Dunkirk

I must be a pleb, because that was totally shit.

It completely failed to convey what was impressive about the Dunkirk evacuation: the logistics of it, and the struggle to keep the tottering operation up and running while the salient closed in on them.

A couple years ago I read an hour-by-hour history of the evacuation and it was RIVETING; absolutely none of that was captured by the film, which felt small and lacked all sense of time and urgency.

Plus there were so many glaring anachronisms it was maddening. The aircraft parts in particular are a joke if you have even the most cursory knowledge of fuel consumption, glide ratios, how many rounds they carried, the pace of dogfights... Michael Bay literally did better.

Trash.

Other urls found in this thread:

inews.co.uk/culture/film/dunkirk-wrong-historian-james-holland/
youtube.com/watch?v=uc4wBfh3lwk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

More absurdities off the top of my head:

>The soldiers are just wandering around (and EVERYONE IS ON KETAMINE), when of course in reality there'd be military discipline and frantic action, both toward holding the line and in the evacuation
>the movie made it seem like there were a few hundred guys standing around on a beach and on a pier, when there were of course hundreds of thousands and this was an enormous operation
>it gave the impression civilian boats just came and picked everyone up in one go, when this was going on around the clock for days, with multiple piers existing-and-improvised involved
>the beach and town seem totally clean and basically abandoned when of course they'd be bombed-out burning debrist-strewn wrecks with soldiers and vehicles moving around everywhere
>the physics of the potshots-at-the-beached-boat-scene are comical, not to mention it makes no sense at all temporally or spatially in terms of the battle
>the officers are on a triple dose of ketamine, and moreover seemingly surprised at what's going on, when of course they'd be actively and energetically managing things in detail
...

>I must be a pleb

correct

>Hardy's Spitfire a. gliding seemingly forever like it's an ultralight and then b. somehow shooting down another plane in this state is perhaps the stupidest most unrealistic thing I've seen in a war movie ever
>Hardy and all the other pilot are also on heavy tranquilizers and slowly consider their actions while lingering their gaze on irrelevant things forever, when in reality they'd be operating in fractions-of-a-second
>their planes have orders of magnitude more loiter time than actual WW2 fighters
>their radios are clearer than anything that exists in 2017
...

spbp

yes, you are a pleb

>watches Nolan
>expects Michael Bay

mmh

>I read an hour-by-hour history of the evacuation

What was it called?

There are cases of Spitfire pilots gliding for more than 18 miles user, as long as he reached atleast 120mph before his engine was turned off he can glide for a pretty damn long time, and the air narrative represents a single hour so he was gliding for mere minutes.
Yes you are a complete pleb.

>>All the ships sink in a couple seconds: again, as with EVERYTHING else in the movie, that's not how the real world works
>There isn't even a fraction of the airplanes in the sky as there should be. Like so much else in this movie it does no justice to the scale of what was going on. Is this movie meant to be some half-remembered dream of what happened? (that would explain a lot, notably why everyone is a dazed zombie)
>The British have apparently never heard of anti-aircraft fire (in reality it'd be constant and deafening)
>There are NO FUCKING VEHICLES ANYWHERE when of course the British abandoned massive numbers, and the beach and town would be crowded with them
>Nobody in the movie is smoking when of course at the time everyone would have been constantly; how do you get even simple stuff like this so completely wrong?
...

Googling, the Spitfire's glide ratio is something like 15:1 in the best case. And he started gliding from a couple hundred meters at most; he wouldn't have been able to glide anywhere from that starting altitude

All the air action seems to be happening at (I assume) wildly inaccurate low altitudes too.

>There isn't even a fraction of the airplanes in the sky as there should be.
It's safe to say that during an hour time which the air narrative takes place in that only 3 or 4 Spitfires were in air during that entire week, there was never a point in the entire Dunkirk battle where there were 50 Spitfires vs 50 Stukas or anything like that.

And there's a book by one of the spitfire aces who flew during ww2 with an entire chapter dedicated to 'Where was the RAF at Dunkirk?'. tl;dr they were busy elsewhere and you're a ignorant wikifag

>when of course in reality there’d be frantic military action

Th fact that actual Dunkirk survivors called this movie “like I was there” tier realistic shits on that.

I don’t think you know jack shit about actual evacuation logistics. Post on /k/ or something at least holy FUCK

>googling
Wow nice information google master, I'm sure you know better with a fucking 2 second google search than the whole team of experts and Spitfire owners who worked on the film. You do know that all three Spitfires in the film were actual Spitfires?

>he lands on a sandy beach! On the wheels!
>there were massively more Royal Navy ships involved than depicted (again, what you see in the movie is all MASSIVELY smaller than scale than reality)
>the Spitfire has an order of magnitude more ammo than a real one

Just google pictures of what the real Dunkirk looked like and tell me this movie isn't a joke.

>All the air action seems to be happening at (I assume) wildly inaccurate low altitudes too.
You are aware that all that action is real, not CGI? That they actually flown all those planes?
Yes, ofcourse the shots of the Messerschmitt's falling down are not actual planes but miniaturised RC models, but the rest is made completely in camera.

The Dunkirk beach is more than 10 miles long, it's not like all 400 thousand men were standing in a single spot like sardines.
It's not like all the 900 cilivian boats came at the same exact second, same with the 40 Destroyers, only a strategic moron would do that. Do you really think 40 Destroyers went at the same damn time, I mean what the fuck would they even do just sit and wait to get torpedoed while a single Destroyer is being boarded?
Same with the Spitfires, like I said it's safe to say that during an hour time which the air narrative takes place in that only 3 or 4 Spitfires were in air during that entire week, there was never a point in the entire Dunkirk battle where there were 50 Spitfires vs 50 Stukas or anything like that.

Unless you wanted a historically inaccurate fairy tale americanised flick where a whole armada of thousands of boats coming at the same exact same second just so the viewer goes "woah epic so many"

t. didn't see in theaters
faggot

Uhmmmmm it looks exactly like in the film?

Link?

Stick to capeshit

inews.co.uk/culture/film/dunkirk-wrong-historian-james-holland/

>“I just sat there with a weary resignation,” he admits. “I was thinking: ‘I wish I could enjoy it more if I didn’t know so much about it.'”

youtube.com/watch?v=uc4wBfh3lwk

Making something mopey, plotless, and wordless doesn't make it good (let alone accurate to the history)

>I must be a pleb
Yes and above all an amerimutt pleb fed with jewish over the top ww2 melodramatic propaganda.

>mopey
So a film has to be happy, even if it is about a highly tragic event?

> plotless
But there is a plot, from start to end?

>wordless
And that's bad why? Is your idea of a good film characters constantly reciting lines into the camera?
If so then is 2001 a bad film then?

As said, just stick to capeshit and stop posting altogether.

Yeah, I was hoping it would be much more about logistics and shit.
For what it was it was alright though I guess

The wordless bits of 2001 happen when a guy is alone in space!

Soldiers in reality will be yapping all the fucking time, with ncos and officers barking orders.

I agree. Ships sink in mere seconds, Hardy's glide scene was one of the most ridiculous scenes I've ever seen, main character is hard as steel and gets through everything, no lead, Hardy's spitfire blows every single bandit out of the sky, torpedo? Torpedo! The music was terrible and the civilian boat arrival and "let the French bastard die" drama scene were absolutely retarded and overly dramatic. Not to mention the "he hit is head, went blind and then died" shit.

It was shit. Nolan has always been a terrible direction but I expected a bit more. My fault.

t. dumb Hollywood taught ameritard

Yeah I am sure that while you are fighting for your own life (especially as a barely 20 young soldier) that you make dumb small talk with everyone around.
What did you expect, mid bombing quips and jokes? A quirky "nerd" soldier with glasses that is made fun of inbetween all the drowning scenes?
You really wanted a standard Hollywood bullcrap? A second torpedo comes by and annihilates your entire group, and you expect for the character to start talking about their sweethearts at home? Stukas make a fly by for the fifth time and for them to talk dumb campfire stories? Imagine yourself in their position, would you talk about your damn girlfriend at home to other soldiers inbetween getting bombed/torpedoed/nearly drowned etc?

Dunkirk is the best Nolan film since The Prestige.

That doesn't say much since The Prestige turned into complete trash in its second half.

Okay, it's the best Nolan film since Memento.

I agree with a lot in the OP. I was also expecting a more meticulous reconstitution, accurate WW2 action is already rare enough imo.

But question for everyone : what WW2 movies are the most accurate from a military point of view ?
Pic strongly related

Nolan is good as orchestrating set pieces, but is a terrible *movie* director. He'd be great as a second-unit director of said set pieces, leaving the actual plotting to someone who can put together a coherent, purposeful, believable story.

Are the people that can't enjoy a film with historical inaccuracies the same people who can't enjoy a film if they don't share it's politics/philosophy?

It's extremely grating here since the historical events aren't just the backdrop to some other story, but the whole point of the film.

for you

The point of the film is to portray the british spirit of Dunkirk and a portrayal of pure survival, not a documentary my man

dunkirk is shit we all know this

It's the sum of things. I can ignore one or two of these not so glaring fuck ups but when it happens every 5 minutes it all comes back and starts pissing you off. In fact, I could probably ignore all of it but everything else about the movie would have to be good enough to keep my interest and Dunkirk wasn't good enough.

It wasn't shit you fucking fag

what a waste of digits on an absolute cretin.
>leaving the actual plotting to someone who can put together a coherent, purposeful, believable story.

please tell me you're retarded or suffer from an actual mental illness.
what exactly did nolan do wrong with dunkirk? what were you expecting? and related to expectations, do you consider a movie to be good and accomplished only if it lines up with your expectations?
do you realize how much of a stupid fuck you are when you say things like that?
what is a good movie for you? jesus christ the amount of plebs allowed internet privileges.
dunkirk has a coherent story (and purposeful, whatever the fuck that means), it's the story of the fucking evacuation of dunkirk with very minor creative liberties taken.
>believable
I'm sorry actual fucking veterans of dunkirk said it was accurate you idiot.
I can imagine you considered the movie complete shit when after 5 minutes everything wasn't explained to you through dialogue, and I can imagine how you must've felt about the non-linear storytelling, squirming in your seat all sweaty and frustrated that nolan hasn't made a complete fuckfest of a handholding simulator for handicapped morons like you.

Sorry about your autism, user.