MOVIE HOLLYWOOD MAKES. U1571, Inglorious Basterds etc. Nice that they tried to be as faithful to history as possible. I do find it incredibly insulting when they change stuff like that, partly because it's the Yanks taking credit for **** they didn't do (or in the case of killing Hitler in Paris, stuff that didn't happen) but also cos it's little more than sticking two fingers up to people who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Bizarrely you never Hollywood replacing American sacrifices/heros with those from another country.

My Grandfather was one of those evacuated from Dunkirk but he never spoke about the war until near the end of his life and even then it was only in the most general of terms. Dad only found out where Granda had fought by his medals and by tracing where his regiment had been. It just shows you what long last affecting some of those events must have had on people.

 

[Twin30mm]

One other thing that bugged me, and I'm happy to be corrected on this, but I thought Spitfires only had something like 12 seconds worth of ammo. Yer man in his Spitfire seems to have the Hollywood "unlimited bullets" thing going on. Granted he doesn't hold his finger down on the trigger for minutes on end, but he has a hell of a lot of pot shots. Just me knit picking.

Yeah, from what I can gather, the Spits had only 15 or so seconds worth of ammo available. Short bursts only.
I was an anti-aircraft gunner in the Royal Navy and we were taught to fire in 1-2 second bursts. Firstly to conserve ammo and secondly for better accuracy.

I was also glad that we didn't have the Yanks swanning in at the last minute to save the day as seems to happen in EVERY SINGLE ****ING WAR MOVIE HOLLYWOOD MAKES. U1571, Inglorious Basterds etc.

I've refused to watch U571.
From what I've heard, it's basically the Yanks taking credit for capturing the Enigma machine. Wasn't there such an outcry that the producers had to add a statement at the end of the movie, stating that it was a British warship that actually captured the Enigma (HMS Bulldog, I believe)?

My Grandfather was one of those evacuated from Dunkirk but he never spoke about the war until near the end of his life and even then it was only in the most general of terms. Dad only found out where Granda had fought by his medals and by tracing where his regiment had been. It just shows you what long last affecting some of those events must have had on people.

I would imagine this is a familiar story with many wartime heroes, like your Grandfather.
Probably saw some horrendous sights that were better off buried in the past and not dwelled upon.
True heroes, of which we'll never see the like of again.

 

[weasel]

I've refused to watch U571.
From what I've heard, it's basically the Yanks taking credit for capturing the Enigma machine. Wasn't there such an outcry that the producers had to add a statement at the end of the movie, stating that it was a British warship that actually captured the Enigma (HMS Bulldog, I believe)?

Ditto. Americans capturing the Enigma machine a year before they bothered to join the war. **** RIGHT OFF