Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dunkirk
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard
Jul 23, 2017, 7:30:12 PM7/23/17
to
If you like war movies, it's one of the best ever. The obvious comparison
is Saving Private Ryan, but Dunkirk avoids Spielberg's garbage sentimental
framing device, and is much closer to the very good main act of Saving
Private Ryan.
The tone is a lot like A Bridge Too Far, although Dunkirk is a much tighter
movie. It's tighter than any Christopher Nolan movie I've ever seen -- for
example, it avoids the wannabe philosophy of the Batman movies and all of
the silliness that Nolan felt he needed to say about the nature of heroes,
or whatever it was he was after there.
If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual destruction is
tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan could have done more
to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than pure fear. But that's a minor
quibble. The plotting, the acting, and the effects all come together very
well, and as an added bonus it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed
nor padded.
is Saving Private Ryan, but Dunkirk avoids Spielberg's garbage sentimental
framing device, and is much closer to the very good main act of Saving
Private Ryan.
The tone is a lot like A Bridge Too Far, although Dunkirk is a much tighter
movie. It's tighter than any Christopher Nolan movie I've ever seen -- for
example, it avoids the wannabe philosophy of the Batman movies and all of
the silliness that Nolan felt he needed to say about the nature of heroes,
or whatever it was he was after there.
If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual destruction is
tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan could have done more
to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than pure fear. But that's a minor
quibble. The plotting, the acting, and the effects all come together very
well, and as an added bonus it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed
nor padded.
N J Marsh
Jul 25, 2017, 9:49:22 PM7/25/17
to
it so.
I'm seeing it soon, and I'm excited to see a film for the first time in
years. I've been at the water's edge on both sides of the Channel (as was
an older male relative, but in the early 1940s) and I was taken aback by
how strongly I reacted to the little boat I saw on display at the Imperial
War Museum last autumn.
--
njm
Howard
Jul 25, 2017, 10:57:22 PM7/25/17
to
N J Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote
> You're the first person I know who has seen it, I'm glad to hear you
> liked it so.
>
> I'm seeing it soon, and I'm excited to see a film for the first time
> in years. I've been at the water's edge on both sides of the Channel
> (as was an older male relative, but in the early 1940s) and I was
> taken aback by how strongly I reacted to the little boat I saw on
> display at the Imperial War Museum last autumn.
The movie felt like it was a simple wooden boat built by a very experienced
builder, containing a few knots and imperfections but clean lines, well
balanced and no superfluous parts.
Watch this after you see it.
http://boingboing.net/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-survivor-o.html
> You're the first person I know who has seen it, I'm glad to hear you
> liked it so.
>
> I'm seeing it soon, and I'm excited to see a film for the first time
> in years. I've been at the water's edge on both sides of the Channel
> (as was an older male relative, but in the early 1940s) and I was
> taken aback by how strongly I reacted to the little boat I saw on
> display at the Imperial War Museum last autumn.
builder, containing a few knots and imperfections but clean lines, well
balanced and no superfluous parts.
Watch this after you see it.
http://boingboing.net/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-survivor-o.html
Brettster
Jul 27, 2017, 5:03:08 AM7/27/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:30:12 PM UTC-7, Howard wrote:
> If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual destruction is
> tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan could have done more
> to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than pure fear. But that's a minor
> quibble. The plotting, the acting, and the effects all come together very
> well, and as an added bonus it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed
> nor padded.
I saw it today. On the plus side, it definitely does a great job of "putting you
> If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual destruction is
> tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan could have done more
> to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than pure fear. But that's a minor
> quibble. The plotting, the acting, and the effects all come together very
> well, and as an added bonus it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed
> nor padded.
on that beach," as one critic put it. Nolan conveys the sense of dread,
horror, fear, hopelessness...all of those emotions.
But I guess I must not be a war movie fan. I prefer to have stories and
character development along with my conflict, and Dunkirk contains
precious little of that. Almost the entire movie consists of:
1. Pilots in planes chasing other planes, shooting at them and crashing
them into the sea.
2. Terrified British soldiers ducking as bombs and artillery burst
around them.
3. People in pleasure boats frantically trying to rescue humans
stranded in the water.
There is a wisp of a genuine human drama involving the kid in
the boat vs. the shell-shocked soldier. For me, that was the most
interesting part of the film.
If you want to know what it was like being at Dunkirk during the
war, you won't be disappointed. I can't believe this movie was only
1:46. It seemed much, much longer to me.
Full disclosure: I thought Nolan's "Interstellar" was a colossal bore.
Brettster
Jul 27, 2017, 5:04:00 AM7/27/17
to
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, Howard wrote:
> Watch this after you see it.
>
> http://boingboing.net/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-survivor-o.html
"Video unavailable." :(
> Watch this after you see it.
>
> http://boingboing.net/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-survivor-o.html
Howard
Jul 27, 2017, 9:04:06 AM7/27/17
to
Brettster <brett...@gmail.com> wrote :
Looks like it's available here (for now at least):
http://www.avclub.com/article/97-year-old-veteran-dunkirk-reviews-dunkirk-
258529
http://tinyurl.com/y7qrxs8v
http://www.avclub.com/article/97-year-old-veteran-dunkirk-reviews-dunkirk-
258529
http://tinyurl.com/y7qrxs8v
Howard
Jul 27, 2017, 9:22:48 AM7/27/17
to
Brettster <brett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:30:12 PM UTC-7, Howard wrote:
>
>> If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual
>> destruction is tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan
>> could have done more to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than
>> pure fear. But that's a minor quibble. The plotting, the acting,
>> and the effects all come together very well, and as an added bonus
>> it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed nor padded.
>
> I saw it today. On the plus side, it definitely does a great job of
> "putting you on that beach," as one critic put it. Nolan conveys the
> sense of dread, horror, fear, hopelessness...all of those emotions.
>
> But I guess I must not be a war movie fan. I prefer to have stories
> and character development along with my conflict, and Dunkirk contains
> precious little of that. Almost the entire movie consists of:
>
> 1. Pilots in planes chasing other planes, shooting at them and
> crashing them into the sea.
>
> 2. Terrified British soldiers ducking as bombs and artillery burst
> around them.
>
> 3. People in pleasure boats frantically trying to rescue humans
> stranded in the water.
Your point of view is perfectly valid, although I think Hollywood
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:30:12 PM UTC-7, Howard wrote:
>
>> If there's a fault, it's that the balance of dread to actual
>> destruction is tilted too far toward destruction, and I think Nolan
>> could have done more to evoke a sense of hopelessness rather than
>> pure fear. But that's a minor quibble. The plotting, the acting,
>> and the effects all come together very well, and as an added bonus
>> it's only 1:46 long, and feels neither rushed nor padded.
>
> I saw it today. On the plus side, it definitely does a great job of
> "putting you on that beach," as one critic put it. Nolan conveys the
> sense of dread, horror, fear, hopelessness...all of those emotions.
>
> But I guess I must not be a war movie fan. I prefer to have stories
> and character development along with my conflict, and Dunkirk contains
> precious little of that. Almost the entire movie consists of:
>
> 1. Pilots in planes chasing other planes, shooting at them and
> crashing them into the sea.
>
> 2. Terrified British soldiers ducking as bombs and artillery burst
> around them.
>
> 3. People in pleasure boats frantically trying to rescue humans
> stranded in the water.
screenwriting has gone too far in feeling the need for exposition.
There's been a tendency to treat audiences like saps who want
motivations spelled out for everyone.
Thinking back on two historical movies I saw recently which I liked a
lot -- Selma and Lincoln -- I appreciated that they dealt with a fairly
narrow sliver of time and jumped right into the story without much
explanation or backstory. I thought the one place where Lincoln fell
flat was when it jumped ahead to his assasination and Spielberg and
Kushner felt it necessary to launch into a spiel about Lincoln's
greatness.
On the other side of things, I still haven't gotten around to seeing
Boyhood, which sounds like it's about as character based as you can get,
but it sounds tremendous.
> There is a wisp of a genuine human drama involving the kid in
> the boat vs. the shell-shocked soldier. For me, that was the most
> interesting part of the film.
>
> If you want to know what it was like being at Dunkirk during the
> war, you won't be disappointed. I can't believe this movie was only
> 1:46. It seemed much, much longer to me.
>
> Full disclosure: I thought Nolan's "Interstellar" was a colossal bore.
and the meanings of things.
0 new messages