General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDunkirk, the movie, was a depressing disappointment.
After it was over, I realized I'd been hungering for an example of masses of people rallying together, bravely, to do good. There really were masses, over 300,000 soldiers rescued, over 800 civilian boats came across the channel. I wanted to be reminded, and I wanted recent generations to see something like this.
Instead, the "crowd" shots showed maybe a dozen lines of 50 to 100 soldiers each, waiting for boats. When the boats finally were shown arriving, there were maybe a couple of dozen. Most of the shots of the one boat in one of the 3 main story line showed it alone on the see. Many of the scenes of individual soldiers in another main story line showed them virtually alone.
I didn't want an over the top Hollywood spectacular. I just expected Hollywood to do one of the things it is able to do, and represent a mass gathering together of good humanity.
Instead, it just screamed out at me, "Low budget, not worth the effort."
still_one
(92,394 posts)and if the nazis hadn't paused their advance, this story would have had far more tragic consequences.
OneBlueDotBama
(1,385 posts)the German side was expecting or maybe even encouraging a counter attack.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)I have no idea wtf the OP is talking about.
And, the movie showed what you just stated.
still_one
(92,394 posts)katmondoo
(6,457 posts)I know the history of Dunkirk, I wanted to see how England was able to get so many people with all kinds of boats to cross the channel to save so many soldiers. This a major part of the story and it was treated as a minor thing that just somehow happened.
OneBlueDotBama
(1,385 posts)Which is total BS.
My Dad flew in a Beaufighter squadron out of the North and their job was to sink U boats in the North Sea when they surfaced to recharge their batteries.
Meanwhile over the Channel, the RAF/RCAF was very active.
Over Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe suffered its first serious rebuff of the war. As Galland has noted, the nature and style of the air battles over the beaches should have provided a warning as to the inherent weaknesses of the Luftwaffe's force structure. Admittedly, the Germans fought at a disadvantage. Although positioned forward at captured airfields, the Bf 109 was at the outer limits of its range and possessed less flying time over Dunkirk than did the "Hurricanes" and "Spitfires" operating from southern England. German bombers were still located in western Germany and had even farther to fly. Thus, the Luftwaffe could not bring its full weight to bear so that when its bombers hammered those on the beaches or embarking, the RAF intervened in a significant fashion. German aircraft losses were high, and British fighter attacks often prevented German bombers from performing with full effectiveness. Both sides suffered heavy losses. During the nine days from May 26 through June 3, the RAF lost 177 aircraft destroyed or damaged; the Germans lost 240. For much of the Luftwaffe, Dunkirk came as a nasty shock. Fliegerkorps II reported in its war diary that it lost more aircraft on the 27th attacking the evacuation than it had lost in the previous ten days of the campaign.
Murray. Strategy for Defeat. The Luftwaffe 19351945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)ADX
(1,622 posts)...I saw it in the theater when it first came out and was blown away. Watching it, you really get the feeling of being on a submarine...
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)Hadnt seen it in years. It's epic.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I love that movie.
TexasProgresive
(12,158 posts)I really don't know if this film is any good. There have been a lot of posts here at DU about it and this is the 1st I've opened.
3catwoman3
(24,041 posts)...The Silent Miaow is a complete treat. Great pictures, too. He does, indeed, "get" cats.
GreatCaesarsGhost
(8,585 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)This is a Hollywood movie not a documentary.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I wasn't making an assessment of the film positively or negatively. I was just saying that historical accuracy is not the measure of a good Hollywood movie.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)It was touching and stirring and courageous and brave and sad.
And, showed how without these brave military and civilians, Britain would have become part of the Third Reich.
Nolan at his best.
And, your calling a Nolan movie low budget is lulz -- wtf.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)BSdetect
(8,999 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)and I found the scene where the boats show up and the troops realize that their countrymen had come to their rescue to be very moving.
Overall, I thought the movie was excellent.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)but otherwise I agree.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I find that most modern movies of history now tend to be very "clean" and "pretty". Just IMHO....
oberliner
(58,724 posts)For what that is worth.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Not what I'd expect of the average 'non-coiffed' soldier from the 40s', after a week(?) of panic, grime, etc
THIS
VS
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Historians and critics alike are praising it.
YMMV of course. Hell, I can't stand either of the Guardians o' the Galaxy films despite everyone on the planet telling me that they're the most bestest movies ever in the history of ever.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)I felt I was there even more than the landing scenes in Saving Pvt. Ryan.