Dunkirk Movie Review [SPOILERS]

Status
Not open for further replies.

FlyingR

Member
So yesterday I went to see Dunkirk, and as some of you said, the movie was excellent! It definitely had me on the edge of the seat all the time and was definitely stressing :p

The effects were great and the RAF scenes were fantastic, probably my favourite part. It was a shame that most characters were fictional, but it was to make the movie more interesting, I guess. There were also some historical inaccuracies like how the Spitfire manages to shoot down 4-6 in one sortie or the fact that they make the small boats more important than the Navy. As well, the modern destroyers (like [MENTION=4097]Flare[/MENTION] mentioned) and the BF109s paint schemes (yellow nose was after Dunkirk if I'm not mistaken) which are just really tiny details.

The only part that I didn't like was that they could've shown way more of the French covering the British/evacuation since it was thanks to them and other BEF that many were able to cross the pond safely. All in all though, I really liked the movie, very tense and definitely showed the real ****ing struggle they had to go through. It's also very nice that they focused on a not so well-known Operation (to most people) and on the British (as opposed to the Americans, as always).

And poor George, what a shitty way to die, seriously...

What did you guys think of it?
 

drummer93

Member
I just saw it, and sadly for me I expected a lot more. After the second Stuka bombing the movie becomes too long from my perspective. I lost the tension little by little, that was very very high the first 15-20 minutes I have to say. In other hand the temporary change was well used.

I have mixed feelings about the dogfights too. They are very "natural" (of course because of real planes) but they become a little monotonous and.... boring. And I have big doubts about destroy a Stuka with the engine dead in that way (Tom Hardy final victory), but well...maybe. I really spected a final dive to increase the tension, but thank you Tom Hardy you f**king son of a b*tch xD

I can not say anything about actors (good or bad), because there is nothing to criticize. They did it well, but honestly they faced harder jobs in other movies (a lot harder)

I don't think it was a waste of time of course, but for me is a 2/5 stars. Not in the top 5 Nolan's movies, and definitely not in my top 5 war/drama movies.

Good for you guys if you enjoy it anyway

Edit: Another thing I didn't like about the movie is that it represents very very bad the scale of the battle, especially for the lack of planes. Give me more Stukas Nolan, please, I know you can make some tricks with the scale models and a computer (no CGI of course)

Edit 2: I forgot to mention that the music is boring. Hans ZImmer disappoints me in this one. Thank you [MENTION=4097]Flare[/MENTION] to remember me that
 
Last edited:

FlyingR

Member
I just saw it, and sadly for me I expected a lot more. After the second Stuka bombing the movie becomes too long from my perspective. I lost the tension little by little, that was very very high the first 15-20 minutes I have to say. In other hand the temporary change was well used.
Definitely agree about the expectation, I did go with high expectations, especially because it was WWII and Nolan.

Edit: Another thing I didn't like about the movie is that it represents very very bad the scale of the battle, especially for the lack of planes. Give me more Stukas Nolan, please, I know you can make some tricks with the scale models and a computer (no CGI of course)
Agree on this as well, it makes you feel like the Operation was quite small xD

Edit 2: I forgot to mention that the music is boring. Hans ZImmer disappoints me in this one.
I don't think the point of the movie was to make melodic soundtracks like in other movies. Mostly there was sound effects (especially the timer clicking) to really make you feel like it truly was a battle against time more than anything else.
 

Flare

Member
Vanguard Backer
I saw Dunkirk in 70mm film last Monday. I really enjoyed watching it, it was a great experience. I do think that some parts of it could have been shown better, for instance the troops on the beach seemed to orderly all just in lines, I would have thought there would have been more disorder and probably a lot more vehicles as well. Also the aerial scenes felt a bit empty and never showed more than a handful of aircraft. I agree that they should have used computer magic to make it seem like there were more planes. Not necessarily CGI, but maybe just duplicating the scale models so it was a whole staffel of Stukas instead of 2...

I also think that the music was really boring. Not good at all. The only time that I really actually heard the music and thought it was good was when the small boats arrived at Dunkirk, but that wasn't even Hans Zimmer, it was a rendition of an older classical piece. Chris Nolan needs to try a composer that actually knows how to write a melody.

I did really enjoy the aircraft scenes though. The dogfights looked good, and Spitfires! SPITFIRES! The aerial scenes were really fantastic.

The movie did feel very immersive and intense however. The drama and the tension made up for the (relatively minor) historical errors like the 1950s destroyer, the Yak-52 radial engine with fake exhausts posing as a Spitfire, and the modern ship terminal cranes in the background. I was totally engaged all throughout the film and it's one of my favourite recent war movies. Worth a watch from me.
 

drummer93

Member
I agree that they should have used computer magic to make it seem like there were more planes. Not necessarily CGI, but maybe just duplicating the scale models so it was a whole staffel of Stukas instead of 2...
Exactly. The bombing scenes are too short because of that. It's a shame

I did really enjoy the aircraft scenes though. The dogfights looked good, and Spitfires! SPITFIRES! The aerial scenes were really fantastic.
mmm I don't know. I liked a lot when I could see through the collimator, but I feel a lack of external cameras. And when they hit a plane, I have to say they reminded me the 70's air battles movies (hit hit hit smoke and go down, hit hit hit smoke and go down). Some broken wings could be great.



I was totally engaged all throughout the film and it's one of my favourite recent war movies. Worth a watch from me.
Of course it worth. And yes is the best recent war movie, but maybe because we don't see a really good war movie since 2001 with Black Hawk Down? I donk know
 

FlyingR

Member
mmm I don't know. I liked a lot when I could see through the collimator, but I feel a lack of external cameras. And when they hit a plane, I have to say they reminded me the 70's air battles movies (hit hit hit smoke and go down, hit hit hit smoke and go down). Some broken wings could be great.
Yes exactly!

I don't care what you all say, the Pearl Harbor movie plane scenes were very good :D

[MENTION=4097]Flare[/MENTION] like I said, I don't think they were going for a melodic sound like in Black Hawk Down for example. They were focusing and accentuating the battle/race against time so they were pretty much repeating the same sound effects over and over again. The only times when there were melodic soundtrack was when there was some sort of victory, like when the civilian boats arrived (like you mentioned) to make it stand out even more. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it worked pretty well in my opinion.

Relevant video regarding the sound:


[MENTION=376]calgoblin[/MENTION], I can imagine having this sound effect in the loading screen to Pegasus Bridge, tension rising, then a short pause, and then everybody spawning in the pitch black map. That would be ****ing amazing :D
 

calgoblin

Pathfinder Games
I didn't realise it was Hanz Zimmer until the credits... I should have guessed because its a Nolan film. But the soundtrack was fantastic; it didn't need a catchy hook or melody, just creating seemingly ever-increasing tension throughout. You can say it is simple, but it fits the film so well. It's probably one of his best soundtracks, ticking included.
 

agus92

Member
[MENTION=2433]FlyingR[/MENTION] navigating through spoilers here... just want to say that the sound vid was excellent

PS: yeaaaah, Pearl Harbour plane scenes were flawless, SPECIALLY the ones were those two idiots fly towards each other.
 

drummer93

Member
PS: yeaaaah, Pearl Harbour plane scenes were flawless, SPECIALLY the ones were those two idiots fly towards each other.
I can feel your sarcasm from kilometers agus hahaha. I don't think every dogfight scenes on Pearl Harbour are great (a couple are too unreal), but some are specially well done, like the gif I posted.
 

Flare

Member
Vanguard Backer
I didn't realise it was Hanz Zimmer until the credits... I should have guessed because its a Nolan film. But the soundtrack was fantastic; it didn't need a catchy hook or melody, just creating seemingly ever-increasing tension throughout. You can say it is simple, but it fits the film so well. It's probably one of his best soundtracks, ticking included.
I could not disagree more. I thought it was incredibly boring and lame. You can build tension in ways far better than just droning strings on and on, and do action cues better than just 16th notes on the same pitch for minutes on end. Sure, the constant rising idea was neat, but it could have been executed in a more interesting way. The only part of the soundtrack that I thought was alright was when Benjamin Wallfisch did a rendition of an old Elgar piece. (4:04 in this video:
)

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I would have much rather had a more traditional soundtrack or at least one that was more music than sound design.

Also [MENTION=2870]agus92[/MENTION] [MENTION=1152]drummer93[/MENTION] I think that that gif is not great, the P-40 is shooting an awful long burst and the wing probably wouldn't catch fire when hit by .50s...

I actually really liked that in Dunkirk that the plane kills were "hit hit hit, smoke, crash" because that's what most of them actually were like in real life, not so much of this wing ripping flaming crazy stuff. 303s don't really do that. In Cliffs of Dover (a flight sim with pretty darn good damage models) most kills that I get on 109s with my Spit are just "hit hit hit, smoke (actually usually radiator fluid that leaks out and steams, leading to engine failure) then crash" so I thought the kills in Dunkirk looked good.
 

drummer93

Member
Also [MENTION=2870]agus92[/MENTION] [MENTION=1152]drummer93[/MENTION] I think that that gif is not great, the P-40 is shooting an awful long burst and the wing probably wouldn't catch fire when hit by .50s...
Probaly would because of the fuel tanks in the wings and the lack of protection on the A6M, I'm not sure.


But that's not the point, what I 'm talking about is the lack of external scenes. Most of the time I saw a face with a mask inside a cockpit :/

I actually really liked that in Dunkirk that the plane kills were "hit hit hit, smoke, crash" because that's what most of them actually were like in real life, not so much of this wing ripping flaming crazy stuff. 303s don't really do that. In Cliffs of Dover (a flight sim with pretty darn good damage models) most kills that I get on 109s with my Spit are just "hit hit hit, smoke (actually usually radiator fluid that leaks out and steams, leading to engine failure) then crash" so I thought the kills in Dunkirk looked good.
Well from my perspective they look too "clean", and yes I saw a lot of flaming stuff after be hitted by a .303 in Cliffs of Dover (IL-2 Sturmovik also, what I play a lot). I really didn't like the white smoke leaving under the 109... If Tom Hardy could destroy a Stuka with his engine dead, why he couldn't cut a 109 wing with his .303 machine guns?

Edit: and what about the German 20mm cannons? They could destroy something in a interesting way too.
 
Last edited:

Flare

Member
Vanguard Backer
[MENTION=1152]drummer93[/MENTION] ah I didn't know that the A6M had wing tanks. Makes sense now.

I think you fail to realise that .303s aren't really wing-cutting guns. They made a lot of little holes, perfect for leaking fuel, oil, radiator fluid, and messing up the engine or the pilot. If they got lucky and hit the fuel tank with a DeWilde round then the 109 might go down in flames. I do think that there could have been more sparks, puffs, debris, when the 109s were hit, but I think the 109s going down venting radiator fluid was pretty good.

I thought there were a good mix of internal and external scenes personally but then again it's all preference.
 

drummer93

Member
I think you fail to realise that .303s aren't really wing-cutting guns.
yes I know they aren't, but Dunkirk has various no sense scenes, so why not add something like that and make it less monotonous? I mean it is a movie, I don't pretend something ridiculous like Pearl Harbour but something a little more "spectacular". I change a cutted wing for the final Stuka kill hahaha. It's just my opinion. And I don't know if could have been more sparks but maybe more debris yes.

Maybe I have to see the movie again and analyse it deeper
 

FlyingR

Member
yes I know they aren't, but Dunkirk has various no sense scenes, so why not add something like that and make it less monotonous? I mean it is a movie, I don't pretend something ridiculous like Pearl Harbour but something a little more "spectacular". I change a cutted wing for the final Stuka kill hahaha. It's just my opinion. And I don't know if could have been more sparks but maybe more debris yes.

Maybe I have to see the movie again and analyse it deeper

YES Definitely agree with you once again xD The scene when he shoots the Stuka with a dead engine, like come on!
[MENTION=2870]agus92[/MENTION] great sarcasm, but like drummer said, it was pretty well made, as in the effects and stuff.
[MENTION=376]calgoblin[/MENTION], exactly! The sound effects were pretty well made and it did the job right!

(I still would like you to consider that effect for the Loading Screen for Pegasus xD )
 

agus92

Member
Maybe I'm reading too much into the sound piece, SPECIALLY since I haven't seen the film yet xD, but I think he's going for a tension fueled by the rhythim of a destroyer engine, and later the relief of reaching the coast (which loosely reminds me of Das Boot's "ascent", Das Boot - Soundtrack - YouTube).

Regarding the zero, it did had a bad habit of becoming a flaming ball, because, as said, it had wing tanks, but more importantly, because those lacked self-sealing capability and armour.
 

FlyingR

Member
Maybe I'm reading too much into the sound piece, SPECIALLY since I haven't seen the film yet xD, but I think he's going for a tension fueled by the rhythim of a destroyer engine, and later the relief of reaching the coast (which loosely reminds me of Das Boot's "ascent", Das Boot - Soundtrack - YouTube).

Regarding the zero, it did had a bad habit of becoming a flaming ball, because, as said, it had wing tanks, but more importantly, because those lacked self-sealing capability and armour.
Exactly (to both points)!
 

drummer93

Member
Maybe I'm reading too much into the sound piece, SPECIALLY since I haven't seen the film yet xD,
wtf are you doing here?? you have to see the movie without any knowledge, like like... like a virgin, touched for the very first time
 

FlyingR

Member
wtf are you doing here?? you have to see the movie without any knowledge, like like... like a virgin, touched for the very first time
He wanted to know how many times Harry Styles appeared in the movie to see if it was worth watching it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top