Dunkirk

[69th_Zeb]

@Murph: Yes, I thought they did a great job with g-forces. At one moment he hits WEP and the whole plane twists in air.

As for tactics, we're spoiled(?) with North African weather. I'd like to see more maps with 2000-15,000 overcast. Flying a Blenny using a blind flying panel and some autopilot gyro drift would be fabulous.

The only horribly bad moment for me, was having to put up with those ridiculous previews. Talk about a contrast of generations.

Spoiler: 

@ Hurricane: Yeh, I thought a few of the same things. The deflection shooting made me tense, mostly because the editing often had him solving with not enough lead. I think in the end that was a plus. I hope you don't mind me blowing smoke with your questions. Discussions are always interesting.

1)Only Spits...because they look so cool.
2)The close vic was indeed a problem and the Brits had issues with mid-airs. From the books/ documentaries I've seen, they also seemed to have created tactical disadvantage.
3)For low level, they pretty much had to. They found it more important to stick together tactically, and unlike CLOD, they actually had overcast to the roof at angels 2. They could also get a good eye as to what the ships were doing below and I'd think protecting them was a higher priority. Also, 109s wouldn't have been able to dive down if everyone was flying blind above cloudbase.
4)Maybe the canons missed/jammed? I also liked that some stuff was executed a bit sloppy, unlike Karayas guncam videos haha.
5)Yellow noses also look ominously classic.
6)That was a question I had too. I wonder if it had something to do with the weather/clouds, and capturing a decent shot.
7)I think indecision created tension and a dramatic effect. Made it more human too.
8)I loved the final scene, even if it was fake. haha Actually though, if you dead-sticked at low tide with a band of sand still solid and moist, it would make for a pretty easy landing.

[Ohms]

Loved every second of the movie, only one thing wrong: no love story

[HurricaneHarvest]

@Murph: Yes, I thought they did a great job with g-forces. At one moment he hits WEP and the whole plane twists in air.

As for tactics, we're spoiled(?) with North African weather. I'd like to see more maps with 2000-15,000 overcast. Flying a Blenny using a blind flying panel and some autopilot gyro drift would be fabulous.

The only horribly bad moment for me, was having to put up with those ridiculous previews. Talk about a contrast of generations.

Spoiler: 

@ Hurricane: Yeh, I thought a few of the same things. The deflection shooting made me tense, mostly because the editing often had him solving with not enough lead. I think in the end that was a plus. I hope you don't mind me blowing smoke with your questions. Discussions are always interesting.

1)Only Spits...because they look so cool.
2)The close vic was indeed a problem and the Brits had issues with mid-airs. From the books/ documentaries I've seen, they also seemed to have created tactical disadvantage.
3)For low level, they pretty much had to. They found it more important to stick together tactically, and unlike CLOD, they actually had overcast to the roof at angels 2. They could also get a good eye as to what the ships were doing below and I'd think protecting them was a higher priority. Also, 109s wouldn't have been able to dive down if everyone was flying blind above cloudbase.
4)Maybe the canons missed/jammed? I also liked that some stuff was executed a bit sloppy, unlike Karayas guncam videos haha.
5)Yellow noses also look ominously classic.
6)That was a question I had too. I wonder if it had something to do with the weather/clouds, and capturing a decent shot.
7)I think indecision created tension and a dramatic effect. Made it more human too.
8)I loved the final scene, even if it was fake. haha Actually though, if you dead-sticked at low tide with a band of sand still solid and moist, it would make for a pretty easy landing.


No problem disagreeing , everyone would have done this differently i guess. "ridiculous previews ... " ???

I would have added more CGI to get more historically accuracy and action in the film. I vaguely remembering reading somewhere that a few emil ace squadrons were at dunkirk, I was hoping to see one at least. The movie must have been realistic because my blood was up during the air battle scenes and when the He111 went for the mine-sweeper, I was immediately banking right to take it head on .. when the pilot actually blasted the 109 and turned away, I almost choked on my pop-corn ! At the end when the pilot guided his spit onto the beach, surely a safer bet would have been to ditch it into the ocean near a small boat ?

I'm historically accuracy nut, I believe all films / games are teaching tools and should try to portray some resemblance of accuracy, for the young and ignorant etc. Needless to say I'm always complaining.

..

[AKA_Knutsac]

Went to see with great anticipation and high hopes. Unfortunately I found the overall film-making odd. I never got a sense of the scale of the operation, either in the number of soldiers trapped or the number of vessels responding. Also, the use of modern warships was distracting (as was the burning Spitfire with its prop on a stick...no engine). Ultimately I was disappointed.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[1lokos]

ok, here's my problem with the aerial events ..

(2) Spits flying in Vic formation so close they were almost attached ?? were they trying to fit 3 spits in one screen shot ??

Is not for nothing that German pilots call RAF Vic's as "Idiotereihe" (row of idiotes) formation.

https://youtu.be/gj7z2UI6ZV8?t=231

The first to be shot down used to be the "weaver".

[ATAG_Snapper]

I saw it Friday afternoon at the local IMAX theatre. Powerful. Lots to critique, which does kind of spoil it for students/enthusiasts of this time period. But here's an interesting firsthand perspective:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/ca...ovie-premiere/

[Ohms]

If it can take a man back 70 odd years and make him feel that he is there again our opinions don't count for S$&t do they. I thought how they ran three separate actions into one time line was well done.

[Ohms]

Went to see with great anticipation and high hopes. Unfortunately I found the overall film-making odd. I never got a sense of the scale of the operation, either in the number of soldiers trapped or the number of vessels responding. Also, the use of modern warships was distracting (as was the burning Spitfire with its prop on a stick...no engine). Ultimately I was disappointed.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7845376.html

[69th_Zeb]

I saw it Friday afternoon at the local IMAX theatre. Powerful. Lots to critique, which does kind of spoil it for students/enthusiasts of this time period. But here's an interesting firsthand perspective:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/ca...ovie-premiere/

Spoiler: 

Yeah, right on. I love doing the gearhead thing but there's not much to say against Commander Bolton's resolve, the fear that drove some (ourselves?) mad, or they way the younger ship hand eventually handled the soldier with PTSD. I didn't feel like the emotional imagery was faked and for me the technical details definitely did not get in the way. I might even say some things were rightly exaggerated to help us develop a better level of empathy.

@Hurricane: Yeah, my previews rant had more to do with me gearing up for a 40's film and instead finding myself idling through 45 minutes of modern fiction-snowflake-horror, revenge-killing movie previews.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

it was ok. the air production was the best value but the deadstick spit taking out the stuka?? lame

ill give it a 7/10

[AKA_Knutsac]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7845376.html

I guess I just had really high hopes (and can be pretty critical). The movie obviously tells an important story.

"The biggest find was the 350-foot long French destroyer, the Maille-Brez"

Which was commissioned in the mid '50s and updated until decommed in the '80s. Radar equipped fire control directors and a large towed array sonar winch...for me was as blatant as the Franken-109s. A bit more judicious use of CGI could have helped, IMHO. For example, maybe a whole squad of Stukas instead of three. (And like Spielberg's Jaws, the weather (and sea state) was different with each scene...one scene flat calm, the next raging surf}.

Again, just my perhaps overly critical opinion.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

Can't complain. It's an entertaining movie.

I think the only thing that really bugged me was some of the sound effect choices, like the slow firing cannon sounds for the He111 gunners... it just sounded strange.

There are plenty of exaggerations/inaccuracies, but it's a nice film over all.

(They really need to fix the FM of that Spit though It flew almost 30 minutes with no engine!)

[IIJG27Rich]

Can't complain. It's an entertaining movie.

I think the only thing that really bugged me was some of the sound effect choices, like the slow firing cannon sounds for the He111 gunners... it just sounded strange.

There are plenty of exaggerations/inaccuracies, but it's a nice film over all.

(They really need to fix the FM of that Spit though It flew almost 30 minutes with no engine!)

My only real complaint.....Buchons!!! I think they do have access to real E7 or E4..White 14 in England now but maybe they don't want a crazy film director telling them what to do day in day out with such a rare prize. Also I swear that looked like a flight simulator when Tom Hardy landed on the beach. Like a souped up Cliffs of Dover.

[SuIXo]

I just saw it yesterday. Man it was tense! I had the heart pumping most of the time. Nolan and Zimmer know their stuff. And the air action was porn to me. When I first saw the shot of the spits... the smile on my face wouldn't fit.

I'm not well versed in WWII air forces, so I couldn't catch the mistakes, but maybe it's better this way. I did notice something strange though, they landed their planes (at sea and the beach) with the cockpit closed. I remember seeing an operations manual from a spit and it stated to always open the cockpit in takeoff and landing to precisely avoid dying horribly inside.

[IIJG27Rich]

It is strange this production did not understand the importance of having an accurate German aircraft set.

Considering the fact the budget of this film was likely in the hundreds of millions, it is strange they could not have found a way to incorporate a real 109E.

The only flying E-3 is based in Washington State in the US... right on the coast of the US, over a body of the ocean with islands, beaches, etc.

It seems to me they could have rented the use of this aircraft and shot some closeups for air combat purposes. These could have been blue screened into the film, with the Buchons used for longshots and distant views. There are even Hurricanes and Spits available to be used.

Take a look at this video and I think the audience would have a hard time in distinguishing the difference between the terrain seen here and the Dunkirk area if the Director of Photography was on the ball:



There was also an E-4 based in Canada for a while which was flying, but it was damaged when it collided with a flagpole. (landed safely) It is now in Britain at the Biggin Hill Heritage Museum being repaired. Why didn't the film company partner with the Museum to repair it faster in exchange for the use in the film?

The answer is they just don't care enough to be bothered with being accurate for the other side..They will even use Buchons for A Higher Call you'll see

[ATAG_Lewis]

==SPOILER ALERT==

Don't read below if you don't want spoilers...You have been warned!

Went to see this film today..with the Mrs...who isn't really a war film fan (no surprises there!)...She wanted to go because Tom Hardy was in it and she likes him (No surprises there!)...She was disappointed as Tom is not seen getting into his aircraft and only getting out of it at the very end...so all the footage of Tom is behind his mask and flying googles in his Spit...The Mrs wondered how much he was paid to make a film with just his eyebrows!

Anyway...I loved the film...It was cut strangely...like Pulp Fiction you see the same specific from different aspects of the folks involved and that is a little confusing sometimes...For me I didn't like the fact that you would see a Spitfire line up into firing position and then there would be a cut to the beaches or a boat/ship that was experiencing a different dilemma...that was unsatisfying from a viewers POV...

The fighter action was good...I wasn't aware of any CGI and there must have obviously been some but the CGI wasn't used to make aircraft do physics defying flight just as 'Dark Blue World' didn't use CGI for physics defying action...All the CGI aircraft was believable...I would say that there was not much desperation in the acting of the air battle...It was all very calm and gentle...Not sure if that was meant or just I picked up on it...Maybe Hardy's relaxed acting style didn't lend itself to fighting for your life a few thousand feet from the ground...Having said that I loved the fighter action...Very different to other fighter combat clips you see in films...You got a real feel for the flying...At one point Hardy's Spit does a brief negative G and his engine cuts momentarily which was good...

The story seemed to concentrate on a few personal battles than the whole picture which I guess is to be expected...

All in all a really good believable action film...No love element...I will definitely be seeing it again at some point...and a must see for any CLOD players I would say...Well worth a watch...Go give the film makers some money and watch it at the cinema...That way they'll make more of them...hopefully!

...Lew...

[1lokos]

I wasn't aware of any CGI and there must have obviously been some but the CGI wasn't used to make aircraft do physics defying flight as 'Dark Blue World'...

OT - But Dark Blue World (low budged movie) don't use CGI for flights/combat sequences - only for effects, for aerial sequences re-use (1969) Battle of Britain footage, and rent one real Spitfire for train attack sequence. Some flight sequences look strange - from physics POV - due (1969) BoB include some aerial scenes with model aircraft.

[ATAG_Lewis]

OT - But Dark Blue World (low budged movie) don't use CGI for flights/combat sequences - only for effects, for aerial sequences re-use (1969) Battle of Britain footage, and rent one real Spitfire for train attack sequence. Some flight sequences look strange - from physics POV - due (1969) BoB include some aerial scenes with model aircraft.

Sorry....Rgrt...I mis-typed....I meant that the film doesn't use CGI just as 'Dark Blue World' doesn't use CGI in that way...Dark blue does use some CGI in instances where they only had one Spit they were able to add more spits in formation seamlessly...I have seen the documentary on the making of 'Dark Blue World'...another must see I think...

I have edited my above post accordingly...Sorry for the confusion...~S~

[ATAG_Lewis]

As of 24.7.2017..and according to Wiki...

Budget
$150 million

Box office
$107.4 million

it'd be nice to see that rocket to a big profit for the makers....then more of the same please!

[ATAG_Flare]

Just saw it...

Wow!

On mobile now so I won't give a full review but I can say that it was pretty darn good.

I will mention the historical inaccuracies that I saw because that's what you're all interested in obviously.

1. The He-111 gunner had A VERY slow fire rate.

2. The RN destroyers were much too modern for WWII era.

3. Most of the "little ships" were crewed by civilians, in real life only a few were, most were just taken by the navy.

4. The aerial tactics were a little odd, that He-111 wouldn't have probably gone on a second bombing pass, and the Spits wouldn't have been that low.

5. You could see some modern port infrastructure in the background of some shots. (Container ship cranes.)

Overall though I thought it was a really fantastic film. The aerial shots were really well done and the rest of the movie was too. The music was not that good but I am never really a fan of Hans Zimmer.

I hope it makes a big profit so more war movies like this one get made!

[IIJG27Rich]

deleted...thought better of it and didn't post it

[HurricaneHarvest]

As of 24.7.2017..and according to Wiki...

Budget
$150 million

Box office
$107.4 million

it'd be nice to see that rocket to a big profit for the makers....then more of the same please!

Ok, I might see it again, this time more forgiving .. although I have "Apes" on my mind ATM.

[camber]

***Kind of Spoilers alert***

Just saw it and really enjoyed it all including the aerial scenes. But one of the reasons I enjoyed it (that there was almost no CGI and real aircraft including a Blennie) seemed also a limiting factor in showing air combat that would seem 'realistic' to us. You just can't try and pull 8g in a break turn, then spin out of an accelerated stall in a real spitfire in 2017 (or even a Buchon). Instead we saw a lot of non-intense turns frequently reversed and a lot of flying straight and level in the combat area even when Buchons had surprisingly just merged.

CGI could do this but what are the chances of someone using cutting edge CGI to make as realistic as possible WWII aerial combat? I'm not holding my breath after Red Tails.

The original 1969 Battle of Britain was more hard-core as they clearly were willing to pull some G on the poor old airframes. For CGI to work you would really have to have someone with the motivation and talent to produce something like this digitally: (skip to 3:20, famous takakataka scene from 1969 film involving the only two MkIX's available in time for 1940). Look at the two planes merging, the aggressive control and little corrections on each plane as the flight leader pulls in. Just beautiful!

[ATAG_Lewis]

Camberrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!. ..How are you me old buddy...Good to see you still kicking!...See much of alba these days?...

Just took another look at Wiki and the budget changed...by $50 million...lol...Its suddenly in $7 million profit from yesterday...Haha...It should be the 'Box Office' that changes surely...lol


Budget
$100 million

Box office
$107.4 million

[R7-S276]

Yes, very great

[IIJG27Rich]

I did really liked the movie and I think the 92% on RT is about right in my opinion. What I would really like to see done one day is a film done with a sim by history experts from the blue and red side. A real 90 minute film. Put it up on youtube with no outer influence involved, producers et. You could even try a kickstarted if you needed some funding. Hire some actors..Dream dream dream. In the specials in the dvd Desert War people donated old WWII vehicles for that documentary and all of the actors must have worked for next to nothing. It's one of the best North Africa Docs. I've seen

[ATAG_Laser]

Saw Dunkirk last night.

Great movie, one of the best war films to come out in a long while, despite the Buchons
Couldn't help wondering if the gunners on that HE111 were asleep as the spit came around on his 6 though. No return fire whatsoever

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Saw Dunkirk last night.

Great movie, one of the best war films to come out in a long while, despite the Buchons
Couldn't help wondering if the gunners on that HE111 were asleep as the spit came around on his 6 though. No return fire whatsoever

I noticed that as well , probably due to the fact I have pretty messed up approaching a 111 slow and from behind.

enjoyed the movie extremely, but then I went to have a good time not pick it apart

[ATAG_Laser]

I noticed that as well , probably due to the fact I have pretty messed up approaching a 111 slow and from behind.

enjoyed the movie extremely, but then I went to have a good time not pick it apart

Yeah, me too, but when you've been a ww2 aviation geek for as long as me you can't help noticing certain things

All in all though Dunkirk is a very good movie

[SIA_Sp00k]

..........but then I went to have a good time not pick it apart

Thank god. I was beginning to think I was the only one.