Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
GENERAL TOPICS => Books & Movies => Topic started by: PJ Hardtack on August 10, 2017, 09:59:04 PM
-
T'ain't Cowboy, but I'm a history buff so I went to see this stinker.
Don't bother and don't even wait for the video. Pee-Yew !!!
-
Thanks...I considered going.... Normally, I avoid the popcorn palaces ...Den's of rude yapping asshats, & "cough induced" airborne maladies" ...unless it's really something I wanted to see.
You saved me the ridiculous cost of admission. :)
-
T'ain't Cowboy, but I'm a history buff so I went to see this stinker.
Don't bother and don't even wait for the video. Pee-Yew !!!
Thanks. You just saved me a few bucks. I'll wait till it's on one of the premium channels so I wont be paying just for it.
-
Well, everyone has their opinions. On Rotten Tomatoes site 93% of critics and 82% of viewers gave it a thumbs-up. And IMDB site rated it 8.5/10 with 160,000 reviews. I personally only go to the theater once a year at most, as my brother has a Netflix membership that lets him have 5 dvd's at home at a time, so I wait for dvd for everything, as I will for this.
-
I've read good reviews too and two of my (adult) children thought it was excellent, although not perfect. It's very rare that I pay the outrageous price for theater tickets, but I'll watch this when Netflix has it.
CC Griff
-
Compared to "Saving Private Ryan", "A Bridge Too far" and other epic WWII films, this one rates a poor 4/10 on the scale. The Dunkirk evacuation was a feat second only to the D Day invasion for it's sheer scale and the number of people involved - 4000,000 plus.
A few lines of bedraggled, demoralized soldiers on the beach, a few warships, a few private vessels, a few Spits, Me109s, a couple of model He111s, Ju87s, etc.
A lot of CGI and a whole bunch of disjointed, unconnected incidents that don't add anything to the story. Poorly edited and most of the dialogue is unintelligible, especially between the RAF Spitfire pilots.
You will see the longest dead stick flight of a Spit during which the pilot shoots down a He111!!! Then it makes a hand cranked wheels down landing on the beach and is set afire by the pilot. While it burns, you see that the prop is held in place by a steel rod - no engine block!
I don't expect them to burn a real Spit, but today's movie goers expect more. CAS people get bent out of shape if a gun or tack is period incorrect in a movie. This movie was full of very amateurish portrayals and inadequacies.
Kenneth Brannagh, one of my favourite actors, mumbles unconvincingly through his pitiful lines and repeatedly addresses an Army Officer as "Colonel" when the man is wearing the three pips of a Captain.
This story deserves a whole lot more. It kept England in the war and made it possible for final victory.
-
Saving Private Ryan is a very high bar to top. Other than Band Of Brothers which is equally as good. And I hate it when you can't catch the dialogue for all the background noise. Guess I'll have to wait for the dvd. Previews looked good but you can't tell anything fron 3 minutes of footage.
-
In those three minutes, you got the best part of the movie. The rest was a waste of film.
-
PJ, have you seen the last version of The Four Feathers and The Lighthorsemen? Both are very good films, while The Four Feathers is slow in spots the British Squuare battle is great. The Lighthorsemen is about the Australian mounted infantry, the horse charge at Beersheba is absolutely amazing. If you dont get moved as they charge across miles of nothing, thundering hooves, cut to the artillery gunners cranking down on the elevation until the horsemen are 'under the guns' and the shells exploding harmlessly behind them. Don't know how much was cgi but sure looked real to me.
-
A friend of mine who is a WW2 History buff saw it. He said the editing was terrible. I'll wait for Netflix also.
-
PJ, have you seen the last version of The Four Feathers and The Lighthorsemen? Both are very good films, while The Four Feathers is slow in spots the British Squuare battle is great. The Lighthorsemen is about the Australian mounted infantry, the horse charge at Beersheba is absolutely amazing. If you dont get moved as they charge across miles of nothing, thundering hooves, cut to the artillery gunners cranking down on the elevation until the horsemen are 'under the guns' and the shells exploding harmlessly behind them. Don't know how much was cgi but sure looked real to me.
Yes, I saw both movies and thought they were well done. "Gallipoli" was also good. The Aussies know how to do it right.
The charge in "Lawrence of Arabia" was also good. That has to be one of my favourite war movies of all time. Peter O'toole was borne to play that role. ALL of the actors were great - Omar Sharif, Alec Guiness and others.
Favourite line - "Nothing is written"
-
Galipoli was just too depressing and pointless for me. Such a waste. Similar to the French Foreign Legion's loss at Dien Bien Phu. I enjoyed Lawrence though.
-
My friend's father felt it was fairly accurate, and he was one of those who took the small boats over there in 1940.
-
Galipoli was just too depressing and pointless for me. Such a waste. Similar to the French Foreign Legion's loss at Dien Bien Phu. I enjoyed Lawrence though.
War is depressing. "Gallipoli" was a gross blunder on the part of First Sea Lord Winston Churchill who expected the landing to draw German/Turkish troops and resources away from other fronts.
The landing was a success but they failed to expedite it and this allowed the Turks to mount a counter offensive that prevented the ANZACS from getting off the beach head. Their sacrifice was wasted but it was a monument to their fighting spirit.
The fall of Dien Bien Phu was a military debacle on the part of the French and a tribute to the energy and fighting spirit of the Viets and General Giap. Unfortunately, the US inherited the mess and we all know how that ended.
A good read on the battle is entitled "Hell In A Small Place". The debacle is taught in French military schools as the way not to fight a losing war.
-
I have read 'Hell in a very small place' many years ago. I'd forgotten the title. If I'm remembering correctly, the only position not to fall before the surrender was the quad .50 position, don't remember the name as each position was a French girls name. A testament to our hero JMB.
-
A moving account in the book was about a French Officer in charge of some Colonial troops. He was hit crossing a runway and his soldiers kept coming out to rescue him and getting cut down by Viet gunners.
To save them, he shot himself in the head!
"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for that of his fellows."
-
Went and saw it several nights ago. Am also a WW2 history buff. I'll give it a 3 out of 10. Poorly written, scenes/story presentation that could have been left out, never saw any Germans until the last 15 seconds of the show. Had a friend who saw it before me tell me of the absence of any Germans. Told him maybe the producers couldn't get ahold of enough K98k rifles and German uniforms-who knows. Glad I didn't pay top dollar to see it. A small theatre near me only charges $2 admission, $1 for seniors to get in. Run by volunteer help and donations. I always just toss em a $5 to help keep it open. A senior age friend of mine is driven nuts by my doing so--advise him if theatre closes, may have to go to another local town and pay $12-15. Anyway, movie poor representation of Dunkirk as it happened. Previews are good, movie in its full run a flop IMO!
-
I can't defend the movie--I haven't seen it--but I did hear an interview with the writer/director. He said that his goal was to drop the viewer into the scene with no background regarding the characters and to show events from their perspectives. He said that the majority of the British soldiers didn't see the Germans up close, but only had mortar shells, bombs, etc falling around them. He said that, by leaving out scenes of the Germans, he avoided having to explain their side, but left them as an unseen menace, which was more frightening in his estimation. He chose camera angles that showed the point of view of the participants. He said that he didn't want to write a war movie, but to show a story of survival. That may all have been a cop-out to cover for poor production techniques, a low budget or whatever, but that's what he said. I'm waiting for the DVD, which I'll get from Netflix rather than buy. I'm disappointed to hear the reviews here--I had high hopes for this one...
CC Griff
-
It might have made it as TV movie but as a full length production, it was a disappointment. One really unlikely vignette was the Brit yacht owner who was unbelievably unperturbed by the shell shocked Officer he rescued who subsequently caused the death of his son.
He was so placid about the incident that he was almost catatonic.
Too many other war stories eclipsed it and still included scenes of the individual survival of unknown characters. You can bet the producers and director won't repeat the mistake.
Canadian actor/director/producer Paul Gross did a low budget war film entitled "Passchendaele" about the Canadian victory during the third battle of Ypres. It was well acted, well edited and gave you the close up in-your-face experience that "Dunkirk" tried and failed to deliver.
They actually used real Canadian soldiers as extras so they actually LOOK like soldiers and not actors in soldier suits. They handled weapons like soldiers would instead of props, like ex-soldiers in re-enactment units.
-
This is one of those movies that really has split reviews. It will either get an academy award nomination or go straight to DVD and end up in the Walmart bargain bin. To me, it seems that it is evenly split on whether it is a great movie or a piece of crap. I haven't seen it myself other than the previews on TV, so I can't comment yet. :-\
-
Well, do so and get back to us.
-
I won't be watching it in a theatre. I have H2 hearing, aka Artillery hearing and, I would still need ear protectors. Last movie I saw in a theatre was the Unforgiven, 25 yrs ago and my ears are still ringing. ;) I'll wait for the DVD but, yes I will see it and report back.
Cheers!
-
PJ, have you seen the last version of The Four Feathers and The Lighthorsemen? Both are very good films, while The Four Feathers is slow in spots the British Squuare battle is great. The Lighthorsemen is about the Australian mounted infantry, the horse charge at Beersheba is absolutely amazing. If you dont get moved as they charge across miles of nothing, thundering hooves, cut to the artillery gunners cranking down on the elevation until the horsemen are 'under the guns' and the shells exploding harmlessly behind them. Don't know how much was cgi but sure looked real to me.
The Lighthorsemen is one of the most underwatched and underappreciated films for guys like us. Highly recommend it.
-
My friend's father felt it was fairly accurate, and he was one of those who took the small boats over there in 1940.
I liked the movie for this reason: it doesn't stand around telling you what to think or feel. Watch all those other films and you get so much expositional dialogue that you cannot form your own opinion. This film allows you to feel it without having it explained to you. You could not drag my daughter to a war movie but she went and she fell over about how great it was. There are quiet scenes of tension that if you go with no expectations are really powerful. Most Americans go with a desire to see some 1950s war movie, that aint this, not at all.
Oh, and the small boats he used? All made the trip in real life.
-
Agree on "The Lighthorsemen". One of the greats. I don't agree with the comment that other flicks tell you how to think or feel. In "Saving Private Ryan" for instance, you get a perspective from many points of view as to the motivation for the mission. The beach landing was horrific, almost shocking in it's brutality and violence.
As for "Dunkirk", had it been advertised as an intimate look into the experiences of a few who were there, it would have been less of a disappointment. Jumping back and forth to these vignettes made it difficult to follow and seemed interminable.
As for the small boats , there were HUNDREDS of them that crossed the channel - tugs, ferries, yachts, sailing vessels, fishing boats, etc. In the movie they showed a pitiful handful of pleasure craft out for a day trip.
I'm still chuckling over the burning Spitfire with no engine and it's incredible dead stick flight during which it shot down a HE 111. The pilot deserved a DSO at least for that feat.
-
Coal Creek-Your post #17 where you reported on the interview of the writer/director hit my thoughts on the movie. Not much character development, it did jump around a lot from area to area, a lot of scenes that jumped from one day to the next and back again, daylight to night time. You had to pay attention to that or it left you wondering. If I were a movie critic I'd put this one at a 5. Not a block buster, must see, nor a real loser. My previous rating of a 3 out of 10 still stands. The number and types of boats going to the rescue is a poor representation of the historical fact. Disappointed in the movie--had high hopes for it.
-
Saw it last Sunday. As a WW2 buff, I thought was probably the worst movie I have ever seen on the subject...absolutely horrible. Soldiers meaninglessly lined up on the beach while the evacuations were occurring on distant jetties, an agonizingly long scene of the Spit I trying to shoot down the He-111 in which it would be overcast from one angle of the scene, then immediately clear in the next angle of the fight, and yes, what seemed like an hours long dead-stick flight in which the Spit shot down a Ju-87, on and on and on.
CHT
-
I went and saw this movie three times and enjoyed it every single time. Best $5.95 I spent too.
I read that the owner of a period correct Spitfire Mark 1 actually landed his priceless airplane, dead stick, on the beach.
Yep, worth every penny.
-
Saw it this morning and if you realize how it is put together, it makes sense. Also, look at the pictures from the time, and they were lined up on the beach waiting for the boats. Yes, they did take off almost 400,000 during the evacuation (not 4,000,000) including the French, which is mentioned as the last British ship leaves.
If you watch it carefully, the scenes overlap.
-
Saw it this morning and if you realize how it is put together, it makes sense. Also, look at the pictures from the time, and they were lined up on the beach waiting for the boats. Yes, they did take off almost 400,000 during the evacuation (not 4,000,000) including the French, which is mentioned as the last British ship leaves.
If you watch it carefully, the scenes overlap.
Exactly. I was confounded at first, but I caught on to the direction. Everything fell into place as it should have.
-
I read that the owner of a period correct Spitfire Mark 1 actually landed his priceless airplane, dead stick, on the beach.
Then they ruined the sequence by burning a mock up without a simulated engine.
I think the movie was fractured and amateurish in the editing and told only a fraction of the enormous story.
Think of "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day" and other such epic stories to see how it could have been done better.
-
Trying to tell a truly epic story without enough resources. If you can't hire enough extras and material' you use cgi to fill in the gaps or just tell a smaller story. Think of Gettysburg. A lot of small stories wrapped up in an epic struggle. I doubt if there was any cgi in it but if there was I couldn't tell.
-
If you can't hire enough extras and material' you use cgi to fill in the gaps or just tell a smaller story.
That's my major complaint - the movie told too many smaller stories and the greater story was lost as a result. The movie gave the impression of being very low budget.
-
Then they ruined the sequence by burning a mock up without a simulated engine.
:D Hollywood got it wrong again. I've got to lie down.
-
Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.
Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.
As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.
-
Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.
Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.
As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.
Well, CAS people shoot long arms in .45 Colt. Shoot handguns two handed. Shoot 1897 pump action shotguns. Shoot loads that are one point over a squib... So, they have no ground to complain much about anything incorrect. Just saying. ::)
I intend to buy the Dunkirk DVD when available.
There. I said it. And feel better already. ;D
-
You mean SOME people shoot long arms in .45 Colt, and with light bullets to boot.
'97 shotguns are Mexican Revolution, close enough to "Cowboy" for me. I just dislike seeing them shot as single shots, loaded from a bandolier at bra height over a paunch.
Loads "one point over squib" definitely ain't Cowboy.
Pointing out the flaws in a movie that purports to be historical is justifiable when so many others have done the job well.
-
You mean SOME people
Yes that. ;D
And some people shoot duelist style as they did back then.
Not so many others have done the job well.
-
Like I said earlier - CAS people get bent out of shape over incorrect guns and tack for the era in western movies., like '92s where it should be a '73. When it comes to more modern historical movies, we have the same high expectations, reasonable or not.
Watching some beautiful Spits gracefully flying in simulated aerial combat with ex-Swiss Me109s may be visually pleasing, but it doesn't reflect the reality.
As a kid, I knew an RCAF Spit pilot and he wondered why they spent so much time flying in perfect formations when in combat, you flew with ham-handed movements to try and stay alive. Nice, graceful flying got you killed PDQ.
I've come to a point in my life where I take movies with a grain of salt.
Some armchair aviators get twisted at the sight of a Spanish-built Hispano HA-1112 "Buchon" wearing Luftwaffe markings. Not me.
A genuine Bf-109 is a rarity not to be risked.
Just look at the movie Red Tails. All the aircraft looked authentic down to the smallest details but people still found something wrong with it.
-
Bottom line - "Dunkirk" sucks by any standards, the apologists wailing notwithstanding.
-
"You cannot have your way in every particular." -Rooster Cogburn.
Setting high expectations, reasonable or not, will ensure some measure of chronic dissatisfaction.
Adios.
-
Yup.
I'm reminded of the old adage - "Do not undertake a vast project with half vast ideas and preparation."
-
I'm beating a dead horse, but I recently watched "Blackhawk Down" for the fifth or sixth time.
Some have been saying how great "Dunkirk" was because of the "up close and personal" aspect of the jumping back and forth, disjointed scenarios in the confusing time lime.
You had that very much so in "Blackhawk Down" over the time line of the Mogadishu incident with small but integrated scenarios involving both small groups and individuals. Due to careful editing, it worked. You really got the feeling of what it must have been like to be there.
Compare that to the stilted, mumbled dialogue of Kenneth Brannagh in "Dunkirk", the unintelligible babble of the Spitfire pilots and the inexplicable, catatonic calm of the Brit yacht owner.
The commanding General in "Blackhawk Down" had the fewest lines of the major characters, but you got a real sense of the anguish he went through as the operation went south and things rapidly fell apart. Compare that to the mumbled dialogue of Kenneth Brannagh, the unintelligible babble of the Spitfire pilot and the catatonic calm of the Brit yacht owner.
The main story line of "Blackhawk Down" centred on the individual soldiers who adapted and coped with the rapidly deteriorating situation. It was also helped by the great helicopter scenes and mock ups of the crashed aircraft. I don't know how much of it was done by CGI, but it worked.
-
I enjoyed the movie. I don't care about character development. The audience should experience being there (https://vogueplay.com/dk) themselves.
-
Watched the movie today and despite myself, I enjoyed it. The jingoistic ending was to be expected....it's a British War movie, but "I'm staying for the French" was just risible. However, the clarity of the filming was a pleasure to look at, 65 mm film, not digital, and I was prepared to go along with its shortcomings. Making a movie involving thousands of uniformed men must be a logistical nightmare, I know all that, but I thought it better than A Bridge Too Far. The real pleasure of the movie is the flying sequences. I could look at 2 hours of that alone.
Jingoistic British flag waving but I enjoyed it.
-
Watchedit last night. Sorry but I didn’t like it. Too slow and the music was repetitions. Didn’t know that you could glide a spitfire at 100 feet alt, they must be incredibly light. No Band of Brothers, Gettsburg or Saving Private Ryan.