Is he?

The action of clipping one's mask to the helmet means the microphone is in position and you can got hot-mic hands free.

I saw it yesterday and liked it, Nolan is far from the same old same old writer/director.

But it is Marmite, you'll either like it and forgive it's little production foibles (44 pattern helmet on the mole, radar on the destroyer(s) etc etc)...

or you'll hate it....

Seconded. Appreciate the fact that they've not CGI'd the whole thing, rather than picking holes in the detail I would say. I thought it was frankly bloody good. Whoever did the soundtrack deserves an Oscar for the way they manipulate you during the film.

Its a pretty stark film, with very little dialogue-but then again it was a pretty stark event all around.


The cinematography is incredible. The flying is very real, and its great to see real Spitfires and a Buchon-there's a shot of the Blenheim too.


Its very good-no nod to Hollywood-just the very harsh reality of the situation as it unfolded.

It all seems far FAR too neat, clean and tidy, "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" it sure aint!

In addition to the reason posted by Pontius, (hot mike), a mask also provides a measure of facial fire protection.

My Grandfather was a Hurricane pilot with 3 Sqn, killed in France in the days before Dunkirk. He was 34 years old, and looked no younger than Tom Hardy does now.

Many RAF pilots in the first months of the war had been with the RAF (or in RAFVR or Auxiliary) Squadrons for some years before the war, and were therefore in their 30's. The legend of the fresh-faced 18 year old Spitfire pilot going into battle with 40 hours in his log-book was a function of the desperate expansion of the RAF in the weeks after Dunkirk.

R

I'll agree with proone on the 'neatness' aspect, but I'd argue that actually it doesn't require that given the other devices it uses to generate the feeling of doom. In addition, the lack of it makes it available to a wider audience which can be a good thing.

I am surprised no one has spotted a Routemaster bus...hat, coat.....

Actually, the director has made the mistake in reverse in respect to the soldiers being rescued......all too young in general.
As regular's many were gnarly old sweats - they weren't all youngun's, and as mentioned, they all look far too clean. Looks like they also didn't employ the right people to advise on kit as well..... I have a photo of my Godfather taken about 6 months he was evacuated from Dunkirk, and although he was 23 at the time, he looks 10-15 years older :(

Its entertainment though, not a documentary (so I keep telling myself)

Apart from the brief use of ARC's Blenheim, its amusing that it was a British pilot flying the 'Luftwaffe' Buchon, and American pilots flying all the Spits for the filming, but given who owns the 3 x Spits, that shouldn't be a surprise.

Just watched the movie today...I`m retired, so I can!

Some artistic licence for dramatic effect of course, but not a bad film. Quite good, in fact. As SWMBO says, it's intense and is cleverly done. It took me about 30 min to realise what was happening with the plot and the timelines, but once I got my head round it, it was easy to become 'immersed'. (Watch the film and you will see why)

Worth paying a bit extra and viewing it at an IMAX, IMHO. Some lovely Spitfire shots, but ......I doubt that the 'engine off' performance is better than my K6 glider. (One example of the artistic licence)

Not a documentary in any way.. and it failed to reach the level of realism in "Saving private Ryan" but its much better than 633 Sqn.

A curates egg. 6.5/10 Worth a look.:)

I wonder if the black dog film has not been produced yet as it would be difficult to match the near contemporary portrayal of the original with many actors who had actually served.

The problem with the black dog film, PN, is what to call the black dog....at this rate, 617 will be retiring their F-35's before it sees the cinema screen....

I can agree with Geeram, my father joined the Army in 1925 and had his 30th birthday( 31st May) on the beach. I have pictures of him shortly after he returned home and he looked in his sixties. He never really spoke of what he went through other than the coincidence of meeting his brother in law on the beach as well. Completely different units and neither knew the other was in France at all. And according to my mother he was never the same man she married less than a year before. He still of course had another 5 years of war to go!!!

Congratulations Treble One- you are the 1,000th member to mention this on PPRuNe.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: (x100)

**Warning - Spoiler Alert**

Don't read this if you haven't seen the film yet.

So I saw it and very much enjoyed it - caught the first showing at my local theater here in the states. Per my earlier post, sure enough there was a cowardly second lieutenant who managed to kill a teenage British boy in a fit of terror, but there was far more representation of personal sacrifice than open cowardice so I have no cause for complaint. The scene where the Spitfire runs out of fuel at 100' AGL and still manages to kill a Stuka 30 seconds later with conserved energy did remind a bit of a Jaffa orange - far fetched, and those Brownings seemed to have a lot of ammunition as well, but maybe I'm being picky. Apparently the French have been complaining that they didn't get much of a look-in which surprised me, because I thought they did - the depiction of them fighting a rearguard action reflected very well on them. Mark Rylance was superb as the private boat owner and Tom Hardy did a great job as the Spitfire pilot who refused to leave the fight - there were a few interesting comments about the perceived lack of air cover from the RAF, historical accuracy ? The final scene where one of the young soldiers comments that people will be spitting on them in the streets for having been defeated, only to be met at the train station by cheering crowds was entirely believable and quite moving.

All in all I thought they told the story very well.

Saw it here in Ottawa yesterday; great film, fabulous cinematography, treated the subject with respect (despite the Spitfire fuel/shooting down the Ju-87). Nicely done.

I've just returned from the cinema in Fort Worth, Texas having watched Dunkirk. I will lay my cards on the table and say I thought it was bloody brilliant. If you are able to ignore the nit picking of some members of this forum and appreciate the movie for what it is I think you'll love it too.

The audience here was totally silent and, being an RAF fighter pilot (as a Jaguar mate I can just about get away with saying that) from Dorset I felt a fair amount of personal investment. It made me feel proud to be British and I think paid fair tribute to what happened and should reach out to a large audience in the process. The casting of Harry Styles was a clever move in this regard.

Enough from me.

BV

Bob - I think the nitpicking is because it is a good film that could have been better (at least as far as aviators are concerned).

As mentioned the perpetual energy Spitfire - which clearly also had no engine when it burnt out on the beach (yes of course they wouldn't trash a real one but it was such an obvious fudge that could easily have been avoided) - the inconsistent height calls vs the actual height they were flying and the Batman-style dragging out of some of the dogfight scenes to increase the apparent jeopardy (not their use of offset timelines, that worked well once you understood what was happening), the unlimited ammunition in Tom Hardy's Spitfire,

It is a good film but did they actually have an aviation advisor?

Great Movie.
I agree with most of the aviation niggles, but in general the aviation side was better done than the Naval. (High threat environment, but point defense weapons not even manned; main QF weapons trained fore and aft?)
But a memorable movie.