RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 6:05:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.
warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.





warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 6:07:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

This isn't the history of the Dunkirk evacuation. It is the story of one spitfire patrol with three pilots with English accents, one small boat from the south coast of England with three local civilians as crew, and two English soldiers desperately trying to jump the queues on the beaches in order to to get home.

There are a lot of khaki clad soldiers in the background. One soldier reserved the queue he was in for the Grenadiers. Other than that you can make your own assumptions about which nationalities the background soldiers represented.
warspite1

Of the two pilots that we see (the third is quickly shot down) one is English and the other is Scottish.




goodwoodrw -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 7:01:04 AM)

don't forget the when the Commander said when he was asked if he was jumping on the boat.
( being a bit cryptic here so not to spoil it for those yet to see the movie).




Yogi the Great -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 11:44:53 AM)

Again I liked the movie and from reading some of the posts maybe I'll try to see a second time but this time at the IMAX to see what that is like. Still Have never seen any movie at a IMAX.

But back to the original debate of how great a movie was it. Personally I'm in the middle I don't think on a scale of ten it was as low as the 2 or three some do. I also don't think it was as high as the 8 to 10 some others do. I would say more like a 6 or 7. I think the problem at least for some of us gamers and old Grognards was the anticipation before it came out. Like most movies the exciting trailers were at least a bit misleading. They gave the impression that this would be a movie filled with war action scenes and covering things on a large scale not on just s few people. Also not expected was to see one of the three main stories covering soldiers you couldn't quite place as hero's as their efforts were directed at self preservation to save themselves by any means for their personal good not the good of the others. Not saying that should not be covered as it is part of war. Just old fashioned and prefer my hero being more noble and representing honor, sacrifice and dedication to his comrades.

So we can all look at the movie in different ways and understand we won't all see it the same way. Again a good movie worth seeing and I will see it again. But I just don't think it is one of the greats of all time. Sadly, that is what I was hoping it would be.




wodin -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 1:13:03 PM)

WOW personally it makes a change we have a war film featuring the UK troops and not about the Americans. I'm thankful for that.

ALso where Canadians ever at Dunkirk?

Plus maybe the French film industry should do a film about their War. If WW2 is abit to sore one set during WW1 would be fantastic and show the French soldier as brave as any other plus a good fighter when led properly. Look at the good result they got on the first day of the Somme compared to the Commonwealth forces.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.
warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.







stuart3 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 2:36:37 PM)

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861




Chickenboy -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 3:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Band of Brothers and The Pacific are now the standard to beat.


While I agree with the sentiment, I specifically omitted these two excellent mini-series from consideration. I know some consider these "movies", but I cannot.




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 3:59:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

ALso where Canadians ever at Dunkirk?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: radic202


I have a question for those who have seen it. It is impossible for me to go see it at the theaters as I am hearing impaired and without subtitles on the big screen and my hearing aids will capture all the bombs and gun shots I will never hear any spoken words over the music and the likes. So I need to wait until it is released on Blu ray where I can read the subtitles in the comfort of my home.

Anyhow, my question is this:

Is it strictly about the UK Forces on the evacuation part? Or do we see the Canadian, Aussie and Kiwis Commonwealth troops as well? I am sure the French are present as they were the main reason the evacuees had time to "evacuate" stalling the Germans push to the see.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.
warspite1

I know this is a subject that is dear to your heart - and as a patriot myself I fully understand this and I am always pleased when appropriate acknowledgement is shown in films and war games. But why, in a film about Dunkirk, are you expecting to see Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis? There were certainly some individuals serving within the RAF at that time, and the first of the Canadian troops (and possibly the first of the Kiwi) had arrived in the UK at the time of Dunkirk - but they were not sent to join the BEF (the Canadian 1st Division were sent to France but only after Dunkirk). So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.

The film Dunkirk is about the British experience there. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. And it does so. The opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting - and the British soldier is greeted with a look of contempt from one of the Poilu), the French are mentioned during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and again at the end when the British wait longer to try and get more French off (who by definition have been responsible for holding the perimeter).

I also hasten to add that (in line with some films I could mention that love to kick the British) Dunkirk could have contained accusatory comments from the British about what caused the debacle in the first place i.e. the French failure to defend the Meuse. However, it is pleasing that this unnecessary approach is not taken.




warspite1

Please read my post you quoted for the answer [;)]




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 4:09:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 4:11:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Band of Brothers and The Pacific are now the standard to beat.


While I agree with the sentiment, I specifically omitted these two excellent mini-series from consideration. I know some consider these "movies", but I cannot.
warspite1

Quite, as a mini-series these have an unfair advantage in terms of length and thus character development and sheer scope of story.




Challerain -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 5:01:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

This isn't the history of the Dunkirk evacuation. It is the story of one spitfire patrol with three pilots with English accents, one small boat from the south coast of England with three local civilians as crew, and two English soldiers desperately trying to jump the queues on the beaches in order to to get home.

There are a lot of khaki clad soldiers in the background. One soldier reserved the queue he was in for the Grenadiers. Other than that you can make your own assumptions about which nationalities the background soldiers represented.
warspite1

Of the two pilots that we see (the third is quickly shot down) one is English and the other is Scottish.




Poor Michael Caine. Didn't even gets his face on screen :)




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/28/2017 5:08:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Challerain


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

This isn't the history of the Dunkirk evacuation. It is the story of one spitfire patrol with three pilots with English accents, one small boat from the south coast of England with three local civilians as crew, and two English soldiers desperately trying to jump the queues on the beaches in order to to get home.

There are a lot of khaki clad soldiers in the background. One soldier reserved the queue he was in for the Grenadiers. Other than that you can make your own assumptions about which nationalities the background soldiers represented.
warspite1

Of the two pilots that we see (the third is quickly shot down) one is English and the other is Scottish.



Poor Michael Caine. Didn't even gets his face on screen :)
warspite1

I liked the part in the film when Farrier gave the Stuka a taste of lead and splashed the Hun.

Farrier: Got him!
Michael Caine: You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!




radic202 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 3:43:51 AM)

Well thanks gang for the debate on whether Canadians and/or Commonwealth troops where part of the Dunkirk evacuation. It appears I may have been wrong on the Canadians part. They were not part of any expedition force in the Dunkirk area during May of 1940. There were many Canadians soldiers of British descent that served or may have served under British Command but no Canadian units were involved directly.

According to this site:

http://www.cdnmilitarycollectors.com/t1135-canadians-and-dunkirk-1940

"a Canadian pilot was the first to die ""The first Canadian from No.242 Squadron to die in action was Flight Lieutenant John Lewis Sullivan of Smiths Falls, Ontario. He was shot down on the 17th of May 1940, while providing air cover for the evacuation of the beaches at Dunkirk France. [the CWGC: Flight Lieutenant (Pilot) John Lewis Sullivan, RAF 37643, 607 Sqdn., age unknown, 14/05/1940, Perwez Churchyard, Belgium]"

Well at least (and I am NOT being critical here just ironic with some of these WW2 films) we have a film that does not show that the Americans won WW2 all by themselves for a change, or that the Russians won WW2 all by themselves or even that the British won WW2 all by themselves. Just a good historical film that when you come to think about it, absolutely nobody from either side can claim any kind of victory in Dunkirk!




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 6:20:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: radic202

.....when you come to think about it, absolutely nobody from either side can claim any kind of victory in Dunkirk!

warspite1

I must say I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

You say no one can claim any kind of victory? But victory was survival. Sure, what was achieved at Dunkirk was not a Midway or a Bagration type victory, it was not a Jena-Auerstadt or a Trafalgar type victory. But in getting the army back home, it ensured the war would go on, it ensured the UK and the Commonwealth were not going to come to some accommodation with Adolf Hitler.

Germany

Case Yellow was a stunning victory for the Germans (and Case Red completed that victory) but that victory was marred by the fact that the British – its army intact – stayed in the game, and so the seeds sowed at Dunkirk helped lead to ultimate Allied victory.

France

The reason that Dunkirk is not so significant to the French (and this comment in no way undermines their heroism in the defence of Dunkirk and their naval efforts during the evacuation too – which need to be remembered) is that it was an evacuation of circa 120,000 men yes, but the vast majority of those men returned to France and sadly, within a short space of time, to surrender, to Vichy and to prisoner of war camps. Understandably France doesn’t see Dunkirk in the same way therefore.

United Kingdom/Commonwealth

Even if we forget for a moment the high level strategic arguments, given the situation that all sides were presented with at the end of May 1940, tactically Dunkirk must be seen as a defeat for the Germans. In that period they actually lost more aircraft than the British. No way, should the Allies have been able to evacuate that number of men - many plucked from the beaches and taken to waiting ships by the 'small boat flotilla'. Why wasn't the significance of the Mole - and there was just one of them - realised? Put the Mole out of action and Dunkirk ends very differently - but they never managed it. Incredible. And in a foretaste of what was to come, Dunkirk saw the in-fighting between the army and air force that was to afflict the German war machine again as the war progressed (not to mention the air force / navy shenanigans)...

But with the Germans having encircled the Allies, the worst was expected – even by those in the know. Getting 30,000 men back was seen as optimistic initially. Would the Government survive this? How does one fight on without an army? And at times like this it is important to remind oneself what a Nazi victory would mean; the plunging of Europe into a new Dark Age. But through heroic efforts of the British and their Allies, over 200,000 soldiers made it home. The success of Dunkirk made Sea Lion for all intents and purposes impossible, made continuation of the war possible, meant that Hitler would soon engage in a two front war that, as Napoleon found before him, is a really rather short-sighted thing to do. So yes, let’s be clear victory was Survival – and survival lead to Victory.








warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 7:42:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: radic202

"a Canadian pilot was the first to die ""The first Canadian from No.242 Squadron to die in action was Flight Lieutenant John Lewis Sullivan of Smiths Falls, Ontario. He was shot down on the 17th of May 1940, while providing air cover for the evacuation of the beaches at Dunkirk France. [the CWGC: Flight Lieutenant (Pilot) John Lewis Sullivan, RAF 37643, 607 Sqdn., age unknown, 14/05/1940, Perwez Churchyard, Belgium]"

warspite1

14th or 17th? Either way, this seems very early for the evacuation - which is generally accepted as being the 9-day period from the 27th May-4th June 1940.

But regardless of what exactly you were doing, and whatever date it was, the fact was you were there, over the skies of France Flight-Lt Sullivan, and I for one salute you [&o].
[image]local://upfiles/28156/274741A44DC947B08F2243C9EB4F0C88.jpg[/image]




zakblood -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 11:36:20 AM)

bump, just moving the spam elsewhere, nothing to see here[;)]




zakblood -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 12:10:45 PM)

thanks Vpaulus

[&o][&o][&o]




wodin -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 7:45:56 PM)

Really really really didn't like Enemy at the Gates. Best Stalingrad movies I've seen have both been German. The black and white one and the one that came out aroud'93 which book the film is based on I've just finished and is well worth a read.
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]






philabos -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/29/2017 11:56:48 PM)

Just got home from the IMAX.
No spoilers from me, but supremely impressed.
What amazes me most is how Nolan got the financial backing for a film without the usual Hollywood fluff and BS. No big names. I only knew Kevin Branagh from Wallender, itself almost unknown on this side of the pond.
Perhaps an even bigger surprise is the obvious commercial success. People will still pay to see history. Who knew?




Challerain -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 3:55:20 AM)

LOL - just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't big names :)





warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 7:31:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really really really didn't like Enemy at the Gates. Best Stalingrad movies I've seen have both been German. The black and white one and the one that came out aroud'93 which book the film is based on I've just finished and is well worth a read.
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]


warspite1

I thought Enemy at the Gates was so so. The opening sequence was impressive. But as for the Stalingrad film made in the early 90's, this was one of three films where I have come out of the cinema and felt really let down, really disappointed. It started well and then developed, for the most part, into a turgid bore imo.




zakblood -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 8:40:25 AM)

bump




wodin -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 1:45:37 PM)

I'm surprised you it so. I thought it portrayed Stalingrad rather well and being German (though for god sake avoid the dubbed version!) Felt more authentic. The film does OK at following the main story of the book but is far more harrowing and dare I say hallucinary than the film....blimey..Ralph erm..buggers Bubba the recruit in the book..so yes more gritty and captures the unreal terror of what the Germans faced..

Enemy at the Gates not sure why but watching Jude Law and others with their British accents straight away put me off..petty I suppose but it did do.

Stalingrad: The Loneliest Death the book is called. I didn't realise the book was anything to-do with the film however couple of pages in I thought..hang on a minute..this sounds just like the film Stalingrad!

LINK TO BOOK

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really really really didn't like Enemy at the Gates. Best Stalingrad movies I've seen have both been German. The black and white one and the one that came out aroud'93 which book the film is based on I've just finished and is well worth a read.
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]


warspite1

I thought Enemy at the Gates was so so. The opening sequence was impressive. But as for the Stalingrad film made in the early 90's, this was one of three films where I have come out of the cinema and felt really let down, really disappointed. It started well and then developed, for the most part, into a turgid bore imo.





philabos -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 8:05:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Challerain

LOL - just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't big names :)




You are right.
I don't get out much[:)]




Chickenboy -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 8:27:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really really really didn't like Enemy at the Gates. Best Stalingrad movies I've seen have both been German. The black and white one and the one that came out aroud'93 which book the film is based on I've just finished and is well worth a read.
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]


warspite1

I thought Enemy at the Gates was so so. The opening sequence was impressive. But as for the Stalingrad film made in the early 90's, this was one of three films where I have come out of the cinema and felt really let down, really disappointed. It started well and then developed, for the most part, into a turgid bore imo.


I'd a thought you'd have really enjoyed this one, Warspite1. Instead of focusing on the vast conflagration that was the battle of Stalingrad, the director chose to atomize the combat into vignettes of individual valor and focus on one man's fight against the enemy. You know-kind of like Dunkirk, but without so many Spitfires. [:'(]




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/30/2017 9:16:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really really really didn't like Enemy at the Gates. Best Stalingrad movies I've seen have both been German. The black and white one and the one that came out aroud'93 which book the film is based on I've just finished and is well worth a read.
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuart3

quote:

So no, there is no Commonwealth representation - and historically there does not need to be.


Apparently some Indians would disagree on that last part.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40724861
warspite1

Well

a) Radic202 specifically mentioned Kiwis, Aussies and Canucks
b) But regardless, yes I did say no Commonwealth representation and that would appear to be factually wrong (sincere apologies to the country that provided the largest non-conscript army in history [&o]). However a few hundred Indians amongst a few hundred thousand?

I am going to re-watch some war movies over the weekend because clearly this is serious matter. I shall re-watch Enemy at the Gates and woe-be-tide Jean-Jacques Annaud if, within the Red Army, he has got the wrong mix of Russians to Mongols to Chechens to Karakalpaks to Kalmyks to Ossetians to .... well you get the picture [8|]


warspite1

I thought Enemy at the Gates was so so. The opening sequence was impressive. But as for the Stalingrad film made in the early 90's, this was one of three films where I have come out of the cinema and felt really let down, really disappointed. It started well and then developed, for the most part, into a turgid bore imo.


I'd a thought you'd have really enjoyed this one, Warspite1. Instead of focusing on the vast conflagration that was the battle of Stalingrad, the director chose to atomize the combat into vignettes of individual valor and focus on one man's fight against the enemy. You know-kind of like Dunkirk, but without so many Spitfires. [:'(]
warspite1

Just as I don't seek to denigrate those with a different opinion on Dunkirk (as per the WITP-AE thread) so I have a right to an opinion on Stalingrad. It wasn't the way they chose to represent the battle (which could well have worked) - it was that the way the individuals were portrayed and the dialogue between them etc that just didn't work imo.




wodin -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/31/2017 1:30:26 AM)

If you watched the dubbed Stalingrad then I can see why it seemed so wooden and stilted regarding dialogue..subtitled was like a different movie altogether..plus go read the book:)




Chickenboy -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/31/2017 1:54:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Just as I don't seek to denigrate those with a different opinion on Dunkirk (as per the WITP-AE thread) so I have a right to an opinion on Stalingrad. It wasn't the way they chose to represent the battle (which could well have worked) - it was that the way the individuals were portrayed and the dialogue between them etc that just didn't work imo.


You should know me well enough to know that I was just pulling yer leg a little. No offense meant or intended.

I was joshing you about "Enemy at the Gates", not "Stalingrad". I've seen the former, not the latter. Were your comments regarding the dialogue and characters about the former or the latter? The subject of your review and / or invective changed a bit in your preceding posts.




wodin -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/31/2017 2:00:59 AM)

chickenboy..get the subtitled Stalingrad film..many like it as I do..ohh and read the book:) Cross of Iron is a GREAT book aswell..but I bet you can't imagine Steiner not looking like James as you read it:)




warspite1 -> RE: New Dunkirk Trailer (7/31/2017 5:36:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Just as I don't seek to denigrate those with a different opinion on Dunkirk (as per the WITP-AE thread) so I have a right to an opinion on Stalingrad. It wasn't the way they chose to represent the battle (which could well have worked) - it was that the way the individuals were portrayed and the dialogue between them etc that just didn't work imo.


You should know me well enough to know that I was just pulling yer leg a little. No offense meant or intended.

I was joshing you about "Enemy at the Gates", not "Stalingrad". I've seen the former, not the latter. Were your comments regarding the dialogue and characters about the former or the latter? The subject of your review and / or invective changed a bit in your preceding posts.
warspite1

I cannot see that anything has changed. My comments were directed toward Stalingrad. The only comment I've made about Enemy at the Gates was to say the film was so-so - but I liked the opening sequence.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125