Dunkirk

Website · by **Hugo** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:32 am

UPDATE, 11:17 AM: Following up on earlier reports including one from Deadline this morning, Warner Bros has confirmed that Christopher Nolan’s next film is indeed the WWII Dunkirk evacuation project. It’s called Dunkirk, and Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hardy will be part of an ensemble made up largely of unknowns. Pic will be shot on IMAX 65mm and 65mm large-format film. Everything else is as our International Editor Nancy Tartaglione reported it earlier this morning.

http://deadline.com/2015/12/christopher ... 201673519/

by **grooveboy** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:27 am

This looks like it's gonna be an epic war film! Dunkirk is one of the most fascinating episodes of WWII and hopefully Nolan won't screw it up :lol:

Website · by **Hugo** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:01 pm

Where's the excitement?

by **Graham76man** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:24 pm

From that trailer it does seem to suggest that they are correcting the myth the RAF were not around to stop the German planes.

A recent documentary on Channel Four has shown that the RAF and in-particular the Spitfire actually made certain that the evacuation was possible. By stopping most of the German planes getting through. It's just that the troops on the ground could not see the planes fighting at the high altitudes or were inland breaking up the bomber formations before they reached the beaches and the ships rescuing them.

If the film does show this and sticks largely to historical facts in the 2 or so hours, then it will be a good film and for that reason will deliver all the excitement you need.

by **Rihab** » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:09 am

With Nolan and Zimmer involved, what could go wrong? I want to see this.

Last.fm · by **Noahh** » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:26 am

First reactions are overwhelmingly positive.

Can't wait to see this film in IMAX.

Website · by **Hugo** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:15 pm

by **JimJim** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:15 am

Harry certainly picked a good movie to debut in.

Website · by **Hugo** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:29 pm

JimJim wrote:Harry certainly picked a good movie to debut in.

lol I had to search to understand this comment, I had no idea.

I wonder how many of his fans knew about 'Dunkirk' before his casting? :lol:

by **grooveboy** » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:15 pm

Has anyone seen this yet? Any thoughts?

I'm going to the movies this sunday and literally can't wait to watch it! #superexcited

Website · by **Hugo** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:32 am

‘Dunkirk’ Flying To $51M; ‘Girls Trip’ Driving To $28M+; ‘Valerian’ Still A Disaster With $16M+

Dunkirk is excelling with a $19.7 million opening day, bound for a $51M opening weekend at 3,720 venues.

That’s a very good start for this movie I’m told, one that will enable this British World War II title to leg out to a 3x multiple. Director Christopher Nolan’s previous movie Interstellar posted a three-day of $47.5M and churned a near 4x multiple at the domestic B.O., ending with $188M. His films just have great holds.

Heading into the weekend, many predicted Dunkirk wouldn’t take flight given its standard appeal among older Caucasian men. However, great reviews, an A- CinemaScore tonight, plus Nolan’s fanbase are lifting this pic past its $35M-$40M projection. Yes, men over 25 make up close to 50% of the main draw here per ComScore/Screen Engine’s PostTrak, but Dunkirk is also playing incredibly well to older females and younger guys.

“Dunkirk will somehow make money,” one packager praised about its prospects. “Don’t ask me how, but I am done betting against Chris Nolan.” As pointed out previously, Interstellar with a cost $165M before P&A turned a $47M-plus profit.

http://deadline.com/2017/07/dunkirk-val ... 202132847/

It's a smash!

by **grooveboy** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:46 pm

I just got back from the theatres. The viusals were stunning but the story could have been better TBH. It's just not as epic as I thought it would be. More than 300k men were evcacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk and you get the feeling there were handful of them.
It was just an ok war film in the end.

by **Muzikritik** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:22 am

I'm torn. I'm not fussed on war epics but I've never seen a Christopher Nolan film that I didn't like a lot.

by **urbanmusik** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:26 am

Incredible film, so much better than the average cliche "hero" war film. The sound and visuals were brilliant, made it such an immersive experience. Keeping dialogue to a minimum was definitely a wise decision.

by **Thriller** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:56 am

I don't get it. Is Dunkirk not in Scotland? Yet this film is set in France? Either way I will need severe subtitles.

by **Benny** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:57 am

Thriller wrote:I don't get it. Is Dunkirk not in Scotland? Yet this film is set in France? Either way I will need severe subtitles.

The famous 'Dunkirk' is a town in northern France.

However, there are several places in the UK which bear the same name.

by **AndiIversen** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:44 am

Soundtrack's very NIN at times

Last.FM · by **Michiel** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:26 am

Saw it last saturday and I'm not too crazy about it, I guess I expected too much. The shots were nice and the lack of dialogue gave it a bit of another dimension, but that's about it for me. The music was too much for me personally. And in its core it's just the same one-sided heroism take on the two 'world' wars we've seen a million times before filled with a signficant amount of clichés, just more hidden/subtle I guess. A movie which scores such reviews should for me (!) be able to bring something new to the genre and I don't feel like this movie fits in that category. Nothing new to reflect about. A Blockbuster.

by **Yoshie** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:43 am

There are several ways that Christopher Nolan could have chosen to execute this film. As it is, there is a heavy emphasis on tension and suspense, which is done incredibly well, and cinematography; whilst the visuals are outstanding in their own right, I feel that the film is so concerned with its visual glossiness that that overshadowed what should have been the most focal element of the film: emotion. On the whole, very accomplished but overpraised.

by **SeeForever** » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:07 pm

I can see why some people felt a bit underwhelmed, as it didn't feel like 300-400,000 soldiers trying to evacuate, but in the end the film concentrated on the young soldier and what happened around him

I can't see what else Christopher Nolan could have done other than focus on the defence in Dunkirk itself holding off the German attack (we only got that at the beginning of the film and that was very well done even if it was short)

by **Muzikritik** » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:54 pm

I really liked it, I thought Nolan made some interesting choices stylistically and script-wise.

I will see he is a true master of suspense. It's quite gripping to watch.

I've read reviews saying it's one of the best examples of the war genre. I don't know that I agree though it's not one of my favourite genres either.

by **MusicRecords** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Watched it last night, really good film!

I also liked how the main guy is kinda new to acting, and how Harry styles did well for his part yet didn't overshadow the main guy

by **Graham76man** » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:22 am

I got the DVD of the film and did enjoy it a lot.
However there was one thing I found irritating. Some of the music. It was like at ticking noise, very similar I thought to the attack scene in Pearl Harbour. I think it was to make it suspense, but it actually got annoying at times.
The only other strange thing, which generally doesn't happen on DVD, is that film was shot on 2.35 Cinemascope, where you would normal get two black bars on a standard widescreen TV. But for some reason it goes to full screen on the standard TV and only at the end for the titles does the two bars appear :roll:

Perhaps the Blu-Ray has the proper screen size, so you might want to consider getting that. Especially as the film was shot with Imax cameras.

The DVD does come with an extra features disc, which explains how they made the film. What surprised me, because what I was expecting to hear was it was all done with CGI. And it WASN'T.

Thousands of men extras, real Spitfires, real ships and they even recreated the dock actually in Dunkirk, building a full sized structure. Most of the beaches too were at Dunkirk. Even the small boats were the original craft used to take the real soldiers over. Except Moonshine, but it was built by the company that did make boats and it was of that age.
They even created a special plane that looked like a Spitfire, but had a back seat pilot in it. Just so the could film the actor flying in a plane!
One of the crew pointed out that no real Spitfires were damaged or destroyed in the film :lol:

The only thing that was lacking was how they did the Stukas. Since none have actually survived, or at least none that can fly. That I know of anyway. The Battle of Britain had that problem in 1968. So they built large scale Radio Controlled models.

by **thebigham** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:07 am

I liked it, but I wanted MORE.

More background on the characters. More character development.

I didn't even know that was Tom Hardy until the end of the movie.

by **Spartan** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:04 am

thebigham wrote:I liked it, but I wanted MORE.

More background on the characters. More character development.

I didn't even know that was Tom Hardy until the end of the movie.

I think that’s a good, general assessment of the movie. A lot of untapped potential. Still great though.