OT: just watched Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan

[kop101]

Would love to hear opinions on how historically accurate it is. The tension and atmosphere are superb, but personally I am questioning scenes where destroyed Spitfires are not drowning in the sea and German bomber was sent to raid alone.

[dragos]

I think they have made mistakes in regards to Messerschmitts, the model looks like the Hispano type and not "Emil". Also the painting scheme with the all yellow engine cowling came a bit later.

[wargovichr]

Kinda like a "feelings" movie then?

[dragos]

I have expected an epic movie, but end up feeling like I have watched a low budget TV movie. The Germans are not shown at all (except aircraft), the strategic situation is barely described, no large amount of equipment shown on beach, no fighting except stray bullets and dogfights. Underwhelming I may say.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JaM2013]

not showing German soldiers was the intention of Nolan to present "unseen danger" - for soldiers on beaches Germans were out there, but they were not directly threatened by them except the tac bombers.. I think Dunkirk was one of the best war movies of all times, perfectly capturing view of ordinary soldier on the situation around him - simple soldier did not have strategic view in front of him but tried to survive the action around him..

[econ21]

Would love to hear opinions on how historically accurate it is.

There's a good Looper video on youtube about this. Some of the "errors" don't bother me - e.g. it's been criticised for downplaying the French contribution but the first scene shows them formidably guarding the town so I don't agree with that. Nolan knows the yellow nose markings on the Me109 came a litte later, but used it to allow the audience to tell apart the planes, which seems sensible.

The biggest artistic licence seems to be portraying the "small boats" as coming to the rescue when (a) they were used throughout (they did not arrive later on to save the day); (b) they made a modest contribution (rescued 9k men); (c) were mainly crewed by the RN. It's great drama but myth making history.

Other significant points were (a) Dunkirk should have been a ruins; (b) Spitfires had ample fuel for the short distance to Dunkirk.

Beyond that, I thought it was a good film - it felt more like a disaster film than a traditional war movie, perhaps. Only Tom Hardy gets to shoot at the Germans; everyone else has to endure. But maybe that's historical: I suspect most of the Allied soldiers on the beach did not see the Germans either. It feels more authentic and less "Hollywood" than most war movies I've seen, even Saving Private Ryan.

[kop101]

Would love to hear opinions on how historically accurate it is.

There's a good Looper video on youtube about this. Some of the "errors" don't bother me - e.g. it's been criticised for downplaying the French contribution but the first scene shows them formidably guarding the town so I don't agree with that. Nolan knows the yellow nose markings on the Me109 came a litte later, but used it to allow the audience to tell apart the planes, which seems sensible.

The biggest artistic licence seems to be portraying the "small boats" as coming to the rescue when (a) they were used throughout (they did not arrive later on to save the day); (b) they made a modest contribution (rescued 9k men); (c) were mainly crewed by the RN. It's great drama but myth making history.

Other significant points were (a) Dunkirk should have been a ruins; (b) Spitfires had ample fuel for the short distance to Dunkirk.

Beyond that, I thought it was a good film - it felt more like a disaster film than a traditional war movie, perhaps. Only Tom Hardy gets to shoot at the Germans; everyone else has to endure. But maybe that's historical: I suspect most of the Allied soldiers on the beach did not see the Germans either. It feels more authentic and less "Hollywood" than most war movies I've seen, even Saving Private Ryan.

Thank you for the video suggestion, very interesting.

[JaM2013]

actually, small boats were mostly used to haul men to bigger ships that couldnt get closer to the beach.. out of 300.000 saved, 100.000 were saved from the beach by those small ships (not necessarily by transporting them to England of course)

[edahl1980]

The movie is ****. Watched it 2 days ago myself.
No germans, no equipment.

So many "close call" situations that by the end of the movie it was all predictable and boring. Like the Spit out of fuel shooting down the Stuka and the pilot being saved just as he was drowning.
And how accurate is it that one Heinkel was out doing his bomb run alone? With 2 109's attached to its wing protecting it.
I have never seen war photos of He111's doing bomb run alone. And its altitude would be much higher as a hit at that height would damage the plane dropping bombs as well.
And 109's never flew together with bombers. They were nearby, but being next to bombers would make them lose their moment of suprise. And that was how most fighters was shot down. During BoB late stages Goring ordered 109's to stay with the bombers but that was some months later.

Christopher Nolan is not even trying. And this can barely be refered to as a ww2 movie.

[wargovichr]

https://youtu.be/wU0Pp2n6ooE
"Feelings"

[edahl1980]

https://youtu.be/wU0Pp2n6ooE
"Feelings"

[Kerensky]

Here's some related OT for your OT.

http://i.imgur.com/nrzacZv.jpg

[bebro]

I think they have made mistakes in regards to Messerschmitts, the model looks like the Hispano type and not "Emil".

Haven't seen the movie, but I guess there are just too few German built 109ers that still fly, and Nolan might not have gotten a deal/permission to use them...Nolan is known for rejecting CGI, so he took the Hispano version instead (and yeah, it certainly does look strange when you know a real 109 E).

IMO these are exactly the cases where CGI would be helpful, but what do I know...

[goose_2]

Just watched this movie with my wife last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it did an excellent job focusing on one soldiers harrowing journey of survival from the first scene to the last, while at the same time interspersing with tension of the 2 hours of Tom Hardy's character in the plane saving lives by shooting down the enemy, while following at the same time this one soldiers survival over two days, along with the small boat's use with the Father saving various people.

I thought the tension, pacing, and cinematography were excellent. I was supremely satisfied, and it emphasized the message of what you do in the present can have a huge impact on the future. What you do now matters more than anything else you may have done or not done in the past, kind of like the Fury movie which I also enjoyed.

The Christian vocation of soldier portrayed very presciently and poignantly.

[IainMcNeil]

Personally I was very disappointed. I found the way the story was told very confusing. 3 separate stories were told at different paces with the same event being shown at different times during the film so the time line jumped back wards and forwards almost every scene. It wasn't until half way through I understood what was going on and the people with me hadn't realised until I told them at the end.

If it had been all shown in order I think it would have been great but as it was I just found it unnecessarily confusing and disappointing. To me it was a great film ruined by over complicating the timeline of the 3 stories.

[DrSher]

I feel it was an entire "tactical" movie and the strategic fill is just there to give something more to the story, although it was feeble. As a personal experience and down to ground movie, I felt it did a good job.

When it comes to Hitler and the hesitation, I think it is not at all clear what happened there. Still, I think it is much more likely that it was the anti-Mannstein/Blitz Krieg faction in Wehrmacht that had more to do with holding off the finishing of Dunkirk than anyone else. Much have been said about Goering's bragging of his capability to finish off BEF with Luftwaffe, but I think this was more talk that has in hindsight become food to make a story. Just like the general staff always tried to blame Hitler for everything, the reality was likely more nuanced. Likewise, the closeted anglophilia of AH is something that is vastly exaggerated, IMHO. I think it is much more likely that Von Kluge and Rundstedt were the main architects behind letting the brits get away. Neither had the radical gutsiness required to get the total victory Germany needed in 1940, making Dunkirk the first lost victory of Wehrmacht.

[adrianoku]

I think it's one of the most "emotional" war movie I'd ever seen... mhh actually I think it isn't a war movie at all ! It's a survival movie set in time war.
Don' be critic about the absence of german troops, I think the presence of the arriving german soldiers on the background makes more fear than seeing thousand of
shooting nazi's running everywhere. And ... yes ... everything it's strictly from an english prospective, you can agree or not but it's not "good or bad" it's a point of view, nothing else.
From an italian prospective ... eh eh ... english masters the art of changing the perception of reality, Dunkerque was a real "Caporetto" for them but they transformed this event in an acto of , courage, survival, heroism and at the end .. revenge. Our Caporetto, in 1st world war , was only a tremendous defeat ... ( ehi it's not a critic to english people, it's of italian people)

[simcc]

Well it's a bad movie that is totally inaccurate and as usual only tells one side of the story.

Spitfire have longer operation range and unlike the show portray of low fuel.
Bombers do not fly without cover of fighters in theater of war.
French troops were allow to go on board of the ships.
Little fishing boat didn't save the day, most troops are carried by the Royal Navy.

As for the Germans who stop the assault is due to Churchill promise Hitler a peace and broke it later, Germans soldiers have displayed a high level of discipline over the entire war and believe it or not they are not the bad dudes here. Just check out what did the ally did to civilian cities and what soviet did to civilians both in soviet and german soil.

I sure hope at least the movie told both side of the story including the german side

[JagdpanzerIV]

Went to see it last night, strange movie. not much talking, kind of repetitive too. Wait on the beach, get down when stukas are heard & wait again...can't say i really enjoyed or disliked it, but for sure i don't feel like watching it again, one time was enough.

On the positive side, it gives an interesting point of view for those who had no idea what Dunkirk was about.