by "Jcarr" (jcarr)
Published 08/02/2017 at 09:07
by "Jcarr" (jcarr)
Published 08/02/2017 at 09:07
No Tags
STARS: 0
Lukewarm takes after the jump.
It wasn’t a bad movie, but I left the theater feeling like it was a bit forgettable. I know it’s often hard to adapt an historical event for the big screen, but it felt a little sterile. There wasn’t a ton of dialogue, especially for the first half or so and that made me feel somewhat like I was just watching action with no story.
Also, the constant tension created by the score felt a little intrusive and distracting. Maybe that’s a Christopher Nolan thing, I don’t know.
It’s a movie that’s worth watching, but I don’t know that it’s worth paying theater money for.
"nermal" (nermal)
08/02/2017 at 09:24, STARS: 0
I found it both entertaining and worth paying to see in a theater, just for the big screen and loud noises.
Otherwise I don’t see a reason for a re-watch.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
08/02/2017 at 09:30, STARS: 1
I think everything you criticized was intentional, maybe your expectations were different? It was sort of an art house film about war, meant to be bleak and tense. Lots of dialogue or a calmer score would have taken away from that. The war was the star of the film, not the characters.
In that sense I actually don’t think it went far enough. This movie really needed a no-name no-face cast. Tom Hardy is a good quiet actor (see Mad Max), but he’s definitely Tom Hardy. Cillian Murphy’s work may not be extraordinarily well known but most people would recognize him as having been in a number of other films. Then there’s Harry Styles, which I’ll admit I don’t recognize but I knew he was in the movie so I felt distracted by that as well. By having names and faces that people are familiar with I think a lot of the audience expects to see that dialogue and those performances that weren’t ever intended to take place. As a result the movie would have been more effective without that distraction by using a cast of people that no one knows.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
08/02/2017 at 09:50, STARS: 3
I have yet to see it. But, pursuant to our discussion a few days ago about the poetic license at play in re-writing of history in Pearl Harbor , here is an interesting article about Britain in WWII, and Dunkirk tangentially. Movies rarely do very well at handling the complexities of history.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/opinion/dunkirk-indians-world-war.html
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
08/02/2017 at 10:30, STARS: 2
The complete failure of military intelligence and bureaucracy doesn’t make for compelling theatre.
"AuthiCooper1300" (rexrod)
08/02/2017 at 11:01, STARS: 0
There was an article pointing out more or less the same on the BBC News website a few days ago, I suppose you have already seen it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40724861
The point(s) both features make are spot on and accurate, and much needed to be known. On the other hand, I am a bit surprised that Yasmin Khan forgets (or seems to brush aside) the fact that the “Dunkirk episode” (for all intents and purposes, a terrible defeat) was re-spun at the time as a much-needed narrative of hope for what was a totally besieged nation. And that narrative, the so-called Dunkirk spirit, did not focus so much on the British Expeditionary Force as on the civilians and military that tried to evacuate them.
But it is important to acknowledge that yes, the UK did not treat everybody the same: that an out-of-date colonialist/racist attitude prevailed, and that it did so for many years after the war (anyone heard of the plight of the Gurkhas in modern-day Britain?).
In fact even Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans under British command were given particularly “difficult” assignments in WW2. A good friend of mine whose father had been in the Polish underground (AK) used to joke that every time the mission was tough, the ones sent there first were the Free Poles and the antipodeans.
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
08/02/2017 at 12:09, STARS: 0
Britain is not alone in this tendency. See: French Foreign Legion
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
08/02/2017 at 12:11, STARS: 1
I think it’s a very good movie. Sure the story is thin, but it’s not really supposed to be some epic narrative. It’s a depiction of determination and desperation.
"AuthiCooper1300" (rexrod)
08/02/2017 at 12:32, STARS: 0
In what sense, exactly? The fact that they are sent to the worst battles or that their rights are not fully recognised?
Bear in mind that the Foreign Legion is a very special case.
Anyone
can join, no questions asked. Some do it out of a [misplaced] sense of adventure, others because they urgently need a job and others because they’ve had a brush with the law.
Note that the legionnaires pledge allegiance to the Legion itself, rather than to France, so their status is rather different.
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
08/02/2017 at 13:56, STARS: 0
Admittedly the status of FFL soldiers is somewhat different from the other units discussed. However, they are recruited from populations outside the home country, which is similar. Also, they have a reputation for being sent to battle with lesser provisions and equipment than the regular French military. Such deficiencies make the missions more difficult. It is not that the missions are necessarily worse than other units are assigned.