- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'm sure you guys have already discussed Dunkirk ad nauseum, but DAMN
Posted on 8/7/17 at 5:49 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 8/7/17 at 5:49 pm to buckeye_vol
Put 'em on blast
Posted on 8/7/17 at 5:53 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
buckeye_vol
Beautiful take down of one of the worst posters on this site
Posted on 8/7/17 at 6:16 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
The Spitfire gliding like a sheet at the end was very symbolic, but also impossible. But it's an artsy war film. Very visionary and without the graphic war violence.
Posted on 8/8/17 at 8:05 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Wasn't impressed the first time I saw it. Was in the "it was okay, not near the hype" category. It gets worse the more I think about it. The air to air was extremely lame. Not just the fact that you only see one HE-111 in the air. (Goering promises Hitler that he can crush the Dunkirk salient and to do this he sends bombers in one at a time???) Not once did you ever feel like the rescue effort was in peril of failure if you're only dodging one bomber at a time. As little threat as the Germans posed in the movie you kind of have to start wondering how the French and British got their asses kicked all the way across France. Plus, anyone who has ever been in military or even aerobatic aircraft know there's a helluva lot more physical effort than what was shown. They looked like they were practicing landings at a municipal airfield, not cranking Gs in high performance aircraft in a fight for their lives. And then when the Brits did shoot at the bombers, how weak was the damage effect? Six .30 cals hosing down a relatively light armored aircraft like an HE would be blowing pieces off the wings and fuselage. Instead, we get the standard "aircraft that's been shot engages a smoke generator" that we've seen in numerous movies for 50 years. Weak sauce. The British Army colonel makes a statement that the western end of the perimeter is within artillery range of German guns. Aaaaaaand, nothing. Did you ever see anything that resembled an artillery barrage? Have you ever seen what real live arty looks like when it hits a target? German 105s and 150s would have made a dramatic impact. The boy's death was poorly done. He falls on the deck and then he's dead? If you're going to kill off the character like that to bring home the point of civilian sacrifices in the operation you have to give us more than a shove and fall. The boat on the beach. Total shite show. So, Germans are close enough to take the boat under fire for "target practice" but can't see a group of Tommies diddy bopping down the beach in broad daylight to said boat? Oooookay. And then the technical aspects of the shooting. Four shots pop the hull. "Target practice". These holes later begin to take on water. After these holes start leaking, more holes are fired through the hull BELOW the first holes. I just about wrenched my shoulder throwing the bullshite Flag. Those bullets would have had to have been fired through feet (more likely yards at that flat angle) of water before impacting the hull. Those bullets would either skip off the surface and strike higher up the hull leaving dry holes or dig into the water and lose so much kinetic energy there's no way they'd penetrate a metal hull. Surprised no one else has mentioned this. The non-linear delivery of the story just didn't work. I think it's sort of a stylistic concept of Nolan's that is supposed to be deep or profound. But it just came across as clunky here without any kind of payoff. It simply added a layer of complexity to the narrative that didn't need it. I will give the movie a pass on the "it didn't look like 300,000 men were on the beach" point. I'm sure at the beginning when the effort was just naval ships there was some sort of organized rotation of troop off the perimeter and down to the beach. (A & B companies will head to the beach now and board the ship that arrives at the mole in an hour. C & D companies, extend your lines to cover A & B's frontage when they leave. You will then be relieved by 2d Battalion at 1100 and you head to the beach for the next ship.") And on and on. So that part didn't ring false to me. But after the unadulterated praise and hype prior to seeing it, the movie was a huge letdown.
Excellent review. I had an almost identical impression of the film.
Posted on 8/8/17 at 8:59 pm to Merck
Have you ever been to the beach? A two story building 100 yards in land from the wet sand could easily be looking down at a 30 degree, or more, angle at a beard vessel like that
A two story building 100 yards away is nowhere close to a 30 degree angle. You're kidding, right? And let's say you're correct (
). That still doesn't explain how the bullets keep punching holes in the hull below the waterline. Not happening.
A two story building 100 yards away is nowhere close to a 30 degree angle. You're kidding, right? And let's say you're correct (
Posted on 8/8/17 at 10:39 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
That still doesn't explain how the bullets keep punching holes in the hull below the waterline. Not happening
Bullets can't go through water? Interesting
Posted on 12/20/17 at 8:14 am to Wooly
quote:
Gotta say, I'm sure I'm in the minority. Wasn't a huge fan.
Bought it on iTunes this week. Have the same opinion. I'll rewatch it again soon, but I wasn't overly impressed with this movie at all.
Popular
Back to top

0






