I wish more people would discuss the historical inaccuracy of the regular evening news. What a joke!
Good article Marc.
MOVIES 2017
-
I will see it on the 23rd.
-
70mm IMAX!
-
70mm IMAX!
YES! Way to go!
I wish there was an IMAX 70mm playing near me, but there isn’t. Going to have to settle for normal 70mm and hour’s drive to Detroit.
Interstellar was utterly mindblowing in IMAX 70mm when I saw it at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. Never had a theater experience like it. The monumental subject matter helped too. For some reason, the museum is not playing Dunkirk this time.
-
For some reason, the museum is not playing Dunkirk this time.
:oops:
-
@wittmann:
I will see it on the 23rd.
I’m looking forward to your review. I’m going to wait to watch the film with Dad.
-
Dunkirk: 70mm
Awesome film. Didn’t let up, even to the very end. It was visually beautiful. The audio was striking. The tension of war more visceral than I have ever seen in a movie. Definitely going again.
See it big while you can. As it is meant to be.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
