"Dunkirk"

[Beaglemom3]

We saw the movie yesterday. Anyone else ?







-

 

[TUGBrian]

very much looking forward to it, reading books about it were amazing.

 

[Beaglemom3]

very much looking forward to it, reading books about it were amazing.

I grew up hearing about Dunkirk and watching the old 1950s military TV shows (World at War, Battle Line,Victory at Sea, Navy Log, Silent Service, etc) with my WWII USN, flyer, Dad (later USAF retired). Always found the story about the individuals (R.N. and volunteers) who, in their little boats, crossed the Channel at enormous risk and got the rescue done, deeply, deeply moving.

I have mixed reviews and feelings about the movie, but I'm glad I saw it.

 

[Karen G]

We saw it yesterday, too. It made me want to read more about it.

 

[ace2000]

We saw the movie at the IMAX and it was interesting, but since I knew the story beforehand, there really wasn't enough drama in it for me. I'm glad I saw it, but wasn't captivated by it, that's for sure. Having said that, the reviews for the movie are great though!

 

[LisaH]

Saw Stephen Corbert interviewing Kenneth Branagh last night and wanted to see the movie. Hopefully next week...

 

[Beaglemom3]

We saw it yesterday, too. It made me want to read more about it.

Saw Stephen Corbert interviewing Kenneth Branagh last night and wanted to see the movie. Hopefully next week...

Branagh was good as was Mark Rylance (Wolf Hall).

 

[isisdave]

Saw it yesterday in Farnborough UK in enormous almost empty theater. Quite a deal at £5 each. Thundering audio, couldn't have been much louder in 1940 at the real event.

It's a point of view movie, not terribly historical. I knew that over 800 boats took part, and there must have been more ships. Over 135 planes were lost in each side, so I didn't understand why there were only about 6 in the movie version.

 

[Luanne]

Branagh was good as was Mark Rylance (Wolf Hall).

I know Mark Rylance from Bridge of Spies. I think he won an Oscar for that role.

 

[LisaH]

Thundering audio, couldn't have been much louder in 1940 at the real event.

That's what was mentioned in Branagh 's interview. Some Dunkirk survivors (all in their 90s) attended movie premiere and none remembered the actual sound was as loud as in the movie

I know Mark Rylance from Bridge of Spies. I think he won an Oscar for that role.

Yes. He was fabulous!

 

[MULTIZ321]

We saw it yesterday, too. It made me want to read more about it.

The Miracle of Dunkirk by Walter Lord is a good read.


Richard

 

[Blues]

Saw it last night. Both I and DW were deeply disappointed. I don't understand how rotten tomatoes gives it 92%.

As a WWII buff, I'm very familiar with the Dunkirk operation. From watching the film, you'd think that it involved about 3 companies of men, 3 planes on each side, a few Navy destroyers, and a dozen small boats. Where's the scale? Where's the background? Yes, the film had some excellent technical achievements -- the IMAX videography from the planes and exceptional use of sound that built suspense -- heck, that was the *only* thing that built suspense. But c'mon Christopher Nolan, there were 400,000 people saved! Not just a half dozen. And where are all the Germans??? We see one German pilot.

Two thumbs down. And we were so looking forward to it, hoping it would be good.

 

[Beaglemom3]

Saw it yesterday in Farnborough UK in enormous almost empty theater. Quite a deal at £5 each. Thundering audio, couldn't have been much louder in 1940 at the real event.

It's a point of view movie, not terribly historical. I knew that over 800 boats took part, and there must have been more ships. Over 135 planes were lost in each side, so I didn't understand why there were only about 6 in the movie version.

 

[tompalm]

Agree with all the others that this movie might have been overrated. But it was still a good story for people not familiar with what happened there. I saw a 3 pm show and the theater was only 10 percent full. This doesn't look like it will be a blockbuster. Also, I have seen every war movie that has been made for the last 50 years and there have been a lot better movies in the past. I expected more after such great reviews, but have no regrets seeing it.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

We saw the movie yesterday. Anyone else ?







-

We tried to go see it tonight and it was sold out.

 

[MULTIZ321]

Dunkirk: Why Didn't Hitler Go In for the Kill?
By Clive Irving/ Hinge of History/ Daily Beast/ dailybeast.com

"When the outcome of a war is decided in a matter of hours, years before it actually ends, those involved rarely know it. So it was in northern France in May 1940.

At this moment Adolf Hitler was in a position to deliver such a devastating military defeat to the British that they might never have recovered. But Hitler hesitated. His panzer corps – fast-moving tank-led army divisions – had ripped through the defenses of France and Belgium and had trapped the British in a shrinking enclave around the French port of Dunkirk.

But then, on May 22, the panzers were halted by orders from above, and again on May 23. Just why this happened, and on whose orders, has been disputed for decades by historians...."

Warner Brothers Pictures


Richard

 

[Glynda]

We saw it in a fairly full theater this afternoon. I was not familiar with it so found it tremendously suspenseful! I was on the edge of my seat through it with heart racing! I suspect I would have been even had I known the history. And, as others have said, it led me to want to know more.

 

[MULTIZ321]

We saw it in a fairly full theater this afternoon. I was not familiar with it so found it tremendously suspenseful! I was on the edge of my seat through it with heart racing! I suspect I would have been even had I known the history. And, as others have said, it led me to want to know more.

My link in the previous post is a good start.
Dunkirk: Why Didn't Hitler Go In For the Kill?

Richard

 

[WalnutBaron]

From a historical perspective, the successful retreat at Dunkirk was crucial to the eventual victory of the Allies in the European Theater of World War II. How can that claim be made in a battle that took place nearly five full years before Germany's surrender? There are at least three critical reasons:

1. The Allies' greatest war leader, Winston Churchill, was allowed to gain his political footing. Churchill had come into power as the Prime Minister of Great Britain only twelve days before the Battle of Dunkirk commenced. Already, powerful forces within the British Parliament were pushing for a negotiated settlement with Hitler--still stuck on the failed policy of appeasement which had only encouraged Hitler to invade Europe and Britain's allies. Had Dunkirk resulted in the destruction of the British Army, it's highly unlikely that Churchill would have prevailed against the appeasement voices in his own Parliament--and he likely would have faced an early resignation.
2. In June 1941, Hitler made a fatal strategic mistake when he launched Operation Barbarossa--the invasion of the Soviet Union. In doing so, Hitler opened up a two-front war for the German Army. Had the Dunkirk operation failed for the Allies, Hitler's army might very well have prevailed against Russian forces, even despite the harsh Russian winter of 1941-42.
3. A second major tipping point in the War was, of course, America's entry into it in December 1941--more than a year and half after Dunkirk. Had the retreat and preservation of the British Army failed at Dunkirk, it's quite possible--even likely--that the European portion of the War would have been over long before the Americans were finally moved to act.

Dunkirk was the linchpin. In mid-1940, few would have imagined this. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it is clear that the defeat at Dunkirk--as devastating as it was--was actually the beginning of the Allies' slow and inexorable march to victory in late April 1945.

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

As a historical follow up to Dunkirk - google -
Dieppe Raid

This August 1942 - 6000 troop assault on a German held French port included the
" what not to do " lessons that helped improve the planning for D Day .

 

[dougp26364]

We saw it yesterday. Painfully slow at times. More or less a narrow view of three individual groups, a pair of soldiers in the army on the beach, a squadron of three RAF pilots, and a three man crew of one of the rescue boats.

The movie was based on those small stories of the battle rather than a story of the battle in entirety.

It was OK. It's not something I'd watch twice nor did it have me glued to my seat. It's not one I'll purchase when released on DVD.

 

[Mosca]

Saw it last night. Both I and DW were deeply disappointed. I don't understand how rotten tomatoes gives it 92%.

As a WWII buff, I'm very familiar with the Dunkirk operation. From watching the film, you'd think that it involved about 3 companies of men, 3 planes on each side, a few Navy destroyers, and a dozen small boats. Where's the scale? Where's the background? Yes, the film had some excellent technical achievements -- the IMAX videography from the planes and exceptional use of sound that built suspense -- heck, that was the *only* thing that built suspense. But c'mon Christopher Nolan, there were 400,000 people saved! Not just a half dozen. And where are all the Germans??? We see one German pilot.

Two thumbs down. And we were so looking forward to it, hoping it would be good.

What bugged me the most was the pilots firing after the target had passed through the sight, rather than before.

As for the rest of it, I enjoyed the film immensely, as much as one could enjoy a film about tragedy and death. I thought it was an incredible piece of cinema.

 

[stonebroke]

Visually well done. Overall though they somehow managed to make a BIG event small. There were over 800 boats rescuing people over a period of over a week but watching the movie you would think it happened in one night maybe 25 or 30 boats.