Explaining Every Ending From Dunkirk..
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- I think this just might be my masterpiece...
- IB
FOOTAGE USED IN THIS VIDEO
Dunkirk ALL NEW CLIPS + Trailer
• Video
WATCH THE FULL DUNKIRK TRAILER HERE
• Dunkirk - Trailer 1 [HD]
I DO NOT OWN THE FOOTAGE OR MUSIC USED IN THIS VIDEO. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO ITS RESPECTED OWNER(S).
Music By Hans Zimmer from 'Dunkirk'
Hope you guys found this vid helpful. Make sure you subscribe. Glad to have alot of new people joining the channel, keep it coming! New videos coming very soon, I'm gonna be pumping alot out as summer comes to a close. Thanks for watching.
Just a heads up PTSD was known at the time but it just went by other names. One said in the film being shell shock. Great Review. Nolan told a very different type of war story. It was great.
"94%"
www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dunkirk_2017/
Hmmm
Mitchell Spencer Its at 92% right there. Should be at 99%
What did you guys make of the old man at the end handing soldiers food/supplies? Was that supposed to be somehow connected with the little boy that lost his sight then died? The old man was blind, you can tell because he touched that soldiers face. I could be wrong though.
i thought he was simply a local. harry styles' character assumes that he won't even look at them for shame, but you see with the second soldier that he reaches out and touches his face so that he's simply blind. i thought it was a beautiful scene.
The silent plane flying scene was beautiful yet so sad
Yea
Uneccessary and unrealistic but i get your point
Auctually it happened in real life. read the pilots account as a child from a book.
Jet Black Storm ?? lol how
Even though im pretty sure it was a true story, I still wish that the guy had just jumped out, or bailed in the ocean. He might have not been captured by german troops.
The whole movie has a clock ticking sound if you didn't notice.
Slavic DerpSK yep, it really makes you feel that time is running out, and keeps the tension from beginning to end.
Right up until the end so that it really pushes that overwhelming sense of relief when its over it was awesome
Slavic DerpSK how loud is it?
Yeah, a brilliant overtone for sure.
Let's review It It varies. It gets louder and quieter as the movie goes and occasionally stops momentarily
just saw it and a clock was ticking the whole time. it made you very uneasy .
Georgia Woodrow I'm hoping that you understand that was the point? Did you get to see it in 70mm?
Georgia Woodrow fun fact, the ticking is actually a watch of Christopher nolan's that Zimmer incorporated for the score
No shit Sherlock
Georgia Woodrow i
IKR. I saw it for my birthday party. And my friends were all like. We should’ve watched spider man lol
When I heard the stuka sirens for the first time in the movie I froze and my hair stood up.
Typical stuka sound used in war movies had that simple siren but in this film it also had a shreeking loud sound that could only be heard when it was very close to you and oh boy was it shocking.
Those who went in the cinema know what I mean.
snoopeZayko I literally saw it and was like "Is that a Stuka?" Then the screech began and I just got scared due to the use of it throughout the movie. You see it come in just one and you hope that you don't hear that screech but every time it happens and you just can't help but hope that they miss their targets but they never do.
Yes that first dive bomber scene hooked me in like nothing else ever has, maybe for one of the only times in a movie I felt there fear
Hell yes I did. My ears were sore after the film. I bloody love the planes from the time and have never heard a stuka siren properly and I am bloody happy it gave an audience an actual understanding of how loud war was
snoopeZayko yes definitely! I heard that the sound team would put a bunch of microphones so it could sound as real time.
snoopeZayko yeah I had a heart attack
At the end when the train stops and the clock stops ticking was a bloody effective moment as it gives you the realisation that they are actually out of it.
Agreed, that was my favorite moment
But, they’re not out of it.. “we will go on, nevah surrender” I think he’s realizing that after all that they’re either getting invaded by Germany and America will be the last country fighting Germany or they will keep fighting. He just survived all that and it’s not over
@@BrandyTexas214 both of the kids sitting there on the train went right back into the barrage of lead and fire, possibly dying on D-day.
@@BrandyTexas214but they had that small victory
Saw this in IMAX it was fantastic. I loved how the whole situation itself was the main character and that you didn't get attached to any characters in anyway so you didn't know if they were gonna get killed or not
Agreed. I really wish i caught it in IMAX, but I went standard. Gonna have to catch it before it leaves my theater.
Definitely worth the watch in IMAX no doubt, the visual and audio will blow you away completely
Gabriel Hanson Alright I'll definitely check it out.
Gabriel Hanson I also saw it in IMAX and its was a whole different experience to any other war film. As an Englishman, the schtookers (forgive the spelling) chilling as they dived onto the beach and found myself choked up when the civilian ships arrived and during the reading of Churchill's speech.
Gabriel Hanson I disagree. the film had some great moments of characterization across the board. the pilot choosing to down a bomber instead of leaving for a refuel. the soldier fighting to not go up while inside the boat but also not willing to let the German go up, or him running with the stretcher to save someone. the boat, and the kid being angry that he never accomplished anything, or the old man and his faith that the pilot could still be alive. little things like that spread throughout made us love those characters. the German was my favorite, as you realize that all he did was in an attempt to escape and all the sacrifices he made were because he was simply good. then he dies because he was tied to the inside of the boat.
The sirens and bombers were so loud.
colin armstrong -- the veterans said the movie was LOUDER than the real event. And I agree with them. It was way too loud and I couldn't hear half the dialogue.
however the veterans are also old so hearing might be more sensitive now
You should know, torpedos and the sirens of the planes are extremly loud
anastasia46 I don't believe that. Yes the movie was very loud but I don't think it was louder than actually being in war. And the dialog wasn't that important anyway if you really couldn't hear it.
german fright tactic.worked very well.they still lost.
What a beast of a movie. Saw it today.
Dylan Parker sorry that was my friend . He was trolling people lol
Dylan Parker well said Dylan!
Wokin Male i saw it this day
Maybe it will win best picture? Let's home!
* hope
6:05 ptsd or shell shock as the british called it was in fact well known and acknowledged throughout the war. Even Mr. Dawson says so. WW1 was the major event that brought up the horrors and grievances that soldiers experienced.
Jx8774 My grandfather's dad was enlisted in WWII and served in the Navy. He dealt with depression and PTSD throughout the rest of his life. He would have panic attacks when he heard fireworks and the rest of the public, who weren't in the War, would just ignore this. That was the point I was trying to make.
My friend's father survived Guadalcanal, and sometimes they would find him cowering under a picnic table outside. Horrors of war last a lifetime.
In Kubrics great early film Paths of Glory a soldier in the trenches is introduced to a high ranking officer as being shell shocked. The officer then proceeds to deny such a thing exists. I bet it was known but not publicly acknowledged.
It was known but not understood
I think that the British knew about it, and acknowledged it, to a degree since ww1.
The American also started to take it into account during ww2, they called it "battle fatigue". But they didn't do very much about it until the Vietnam War.
Seeing tom landing on the enemy territory really broke my heart...
I was actually worried that there would've been a cheesy love story in this movie. I'm happy that their isn't one and enjoyed this film. I really did wish they showed some scenes of the brave French soldiers who held their positions to hold back the enemy.
This movie was specifically about the evacuation, not about the the French fighting and holding their line. Please try to understand the true purpose of the movie. 😀
@@nehh_aksat ratio
@@npc14835 tf is your problem?
i don't think i have watched a film and never taken my eyes off the screen for a single second like i did with Dunkirk
David Micheal Williams i rarely blinked. Lol
haha oh dear!!
David Micheal Williams I had to close my eyes sometimes because I couldn't watch cause I was so nervous on what was gonna happen
Mister Skinner
Haha!!! Same!!!
I'm pretty sure Cillian Murphy's character in the end saw the body of George being taken from the boat. The body was on stretches and it was covered but he saw it and he exchanged looks with Peter I think. To me it seemed that he realised it was George's dead body.
No shit, sherlock
Literally said in the film but K
He was replying to the video's narrator who seemed to say the opposite.
That scene was so utterly sad. Cillian is a gift.
Panicking people do a lot of damage.
After watching Dunkirk, i realized someone should do a better movie about Pearl Harbour.
There is, Tora Tora Tora. If haven't checked it out, you should at least give it a try.
João Victor Lima de Souza TTT is a pretty decent movie ( defenetly better then pearl harbor) and it has some really cool shots, but it's not for everyone
João Victor Lima de Souza but just imagine it to dunkirk standards
BINGO! Tora Tora Tora is actually a phenomenal film about Pearl Harbor. I recommend everyone check out the channel History Buff to see his review of the film.
This movie made me almost break my girlfriends hand from holding on too hard cause of how tense t was lol
Snafu Is she the man of the relationship?
LMAO
Atleast you have a girlfriend to hold onto
Pill Cosby you sir just made my comment reading a pleasure haha
i think the only disappointing part of this gorgeous film is that Nolan wasn't able to create the feeling of "400 thousand men got trapped on a beach", or the "colossality" of Dunkirk. This could be limited by the budget, but I mean, in the actual event, soldiers on the destroyers were like Sardina fishes being trapped in a net, without too much room to move.
Peter Chan It still felt like alot of people
yes, but only in a few shots. Remember, there were 400 thousand men, but for most of the time, there are only a few
Looking at historical photos, yes, it was much more of a mess than it looked in the movie. Still effective, though. I give Nolan a LOT of credit for not using CGI.
that's true! that not using CGI makes the film more true to life
Peter Chan I think that's mostly due to his commitment to keep it as practical as possible, using real people instead of CGI. Same goes for the ships and planes
The opening scene was so realistic it was scary
Crazygamer1013 damb it is
The guns what cracked made me want to curl up into a ball. The camera showed nothing but the bullet holes left behind as you were guessing where they came from. It was bloody effective. Especially when the sub machine guns began to open up.
Tummywubs That scene kept making me jump. It was an experience indeed.
Nolan's style is to blame for those shortcomings haha. He wanted as little cgi as possible which is why dunkirk was not destroyed because he actually filmed in the actual town for the beginning scenes. Only much much later do we see the town bombed and in ruins from the air. Similarly there was alot more death and bombing but obviously it was over 9 days so what Nolan was able to portray is more than good enough i think. Overall it's not perfect, but it is 3 stories in one which is very very hard to do and Nolan just does it right.
+Songs for the Heart
A major part of the Story of Dunkirk was that it was bombed almost every day (unless it was cloudy) by waves of German bombers numbering 50-100 every 20minutes none stop for 10 hours, a Spitfire pilot was quoted as saying "Dunkirk was completely burning, the only thing still standing is the town hall" a 120 strong bomber force was met by 5 squadrons of Spitfire and Hurricanes over Dunkirk on the 3 June.. I understand he didn't want to use CGI but just to ignore the events, you don't want to film them isn't much of an excuse to make a poor film. massive failure.
I can't believe someone would make such a bad film in this day and age, its all about the money, they couldn't care less about the story. . IMO.
+Songs for the Heart
A major part of the story was that Dunkirk was bombed right from day one by waves of German bombers (numbering 50-100) every 20 minutes none stop for 10 hours, a Spitfire pilot was quoted as saying, "Dunkirk is completely burning, the only thing still standing is the town hall" unless it was cloudy the Germans attacked, it was very important for them to stop the evacuation, 40,000 French were fighting to keep the Germans away with a rear guard, 120,000 French were on the beach, 1/3 of all taken off were French soldiers, 5 squadrons of Spitfire and Hurricanes met the bombers over Dunkirk on the 3rd June, all this was important but missed out of the film, for some reason, ignore the facts, change the story and make lots of money, massive failure in my opinion, it's a shame, could have been amazing, looks great but just fails almost completely.
The little ships were mostly roped together and pulled behind a larger ship to save fuel most returned the same way although some boats went across alone under own power.
4 hospital ships were there, 20 minesweepers, 12 Destroyers (many more, of all kinds) all in that small stretch of water, it was very busy did they make any attempt to get that across ?
Why exactly were the Spitfires flying at 500 feet ?
At sea level Spitfire engines are very powerful due to thick dense air, but they use up to 1/3 more fuel, no one would ever purposely fly that low into combat, they would be 5 -10k at least, thinner air, means less fuel burnt for higher speed, and also you never want to be climbing into a fight, rule number one, "he who has the height controls the fight" makes absolutely no sense at all to have them so low, it's almost laughable.. and a Mk 1 Spitfire with a fixed prop gliding, and why was the pilot messing with the Fuel Pressure Value and pretending he was switching to reserve, his aircraft (mk1) didn't have reserve fuel tanks?
I looked forward to watching the film but it was a massive let down, money making success but failed at telling the story of Dunkirk, a generation of people will watch this film and think it had something to do with real evens and that is just ignorant.
@@gailraby1722 gosh its just a movie . f u want a dunkirk film with 100% historical accuracy go watch a documentary,.(f u can find one)
The music, that never ending clock ticking and the heartbeat-like thud for the whole movie, it was so intense I felt slightly nauseous while watching. It's brilliant though because it forces you to feel how everyone in the movie feels.
Movie in IMAX blew my ears out I loved it and had to walk out LOL
Gustavo Herrera it was loud though in the beginning
ITsJustHowYouLive nut up bitch
Gustavo Herrera bro... Did u watch it in IMAX? If you didn't, then you shouldn't judge.
Gustavo Herrera also, just to make sure we're clear, you're a Latino bitch.
Billy Du yes I watched in IMAX 70mm lmao
Seeing that small civilian boat passing the giant destroyer packed with soldiers. What a shot.
"the story is very personal"
*wot*
Your profile had me rolling on the floor
How does this need explanation
Cause of popular search worthy youtube ad revenue monetization dollars topic. :-)
It was pretty much the least confusing Nolan movie without counting The Dark Knight trilogy, which was straightforward for the most part.
Thank God there was no bullshit love story tagged on to the story! Epic film!
easily the most enjoyable movie i've watched in these last 5 years or so
fuck off
The Roh you fuck off
Rendi Rompas you're out of your mind
Elan Michles and you're not?
im definitely going to rewatch it
Cillian Murphy's character probably killed himself after seeing George in the newspaper.
Thanks, that'll be stuck in my head for the rest of the week. It makes it even more sadder :(
Why
@@lcgxn wdym
@@lcgxn have you ever watched the movie?
@@lcgxn cillian murphys's character accidentally killed George
35000 French soldiers sacrificed them self so the the British soldiers can get more time to escape
The British got thousands of French troops away and thay made the free French army. If the British had not got away then Hitler would have won the war. By the British staying in the war Hitler was late attacking ussr
Masterpiece
For you
No one even liked your dumb comment lol
@@vijayalakshmiherle493 I disliked the comment.People who lack brains wouldn't like it
The sounds in this movie were soooo fucking loud in IMax, jesus fucking christ did I jump at the first scene.
True Slav yeah that's the point, it's supposed to show how loud the actual battle was
I know and I fucking loved it, but my ears got raped nonetheless.
True Slav same man lol, I didn't expect it to be that loud since I was used to the town down noise of gunshots in movies
Yes..way too loud.
well its trying to be historically accurate, so I believe Nolan had wanted to make the gunshots sound as realistic as possible to show the viewers how dangerous of a situation our characters were in, that's why when we see the main character freak out and panic when he's getting shot at we believe that he is really getting shot at.
*SPOILER WARNING!*
_(I can't guarantee that responding comments here will be spoiler free)._
I thought the death of George (Barry Keoghan) was by far the most heartbreaking thing in the movie. While other deaths were much more horrific and much more terrifying, I think that George's death packed an emotional punch.
I felt the weight of how unfair his death was. When he went blind my gut sank. I felt him getting worse, but like the characters I never believed that he would reach such an unfair end.
When Alex (Harry Styles) reveals that George is dead I lost all train of thought. In movies we're so used to seeing people get bopped on the head for all sorts of reasons. We see it so much that when we see a cool international spy knock out some guards we think "okay that's the humane thing to do. They're just unconscious, they won't die or have any long lasting effects".
I honestly don't think I've ever felt more about a death in any form of storytelling before. This death showed how uncompromising and unfair death can be. It doesn't matter that he only got knocked onto the floor, that he was nothing but an innocent seventeen year old, that it was a complete accident or that he wasn't anywhere near the dangers of the battle.
George's death added so much to the harsh realities displayed in Dunkirk. It showed us that no one was safe from any scenario. This was already felt from other moments, but George's death made it so that even when the Germans are nowhere around, death isn't going to wait.
In Dunkirk we see plenty of deaths that are worse than George's. Many of them are of men of roughly the same as George and all just as innocent. However it is the lack of spectacle around George's death that make it all the more heartbreaking.
I often think when it comes to cinema that it is easier to make one death feel significant than it is to make the world ending feel significant. George didn't get to go out in a blaze of glory. He was nowhere near the 'real' danger. No one was out to harm him and he did nothing that would warrant it from a storytelling perspective.
George simply died as we assumed he was just unable to continue action as he nursed his head. Some might have thought that this was a simple plot device to get Cillian Murphy's soldier to take up the role that George was set on the boat.
What we got was a quiet death in a sea of screaming peril. I listened to him say how he never did anything with his life, but I just assumed that he was ashamed that he couldn't help out.
The last words he said now seem even more haunting as it isn't quite clear to me that he knew his end was near, not like the soldiers George's death crept up on him with no attempt to make it dramatic. It was a simple death, but one of the most effective that I've seen.
mannnn i was literally just thinking about that scene
when mr dawsons (i cant remember his name) is told that george is dead, he says “well be bloody careful then” it shows how harsh and just fucked the world was at the time, it also shows mr dawsons sons’ strength and integrity by staying strong although his best friend has just died in a way no one should ever have to
"He's on me!" ----- "I'm on him."
My country didnt event have one recommended 70mm IMAX film theaters :( Had to see in an ordinary digital 4K theater
Just try and see the brighter side of it though.The IMAX format of the movie had a very loud audio.
You simply cannot watch it without covering your ears.
I'm all up for realism and stuff.But people are very fond of bringing their little kids/toddlers to the movie.
Also, I appreciated that the movie wasn't in 3D.All the 3D movies alack that sense of clarity and dynamic (maybe it's the glasses).They feel slightly crisp and stiff.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.I don't understand why people are outrightly despising it for no goddamn reason.
Yes,it didn't have a very unique story/characters.....but it had an absolutely beautiful cinematography and background music.
For me,the movie was very impactful
So lucky I live 30 min away from Hollywood lol
The normal one was just as startlingly loud.
can someone explain to me what imax is? google isn't really helping me
Because mallus can even watch dowloaded from torrent, theatre print Hollywood movies, on their 4inch screen Micromax Mobile phone and that also without any good earphone.
Dunkirk pretty much did everything that battlefield 1's story tried to do
I saw this movie today and the one word I have to describe it is "intense."
6:30 I honestly think it was more of a "yeah, Im screwed, but just so the Germans dont take the plane and fix it up, use it, or study it to find weaknesses, I gonna burn it."
early on in the war, its a pretty logical thing to do, destroy your vehicle so the enemy doesnt get to study it
If you read through the swarm of negative reviews about DUNKIRK, you might notice a common theme: boring, dull, lack of characters. It's incredibly disappointing that they seemed the miss the entire point of the film.This is not a film about heroic soldiers triumphing against all odds while blowing up Nazis with transformer-esque explosions.
This is a movie about scenes, not characters. -and every scene is memorable, from the bombings to the torpedoes to the aerial dogfights. My co-worker, who is obsessed with WW2 planes, noted how incredibly perfect they got the British Supermarine Spitfire from the roar of the Rolls-Royce engine to the rattle of the components in the cabin. The accuracy and intensity of the dogfight was captured perfectly as well, mimicking the aerial maneuvers, firepower and damage in a realistic and dramatic fashion. The torpedoes noticed only moments before impact with it's slow monotonous movement sent chills of realization down my spine. Even in the beginning of the film, the way in which the Nazi leaflets were presented gave you some glimpse into the panic and anxiety felt by those soldiers.
My wife and I were on the edge of our seats the entire movie. I felt like I was IN a Spitfire. (Superior film making.)
To me, this movie is like baseball. If you watch baseball purely for action and entertainment you will probably not like it. If you go knowing situations, why this guy was pulled, why a shift was called, why an intentional walk was given when 1st base was open, why a pitcher threw a ball on purpose to attempt to get the batter to swing at in 2 strike count, why a hit and run was called and why the runner always looks back towards home plate when its called then you will learn to enjoy it. Dunkirk was like that. The fuel scenes are fantastic. In other movies thats just a side note. They show a pilot who notices he is almost out of gas at the end. Thats not how it works in real combat. It's constantly monitored, addressed, followed, etc. Thats what we get here. Total and complete immersion.
The gun shots in the beginning are so realistic sounding and scary. I wish they had more land battles but the move was a 10/10.
What would you score out of 10 if it had the land battles you wanted?
I think the shell shocked soldier ended up knowing at the end that the boy had died. When the were all getting off the boat he looked back and it showed a couple guys bringing a wrapped up body off the boat in a stretcher. And then he quickly looked away when George looked over at him
I'm maybe late but 1. You could tell he was mad about himself for causing the accident, he was so terrified after his ship got sunken but still asked about the boy, and was seemingly really sad and mad about himself. 2. After he asked the brother about "Is he going to be okay?" and the brother answering "Yeah" rhe soldier may thought it wasnt the boy who got killed.
I saw it in Imax and it was amazing.
The first scene when the running soldiers try to climb the wall.
The gunshots,the stuk siren.
I will call it the best movie since Logan this year.
originaldelta are you really comparing this masterpiece to Logan?
Karen Osorio Can you read? he didn't compare it to nolan at all..
Ochoga wtv both movies shouldn't be in the same sentence. Unless you are the kind of person who only watches blockbusters
They should make a film about the RAF in ww2 the scenes of the spit fires and stucka bombers were some of the best scenes/sounds I've heard in a film. Breathtaking.
Sean Turner totally agree
Mark Skinner yes it was refreshing. The film was great because it had you hooked with vary little other than the visuals and sound. It was a really unique film and was risky but I think it paid of. Well done Nolan and hans Zimmer. And although you could only see Tom hardy eyes he was some how amazing 😀
Agreed, the aerial cinematography reminded me of what Howard Hughes tried to accomplish so long ago.
you should try the battle of britain, it's an old classic but it's stood the test of time
Harry Jenkins I have watched documentaries on it and it's an epic part of history. If they did a film in this style about it 🔥🔥
I thought Christopher Nolan would make this movie more complicated where the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki & Hiroshima created backward ripples in the space-time continuum so that the events at Dunkirk but taking place in different parallel universes merge with one another creating a chain of events that alters the outcomes in each of these parallel universes......this leaves the viewer to question at the end whether the movie switched from one parallel universe where the Germans achieve complete victory, to another where the British are able to evacuate from Dunkirk.
hmartinspliff What
I dont know what fucking drugs you have been smoking, but they must sell for a lot
Good thought
Gillian Wong Nah it's fucken weird mate
Hahaha!! Glad he didn't though. :-)
So what makes a 93% rating or fictional god forbid a 92%? LOL. 0-100% ratings are a joke.
Just seen this film in IMAX. Nothing I've ever seen has ever come even close to this film. Absolutely outstanding. This will stay with me for a long, long time.
Germany lost. Spoiler alert
I don't think you grasp what this movie is about mate.
David McMullan I don't think you grasp what the humor is about... mate
You're right, I don't
David McMullan oki
Okay
If you think Dunkirk is a real-life horror movie, think about Leningrad, Stalingrad - for both sides.
Funny Farmer That's the scariest horror story ever tbh.
That's real life (as in earthly) hell. If everyone's hell was individual, I feel like mine would be reliving Stalingrad as a soldier who had no chance to make it.
They need a Stalingrad movie in 2018. I don't care who directs it, someone needs to do it.
What about a german city under under from the allied bomber planes,which was more than all bombs droppe din stalingrad
be gone wehraboo
An excellent analysis of a really fine film that goes a long way to depicting the triumph in the face of adversity and near disaster. I'd love to see a film focus on the German perspective at this time, of snatching an escape for the British from a calamitous situation that could have led to an eventual armistice and an opportunity for Hitler to consolidate his continental gains. This was a decisive moment, and led to the Battle of Britain, in the air, and another missed German opportunity for consolidation. Of course, June 1941 ranks as the most colossal German error. I would love to see a movie based upon the insights that might have existed in the German high command about the jealousies within the Third Reich that were in the process of imploding the Hitler nightmare. Dunkirk, the movie, is a great contribution to understanding the magnitude of the British defeat and the redemptive effects of a country coming together as the rear guard custodian of the free world. I recommend the next movie in this British tribute, The Battle of Britain. Finally, for the soul, Hacksaw Ridge, to see what war is really like, and how an individual can, with extreme luck, triumph over the madness.
Totally Concur, there is a making of a very good 1940 trilogy here, if you guys and girls in the USA keep this film at Number one for a few weeks. There is most definitely a prequel. The disaster that happened to the BEF and French First Army in May 1940. You can show it from the German side and see how Tommy, Alex, 'Gibson' and others in this film got to Dunkirk in the first place (and actually learn something about them). The Follow-on is of course the Battle of Britain. CGI will be needed here and I can't see how you could really do it justice with a 1 hour 40 minutes film unless you do a remake of Angel's One Five (which for all people who don't know 1950's British war films was the first fictional film about the battle and covered life on a Fighter Command Sector airfield during the Battle).
Richard Vernon Nolan doesn't do prequels and sequels. He prefers original movies. The dark knight trilogy is an exception because he signed to do them. He only did it so he can get a fan base and more money to be able to do his original projects. By now, he has enough of a fan base and budget to do what he pleases, and I doubt he'd do another war film. Especially since he usually does fictional stories.
He does Remakes....This is one as there was a film called Dunkirk made in 1958, my Dad was an extra in it. Subject matter was the very same a quite a lot of what you saw in the Mole and Sea Segments were almost the same. What he did do (correctly) was leave out the first half to get you fan boys all hooked. Unlike the rest of his films, this story has a prequel as the two weeks before this film is set have not been covered and there is most definitely a follow on that done correctly would be just as good. In fact I could see both of them working quite well with the multiple time lines that he employs.
Nolan always wanted to make a ww2 movie, but i dont think he wants to make another
Does anyone else agree thag Dunkirk is the Pulp Fiction of WWII movies?
Sergey The Soviet Dog What do you mean by that?
Roxberry24 it's all out of sequence but then it comes together
Sergey The Soviet Dog Oh okay I gotcha. I mean sure, but how many films told in a non linear fashion? Quite a few...
Technically each story is in perfect sequence, the pace of each story is different. It really isn't until they all come together that you see some events three times from different perspectives. Pulp Fiction jumped wildly from one end of the story to the other, neither starting at "the beginning" nor ending at "the end." Dunkirk did.
I found it 'funny' how the pilots were cursed throughout the film for supposedly not being around, like "Where the fuck are they?" or "Where the fuck were you?". Yet arguably the most heroic deeds were done by Hardys character who literally fought from beginning to end forgoing any notion of turning back for fuel. So he sacrificed going home for all the foot soldiers who perhaps didn't even respect his work all that much.
That's kinda the opposite of what some of the soldiers on the ground were doing. That being said it's not easy to be heroic, or even humane when you're constantly living in those hellish circumstances those foot soldiers had.
Oskari Päiviö That's actually what happened. The soldiers in Dunkirk felt they had been abandoned by the RAF when they were getting attacked by German planes - however the RAF were flying much further down the line attempting to intercept any planes on their way to attack the soldiers in Dunkirk. The soldiers couldn't see them so they felt abandoned - but they were fighting their hearts out further down the line to stop those planes from getting through to our troops! (This is a historical fact by the way and can be looked up!) Heroes!
tom syd Thanks for clearing that up.
Yep, thats the difference between the RAF and Army when it comes to Air Defence. The RAF want to shoot down the Attackers well before they drop weapons on anybody. The army concept is best described as Air Revenge in that want the fighters to operate over the troops and the only way that they can kill enemy aircraft is to shoot them down after they drop their weapons (The RAF method is of course much more effective) Both the RAF and Luftwaffe actually had major problems in fighting over Dunkirk. Both sides were operating at very long range as the Germans had, which the exception of some Bf-109 and Stuka units not yet moved into airfields in France and even the units that had were operating at the limits of their aircrafts range. The RAF were operating outside of the range of their radar cover and didn't have the command and control support that they had in the Battle of Britain. Therefore the RAF had to push forward and hope that they could visually detect German formations and attack them. It was the first time that the German fighters came in contact with the Spitfire and it came as a nasty shock.
my grand was a Dunkirk on a destroyer, his roll was to row in and take 20 men no more or less. He aways said the hardest thing was to hit the troops hands off the boat to stop them swapping it. But he never saw the raf. So till his dying day he held it against raf mybe Hollywood trying to glam it up. Any way What Brave men that generation were. have my up most respect army navy raf
The very first bombing with everyone lying on the beach. Man as the sands go up in the distance, slowly approaching Tommy. Balls on fire
This film is gut-wrenching and psychologically intense, and that's why it's a masterpiece.
When I saw this film in the cinema my whole body vibrated whenever the planes would appear on the screen
Best film Iv seen in long time it's sad to know that it's a true story and all that happend to mainly young lads trying to make it home
The endings aren't that hard to understand
I only recently started reading about the history of Dunkirk. Something that wasn't taught alot here in America. I study history here and learned alot. I look forward to seeing the movie in a couple of weeks.
Did you watch it already?
Prepare to be disappointed
I feel like Dunkirk's sound was amazingly well done, the gunshots at the beginning where the squad gets gunned down, it wasnt like a conventional movie gunshot, it actually rattled me and nearly made me jump with each shot, and the jericho trumpets on the stuka divebombers were so loud in the cinema by the time the stuka was closest it was so loud, the sound would re-appear followed by soldiers one by one looking up, terrified as they ducked down, the noise would've made me do the same thing! 10/10
What I absolutely loved about this movie is how the film drew you in and made you feel like you were there, experiencing the sense of dread and hopelessness that the soldiers on the beach.
When I saw it I thought it was going to be you're typical war movie but nope, they even got the dive bomber sounds perfect
The Ticking clock stopping at the end was like chronic pain finally being relieved after months or years just like ringing ears at sudden silence.
The boys at the end likely went right back into the fire, possibly died.
Saw yesterday in 70mm. Wonderful film! Haven't read every comment but I liked the perspective of "the little guys". I watched a lot of WW II movies in the 60s and most of them focused on the big generals and political leaders. And although Churchill's own voice is recorded and was very stirring, I thought it was very fitting that one of his most famous speeches was read from the newspaper by a survivor. Churchill has been portrayed many times and gets his own movie again this year. This movie is about what we call in the US - your average Joe.
Not to be a wise-ass, but I am pretty sure Cillian Murphy's character has ASD (acute stress disorder) and not PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), because PTSD can only be diagnosed if symptoms persist 1 month after the traumatic event.
The only complaint about this movie is that he excluded the French. 35,000 French troops stayed behind to defend, and all got killed or captured. We really see them only a few times in the movie, and they are only mentioned a couple of times.
robot 1435 because it is a movie focusing SOLELY on the evacuation itself
it dosent tell about the story of the some 100,000 fench troops that made it out too. it only includes British soldiers and few mentions of the french.
My dad was in the rear garde at Dunkirk the British only left the front line on the last night he always sead that if the rest of the French army had fourt as good as the lads Dunkirk then we would never have been pushed back in to the sea, the main French commander was a fool and all most lost us the war
Can no one just explain the chronological timeline? Oh my god...
I saw it today and holy shot was it good!!
Sat down with my wife to watch this film. We knew her grandfather had been at Dunkirk as a Driver in the Royal Engineers part of the Corps HQ troops.
The destroyer sunk in the the middle of the film is HMS Wakeful, hit by 2 torpedoes from the German E-boat (S30).
Of the 700 soldiers and seamen on the ship, 2 soldiers and 25 crew survived. One of whom did not survive was Dvr Thompsett her grandfather, stuck below decks so as to not get in the way of the ships crew.
Some of the survivors were picked up by the destroyer HMS Grafton only to be sunk by a U-boat (U62). The ship stayed afloat long enough for the survivors to be rescued (again), however the captain and 13 ratings died. So managing to get on board a ship didn't mean you were safe, a point made clear in the film.
Tbh, I didn't see it as a war film. I felt it was more of a suspenseful thriller with the background of Dunkirk. I think Nolan did an amazing job at creating suspense, but I do not feel that war was the main feel of the movie.
The guy in the little boat said the Rolls Royce Merlin engines were music to his ears. Spitfires and Lancaster bombers had them. They were made 3 km from my house at Meropolitan Vickers factory.
I seen the Movie and Loved it!
Admiral Nakhimov [BC-085] I seen the grammar and disliked it
The soldiers actually set spitfires on fire quite often as they didn’t want the Germans to get their technology and make a copy, as it was such a good plane
this movie was AMAZING. So suspenseful... when the first gun shot went off, I jumped so high. And when the first soldier went to plug the bullet holes but then he got shot in the face... sent shivers down my spine. I got very invested in all the characters and truly felt their fear. Best movie I've seen in a long time, Christopher Nolan has done it again
When I went to see the movie, some people were saying the movie was bad.
I guess they are used to marvel's action scenes and this realistic movie was too awesome for their simple minds.
This film was so incredibly emotional to watch... I think I was a little shell shocked coming out of it
I think what really tied this movie together was the all encompassing sounds, and the attention to detail of those sounds. To the Stuka sirens, the sounds of the bombs, the men yelling, the constant ticking clock, to even the little clicks that Spitfires made, I couldn't believe how fully the movie was able to absorb the audience. I actually left the theater jumpy, and driving home, a car zoomed past me and I almost ducked to take cover. Stopping at a store even an hour later, I could hear a plane, and even THAT made me jump, and I frantically searched the skies for a few seconds, until I realized that it's 2017, not 1940. This movie, and what it does, not only onscreen, but to the audience, is phenomenal, and a literal masterpiece.
I wish Tom Hardys Character wasn't taken captive I would be cool to see the movie end with him maybe swimming back
Hardy's character was a true occurrence. That pilot was helpless as he glided over his own men then have to crash so far up the beach in German held territory.
burtlangoustine1 yes I know it was still unexpected in a way I mean I wasn't surprised when it happened though I just didn't see it comming
I thought he was going to crash and die
Dawson Boyle I kinda liked the original ending. If he swims back it's gonna be like your average war movie, the hero survives. By making Farrier a POW it makes it seem like no one is truly safe in war.
Why? To give it a Hollywood vibe? No thanks. Like the video said, Nolan did not want to give one person/character special treatment and make them stand out more. You can keep your Disney endings to yourself and your films when you decide to make them.
Did you see that?!
A time traveler appeared and starting showing them some cool shit!
I found this movie quite disturbing, but in a cool way
Greatest war movie I have ever seen
One of the Nolan's finest works 👌
Manas Mhapuskar No. Have you seen interstellar???
@@jrh4248 I said one of the best not the best
explanations start at 4:59
Possibly the best war movie or even the best movie ever! It really put audience in soldiers foot and what they endure during the Dunkirk rescue. I've read a lot of world war 2 history and also about Dunkirk but i never grasp what soldiers feel at that time until i watched Dunkirk movie. Oh and the score is absolutely perfect. I'm thinking about watch it again next week.
caalcb7 woah dude calm down. Its new so it seems better than it is. Can't call it the best movie ever.
caalcb7
Not even close to being the best war movie ever, mediocre at best
When I watched it in the theatre the Stuka sirens were so fucking loud it scared the shit out of me
This IS a masterpiece!!! Tysm for this video...Saw it 2 days ago at the movies and am still living it!! So many emotions...Words can't sum it up!! MOVIE OF THE YEAR!! Thank You, Christopher Nolan and Congratulations on your sensational Masterpiece!!
ANGELA FALSETTA Lots of good movies to come. It'll be a great year for film.
Why does this need to be explained? It's explained in the end
I still don't understand why the pilot didn't jump off with a parachute? Why did he have to land the plane so far away? Is there a meaning to it? Is it like the captain that doesn't leave his ship, will a pilot won't leave his plane?
holstfly1 his altitude was too low to parachute, if he were to climb up high the would lose speed and eventually stall making the plane drop down like a bomb
holstfly1 like someone else said, the altitude was far too low to parachute without dying
still could have landed the plane a lot closer than he did, instead going into godamn enemy territory. Nolan fucked up on that part big time, that was a very lazy ending
NukaBinge how could he have landed closer? Without any fuel the maneuverability of your plane is extremely so you have to rely on your current speed and trajectory and turning is extremely difficult. You clearly know very little about how planes work. By the time he ran out fuel he was practically already out of friendly territory so it would've mattered even if he landed a bit closer.
dumbass, he could have just landed in the water safely nearby just like his spitfire buddy did earlier int he movie, not that hard.
I think personally it was incredible... It used little to none CGI and it wasn't a standard mainstream Americanized action-packed movie with cliched characters. It didn't need any elaborate dialogues or "heroes". Nolan conveyed the emotions through classic cinematography and through a haunting score (music track) by Hans Zimmer. It's a masterpiece.
This movies was made for an average American Joe and absolutely failed to portray the utter devastation that Dunkirk was (in terms of lives lost, both military and civilian). After seeing this I felt hollow for I couldn't comprehend what the hell Nolan tried to do with this movie. He focused on the EVENT itself and tried to portray it as an epic disaster waiting to happen, building gradually suspension, only for it to have a semi happy ending. Thing is that average European knows that the operation was more than a full success and that tends to take all of the suspense from watching this movie. The only thing in this movie that mentions the scope of the operation is the Admiral telling that there are 300 000 soldiers on the beaches, yet we hardly see any soldiers on the beaches. The operation itself stretched over 12 days, included about 1000 ships, and a lot of French and Belgian soldiers that stayed behind and kept the perimeter. We see none of that, just a sloop, a few pleasure ships, one British destroyer and one minesweeper. Luftwaffe kept constant pressure on the evacuation, inflicted heavy casualties both on the beaches and on the sea, but all we get is 3 Ju 87 dive bombers, a Heinkel 111 bomber and 2 Me109s. Not to mention that Spitfire had fuel for about 2 hours fighting over Dunkirk, nor that the Dunkirk disaster was not really in soldiers lost but rather in equipment lost because British expeditionary force lost all of its tanks, artillery and motorization. The 130 000 French soldiers that were evacuated and that would eventually form Free French forces also lost all of their equipment.
Finally this movie failed to portray the danger that still loomed over Britain and the fact that France was about to capitulate leaving solely Britain to fight the Nazis. Wonderful pictures is all this movie is.
You made somewhat good points at the beginning, but then you totally ruined it at the end. The movie is about Dunkirk, full stop. Not WWII or Britain or France or Germany or their political situations. It intentionally does not explain anything about the background or the aftermath or the general setting. You are left to focus on one event, which is the situation at Dunkirk.
I personally found it fantastic, because I tried to see it from the perspective of the director, rather than try to bend it to how I think a movie or a story should be made or told.
@Theophagous
It's bad precisely because it doesn't have context. Was the intent to show us the fear soldiers experience? If so, that is a common fact not needing explanation and certainly not needing 2 hour long movie to explain it. If the goal was to show us the futileness of the little people in that sort of a situation then the movie also miserably failed because we never got to know any characters and none of them died, not a single one (if you disregard "Frenchie" but he is French so utterly unimportant [a joke!]). And even if they died audience couldn't care less. So what was Nolan trying to do? Tell a story without characters and about an event that has no context to it? Ok, great, he managed to shoot some pretty pictures. Job well done!
I don't even know why I watch Nolan films, Interstellar started marvelously (like Dunkirk did) but then from about half the movie it all went completely wrong (Dunkirk likewise). It seems he knows not how to wrap a movie into a meaningful unit or maybe he just gets carried away.
Dunkirk veterans would be at least 95 years old by now..
And if I can draw comparison to my own grandfather who is 93 at present, and was 16 when he joined Titos partisans in 1941, I sincerely doubt many of the Dunkirk veterans (who would have been at least 18 in 1940 but more likely 20+) watch or even care for the movie.
So you want them to make the movie 12 hours long? They mention in the movie how they were only expecting to get a handful of soldiers back but to get any back would be better than nothing. Go read some interviews where Nolan explains what his vision was and why he made this movie. If I am not mistaken he had family who were there.
CiciMuholovac veterans went and saw it and it brought some to tears on how realistic it was
I saw the movie and was wondering why did Ferrier land on the beach? He could have glided onto the water where nearby allied soldiers could have rescued him. Or perhaps even somewhere closer to the end of the beach, within distance of allied soldiers on the beach. Just didn't make sense to me why he chose to land so, so far away from everyone.
IF ANYONE can share their thoughts I would be greatly appreciative. Thanks!
Global Jay realistically he wouldn't have been able to glide that long at all. Let alone take down a Stuka mid dive while he's gliding. In reality his plane would have dipped downwards and crashed. You can't glide for an entire minute in a spitfire.
Landing on the water from there could of been a hazard. Sunken boats under the water or getting in the way of the civilian boats.
It sucked ass-Jeremy Jahns
His review was ass, he didn't understand what the point of the movie was.
Whiplash95 lol. Well it is subjective but.... I really can't see how someone could think it sucked ass. Especially from Jahns, who was really high on Hacksaw Ridge
personally i thought this was a dissapointed movie. No gore, go backstory to character, forgettable characters, jumps back and forth too many times and just some really boring scenes. The sound was good though
FilmSpace
Jeremy didn't said it sucked ass in the first place. This person quoting Jahns is incorrect.
As ,Jahns said “ Visually stunning film but could have been better with developed characters "
999,999 Subscribers Exactly, even though Jeremy being a Movie Reviewer didn't understand why there were so many day-night cycle changes in the movie itself
*brave*
*evacuate*
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
One of the wackiest movies I seen in my life
I saw the film yesterday and I've been thinking about it since. My grandfather was at Dunkirk (actually part of the rearguard mentioned but not shown in the film) and captured like Tom Hardy's character. I've seen many war films but none like this one. I sat absolutely on the edge of my seat the entire film. The way Nolan managed to ratchet up the tension I'd Incredible. The scenes in the air are also among the very best dog fighting scenes committed to film imo. It's a wonderful wonderful film and a fantastic tribute to an extremely important historical event, and one that younger generations are probably a little more ignorant of. Also hats off to Harry Styles, if you can hold your own in a movie with Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and Kenneth Branagh it bodes really well.
I feel like this is Christopher Nolan's worst movie. don't get me wrong the film is visually gorgeous but after actually seeing the movie I didn't feel any tension or fear for a characters well being like I did in the dark knight or inception hell even interstellar managed to get that down. I didn't know or care who anyone was hell I made up names for them mid movie British soldier #1-3000, that French dude, the Admiral, Bane the spitfire pilot, The old fisherman and his son, and that one kid.
well the point of the movie was the event, not the characters. There was no one particular character we got to know. All had equally amount of screen time, but majority of story telling is the EVENT itself. One review pointed this out somewhere on UA-cam.
There is a movie that came out a few years ago called Selma that did this whole telling the story of a event rather than a character, and while M.L.K was in it for half the movie there where other characters going through there own archs it made me CARE about them
if those German bombers killed the French dude right before he got on the boat to leave I wouldn't have given a fuck enough to even roll my eyes
i feel like that french dude part, even though it seemed like we had no attachment for him. It kind of created a sense of "dam this fcken sucks, he was only trying to escape like everyone else", but that is war for yha.
It was a good movie, but anyone could of really done it. Im kind of disappointed that Nolan didn't manage to make us get very attached to any specific character which didn't help the film, and has helped with a lot of his other films, especially Interstellar. The movie was to atmospheric (not to say it was done correctly) but all of the miniature stories didn't feel complete and unlike SPR where they directly interact with each other and are at mercy of the plot, we know that they will have to interact with one another. If I knew very little on ww2 and watched the movie I would have been more impressed.
Al Malone You didn't feel any tension or fear because you didn't know their names?
holy shit i wanna see this again
As a combat vet I found this movie most realistic, only lacking olfactory triggers. Your review, sir, is as excellent and I shared it on my FB, Twitter and Tumblr pages.
Dunkirk is a treasure in film history in my opinion, it is one of those films which make you feel like if you actually were there
What A Movie
Michael Caine was in the movie, well, his voice was. When Farrier (tom hardy) first starts talking to his commander, it is Michael Caine! He only had a few lines, but I was like YES when I heard his voice. Awesome movie, BRAVO to Nolan AND Hans also. Powerful music, I especially liked all of the aerial shots it was terrific.