I wanted to call it '11.59min of me talking about DUNKIRK' but my better half told me that that's a stupid title...I'm just proud I managed to make it less than 35min long... BTW: To my Patreons, check out your inbox. A new teaser for the next video will be up shortly!
The film was boring. Right when we came out of the cinema a friend said "Reminds me of Walhalla Rising." And he was right. Almost no words (or at least very few compared to other films), almost no blasting music. I disagree with you on the part "veterans said it was authentic". Dunkirk was about 77 years ago. I don't think these veterans have such an exact memory of what happened 77 years ago. But at the same time watching video clips that resemble the happenings from back then, probably makes PTSD kick in, which afterwards makes them say it was "authentic".
Bismarck have you heard that people are getting mad about Dunkirk having too white males also not having colored people or women even though it is historically accurate that they were most of them were white males sometimes I hate country because of these people
nosreffej this one article was explaining how realistic the film actually was and addressed this scene rather hilariously I feel. Because most of us agree that that Spitfire glided a tad bit too long, this article opted to disagree and say that in some cases the spitifre has been able to "fly at least 15 miles" without it's engines. Well, yeah I mean now I gotta ask, how high was this spit? How fast? Etc... Many areas of note are disregarded to use this "fact" to cement the film's "authenticity." Not to mention when Hardy flies over Dunkirk, he's headed West, with his flaps deployed and when he shoots that Stuka, he's now heading East which means at one point, Hardy had to turn his plane 180. Now with no engine and at low speed and flaps down, pulling that maneuvers is like RIIIIGHTTT I totally just saw that. Here's the link to my final point: www.google.com/amp/www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/08/how-realistic-are-dunkirks-spitfire-flight-scenes%3famp
@flyrus747 That article makes some simple mistakes in facts, which doesn't lend much confidence to what it says elsewhere. The Spitfire Mk V appeared early in 1941, the year following Dunkirk and not after "a few more years", at which point the War would have been over.
SPOILER. At the end, when Tom Hardy burns his plane, you can see that the wreck has no engine. So, somewhere mid air, Hardy managed to climb out, dismantle the engine and made this gliding possible... ;)
Something I really appreciated about Dunkirk was a scene that actually made my jaw drop, and that was when the German 109 did a negative G pull and the Spitfire's engine cut out. They cared very much about this movie to know that Early spitfire models had a problem with their engine system when it came to negative G's flooding the engine. I don't know if it's realistic how the spitfire pilot was able to start the engine back up but I appreciated that they included it nonetheless.
I didn't notice this detail, I thought his engine cut out because he ran out of main tank fuel, and he restarted it by flicking the switch to the reserve fuel tank.
I noticed this too though the engine didn't cut out you just hear the engine splutter for a second and see black smoke coming from the exhaust for a second.
Theta-i That may be true but I'd like to think they did research and cared rather than accidentally stumbling upon accuracy haha. Thank you for your response!
VyewVyew Maybe that may have been the case, I had just figured since the Spitfire went into a very sharp dive before the engine starting acting funny that it was the iconic early Spitfire engine flooding problem, but it also may have been fuel running out and him switching fuel tanks, I've only seen it once in the theatre so I'm not entirely sure what happened or if it was even shown. Thank you for the response!
Dragon Games and mandead, No it's not a pun, it's a metaphor. Flak is from German "Fliegerabwehrkanone", literally "pilot warding-off cannon." The metaphoric sense of "criticism" is only in recent American English from about 1963.
The reference to flak is in the voice of the narrator of the video not the film track. So it's right to call it a pun as we are well after 1963 and the word flak is now used in both contexts. I would think it's an accidental pun rather than a deliberate one, but no less effective for that.
Helen Trope It's a pleasure to agree on a date with you and to hear that you and your closest ones are all well. That sentence contains my deliberate play on words which is by definition a pun. Perhaps what you call an accidental pun that exists not in the speaker's consciousness and only in the hearer's perception can be called a Freudian slip.
For me the key to Dunkirk was it's ability to evoke emotion through sight and sound. Yes it crossed a few lines into fantasy but not enough to label it as a bad film. It's a cinematic experience that should not be missed, especially in IMAX.
Exactly. It was an experience, not a story. And the enjoyment ramps with screen size. Pointless to watch it on a small home TV. Best viewed on the largest screen available. (Bring earplugs.)
I actually found the dog-fighting in Dunkirk refreshing. Probably because it didn't focus on spectacular acrobatics, but on the pilots and what it feels like being in a cockpit during a dog-fight. And probably because they used real airplanes. No CGI. At no moment I was taken out because the dog-fighting was tame.I probably would have been taken out of the moment had they used CGI to get the "real"dog-fighting, or worse, snuck in some physics defying acrobatics just to make the scene spectacular*, which somehow would have looked out of place considering the rest of Dunkirk also isn't about spectacular action scenes. *In contrast to Redwings, which wreaks havoc on it's historical accuracy and succumbs to the tempation to throw in some over the top (physics defying) aerial action scenes because when using cgi, they can.
I agree, and if you read accounts of the BOB pilots they often spoke of entering battles in huge formations only to find after the intial attack they were totally alone in a clear sky, no one else to be seen. I think the lone pilot aspect of this movie was quite compelling and as I said MAY have been quite accurate. we also must remember these are entertainment not documentaries however unpalatable that may be for some. I would prefer historic accuracy but I fear that wouldn't be a movie that attracts the majority of film fans. I'll accept a little artistic licence in order to have a ww2 blockbuster on my screens. (though not to the level pearl harbour, red tails and new midway movies have gone, these films border on fantasy and may as well be called "battle fight wars" 1, 2 and 3, just put a few droids in there and you're done! for the love of god!!!) Seriously tho, I felt dunkirks air elements were compelling, seemingly fairly realistic and not filled with overly sensationalised cgi which is a good thing. I felt some cgi could have helped with the overall scale of ship's involved but then I'm basing this on my imagined version of dunkirk. Flotillas of tiny ship's as well as many warships crossing to disembark troops, I imagined you would see more than one or two in one scene but who knows maybe the movie was accurate there too, after all the ocean is a large place, maybe those little boats were effecrively alone most of the time. I just don't know with any certainty to claim foul. I would hope they used much research to get this right. It had encouraged me, to try to find out too, read up more on the subject, which can only be a good thing right?
I really liked the movie myself and found the air combat enjoyable regardless of the flaws and limitations you mentioned. Although the ending shoot down of the Stuka was unnecessary to me as well. Overall it was a very good movie.
Cannonfodder43 well, the reason that was done is because there were people at Dunkirk who saw a Spitfire gliding towards the beach and did shoot down an enemy plane that was heading towards those on the beach. That is something that happened. It was also to give the RAF their due, since many soldiers on the beach at the time felt the RAF did not help enough like they should have since many had to either go back to England, the pilots got shot down or ran out of fuel and glided to Dunkirk since they had about an hour of fuel to fight the German fighters since they had to prepare for the Battle of Britain. There’s also the line at the end when the soldier says to Collins “Where the hell where you?” when they see his air force uniform and basically looks and talks to him with contempt. There are various reasons for this ending, but those are a few key points I wanted to let you know about.
The lone Stuka attack occurred throughout Dunkirk. They were the lone survivors of their flight who continued to their target after a RAF attack. There's several memoirs that mention similar attacks. The dead engine Spitfire turning to shoot it down is what is most unrealistic about that scene.
Indeed. I heard recently that a lot of the complaints from troops on the ground about the RAF not being present were unfounded. The bombers they saw were just the ones that got past the RAF trying to stop them further inland.
Without power you will stall. The turn will burn airspeed, which will cause you to lose lift, and without power, your only hope to regain it is trading altitude for speed in order to keep the airflow within reasonable speeds. While the Spitifire indeed has quite a low wingload, it is not a glider.
I'm a retired U.S. Army Officer who had the privilege of working with ADM Rob (Rat) Willard when he was the commander of U.S. Pacific Command. Earlier in his career, when he was Cmdr Willard, he command the Navy's Top Gun School and was the commander during the making of the movie "Top Gun". Most people will know him as the enemy pilot wearing the black flight helmet in the culminating dog fight scene at the end of the movie. I found this out one day when I had to update him on an issue in his office and near the window was the helmet. Since when the movie came out, I was still a cadet and it was the first movie I took my future wife to on our first date. I asked him about the movie. He told me that when they first tried to film the dog fight scenes, they did it from the ground at the China Lake Naval Training facility and since modern fighters can cover hundreds of kilometers in a single dog fight. It just wasn't working. So Cmdr Willard, recommended that they "Hollywood" the flight scenes to give it a more dramatic feel than a realistic feel. We'll if you have seen the movie you know the rest. I think to your point, that is what they had to do with Dunkirk. Dog fights don't translate well to a movie screen, especially after WWI. Plans moved faster and covered more distance which does not translate well to a movie screen. I also by the way got to see the filming of the 2nd Pearl Harbor Movie in 2000. I just arrived in Hawaii for an assignment and I was staying in temporary quarters at Sub Base Pearl Harbor. It was a very cool time to see the planes. They had zeros and P40s flying all around Ford Island, Pearl Harbor and my wife and I would sit on the pier and watch them film. But that is another post.
Actually that scene with the spitfire and the stuka WAS necessary. Think back at the navy officer. He hears the stuka, he knows its coming for the mall (...pier?) In wich he is standing. He knows he is dead.... and suddenly gunfire, the stucka blows up and the spitfire triumphant low pass. But... the spitfire is doomed, he sacrificed his only chance of landing on allied ground. So, the navy officer, because of what the pilot did chooses to follow his example. He stays behind, holding the fort, as it where.
"he knows it's coming for the ...." He actually says "Mole" not mall. A Mole is a pier, jetty, breakwater, or junction between places separated by water. It was the only solid thing jutting out into the water that the troops could try to use to get to the bigger ships.
While the gliding shoot-down of the last Stuka may seem unnecessary or unrealistic, I think it is important in an artistic sense. In a movie about trying to get home, the Tom Hardy character has been presented with a series of decisions, mostly fuel related, in which he struggles with balancing his own diminishing chances of a safe return and the safeguarding those at sea and on the beaches. In the end he is out of fuel, but apparently has enough momentum to turn and line up on the diving Stuka. It is pretty obvious that was momentum he was planning to use to select a place to put down. Up until that moment there was still a chance that he would be headed home same as everybody, if in a boat rather than a plane. We are only seeing an hour of this character's time. That isn't long enough for him to have some big character arc. But it is long enough to show a character who, though going into harms way, had every intention of returning home--yet made a series of decisions knowingly giving up his own return because of a duty he felt to others. As a conclusion to that micro-plot it was important for Tom Hardy to intentionally use up momentum in defense of the troops at the mole.
JimmyJimGardner beat me to the punch on this analysis. The pilot story is one of duty over self. The scene was also to show the troops' deliverance from relentless attack and that the RAF had not truly abandoned them in their hour of need.
Many people believe Tom Hardy is based on a kiwi pilot who fought at Dunkirk, very similar stories. I can't remember his name at this time but I'm sure it'll come back to me
He already made the decision with the He111. The Stuka scene, they way it was depicted, was simply unnecessary. Would have been better if they had shown a relief flight joining in and taking up the job of going after the Stuka(s).
With the He111, he still had enough fuel to land on the British-held section of the beach. I think the idea was that by attacking the Stuka, he ends up too low to return to the evacuation site and accepts that he will either be captured or have to make his way on foot back to friendly territory. Admittedly, I don't think it was that obvious just from watching the film.
I completely agree with you on the air stuff, I think they did amazing with what they had. Apparently my aunt saw the movie but she actually got so scared of the Stukas and all the violence that she wanted to leave. me, as a desensitized teen used to the violence I think it was very interesting and emotionally deep. The Stuka sirens were very loud and made you want to duck. As a history buff it was interesting to see those aircraft, as they are rarely shown and the last time they were in a hit movie was the several hour long Battle of Britain movie. (Which I recommend).
sylvain falquet I agree, I don't think in WWII movies such as saving Private Ryan they show enough of how the Air Force acted. However Dunkirk will be my favourite.
Here's something worth doing, as I and my dad did, see dunkirk at the odeon, then go home and watch the battle of Britain, feels almost like a double feature and as a film buff, a wonderful comparison.(I bet for a history buff it'll be just interesting)
Niki Brigden-Vossler+ If you haven't seen the 1958 "Dunkirk" with John Mills I highly recommend it. I can't compare it with the new one as I'm sat on a tropical island in the South Pacific :-)
I like how Nolan avoided CGI and I know why he did it. It looks authentic and simply looks incredible on the big screen. However I feel CGI could have been used in scenes just to show more planes and ships. Rather than there being 2 destroyers in the entire ocean there were more like 20-50 at Dunkirk. Likewise the stukas would not attack in couples but more likely in 10's. I watched an interview with a vet who said the dive bombers would constantly be bombing the beaches in much larger numbers than in the film. But that's what you get when you go with authenticity and it did look great to be fair.
I think it would have dectracted from the movie quite a lot if there were constant explosions, after all it's not an action movie, and anyway the stukas couldn't be bombing every hour of everyday so it's plausable that the scenes depicted were just in the intervals of those. But still a little more wouldn't have been too bad, great film though.
Sauron Merciful yeah I thought some of the buildings in the town looked far too modern. But then again that's authenticity. If you're going to shoot in Dunkirk then there's going to be modern buildings. At the real Dunkirk most of the town was destroyed with fire and smoke filling the sky but in the film the town looks untouched.
People who complained that the flying wasn't "realistic" seem to forget that in real life, visibility inside an aircraft is much less than in a videogame. Most airmen died to enemies they didn't see. Also pilots were more concerned with comfort/safety and weren't pulling off ridiculous moves to constantly get their guns trained on target. Sure some of the scenes were very convenient for the spitfires, but overall I thought the flying was pretty realistic. Also all those small details you talked about really sold it for me. I love it when movies take the time to research the little things.
The thing is CGI has come so far it would be completely possible to make it look really, really good. The problem with it is they always feck it up by making huge hordes of close flying planes to "fill the screen".
Harry McWilliams the aircraft scenes in Dunkirk were made with practical effects (actual planes for the pilots and real size replicate drones for the crashes
Yes, I know. I am saying with today's tech you could use CGI and have it look real if you wanted bigger scale, like a mass B-17 bombing raid, but the directors always mess it up with hokey Star Wars style TIE fighter BS.
But it is good to know that real aeroplanes were used. It gives a nice warm feeling in the heart. CGI can look amazing, but if you know it's CGI, then something is lost.
Oh, I know. I love the old movies with real planes like Battle or Britain, The Blue Max and Tora!Tora!Tora!. Thing is those were made when there were quite a few more of the WW2 planes around so they could stage and film more spectacular stuff. At some point there won't be enough to use so they will have to go CGI, which they could do right if they tried.
The air combat is the best we've seen put to film in forever, criticism really boils down to nitpicking to the extreme. Most of what you're describing are not really relevant to creating an immersive scene. The fact that all the camerawork was attatched to the plane in one way or another is magnificent and very rare. The sound design was amazing aswell, the rattling of the airframe and stuff like that helps so much. To call it "really bad" like some ppl mentioned to you because they didnt bother recreating the actual combat manouvers is seriously unfair all things considered. (though to be fair you brought up the attention to detail as a positive that far outweighs it). The glide kill was pure cinema and nothing to get your panties in a bunch over imo. Dunkirk was a masterpeice of technical filmmaking in the warmovie genre, nothing really diminishes that in my opinion.
When lot's of details are right, evoking realism, the parts that are wrong stick out more. It's simple, in a complete made-up scenario, suspension of disbelief takes over. We accept that in Star Wars there are spaceships and Wookies and Clone armies and magical powers because it's made up. We accept that Rambo or John Wick are killing machines who mow down hundreds of armed attackers because it's made up. But along comes a movie, that proclaims historical accuracy or realism or attention to detail, and get's alot of stuff right, but there is some things wrong with it. Some thing that wouldn't be done that way. Or that wouldn't happen that way. (and I know Nolans intent was not to make a documentary...but I hope to make myself clear) And it stands out because we have no suspension of disbelief because the other parts of the movie are so realistic. That is why I can chuckle at a movie like Red Tails, when german 30mm Mineshells slam through a cockpit of a P-51 like solid shot bullets and not turn the pilot (and plane) into gulash immediately, where they can pull rediculous, physics defying stunts and the obvious villain is obviously cartoonishly evil because lol movie... ...but get serriously annoyed that they had to use Buchons with Merlin engines instead of actual DB601 equipped 109s because the nose is all wrong...not even fixing it in post using some light special effects work... Get what I mean?
I read a comment from what I think was the ground crew and the people working on one of the spitfires used in the movie. They got briefed on a lot of the scenes, and they were well aware that some of the scenes would not be realistic. But they just said, quote: "It's just a movie!"
My dad is a fighter pilot, he stated that the airplane combat was incredibly accurate to how real world combat goes about. Its a lot more like a coordinated ballet than pilots doing barrel roles and flips like you see in action movies. Especially with the technology they had in the 1940s, there was chance of engine failure. Of course its not 100% accurate, like any movie with limitations, but its probably one of the most accurate and most intense representation of air combat. I don't know where these people that are bashing the airplane scenes are, because in seemingly every review they're getting praise for that aspect...
You know, a few more things I noticed about the aerial scenes that I sort of was hoping you'd cover was: 1) the He111 defensive armament. In the film, when the Spitfire is closing in on the 111, the 111s gunner begins to shoot back with what I can only deduce is probably a 20mm cannon which is a problem because as far as I can tell, no 111 had 20mm pointed back. This was evident in both the dorsal and belly gunner positions. However, this did make attacking the 111 seem like a real daunting task. 2) idk if anyone noticed that whenever the Spitfire is firing, the engine sound is almost completely muted, a decision, although unrealistic, I think enables audiences to"feel that firepower" so to speak. So in short this was a good thing. 3) the damage effects for the aircraft I think were "passable" (that is with the exception of the one scene where one of the spits gets its rear fuselage strafed by a 109 and riddled with holes. That was very nicely done). Everytime they get hit they start shooting white smoke. It would have been nice to see some black smoke but thats just a minor detail that kind of caught my attention. What I want to say is that I think the same special effects they used to create the white smoke was also the same effects they used in the 1969 BoB film whenever planes were "shot/damaged/smoking." 4) Now, the final thing is this theory I got, which you mentioned briefly about filming the aerial scenes and the lack of any aggressive flying. We needn't forget that IMAX cameras are attached to these aircrafts (oftentimes outside on the wings) and whatever contraptions they used to pull this off probably isn't the sturdiest of designs and as such, going inverted or vertical may have been too risky on the airframe. Pulling off these scenes may have proven to be too stressful on the aircraft which is why I think in the end the filmmakers made a decision to not show aggressive maneuvers like the real counterparts which I think, as you mentioned, is really not that bad of a thing considering so many other details on the spits WERE portrayed in the film. Anyways, what'd you think of this man?
IMO, the film failed to capture the human aspect. most people undercut their arguments by whining about technical details (i didn't know, or care, that the destroyer was French) but the real shortcoming of the film is that it failed to capture the SCOPE of the evacuation. when you look at photos of Dunkirk, you see a beach packed with men, piles of wrecked equipment, the town wreathed in smoke and the water torn with explosions. 400,000 French, Belgian and British troops backed to the sea, surrounded by the Germans on one side and the Sea on the other. what the movie gave us was a pristine town with no damage, no mention of the enemy at all (they say "Germans" I think, ONCE in the whole film) barely any representation of the Luftwaffe pounding the beach, a clean, orderly beach with barely any men on it (that long shot of the three men sitting on a vast, empty beach as they crack open cans of food was a truly jarring moment) and a ham-fisted approach to the "little ships" whose actual history is far overstated. The film failed to capture the scope and scale of the Dunkirk evacuation, and in that context, beyond any technical details about weapons and ships, it is a bad movie. the 2007 film "Atonement" features a scene on the Dunkirk beach that, in my opinion, captures the scale of desperation better in five minutes than this whole film did in almost 2 hours.
You make fair points, but I always get a bit disheartened to see people rip the movie apart for it's aerial combat. To those people: I DARE you to find me a movie that did WWII aerial combat better than Dunkirk did. I might very well be wrong, but AFAIK, there is no other Hollywood film that manages to restrain itself from resorting to cool looking explosions and impossible close scale maneuvers, and instead shows the real struggle of dogfighting in a somewhat realistic manner.
Yeah, for real though. I've never seen a movie that managed to make the dinky machine guns on the back of an HE111 scary before. And it was kind of humanizing how the pilots often couldn't hit the German planes and even failed to stop a bombing run because of it.
"The Battle of Britain" movie did much better air scenes, even including lead off and bullets hitting the ocean behind the target, also the music was much better not the loud incessant tedious non stop music in this film
Notably, Battle of Britain IIRC also used real airplanes for most scenes, even if they had to use Hispanos as Bf109 stand-ins. They certainly used actual veterans of that battle as advisors, including Adolf Galland.
9:30 yep I had the same experience. Also what bothers me is that before the Stuka scene, Tom already hat his landing flaps out even though he might be in 1000ft, without engine power and is unsure where to land... One of the first things I learned in flight school is: One of the last things, when you have to force/ Emergency land, to do is: FLAPS. Only when your landing is ensured... since it only makes you slower and takes away your energy etc. The spit also had the landing flaps our when it chased the He111...that really bothers me. BTW the HE111 also was a RC / Computer model since no original nor spanish version is still airworthy. -Max
I feel like a lot of people (especially those who object to aspect of the sound design) don't quite grasp that this movie seems to be more impressionistic than literally realistic; the goal was to convey the feelings of being there rather than get thing exactly right (though they do get a lot of it very nicely right). I remember seeing someone complain about the deep, booming, slow sound made by the fire from the He-111 not sounding like the proper machine gun. That is true, but I think the sound that was used drove home the feeling of "Oh fuck he's shooting back, AT ME" feeling of receiving return fire rather getting the sound 100% accurate, which worked in the films favor I think.
Hello Bismarck, indeed the heroic Ju-87 shoot at the end was a bit of overkill but it is plausible :) What I didn't like is that they used Hispano Buchon instead of proper BF-109 (E1 I think was used back then) and since they CG-ed the He-111 and the Ju-87 I don't see why they didn't went the extra mile for the BF-109. Also it seemed to me that the He-111 had the 20mm cannon instead of the 7.92 MG's which are proper for the '41 models. But other than that it's just a film and let's be honest they were not going after the technical details to such depth but the average human experience (soldier or civilian) so in that aspect I think they did a good job portraying how little it takes to turn us into animals trying to survive. Keep up the good work - the historical videos are really something I enjoy since military history is my hobby for about ~30 years now. Cheers from Bulgaria.
Some 111 did use 20 mm cannons as defensive fire, the spitfires in the movie were mk.1's only. The thing is, i thought only late war Heinkel bombers used a 20 mil gun?
smarkov no aircraft was CG'd as far as I can tell man. If you read the articles, to get the "Stukas" and "He111s" the filmmakers actually created many large scale versions of the two. This particularly caught my attention since no flying 111 exists today and I want to say that for the Stuka as well but im not certain. As asuch, seeing a 111 in the film really did it for me. I had heard Nolan wasn't a big fan of CG and seeing the 111 convinced me that he had to have carried a healthy amount of concern for the facts and details like these to create radio controlled models of these aircrafts. Cheers. Here's a link to show you a bit from where I'm getting this info: www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/dunkirk.html
Air-headed Aviator this is 1940, before even the battle of Britain. I'm almost certain that 20mms were not used on the 111 at this point in it's operational history. Maybe you're referring to later variants of the 111 maybe in the years after 1943.
smarkov They did the use Bucheons for the Battle of Britain movie, so far as I know I don't think there are any original BF 109e that is airworthy. For the most part they are standard Messerschmitt 109s but with a Merlin engine (how ironic). As Bismarck said it may be down to budget etc, they used a French destroyer from the 50s for God sake lol.
What bothered me the most in this movie was that in most of the scenes the people didn't seem completely human. Men standing silently on a beach, men standing silently on a pier, fighter pilots executing the fight with an almost bored attitude.
I would prefer them to act like real humans, even in the most difficult of times I cant imagine any large group of people would be utterly and completely silent. Fighter pilots I would think would notice an enemy fighter behind them and at least seem a little nervous about it and when they shoot one down they might seem like its not just another day at the office
Absolutely agree with you here ... 'Soldiers' moping about like dying zombies _("Please! ... Just shoot me!"),_ while crashing down on bad meth, merely wishing to finish their days' dragged-out shoots so as to get high again on something else ... Depressingly beyond boring indeed!
The air scenes in Dunkirk are the most authentic we have seen yet from a blockbuster film. It felt like you were in the Spitfire. It was also refreshing not to hear cheesy dialogue between the pilots. Just short, understandable, and professional chatter between them.
I think you made a good point, and yes you should definately watch 1969 battle of britain, I'm sure you have though. Also try the Douglas Bader story reach for the sky, great movie although it holds a particular spot in my heart as I'm paraplegic(wheelchair bound from broken back) so I have tended to idolise Bader somewhat! I may be biased!! 😁
There is an interview with *Christopher Nolan himself* even before the movie came out where he states that accuracy is not what they tried to do. It was *authenticity* i.e. using French Destroyers instead of British ones, but making them look like British ones etc.. Also, the yellow noses of the German fighters, where Nolan states that he knew this was done months after Dunkirk, but they did this for narrative reasons. *It's not a documentary, it's a survival thriller.*
You were expecting a war movie due to *the setting* not due to ads and trailers. Because the ads and trailers were more like teasers and showed no information about the plot. The music of the trailers/marketing conveyed a suspense film about survival and no other real clues were given. If people expected a traditional "war film" it is because Hollywood has conditioned us so all these years... But I can certainly see the point that there was no clear adjustment of expectations through the marketing, only through some obscure interviews...
I saw what I saw. Trailers had me hyped for a great movie about the evacuation at Dunkirk. I don't think it was a great movie in any sense. It doesn't suddenly become a better movie because it is listed under another genre.
Great review, and you make an excellent point about the little details of aircraft operation. 9:27 I'm a bit divided on the Stuka Glide Kill too, but in the end I gave it a pass because (a) it looks spectacular and (b) it fits in with the positive note on which the film ends. Up until then, everything has been going wrong; after the Little Ships arrive, everything begins to go right (or at least as right as it possibly can). It might also have been a symbolic thing - not only does Tom Hardy's character throw away his chance to fly home by turning back and dealing with the bomber; he _then_ throws away his chance for an easy landing in what's left of friendly territory by using up speed and altitude for the Stuka kill. He's committed himself to life as a POW for the duration of the war, and it shows the lengths to which he's prepared to go to protect the evacuation. THAT is what I think Nolan was driving at, and it's why I gave it a pass. If anything, I was left wondering how the hell he had enough ammo left by that stage. When the DVD comes out, someone'll have to sit on the Air scenes with a stopwatch and get a total elapsed gun firing time to check against reality. IIRC 333 rounds per gun, 20 rounds per second cyclic rate for the Brownings, so just over sixteen seconds' worth. I think the air combat scenes were OK, especially now that I know they were using actual Spits and 109's (and at the distance you see them, it doesn't matter that they're the Spanish Merlin variant) - they certainly capture how difficult it was for the average pilot to shoot down an enemy aircraft, and the degree to which you can be surprised by the airplane you don't see (you can tell that Hardy's character is very fortunate NOT to get shot down at a couple of points, but then he does lose both his companions and the Mole story is already so bleak that someone deserves the luck). The other thing of course is the whole "Yellow-nosed 109" thing (it didn't come until later), but I've heard that Nolan deliberately made that error in order to help the audience tell the planes apart.
Veterans (and others too) do not necessarily "enjoy" a movie for its "authenticity". I think most of them do care whether the film put them in a good light.
I enjoyed the aerial combat....probably due to the 70mm film it was captured on, but mainly because they didn't use CG...they used real planes, put the actors inside those planes (modified double cockpit versions) and kept the POV of those fights very tight an closed similar to how it would have been as a pilot. Now calling them unrealistic is a bit lame IMHO, even for Chuck...was the film trying to depict the most realistic dog fights? Each dog fight is very different from the last so I would imagine not too many are exactly the same so that sense of "reality" would be somewhat distorted. It's easy to sit on the side line and be overly critical on something someone thinks they know about, again Chuck has sold himself as a fighter pilot...that's fine, but the F18 pilot I saw the film with said he absolutely LOVED the dog fighting in it. The sound design and the perspective it was shot was brilliant. So at 6:46 you're talking about all the realistic things that were done and before that you come off saying things weren't realistic? I know you were projecting your opinion based on what was said, but seems it had a rather decent element of reality. Even placing it in 1940 when the Germans/Brits hadn't seen nearly the same amount of combat they had by 43-44...the kind of fighting that was done in the film made sense to me. One thing I noted reading early BOB books was how quickly a fight would start out of no where and how quickly it would end. Sky is filled with planes one second, completely empty the next. Also how often their radio would go down and how shitty it sounded.
If people are disappointed the aerial combat in Dunkirk wasn't "real" enough, they missed the entire point of the movie. That makes me sad, because the people who fought and died at Dunkirk deserve better. Dunkirk wasn't a movie about war machines and the "glory" of combat. There is no glory in combat. There are only survivors. (I'm a vet. I get to say that.) Dunkirk was a movie about people in terrible circumstances, the decisions required of them, and the sacrifices they made. It was a tribute to them, not the Stuka or the Spitfire. I encourage you to focus on the people, rather than physical realities about which none of us can really claim even a modicum of expertise. That said, Spitfire veterans have reported gliding their planes up to 15 miles. How much control they have of the plane though is something I can't even guess at. I have no expertise in dead-stick piloting anything.
You should have another look at what I wrote. It does not mean what you think it means. Let me rephrase it into hopefully simpler grammar. Real veterans (of whom I am one) deserve better than for people to express disappoint in a movie because it isn't like what Hollywood usually produces. Especially when in actuality it captures the essence of those veteran's sacrifice far better than any big-budget Hollywood special effect movie ever could. Yes, veterans who were there loved the film. I know more than a few myself. I loved the film. But I saw lots of people online deriding the film because they thought is was unreal. To me, that derides the veterans who were there. The complainers were not there. They have no experience of what it was like. They should keep their pie holes shut about things of which they know nothing.
It's weird when people say X movie isn't realistic. I've never seen a realistic movie. Movie makers don't care about reality, they care about themes & visuals.
Sometimes I get the feeling everyone is all too eager to try and pull Dunkirk apart. Got the SJW's on one side saying "there's not enough women and minorities" which is a fucking ridiculous sign of the times. On the other hand we've got the armchair critics saying "this didn't happen like that" or "that's so unrealistic" bla bla bla, Probably the same people that praised Hacksaw Ridge for its "brutal realism"
I feel most people complaining about realism, action or scale didn't understand the movie. The movie is a very intimate story with the soldiers, sailors, and pilots. You never once saw a German face. Nolan said that it was a psychological thriller, not a war film. They need to realize that this isn't a historical recreation, it's a story.
Very few SJW's are actually bitching about it. Most of the air waves are filmed with fuckers bitching about SJW's bitching about it. The way the film undersells the actual battle of Dunkirk and the French and British troops that agonizingly defended the area is unforgivable though.
I wanted to see that too. You always hear that 330,000 or whatever evacuated, but I've never read an outright figure on how many perished. There's that little scene with the French in the barricade, but it would have been great to see more of that.
I get what you mean about the final air kill. I think it does fit in thematically though. It shifts the tone from an acceptance of death (If I recall the admiral just closes his eyes and stands on the pier), to one of a tragic glimmer of hope. Home, Britan has shown up (represented by the spitfire) and can save (the hope), but at great cost (the plane is lost and the pilot is captured). The plane being out of fuel, yet still fighting in the skies above a defeated army and navy, is impactful. It has every reason to give up, every reason to just land, no one would hold it against the pilot, even the audience has written off the plane. But don't write off Britan, don't write off home, because they will continue to fight, physics be damned.
The Royal Air Force seems to consist of 3 Spitfires, although real-life pilots flew 3,500 sorties at Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe, seems able to summon up little more than a couple of Messerschmitt`s Bf 109, 3 Stukas, 1 Heinkel He 111 bomber, all of them fly like beginners and get all the time down. In fact Luftwaffe Ace Werner Mölder`s shot down 20 allied Aircraft`s in the End of May 1940 and get the Knight Cross. The Royal Navy appears to comprise just 2 destroyers; in fact, it deployed 39 destroyers and 309 other craft. The film also denies filmgoers any context. We’re told little about how the army has come to be beached or the threat it faces. We never see a German soldier, let alone the generals and politicians of either side who are masterminding events. We don’t even get the customary three sentences of text at the end, explaining the outcome. What’s mainly happening, however, is that lots of soldiers are waiting around. Escapades, not altogether convincing, are therefore contrived for a few of them. Some bombs fall, some ships are sunk. Commanders mutter briefly but sagely to each other. In the skies, fighter pilots conduct what seems like an endlessly repeated dogfight. One plane runs out of fuel, although not as quickly as audiences might have hoped. And that’s sort of it. Film-makers usually instil interest in their protagonists by giving them backstories and meaningful dialogue, thereby creating characters who can be engaged in drama. In Dunkirk, these things don’t happen.
I agree fully with Harding shooting down the Stuka while out of fuel being unbelievable. In my own video I said that the movie effectively went Full Hollywood in that scene.
The explosions couldn't be big since they are using no CGI. I agree that scale was a problem. they said 400,000 men were there, but it looked like 1,000 max. I think the lack of ships and planes is since there are few or no working examples, like with the He-111; they used a scale model
I liked the Air combat scenes. Although they couldn't do any extreme stuff, it was still convincing. Like Bis said, it did feel a bit convenient from time to time, but it's still better than the Majority of the Air Combat Scenes we've had in previous films _cough cough_ Red Tails _cough_
You're bang on there. I was dumb founded when the Spitfire somehow managed to _glide_ back into range to shoot down the Ju-87. Ridiculous. And it seems Tom Hardy's plane took off with unlimited ammo mode enabled.
I think the director managed to show the emotion of that period in history. I like how the enemy is invisible always present and the sense of urgency and helplessness as shells and around them, or how the boats were so easily picked off.
Logan, and additional armor, since it was produced for night bombing of London, which is way in the future from film's perspective. Please read more than War Thunder spec sheet to argue about historical topics.
I loved the Dunkirk movie and I really liked listening you about the air combat, however, you did go slightly nazi about the spitfire at the end.. who cares? It's meant to be entertaining.
I know I have a small youtube channel but I feel like you watched my video on this that I made a week ago because you 100% agree with me on aerial combat. The chance of this being likely would be negligible though so thanks for informing people on this. I did however overlook the minut details of the cockpit because I am a bit spoiled. At least they used terminology like angels.
Is the movie worth watching? Or is it the same ol' story of incapacitated Germans who has worse aim than Star Wars Stormtroopers like the shitty propaganda movie Fury?
Dunkirk was a terrible movie. The size of the whole operation was hugely misrepresented in a way that it was braking the immersion (don't say it would cost to much, because you just could have used CGI or other trickery to make it seem like more people/ ships). The Spitfires gunshot sounds were wrong (.303 in Browning Mk II's sound differently). The pilots don't aim correctly yet they still hit (they aim directly at the plane and don't consider the time, the bullet takes to travel it's distance.. They haven't used Messerschmit's, they used Ha-1112's. In the part where the pilot is drowning I thought "just grab the fucking crowbar at your side you dumb ass" (also when he grabs his pistol to shatter the Plexiglas, why doesn't he shoot it to make the Plexi easier to break) and before the forced landing the pilots opened their cockpits so situations like these don't happen. The part when they hid in the boat was fine, until the German shot the boat below the water surface. Some planes that aren't Ju-87 have Jericho-Trumpets. The HMHS Paris didn't sunk before the action depicted in the movie. And finally the soundtrack was absolute garbage, I know, it was made to create tension, but it turned out to be fucking annoying and overlapped with some of the sounds and words spoken in the movie, making them inaudible. The soundtrack also killed the effect of "surprise by loud sounds" because the parts, where it would have made a nice impact were overshadowed by that god awful and annoying soundtrack. All in all it's an extremely over hyped movie, that is of putting and unrealistic for what it tries to be. I don't nitpick because I want to, this is stuff that threw me out of the experience. In a movie that is advertised as this super historical, atmospheric and realistic thing, it's alright to complain about the stuff that was different from the thing they advertised. It's like when you are buying a game because of the things it is advertised for and then see that these things aren't really there (No Mans Sky). If you make the wake expectations in consumers, these consumers will judge your product by the expectations you've given them, it's as easy as it gets.
The pistol may have been a flare gun, and even if this wasn't the case, it isn't easy to get a soaking wet pistol to shoot. I did read about one German fighter pilot who neglected to leave the canopy open during a water landing in the Mediterranean and nearly drowned as a consequence.
I thought it was horrible. Very little dialog and poor character development. Beach scenes showed no evidence of 400,000 troops and no debris, wreckage, and a pristine nice beach. The flotilla scenes had a few boats when there were thousands. The troops did not look battle hardened as uniforms were very clean. The aerial scenes were good and the story line with the pilots was ok until the powerless Spitfire was shooting down Stuka dive bombers. Compared to Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk sucked!
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The whole point of the story isn't about character development. Hacksaw Ridge is revolved around the person Private Doss. Dunkirk is revolved around the event DUNKIRK. As much as I love Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk is just on another level. I had never been so terrified in a war film before.
Bravo! Excellent take on the details in the movie (of course, this was my perspective, as well!). When I was a young man I served on a DDG that was destroyed at sea by fire: the Destroyer scenes in Dunkirk may not have been 100% accurate, but, believe me, they were more than realistic enough to illicit an emotional response from me. I think it's rather telling that the majority of people who have negative comments ONLY have negative comments. I feel like they are the type of people who went to the movie to do nothing but look for mistakes rather than to see a movie about Dunkirk. Until someone builds a time machine, no movie will portray every detail of a historic event 100% accurately (even then, I'm sure some would find fault because it didn't agree with their preconceived ideas about the event).
The air combat was awful, why do people need to defend this film so much? It was a bloodless british pride propaganda piece. First of all the main plane for the RAF was the Hawker Hurricane, Spitfires were difficult and expensive to build and Britiain was very ill equipped for war, A spitfire was very rare. A Spitfire had about 16 or so seconds of machine gun fire, yet the magazines seem bottomless, of course a single .303 round is enough to down a 109. Messerschmitt BF-109Es which would have been used were completely outclassed and useless and apparently made of paper and bubblegum shooting spitballs, in reality the 109 was very close in performance, and early in the war had the upperhand. Of course the Germans miss every shot. The Stuka dive bombers, not only lacking in number but their bombs mostly miss... German dive bombing was extremely accurate it's one reason why they were obsessed with dive bombing throughout the war rather than carpet bombing. A Heinkel 111 would not turn around for another pass after dropping it's payload, This is to add a sense of threat and sadism of the faceless germans in this flms. not to mention rapid firing MG-18 machine guns as defense but in Nolan's Dunkirk they're equipped with muskets apparently as the guns belch out a bullet or two and bounce off the vaunted Spirfires. Of course a skilled pilot fires directly at an opposing aircraft.. not lead the sight to get his rounds on target. Oh and of course have to have the landing gear lowered just in the nick of time to land.. How can you praise this rubbish?
There are no hordes of Spitfires, only 3. They could be very rare, it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure there were situations where 3 Spitfires appeared together on the sky. As many British fighter pilots get shot down as German ones, so if we can judge the performance of those planes by that, the movie presented them equal. The word "German" doesn't appear in the movie, because this movie is not a historical recreation of all the facts and dates and so on, but rather shows human element to the whole situation. How people felt, how great of tragedy it was and so on. Germans are not shown in this movie almost at all, because they represent an uncontrollable force, almost like a natural disaster. It's not to denigrate Germans, it's to create a proper atmosphere. Stukas bombs didn't mostly miss. They destroyed parts of mole, sunk few ships and so on. British soldiers couldn't get off the bitch because their ships were sunk constantly. As for sadism, it's not about it at all. There is no ill will shown in German forces, their feelings and motivations are not in the movie at all. When you see He attacking a boat, you should see something like a hawk trying to kill it's prey. It's not personal at all. You are just blinded by your aversion for British. At least this is how your post reads.
I don't have an aversion to the british, quite the opposite I sympathise with them. War was hell for everyone, But not a historical recreation? The film is called 'Dunkirk' which is a historical event, and it begins with text to explain the historical event of the battle of Dunkirk. Of course the human element is important, I grant you that, but it's not the whole story. So much effort has been made to make the Germans a faceless uncontrollable force which was nothing of the sort, The Germans are mentioned more than once, Big black crosses are painted on the aircraft and the shape of the Stahlhelm make it impossible to make the enemy vague. The reasons why ships were sunk often was because alot of the Luftwaffe was commited to Dunkirk, The sky literally filled with aircraft, This is one of the few times CGI would have helped. As for the aircraft, yes we see only 3 spitfires, But no Hurricanes which were much more prolific, I can forgive having spitfires on screen, But the captain of one of the ships is explaining in loving detail just how great spitfires are. One spit is shot down offscreen, have no idea how it met it's end, And the other is because the pilot was too busy celebrating and wasn't paying attention, When there was actually fighting the 109 Pilots do virtually nothing and shown to be completely outclassed and made of paper as one .303 round is enough to fatally damage a 109 and down it.. Spitfires with bottomless magazines and overpowered rounds? Care to tell me again how equal they were in the film? My aversion is not to the British but to Propaganda, the near bloodless nature of warfare, piecemeal attacks and bloodless battle, not much suffering really just boredom. That wasn't the human experience in Dunkirk, it was alot uglier than that. The Wehrmacht also didn't like what was happening in Dunkirk. That's my problem with the film, Nolan had he resources to show the human tragedy of Dunkirk, But it's reduced to British sentimentality rather than the actual experience of war. I'll refer you to a superior film made many years ago called 'Das Boot' there too it wasn't personal, But we see both sides as people, suffering in the war, The human experience wasn't abandoned for convenience and was much more realistic, And this was 'the enemy'. My ultimate problem is Nolan decided to name this film Dunkirk which is a historical event, both tragic and miraculous, and uses that to make his own sentimentality piece. The film could have easily been named something else and it wouldn't have mattered, but would be alot less insulting. And I guarantee you had some no name first time director made Dunkirk, reviewers would be bashing the film non stop. But because Christopher Nolan is a darling of Hollywood seems a cult of personality has developed.
My problems with the movie were probably a result of lack of resources (Money). The scale of the whole thing was way off. You never in the movie got a sense of the magnitude of the problem. The actors a forced to say several times "400,000 men", because nothing visual in the movie gave you that sense of scale. There really just wasn't anywhere near enough guys on the beach! Or... that many ships and boats off the beach, or that many planes in the sky. I understand there are only a few flying Spitfires and Hurricanes (and even fewer '109s, '111s and Stukas) still that's why God and George Lucas created CGI. There is less excuse for the men, ships and boats. Longest Day, Gettysburg, A Bridge Too Far and others all manage to get enough bodies in place to give a sense of the scale. All before CGI (yah they cheated and used CGI in Gettysburg). And don't even get me started on the 'Rubberbanding' back and forth in the plot! If you haven't seen Dunkirk, save your money and wait for Netflix.
David Rose You do realise that not all the troops would be actually on the beach at the same time. The BEF (and the French divisions with them) had to maintain a defensive perimeter. As the evacuation progressed more troops were moved into place ready to get off the beach.
van Kralingen I watched it in a movie theatre (no IMAX though) and had the impression described in the original comment. My brother (who I watched it with) also felt the same way.
Great review - and I 100% agree about the final Stuka kill. I watched that and went, "What?" But rest of it was worth it. My favorite part about the air combat scenes was the sound; the rattles & shakes, and the coordination between members of the formation. I think it captured the feeling, more than the action, and I think that was the point. Thanks for posting this.
Hi Bismark. I'm a subscriber and fan of your channel. I've seen Dunkirk now several times and my take on the dogfighting scenes with the three Spitfire Mk II and Spanish Buchon 109s Is that all the BFM that was depicted was done primarily from the context of first person POV. All the scenes were real, not CGI and we're shown from what seems go-pro like cameras from different angles on each Spitfire. Primarily from inside the cockpit, outside looking at the canopy, bottom tailplane, and at one point a go pro on the pilots head showing clearly a 109 behind a spitfire weaving back and forth with the camera angle bobbing like its on swiveling head. With what they wanted to display clearly with the frames and angles they have I believe they deliberately toned down the BFM, otherwise they must have believed the audience would not really understand fully what's going on, wanting to show everything in the camera frames so as not to leave any doubt to those who are not students of air warfare. Perhaps the cameras could not take the strain of sustained Gs and maintain upright to depict real BFM or the flashes/glimpses of and aircraft flashing by your gunsight/canopy realistic to air combat is too rapid to film properly or show non aviation audiences. That's my take so far on Dunkirk. Keep up the good work.
Hey Bismarck, very good and balanced commentary on this film. I guess you're right about the limitations of the use of historical planes. They can't afford to lose one. There is actually a fully restored and flying Bf109 E3. It is in England. It s the only one in the world right now. It's a BF109 E-3 3579 White 14 4/JG 5 at Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar, first flown at June 13 2017. I am a great fan of the BF109 and I think I m one of the few people who actually had the privilege to sit in one (not allowed to fly in it off course) :). Go on with your good work on UA-cam
I really enjoyed the aerial combat scenes and i had no complaints personally. As for the maneuvering, how often did pilots actively perform defensive maneuvers vs just sort of slightly turning and weaving? I've heard, especially with IL-2s, that many pilots didn't really maneuver much when they were under attack.
Bismarck, I agree that the writer-director's device of giving Farrier a u/s fuel gauge - perhaps the last single instrument you want to lose in a powered a/c - adds greatly to the sense of cockpit realism. While he continued in formation with Collins, the latter's fuel state would have mirrored his, but once they went into combat that no longer applied, and soon Collins was out of the picture anyway. Having recorded Collins's last fuel report and time, Farrier might have been able to guestimate the average fuel- flow, but in combat would have had little spare mental capacity to do the arithmetic required to calculate what time he should break off and return to the nearest home airfield. The exhaustion of the main tanks, at which point he recovers the engine by selecting the reserve tank, would mark the precise fuel remaining at that point - presumably not enough to return to Blighty. As others have commented, he seems to sacrifice his chances of avoiding capture by engaging the diving Stuka. Others have commented that the Spitfire is not a glider. Any aeroplane will glide at some angle of descent for a given airspeed and weight (even the Space Shuttle!). It's true that Farrier's eventual glide is unrealistically shallow. The propellor of the model continues to turn lazily. In reality, on a piston-engine a/c, the prop would either be windmilling furiously, further degrading the glide performance, or be stationary. Farrier's decision to extend the undercarriage and his need to do so with the manual system apes the Memphis Belle, but is hard to justify in the context of a forced landing on a beach. Tail-draggers are notoriously susceptible to nosing over or cartwheeling if one or both wheels dig in - more than likely on a sandy beach. No point in trying to avoid damage when you are going to torch the a/c anyway. Collins's decision to ditch rather than bail out could be justified by his low height, if nothing else. Both he and Farrier have a change of mind about opening the canopy for their respective touchdowns - another nice human touch. the director could have been better advised on speeds in two respects: 1) The scale speeds of the models used for the dive bombing (Stukas) and the two Spitfire crash landings are much too high. A high-speed camera should have been used, and the resulting footage slowed down to about 30% of that shown in the movie. 2) When Collins starts his approach (descent) for the ditching, initially filmed with the real aircraft, he is overhauling Farrier, who is flying at something like cruise speed. Collins would maintain height, slowing down to a much lower airspeed before starting his approach for the ditching. After the ditching, another nice irony is Farrier's understandable misinterpretation of Collins's waving hand through the small opening of the jammed canopy.
Similar to Bismarck's point on risk-assessment, a friend of mine knew someone who worked on Fury and said that the infamous final tank duel was initially planned to be far more realistic and thus more exciting for tread-heads. Unfortunately, when Bovington loaned out Tiger 131 for the film they had done so on the assumption that it would at most move about 100m or so in a straight line, thus the duel had to be re-written and re-choreographed around that limitation, hence what we got in the final film.
I completely agree, Dunkirk was the first movie I saw with my glasses, and I thought it was very authentic, especially because I could see everything with absolute clarity
Your comments are very understanding and even forgiving. 1. Your comment about the Stuka siren is very insightful - had the movie used the same sound it would have altered the desired effect. 2. The comment about the producers and pilots not wanting to risk damaging the flying warbirds is also helpful. I noticed that the first view of the Spitfires was as a trio in a v formation - that seems right for that era - the RAF did fly as a trio at that time, but the planes seem pretty close together. 3. The damage inflicted was also more realistic. 4. Due to years of sound effects "sweetening" gun fire, machine guns, cannons, etc, the sound of an actual weapon now seems trivial. Curious if anyone knows how noisy it was inside the planes? Anyway I liked the film but knew what I was going to see - it is NOT a Saving Private Ryan type of film.
Theres also the he111 with a slow firing presumably high caliber turret despite the fact they hadnt made any service variants with 20 or 13mm machine guns yet
My personal criticism of "Dunkirk" was that the beaches seemed deserted ! Where were all the destroyed and abandoned vehicles and equipment, the hundreds of wounded soldiers being treated in provisional aid stations...etc. etc. The list could go on for ever. The film was nothing like the real event as far as authenticity was concerned, but it did have its good sides as long as it didn't concentrate on large area shots. In reality, the beaches held about 400,000 men - in the film there were about 400 soldiers queuing up quietly, as if waiting for a bus.
I appreciated your emphasizing that it is not acceptable to stress these old airframes by actual hard aerobatics. That is why at airshows you see a pretty limited subset of gentle aerobatics. Aside from possible loss of life, you have an irreplaceable, very valuable old airplane.
There was a sim player who mentioned while playing a game , his grandfather happened to walked by and mentioned that he _recognised_ that sound of Ju-87 dive siren.
Were the He 111s equipped with 20mm cannons in the rear gunner position ? I noticed that the gunners on the bomber some low velocity MGs / cannons in the movie...
With the stuka sirens I believe part of what we are hearing is not the stuka sirens but is in fact bombs equipped with whistles in the case of the high pitch sound that increases in pitch and volume. Which if that is the case kudos to them for including that.
Lowering your gear before a landing on a beach; an interesting and unlikely(?) choice. He must have had a lot of faith in the sands firmness and their being no holes or ditches. Also only reason i can think of ditching in water with the canopy not already open would be the fear of it snapping forward and jamming, which happened anyways.
One thing I know about the movie, is that some of those (do not know how much) action scenes were recorded near Urk in the Netherlands on the Ijsselmeer. So I also think that they took into consideration that it was too risky to go all out in those scenes due to civilians living nearby (like really close) to where it was recorded. You might argue "so take a different spot" but they probably chose this spot on purpose due to it (not actually being dunkirk) looking like the historical right spot, but still relatively safe compared to other location (like maybe actual dunkirk). If they shoot the movie on a location without an actual town near it, they would be criticized for the fact it doesn't even look like it happens at Dunkirk or something... I'm kinda struggling with making my point here but I hope you guys understand what I mean xD
What is the standard ditching procedure like for spitfires with the sliding canopy? I know for later models the pilot is supposed to jettison the entire fixed canopy before splashdown but I couldn't find any information on the early models. In any case, is there any reason not to leave the canopy open when the pilot is committed to ditch?
I appreciated that they gave the impression that dog fighting was hard, which to me felt more realistic. It took the spitfires multiple attempt to be able to shoot down another plane and I think they somehow succeeded in giving the feeling that shooting down another airplane is very hard.
As an aside, it just struck me from your video that the early curved panel Bf109 canopy offers much better visibility than the later square version. Looks like they prioritized ease of production over pilot convenience for a while there, until the late war erla.
My issue with the air combat wasn't the lack of dogfighting but how it always showed the crosshairs being right where they needed to be for a hit, and then tom hardy would move them, shoot and miss. It's one thing to show him having a hard time getting the aim right and another showing him having it right, holding it there and then moving it.
If you want to know a little of the sound esp the Stuka visit postperspective blog .. 'Stuka dive bombers appear in the film, but there are no high-quality recordings of these aircraft, which had sirens built into the wheel struts for intimidation purposes. There are no Stukas still flying, nor could I find any design drawings so we could build our own..'
About the final stucka attack: I kind of got it was implied it was one of the two escorting the bomber which sank a ship earlier near the coast. They managed to kill one plus the bomber but the other survived so it was probably going back to base and saw an oportune target. Also the point of that scene: however near salvation may be you arent safe unless you are home. It was to build tension in the final part of the escape. Also they artificialy extended the glide time for the spitfire by a lot, but it is progresively moving lower and lower, that detail I really apreciated. Its a movie about how just living and fighting a few more minutes can make a great difference, so all this serves the theme very well
It was also to tie the three timelines and places together. Its at that moment when everything is happening at the same time and not a couple of days/hours earlier. So film wise it makes sense even if it doesn't realistically
I wanted to call it '11.59min of me talking about DUNKIRK' but my better half told me that that's a stupid title...I'm just proud I managed to make it less than 35min long... BTW: To my Patreons, check out your inbox. A new teaser for the next video will be up shortly!
Bismarck: best war movie I've seen in the whole year.. Yes, there is problems.. But, it's still the best I've seen in a long time
The film was boring. Right when we came out of the cinema a friend said "Reminds me of Walhalla Rising."
And he was right. Almost no words (or at least very few compared to other films), almost no blasting music.
I disagree with you on the part "veterans said it was authentic".
Dunkirk was about 77 years ago. I don't think these veterans have such an exact memory of what happened 77 years ago.
But at the same time watching video clips that resemble the happenings from back then, probably makes PTSD kick in, which afterwards makes them say it was "authentic".
MrSaNF: I'm sorry but your an idiot.. You looking at the facts and.. Time doesn't rot the roots.. They're just forgotten..
Bismarck did you know a clock was ticking the entire movie?
Bismarck have you heard that people are getting mad about Dunkirk having too white males also not having colored people or women even though it is historically accurate that they were most of them were white males sometimes I hate country because of these people
That Spitfire may still be gliding..
Amazing feat of innovation.
I wonder how many additional planes it had shot down.
nosreffej this one article was explaining how realistic the film actually was and addressed this scene rather hilariously I feel.
Because most of us agree that that Spitfire glided a tad bit too long, this article opted to disagree and say that in some cases the spitifre has been able to "fly at least 15 miles" without it's engines.
Well, yeah I mean now I gotta ask, how high was this spit? How fast? Etc... Many areas of note are disregarded to use this "fact" to cement the film's "authenticity."
Not to mention when Hardy flies over Dunkirk, he's headed West, with his flaps deployed and when he shoots that Stuka, he's now heading East which means at one point, Hardy had to turn his plane 180. Now with no engine and at low speed and flaps down, pulling that maneuvers is like RIIIIGHTTT I totally just saw that.
Here's the link to my final point:
www.google.com/amp/www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/08/how-realistic-are-dunkirks-spitfire-flight-scenes%3famp
@flyrus747 That article makes some simple mistakes in facts, which doesn't lend much confidence to what it says elsewhere. The Spitfire Mk V appeared early in 1941, the year following Dunkirk and not after "a few more years", at which point the War would have been over.
SPOILER. At the end, when Tom Hardy burns his plane, you can see that the wreck has no engine. So, somewhere mid air, Hardy managed to climb out, dismantle the engine and made this gliding possible... ;)
Something I really appreciated about Dunkirk was a scene that actually made my jaw drop, and that was when the German 109 did a negative G pull and the Spitfire's engine cut out. They cared very much about this movie to know that Early spitfire models had a problem with their engine system when it came to negative G's flooding the engine. I don't know if it's realistic how the spitfire pilot was able to start the engine back up but I appreciated that they included it nonetheless.
I didn't notice this detail, I thought his engine cut out because he ran out of main tank fuel, and he restarted it by flicking the switch to the reserve fuel tank.
I noticed this too though the engine didn't cut out you just hear the engine splutter for a second and see black smoke coming from the exhaust for a second.
sillyslapper92 Ohhh okay, I only saw the movie once and it was very fast so I guess I didn't see it right. Thanks for the input!
Theta-i That may be true but I'd like to think they did research and cared rather than accidentally stumbling upon accuracy haha. Thank you for your response!
VyewVyew Maybe that may have been the case, I had just figured since the Spitfire went into a very sharp dive before the engine starting acting funny that it was the iconic early Spitfire engine flooding problem, but it also may have been fuel running out and him switching fuel tanks, I've only seen it once in the theatre so I'm not entirely sure what happened or if it was even shown. Thank you for the response!
0:44 Aircombat scenes getting flak? Please tell me that that was a pun xD
Was just thinking the same thing :D
Dragon Games and mandead, No it's not a pun, it's a metaphor. Flak is from German "Fliegerabwehrkanone", literally "pilot warding-off cannon." The metaphoric sense of "criticism" is only in recent American English from about 1963.
The reference to flak is in the voice of the narrator of the video not the film track. So it's right to call it a pun as we are well after 1963 and the word flak is now used in both contexts. I would think it's an accidental pun rather than a deliberate one, but no less effective for that.
Helen Trope It's a pleasure to agree on a date with you and to hear that you and your closest ones are all well. That sentence contains my deliberate play on words which is by definition a pun. Perhaps what you call an accidental pun that exists not in the speaker's consciousness and only in the hearer's perception can be called a Freudian slip.
FWIW: I posted a separate comment about this myself. I *NOTICED IT* as soon as I heard it...😊
For me the key to Dunkirk was it's ability to evoke emotion through sight and sound. Yes it crossed a few lines into fantasy but not enough to label it as a bad film. It's a cinematic experience that should not be missed, especially in IMAX.
Exactly. It was an experience, not a story. And the enjoyment ramps with screen size. Pointless to watch it on a small home TV. Best viewed on the largest screen available. (Bring earplugs.)
I just watched it and top gun on a plane
Ditto. It was a good movie with a little artistic embellishment. If a movie has to be totally realistic to be good, what's up with Star Wars?
@@bytheseaaspirinshop801 This movie is portraying an actual event in history, Star Wars is 100% fiction. To me, that is a big difference.
I actually found the dog-fighting in Dunkirk refreshing. Probably because it didn't focus on spectacular acrobatics, but on the pilots and what it feels like being in a cockpit during a dog-fight. And probably because they used real airplanes. No CGI.
At no moment I was taken out because the dog-fighting was tame.I probably would have been taken out of the moment had they used CGI to get the "real"dog-fighting, or worse, snuck in some physics defying acrobatics just to make the scene spectacular*, which somehow would have looked out of place considering the rest of Dunkirk also isn't about spectacular action scenes.
*In contrast to Redwings, which wreaks havoc on it's historical accuracy and succumbs to the tempation to throw in some over the top (physics defying) aerial action scenes because when using cgi, they can.
I agree, and if you read accounts of the BOB pilots they often spoke of entering battles in huge formations only to find after the intial attack they were totally alone in a clear sky, no one else to be seen. I think the lone pilot aspect of this movie was quite compelling and as I said MAY have been quite accurate. we also must remember these are entertainment not documentaries however unpalatable that may be for some. I would prefer historic accuracy but I fear that wouldn't be a movie that attracts the majority of film fans. I'll accept a little artistic licence in order to have a ww2 blockbuster on my screens. (though not to the level pearl harbour, red tails and new midway movies have gone, these films border on fantasy and may as well be called "battle fight wars" 1, 2 and 3, just put a few droids in there and you're done! for the love of god!!!)
Seriously tho, I felt dunkirks air elements were compelling, seemingly fairly realistic and not filled with overly sensationalised cgi which is a good thing. I felt some cgi could have helped with the overall scale of ship's involved but then I'm basing this on my imagined version of dunkirk. Flotillas of tiny ship's as well as many warships crossing to disembark troops, I imagined you would see more than one or two in one scene but who knows maybe the movie was accurate there too, after all the ocean is a large place, maybe those little boats were effecrively alone most of the time. I just don't know with any certainty to claim foul.
I would hope they used much research to get this right. It had encouraged me, to try to find out too, read up more on the subject, which can only be a good thing right?
I really liked the movie myself and found the air combat enjoyable regardless of the flaws and limitations you mentioned. Although the ending shoot down of the Stuka was unnecessary to me as well.
Overall it was a very good movie.
Cannonfodder43 well, the reason that was done is because there were people at Dunkirk who saw a Spitfire gliding towards the beach and did shoot down an enemy plane that was heading towards those on the beach. That is something that happened. It was also to give the RAF their due, since many soldiers on the beach at the time felt the RAF did not help enough like they should have since many had to either go back to England, the pilots got shot down or ran out of fuel and glided to Dunkirk since they had about an hour of fuel to fight the German fighters since they had to prepare for the Battle of Britain. There’s also the line at the end when the soldier says to Collins “Where the hell where you?” when they see his air force uniform and basically looks and talks to him with contempt. There are various reasons for this ending, but those are a few key points I wanted to let you know about.
The lone Stuka attack occurred throughout Dunkirk. They were the lone survivors of their flight who continued to their target after a RAF attack. There's several memoirs that mention similar attacks. The dead engine Spitfire turning to shoot it down is what is most unrealistic about that scene.
Not really, it's dependent on its energy state.
Indeed. I heard recently that a lot of the complaints from troops on the ground about the RAF not being present were unfounded. The bombers they saw were just the ones that got past the RAF trying to stop them further inland.
_Not really, it's dependent on its energy state_
Technically, yes. But at that altitude and that speed? I am willing to bet it wasn´t enough.
Well the Spitfire has low wingloading which makes it very easy to turn with.
Without power you will stall. The turn will burn airspeed, which will cause you to lose lift, and without power, your only hope to regain it is trading altitude for speed in order to keep the airflow within reasonable speeds. While the Spitifire indeed has quite a low wingload, it is not a glider.
I'm a retired U.S. Army Officer who had the privilege of working with ADM Rob (Rat) Willard when he was the commander of U.S. Pacific Command. Earlier in his career, when he was Cmdr Willard, he command the Navy's Top Gun School and was the commander during the making of the movie "Top Gun". Most people will know him as the enemy pilot wearing the black flight helmet in the culminating dog fight scene at the end of the movie. I found this out one day when I had to update him on an issue in his office and near the window was the helmet. Since when the movie came out, I was still a cadet and it was the first movie I took my future wife to on our first date. I asked him about the movie. He told me that when they first tried to film the dog fight scenes, they did it from the ground at the China Lake Naval Training facility and since modern fighters can cover hundreds of kilometers in a single dog fight. It just wasn't working. So Cmdr Willard, recommended that they "Hollywood" the flight scenes to give it a more dramatic feel than a realistic feel. We'll if you have seen the movie you know the rest. I think to your point, that is what they had to do with Dunkirk. Dog fights don't translate well to a movie screen, especially after WWI. Plans moved faster and covered more distance which does not translate well to a movie screen. I also by the way got to see the filming of the 2nd Pearl Harbor Movie in 2000. I just arrived in Hawaii for an assignment and I was staying in temporary quarters at Sub Base Pearl Harbor. It was a very cool time to see the planes. They had zeros and P40s flying all around Ford Island, Pearl Harbor and my wife and I would sit on the pier and watch them film. But that is another post.
Oof
Actually that scene with the spitfire and the stuka WAS necessary. Think back at the navy officer.
He hears the stuka, he knows its coming for the mall (...pier?) In wich he is standing. He knows he is dead.... and suddenly gunfire, the stucka blows up and the spitfire triumphant low pass.
But... the spitfire is doomed, he sacrificed his only chance of landing on allied ground.
So, the navy officer, because of what the pilot did chooses to follow his example. He stays behind, holding the fort, as it where.
TomGS another good point about that part is the small detail that british officers dont duck no matter what.
"he knows it's coming for the ...." He actually says "Mole" not mall. A Mole is a pier, jetty, breakwater, or junction between places separated by water. It was the only solid thing jutting out into the water that the troops could try to use to get to the bigger ships.
While the gliding shoot-down of the last Stuka may seem unnecessary or unrealistic, I think it is important in an artistic sense. In a movie about trying to get home, the Tom Hardy character has been presented with a series of decisions, mostly fuel related, in which he struggles with balancing his own diminishing chances of a safe return and the safeguarding those at sea and on the beaches. In the end he is out of fuel, but apparently has enough momentum to turn and line up on the diving Stuka. It is pretty obvious that was momentum he was planning to use to select a place to put down. Up until that moment there was still a chance that he would be headed home same as everybody, if in a boat rather than a plane. We are only seeing an hour of this character's time. That isn't long enough for him to have some big character arc. But it is long enough to show a character who, though going into harms way, had every intention of returning home--yet made a series of decisions knowingly giving up his own return because of a duty he felt to others. As a conclusion to that micro-plot it was important for Tom Hardy to intentionally use up momentum in defense of the troops at the mole.
JimmyJimGardner beat me to the punch on this analysis. The pilot story is one of duty over self. The scene was also to show the troops' deliverance from relentless attack and that the RAF had not truly abandoned them in their hour of need.
Many people believe Tom Hardy is based on a kiwi pilot who fought at Dunkirk, very similar stories. I can't remember his name at this time but I'm sure it'll come back to me
His name was Alan Deere
He already made the decision with the He111. The Stuka scene, they way it was depicted, was simply unnecessary. Would have been better if they had shown a relief flight joining in and taking up the job of going after the Stuka(s).
With the He111, he still had enough fuel to land on the British-held section of the beach. I think the idea was that by attacking the Stuka, he ends up too low to return to the evacuation site and accepts that he will either be captured or have to make his way on foot back to friendly territory. Admittedly, I don't think it was that obvious just from watching the film.
I completely agree with you on the air stuff, I think they did amazing with what they had. Apparently my aunt saw the movie but she actually got so scared of the Stukas and all the violence that she wanted to leave. me, as a desensitized teen used to the violence I think it was very interesting and emotionally deep. The Stuka sirens were very loud and made you want to duck. As a history buff it was interesting to see those aircraft, as they are rarely shown and the last time they were in a hit movie was the several hour long Battle of Britain movie. (Which I recommend).
sylvain falquet I agree, I don't think in WWII movies such as saving Private Ryan they show enough of how the Air Force acted. However Dunkirk will be my favourite.
Chris Atko yes, it will be my favorite too!
Here's something worth doing, as I and my dad did, see dunkirk at the odeon, then go home and watch the battle of Britain, feels almost like a double feature and as a film buff, a wonderful comparison.(I bet for a history buff it'll be just interesting)
Niki Brigden-Vossler+ If you haven't seen the 1958 "Dunkirk" with John Mills I highly recommend it. I can't compare it with the new one as I'm sat on a tropical island in the South Pacific :-)
rhannay39 it's now on THE list, and since I just finished watching apocalypse now redux and a clockwork orange I'll be seeing it soon.
I like how Nolan avoided CGI and I know why he did it. It looks authentic and simply looks incredible on the big screen. However I feel CGI could have been used in scenes just to show more planes and ships. Rather than there being 2 destroyers in the entire ocean there were more like 20-50 at Dunkirk. Likewise the stukas would not attack in couples but more likely in 10's. I watched an interview with a vet who said the dive bombers would constantly be bombing the beaches in much larger numbers than in the film. But that's what you get when you go with authenticity and it did look great to be fair.
I think it would have dectracted from the movie quite a lot if there were constant explosions, after all it's not an action movie, and anyway the stukas couldn't be bombing every hour of everyday so it's plausable that the scenes depicted were just in the intervals of those. But still a little more wouldn't have been too bad, great film though.
Sauron Merciful yeah I thought some of the buildings in the town looked far too modern. But then again that's authenticity. If you're going to shoot in Dunkirk then there's going to be modern buildings. At the real Dunkirk most of the town was destroyed with fire and smoke filling the sky but in the film the town looks untouched.
People who complained that the flying wasn't "realistic" seem to forget that in real life, visibility inside an aircraft is much less than in a videogame. Most airmen died to enemies they didn't see.
Also pilots were more concerned with comfort/safety and weren't pulling off ridiculous moves to constantly get their guns trained on target. Sure some of the scenes were very convenient for the spitfires, but overall I thought the flying was pretty realistic.
Also all those small details you talked about really sold it for me. I love it when movies take the time to research the little things.
The burning spitfire also had no engine. They went thru all the trouble to get a dummy plane to burn, but cant make a metal dummy engine?
Maybe they didn't think it would be necessary? Still a mistake on their part of course.
didn't bother to check out how to fly the British national flag, mistake #1
I read somewhere that the people who made the replica Spitfires weren't told to make any internal parts, or even that they would be filmed burning.
The thing is CGI has come so far it would be completely possible to make it look really, really good. The problem with it is they always feck it up by making huge hordes of close flying planes to "fill the screen".
Harry McWilliams the aircraft scenes in Dunkirk were made with practical effects (actual planes for the pilots and real size replicate drones for the crashes
Yes, I know. I am saying with today's tech you could use CGI and have it look real if you wanted bigger scale, like a mass B-17 bombing raid, but the directors always mess it up with hokey Star Wars style TIE fighter BS.
It's so dense, every single image has so many things going on
But it is good to know that real aeroplanes were used. It gives a nice warm feeling in the heart. CGI can look amazing, but if you know it's CGI, then something is lost.
Oh, I know. I love the old movies with real planes like Battle or Britain, The Blue Max and Tora!Tora!Tora!. Thing is those were made when there were quite a few more of the WW2 planes around so they could stage and film more spectacular stuff. At some point there won't be enough to use so they will have to go CGI, which they could do right if they tried.
The air combat is the best we've seen put to film in forever, criticism really boils down to nitpicking to the extreme. Most of what you're describing are not really relevant to creating an immersive scene. The fact that all the camerawork was attatched to the plane in one way or another is magnificent and very rare. The sound design was amazing aswell, the rattling of the airframe and stuff like that helps so much.
To call it "really bad" like some ppl mentioned to you because they didnt bother recreating the actual combat manouvers is seriously unfair all things considered. (though to be fair you brought up the attention to detail as a positive that far outweighs it). The glide kill was pure cinema and nothing to get your panties in a bunch over imo.
Dunkirk was a masterpeice of technical filmmaking in the warmovie genre, nothing really diminishes that in my opinion.
When lot's of details are right, evoking realism, the parts that are wrong stick out more.
It's simple, in a complete made-up scenario, suspension of disbelief takes over. We accept that in Star Wars there are spaceships and Wookies and Clone armies and magical powers because it's made up.
We accept that Rambo or John Wick are killing machines who mow down hundreds of armed attackers because it's made up.
But along comes a movie, that proclaims historical accuracy or realism or attention to detail, and get's alot of stuff right, but there is some things wrong with it.
Some thing that wouldn't be done that way. Or that wouldn't happen that way.
(and I know Nolans intent was not to make a documentary...but I hope to make myself clear)
And it stands out because we have no suspension of disbelief because the other parts of the movie are so realistic.
That is why I can chuckle at a movie like Red Tails, when german 30mm Mineshells slam through a cockpit of a P-51 like solid shot bullets and not turn the pilot (and plane) into gulash immediately, where they can pull rediculous, physics defying stunts and the obvious villain is obviously cartoonishly evil because lol movie...
...but get serriously annoyed that they had to use Buchons with Merlin engines instead of actual DB601 equipped 109s because the nose is all wrong...not even fixing it in post using some light special effects work...
Get what I mean?
Yeah but it was horribly boring.
@@kerenton5897 You're just one of these spoiled kids with a short attention span. Better watch Transformers.
I read a comment from what I think was the ground crew and the people working on one of the spitfires used in the movie. They got briefed on a lot of the scenes, and they were well aware that some of the scenes would not be realistic. But they just said, quote: "It's just a movie!"
Like they gave a rat's arse, huh?
My dad is a fighter pilot, he stated that the airplane combat was incredibly accurate to how real world combat goes about. Its a lot more like a coordinated ballet than pilots doing barrel roles and flips like you see in action movies. Especially with the technology they had in the 1940s, there was chance of engine failure. Of course its not 100% accurate, like any movie with limitations, but its probably one of the most accurate and most intense representation of air combat. I don't know where these people that are bashing the airplane scenes are, because in seemingly every review they're getting praise for that aspect...
You know, a few more things I noticed about the aerial scenes that I sort of was hoping you'd cover was:
1) the He111 defensive armament. In the film, when the Spitfire is closing in on the 111, the 111s gunner begins to shoot back with what I can only deduce is probably a 20mm cannon which is a problem because as far as I can tell, no 111 had 20mm pointed back. This was evident in both the dorsal and belly gunner positions. However, this did make attacking the 111 seem like a real daunting task.
2) idk if anyone noticed that whenever the Spitfire is firing, the engine sound is almost completely muted, a decision, although unrealistic, I think enables audiences to"feel that firepower" so to speak. So in short this was a good thing.
3) the damage effects for the aircraft I think were "passable" (that is with the exception of the one scene where one of the spits gets its rear fuselage strafed by a 109 and riddled with holes. That was very nicely done). Everytime they get hit they start shooting white smoke. It would have been nice to see some black smoke but thats just a minor detail that kind of caught my attention. What I want to say is that I think the same special effects they used to create the white smoke was also the same effects they used in the 1969 BoB film whenever planes were "shot/damaged/smoking."
4) Now, the final thing is this theory I got, which you mentioned briefly about filming the aerial scenes and the lack of any aggressive flying. We needn't forget that IMAX cameras are attached to these aircrafts (oftentimes outside on the wings) and whatever contraptions they used to pull this off probably isn't the sturdiest of designs and as such, going inverted or vertical may have been too risky on the airframe. Pulling off these scenes may have proven to be too stressful on the aircraft which is why I think in the end the filmmakers made a decision to not show aggressive maneuvers like the real counterparts which I think, as you mentioned, is really not that bad of a thing considering so many other details on the spits WERE portrayed in the film.
Anyways, what'd you think of this man?
Trust a German to be sensible and analytical in his review.
IMO, the film failed to capture the human aspect. most people undercut their arguments by whining about technical details (i didn't know, or care, that the destroyer was French) but the real shortcoming of the film is that it failed to capture the SCOPE of the evacuation. when you look at photos of Dunkirk, you see a beach packed with men, piles of wrecked equipment, the town wreathed in smoke and the water torn with explosions. 400,000 French, Belgian and British troops backed to the sea, surrounded by the Germans on one side and the Sea on the other.
what the movie gave us was a pristine town with no damage, no mention of the enemy at all (they say "Germans" I think, ONCE in the whole film) barely any representation of the Luftwaffe pounding the beach, a clean, orderly beach with barely any men on it (that long shot of the three men sitting on a vast, empty beach as they crack open cans of food was a truly jarring moment) and a ham-fisted approach to the "little ships" whose actual history is far overstated.
The film failed to capture the scope and scale of the Dunkirk evacuation, and in that context, beyond any technical details about weapons and ships, it is a bad movie.
the 2007 film "Atonement" features a scene on the Dunkirk beach that, in my opinion, captures the scale of desperation better in five minutes than this whole film did in almost 2 hours.
Nobody has said anything about SPR
The human aspect was actually great!
Compare Dunkirk to Atonements dunkirk scene, it's embarrassing, there is no comparison.
You make fair points, but I always get a bit disheartened to see people rip the movie apart for it's aerial combat. To those people: I DARE you to find me a movie that did WWII aerial combat better than Dunkirk did. I might very well be wrong, but AFAIK, there is no other Hollywood film that manages to restrain itself from resorting to cool looking explosions and impossible close scale maneuvers, and instead shows the real struggle of dogfighting in a somewhat realistic manner.
Yeah, for real though. I've never seen a movie that managed to make the dinky machine guns on the back of an HE111 scary before. And it was kind of humanizing how the pilots often couldn't hit the German planes and even failed to stop a bombing run because of it.
Yeah and how the first pilot just vanishes, I thought that was quite good.
"The Battle of Britain" movie did much better air scenes, even including lead off and bullets hitting the ocean behind the target, also the music was much better not the loud incessant tedious non stop music in this film
Notably, Battle of Britain IIRC also used real airplanes for most scenes, even if they had to use Hispanos as Bf109 stand-ins. They certainly used actual veterans of that battle as advisors, including Adolf Galland.
James Bickley Yeah, that was almost spooky, makes you wonder how many enemy aircraft are up there with them!
9:30 yep I had the same experience. Also what bothers me is that before the Stuka scene, Tom already hat his landing flaps out even though he might be in 1000ft, without engine power and is unsure where to land... One of the first things I learned in flight school is: One of the last things, when you have to force/ Emergency land, to do is: FLAPS. Only when your landing is ensured... since it only makes you slower and takes away your energy etc. The spit also had the landing flaps our when it chased the He111...that really bothers me. BTW the HE111 also was a RC / Computer model since no original nor spanish version is still airworthy. -Max
Loved it when you said, " The movie gets a lot FLAK for the aerial combat"!
Sir, you are a funny man.
I noticed that as well...😊
I feel like a lot of people (especially those who object to aspect of the sound design) don't quite grasp that this movie seems to be more impressionistic than literally realistic; the goal was to convey the feelings of being there rather than get thing exactly right (though they do get a lot of it very nicely right). I remember seeing someone complain about the deep, booming, slow sound made by the fire from the He-111 not sounding like the proper machine gun. That is true, but I think the sound that was used drove home the feeling of "Oh fuck he's shooting back, AT ME" feeling of receiving return fire rather getting the sound 100% accurate, which worked in the films favor I think.
Hello Bismarck,
indeed the heroic Ju-87 shoot at the end was a bit of overkill but it is plausible :) What I didn't like is that they used Hispano Buchon instead of proper BF-109 (E1 I think was used back then) and since they CG-ed the He-111 and the Ju-87 I don't see why they didn't went the extra mile for the BF-109. Also it seemed to me that the He-111 had the 20mm cannon instead of the 7.92 MG's which are proper for the '41 models. But other than that it's just a film and let's be honest they were not going after the technical details to such depth but the average human experience (soldier or civilian) so in that aspect I think they did a good job portraying how little it takes to turn us into animals trying to survive.
Keep up the good work - the historical videos are really something I enjoy since military history is my hobby for about ~30 years now.
Cheers from Bulgaria.
smarkov what
Some 111 did use 20 mm cannons as defensive fire, the spitfires in the movie were mk.1's only. The thing is, i thought only late war Heinkel bombers used a 20 mil gun?
smarkov no aircraft was CG'd as far as I can tell man. If you read the articles, to get the "Stukas" and "He111s" the filmmakers actually created many large scale versions of the two. This particularly caught my attention since no flying 111 exists today and I want to say that for the Stuka as well but im not certain. As asuch, seeing a 111 in the film really did it for me. I had heard Nolan wasn't a big fan of CG and seeing the 111 convinced me that he had to have carried a healthy amount of concern for the facts and details like these to create radio controlled models of these aircrafts.
Cheers.
Here's a link to show you a bit from where I'm getting this info:
www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/dunkirk.html
Air-headed Aviator this is 1940, before even the battle of Britain. I'm almost certain that 20mms were not used on the 111 at this point in it's operational history. Maybe you're referring to later variants of the 111 maybe in the years after 1943.
smarkov They did the use Bucheons for the Battle of Britain movie, so far as I know I don't think there are any original BF 109e that is airworthy. For the most part they are standard Messerschmitt 109s but with a Merlin engine (how ironic). As Bismarck said it may be down to budget etc, they used a French destroyer from the 50s for God sake lol.
What bothered me the most in this movie was that in most of the scenes the people didn't seem completely human. Men standing silently on a beach, men standing silently on a pier, fighter pilots executing the fight with an almost bored attitude.
I would prefer them to act like real humans, even in the most difficult of times I cant imagine any large group of people would be utterly and completely silent. Fighter pilots I would think would notice an enemy fighter behind them and at least seem a little nervous about it and when they shoot one down they might seem like its not just another day at the office
Absolutely agree with you here ... 'Soldiers' moping about like dying zombies _("Please! ... Just shoot me!"),_ while crashing down on bad meth, merely wishing to finish their days' dragged-out shoots so as to get high again on something else ... Depressingly beyond boring indeed!
The air scenes in Dunkirk are the most authentic we have seen yet from a blockbuster film. It felt like you were in the Spitfire. It was also refreshing not to hear cheesy dialogue between the pilots. Just short, understandable, and professional chatter between them.
"Uh oh, we've got company" - every movie pilot
You have obviously not seen “the Battle of Britain” 1969 movie
I think you made a good point, and yes you should definately watch 1969 battle of britain, I'm sure you have though. Also try the Douglas Bader story reach for the sky, great movie although it holds a particular spot in my heart as I'm paraplegic(wheelchair bound from broken back) so I have tended to idolise Bader somewhat! I may be biased!! 😁
"The air combat scenes are getting a lot of flak."
Great pun!
There is an interview with *Christopher Nolan himself* even before the movie came out where he states that accuracy is not what they tried to do. It was *authenticity* i.e. using French Destroyers instead of British ones, but making them look like British ones etc.. Also, the yellow noses of the German fighters, where Nolan states that he knew this was done months after Dunkirk, but they did this for narrative reasons. *It's not a documentary, it's a survival thriller.*
if he wanted authenticity - HE FAILED, authenticity takes more than flying one actual Spit
j c "the feeling of being there" and making it "seem authentic" was his aim... And he succeeded.
It should have been marketed as a "survival thriller" whatever that is then. From the trailers and ads I was expecting a war movie.
You were expecting a war movie due to *the setting* not due to ads and trailers. Because the ads and trailers were more like teasers and showed no information about the plot. The music of the trailers/marketing conveyed a suspense film about survival and no other real clues were given.
If people expected a traditional "war film" it is because Hollywood has conditioned us so all these years... But I can certainly see the point that there was no clear adjustment of expectations through the marketing, only through some obscure interviews...
I saw what I saw. Trailers had me hyped for a great movie about the evacuation at Dunkirk. I don't think it was a great movie in any sense.
It doesn't suddenly become a better movie because it is listed under another genre.
Great review, and you make an excellent point about the little details of aircraft operation.
9:27 I'm a bit divided on the Stuka Glide Kill too, but in the end I gave it a pass because (a) it looks spectacular and (b) it fits in with the positive note on which the film ends. Up until then, everything has been going wrong; after the Little Ships arrive, everything begins to go right (or at least as right as it possibly can).
It might also have been a symbolic thing - not only does Tom Hardy's character throw away his chance to fly home by turning back and dealing with the bomber; he _then_ throws away his chance for an easy landing in what's left of friendly territory by using up speed and altitude for the Stuka kill. He's committed himself to life as a POW for the duration of the war, and it shows the lengths to which he's prepared to go to protect the evacuation. THAT is what I think Nolan was driving at, and it's why I gave it a pass.
If anything, I was left wondering how the hell he had enough ammo left by that stage. When the DVD comes out, someone'll have to sit on the Air scenes with a stopwatch and get a total elapsed gun firing time to check against reality. IIRC 333 rounds per gun, 20 rounds per second cyclic rate for the Brownings, so just over sixteen seconds' worth.
I think the air combat scenes were OK, especially now that I know they were using actual Spits and 109's (and at the distance you see them, it doesn't matter that they're the Spanish Merlin variant) - they certainly capture how difficult it was for the average pilot to shoot down an enemy aircraft, and the degree to which you can be surprised by the airplane you don't see (you can tell that Hardy's character is very fortunate NOT to get shot down at a couple of points, but then he does lose both his companions and the Mole story is already so bleak that someone deserves the luck). The other thing of course is the whole "Yellow-nosed 109" thing (it didn't come until later), but I've heard that Nolan deliberately made that error in order to help the audience tell the planes apart.
the veterans enjoyed the movie. so basicly the only ones whining about "authenticity" are the ones that weren't actuly there...
Motherbrain Jr hate to break it to you but your wrong
+Bdjdjdj Hdjdjdjd Why wrong? What is your beef?
Veterans (and others too) do not necessarily "enjoy" a movie for its "authenticity". I think most of them do care whether the film put them in a good light.
Bdjdjdj Hdjdjdjd your "opinion" is automatically invalid because you fail to provide any reasons
it was a fantastic movie but some sad people got butthurt when they saw tiny missing details like that british destroyer was actually french
I enjoyed the aerial combat....probably due to the 70mm film it was captured on, but mainly because they didn't use CG...they used real planes, put the actors inside those planes (modified double cockpit versions) and kept the POV of those fights very tight an closed similar to how it would have been as a pilot.
Now calling them unrealistic is a bit lame IMHO, even for Chuck...was the film trying to depict the most realistic dog fights? Each dog fight is very different from the last so I would imagine not too many are exactly the same so that sense of "reality" would be somewhat distorted. It's easy to sit on the side line and be overly critical on something someone thinks they know about, again Chuck has sold himself as a fighter pilot...that's fine, but the F18 pilot I saw the film with said he absolutely LOVED the dog fighting in it. The sound design and the perspective it was shot was brilliant.
So at 6:46 you're talking about all the realistic things that were done and before that you come off saying things weren't realistic? I know you were projecting your opinion based on what was said, but seems it had a rather decent element of reality. Even placing it in 1940 when the Germans/Brits hadn't seen nearly the same amount of combat they had by 43-44...the kind of fighting that was done in the film made sense to me.
One thing I noted reading early BOB books was how quickly a fight would start out of no where and how quickly it would end. Sky is filled with planes one second, completely empty the next. Also how often their radio would go down and how shitty it sounded.
If people are disappointed the aerial combat in Dunkirk wasn't "real" enough, they missed the entire point of the movie. That makes me sad, because the people who fought and died at Dunkirk deserve better. Dunkirk wasn't a movie about war machines and the "glory" of combat. There is no glory in combat. There are only survivors. (I'm a vet. I get to say that.) Dunkirk was a movie about people in terrible circumstances, the decisions required of them, and the sacrifices they made. It was a tribute to them, not the Stuka or the Spitfire. I encourage you to focus on the people, rather than physical realities about which none of us can really claim even a modicum of expertise. That said, Spitfire veterans have reported gliding their planes up to 15 miles. How much control they have of the plane though is something I can't even guess at. I have no expertise in dead-stick piloting anything.
Deserved better? A Dunkirk survivor watched the film and LOVED it. He said it is like going back to the beaches.
You should have another look at what I wrote. It does not mean what you think it means. Let me rephrase it into hopefully simpler grammar. Real veterans (of whom I am one) deserve better than for people to express disappoint in a movie because it isn't like what Hollywood usually produces. Especially when in actuality it captures the essence of those veteran's sacrifice far better than any big-budget Hollywood special effect movie ever could. Yes, veterans who were there loved the film. I know more than a few myself. I loved the film. But I saw lots of people online deriding the film because they thought is was unreal. To me, that derides the veterans who were there. The complainers were not there. They have no experience of what it was like. They should keep their pie holes shut about things of which they know nothing.
Oh, I completely misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I agree with you. I have been going through the comments and trying to correct those fools.
It's weird when people say X movie isn't realistic. I've never seen a realistic movie. Movie makers don't care about reality, they care about themes & visuals.
Sometimes I get the feeling everyone is all too eager to try and pull Dunkirk apart. Got the SJW's on one side saying "there's not enough women and minorities" which is a fucking ridiculous sign of the times. On the other hand we've got the armchair critics saying "this didn't happen like that" or "that's so unrealistic" bla bla bla, Probably the same people that praised Hacksaw Ridge for its "brutal realism"
I feel most people complaining about realism, action or scale didn't understand the movie. The movie is a very intimate story with the soldiers, sailors, and pilots. You never once saw a German face. Nolan said that it was a psychological thriller, not a war film. They need to realize that this isn't a historical recreation, it's a story.
funny how no one complains that you dont see the french much, holding back the germans
Very few SJW's are actually bitching about it. Most of the air waves are filmed with fuckers bitching about SJW's bitching about it.
The way the film undersells the actual battle of Dunkirk and the French and British troops that agonizingly defended the area is unforgivable though.
I wanted to see that too. You always hear that 330,000 or whatever evacuated, but I've never read an outright figure on how many perished. There's that little scene with the French in the barricade, but it would have been great to see more of that.
NorthSea0il in hacksaw ridge they didnt even have regular marine clohes they have europen theater clothes oh its so realistic
I get what you mean about the final air kill. I think it does fit in thematically though. It shifts the tone from an acceptance of death (If I recall the admiral just closes his eyes and stands on the pier), to one of a tragic glimmer of hope. Home, Britan has shown up (represented by the spitfire) and can save (the hope), but at great cost (the plane is lost and the pilot is captured). The plane being out of fuel, yet still fighting in the skies above a defeated army and navy, is impactful. It has every reason to give up, every reason to just land, no one would hold it against the pilot, even the audience has written off the plane. But don't write off Britan, don't write off home, because they will continue to fight, physics be damned.
The Royal Air Force seems to consist of 3 Spitfires, although real-life pilots flew 3,500 sorties at Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe, seems able to summon up little more than a couple of Messerschmitt`s Bf 109, 3 Stukas, 1 Heinkel He 111 bomber, all of them fly like beginners and get all the time down. In fact Luftwaffe Ace Werner Mölder`s shot down 20 allied Aircraft`s in the End of May 1940 and get the Knight Cross. The Royal Navy appears to comprise just 2 destroyers; in fact, it deployed 39 destroyers and 309 other craft.
The film also denies filmgoers any context. We’re told little about how the army has come to be beached or the threat it faces. We never see a German soldier, let alone the generals and politicians of either side who are masterminding events. We don’t even get the customary three sentences of text at the end, explaining the outcome.
What’s mainly happening, however, is that lots of soldiers are waiting around. Escapades, not altogether convincing, are therefore contrived for a few of them. Some bombs fall, some ships are sunk. Commanders mutter briefly but sagely to each other. In the skies, fighter pilots conduct what seems like an endlessly repeated dogfight. One plane runs out of fuel, although not as quickly as audiences might have hoped. And that’s sort of it.
Film-makers usually instil interest in their protagonists by giving them backstories and meaningful dialogue, thereby creating characters who can be engaged in drama. In Dunkirk, these things don’t happen.
I agree fully with Harding shooting down the Stuka while out of fuel being unbelievable. In my own video I said that the movie effectively went Full Hollywood in that scene.
The bomb explosions looked so weak. That and the scale of the movie were negatives imo. One destroyer? One bomber?
The explosions couldn't be big since they are using no CGI. I agree that scale was a problem. they said 400,000 men were there, but it looked like 1,000 max. I think the lack of ships and planes is since there are few or no working examples, like with the He-111; they used a scale model
I liked the Air combat scenes. Although they couldn't do any extreme stuff, it was still convincing. Like Bis said, it did feel a bit convenient from time to time, but it's still better than the Majority of the Air Combat Scenes we've had in previous films _cough cough_ Red Tails _cough_
4:30 Fighter pilot, and ya know first guy to break the sound barrier, nothing to special really, as you said, just another fighter pilot.
him breaking the sound barrier isn't relevant to the discussion though. his time as a WWII fighter pilot is relevant however.
The Right Stuff,the book,really talks alot about him.
I happened upon your channel looking for "war thunder" vids...I know!? glad I found it, very interesting and informative.
Is this IL-2 or DCS?
looks like il-2 cliffs of dover
Why didn't they do much maneuvering? What do you think an IMAX camera rig mounted on the outside of the aircraft is going to do to your aerodynamics?
You should be showed on History HD channel
You're bang on there. I was dumb founded when the Spitfire somehow managed to _glide_ back into range to shoot down the Ju-87. Ridiculous.
And it seems Tom Hardy's plane took off with unlimited ammo mode enabled.
WW2 History buffs will pick the smallest things apart in a movie there's never any pleasing them
Kosta Thomas only ww2 buffs. If you watch other channels like "History Buffs", you will find that the community is much nicer and less pickier.
I want to see Tiger tanks rape shermans
Josue Mondragon it's a realistic movie.
redopps what? Fury or dunkirk?
If you're going to make a movie about history, just do it right. It takes no more effort to that than to hollywood it up.
I think the director managed to show the emotion of that period in history. I like how the enemy is invisible always present and the sense of urgency and helplessness as shells and around them, or how the boats were so easily picked off.
Also german onboard mgs on He111 sounding like M2 Browning instead of MG17 buzzsaw noise was annoying.
yep that was strange. I felt more like it sounded like some cannon instead of an MG
didnt they have a 20mm deffensive cannon though?
The He111 H-10 variant had a 20mm MG/FF defensive cannon
Logan, and additional armor, since it was produced for night bombing of London, which is way in the future from film's perspective. Please read more than War Thunder spec sheet to argue about historical topics.
Not before '43 though ...
I agree 100 % onto your opinion on the Stuka Siren, it had such a powerfull impact on the people that watched it me. Greate video
I loved the Dunkirk movie and I really liked listening you about the air combat, however, you did go slightly nazi about the spitfire at the end.. who cares? It's meant to be entertaining.
Obviously he cares so why was he not to speak about it? It's a valid criticism and not a nitpicking.
I know I have a small youtube channel but I feel like you watched my video on this that I made a week ago because you 100% agree with me on aerial combat. The chance of this being likely would be negligible though so thanks for informing people on this. I did however overlook the minut details of the cockpit because I am a bit spoiled. At least they used terminology like angels.
Is the movie worth watching? Or is it the same ol' story of incapacitated Germans who has worse aim than Star Wars Stormtroopers like the shitty propaganda movie Fury?
It's worth watching, there's some bullshit scenes involving a spitfire but it's an entertaining film.
J Gripen it's so worth it
J Gripen The Luftwaffe actually have great aim while bombing in Dunkirk.
It's a brilliant moving piece. It's a far cry from the traditional flag-waving patriotic war movie.
J Gripen to the contrary, the Germans have pinpoint precision bombing in this film
Thanks for your intelligent commentary I am just pleased that they thought enough to make a movie like this in 2017
How about the gliding Spitfire shooting down a diving Stuka at the end?
Stephen Chu somebody didnt watch the video completely.....
You didn't watch the video.
"How about the gliding Spitfire shooting down a diving Stuka at the end?"
For King and Country, James.
Stephen Chu its ok if its a british plane. but people would bitch thier heads off if it was an american...
Yeah, I'm amazed that nobody mentioned that earlier.
Hahahah
4:36
" 'Ze Germanz"
I love your accent!! I dont know how many times I've said that as a joke in a crappy fake accent!
Dunkirk was a terrible movie. The size of the whole operation was hugely misrepresented in a way that it was braking the immersion (don't say it would cost to much, because you just could have used CGI or other trickery to make it seem like more people/ ships). The Spitfires gunshot sounds were wrong (.303 in Browning Mk II's sound differently). The pilots don't aim correctly yet they still hit (they aim directly at the plane and don't consider the time, the bullet takes to travel it's distance.. They haven't used Messerschmit's, they used Ha-1112's. In the part where the pilot is drowning I thought "just grab the fucking crowbar at your side you dumb ass" (also when he grabs his pistol to shatter the Plexiglas, why doesn't he shoot it to make the Plexi easier to break) and before the forced landing the pilots opened their cockpits so situations like these don't happen. The part when they hid in the boat was fine, until the German shot the boat below the water surface. Some planes that aren't Ju-87 have Jericho-Trumpets. The HMHS Paris didn't sunk before the action depicted in the movie. And finally the soundtrack was absolute garbage, I know, it was made to create tension, but it turned out to be fucking annoying and overlapped with some of the sounds and words spoken in the movie, making them inaudible. The soundtrack also killed the effect of "surprise by loud sounds" because the parts, where it would have made a nice impact were overshadowed by that god awful and annoying soundtrack.
All in all it's an extremely over hyped movie, that is of putting and unrealistic for what it tries to be. I don't nitpick because I want to, this is stuff that threw me out of the experience. In a movie that is advertised as this super historical, atmospheric and realistic thing, it's alright to complain about the stuff that was different from the thing they advertised. It's like when you are buying a game because of the things it is advertised for and then see that these things aren't really there (No Mans Sky). If you make the wake expectations in consumers, these consumers will judge your product by the expectations you've given them, it's as easy as it gets.
Haven't watched Saving Private Ryan because I knew this would be the case. I had some hope for Dunkirk but it didn't turn out to be true.
Sorry I loved it.
The pistol may have been a flare gun, and even if this wasn't the case, it isn't easy to get a soaking wet pistol to shoot. I did read about one German fighter pilot who neglected to leave the canopy open during a water landing in the Mediterranean and nearly drowned as a consequence.
I assume we're ignoring the part where a spitfire stays in the air for 3 straight days without refueling.
I thought it was horrible. Very little dialog and poor character development. Beach scenes showed no evidence of 400,000 troops and no debris, wreckage, and a pristine nice beach. The flotilla scenes had a few boats when there were thousands. The troops did not look battle hardened as uniforms were very clean. The aerial scenes were good and the story line with the pilots was ok until the powerless Spitfire was shooting down Stuka dive bombers. Compared to Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk sucked!
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The whole point of the story isn't about character development. Hacksaw Ridge is revolved around the person Private Doss. Dunkirk is revolved around the event DUNKIRK. As much as I love Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk is just on another level. I had never been so terrified in a war film before.
Bravo! Excellent take on the details in the movie (of course, this was my perspective, as well!). When I was a young man I served on a DDG that was destroyed at sea by fire: the Destroyer scenes in Dunkirk may not have been 100% accurate, but, believe me, they were more than realistic enough to illicit an emotional response from me. I think it's rather telling that the majority of people who have negative comments ONLY have negative comments. I feel like they are the type of people who went to the movie to do nothing but look for mistakes rather than to see a movie about Dunkirk. Until someone builds a time machine, no movie will portray every detail of a historic event 100% accurately (even then, I'm sure some would find fault because it didn't agree with their preconceived ideas about the event).
it was a load of over-rated crap
Great to hear someone acknowledging the good details for a change.
The air combat was awful, why do people need to defend this film so much? It was a bloodless british pride propaganda piece. First of all the main plane for the RAF was the Hawker Hurricane, Spitfires were difficult and expensive to build and Britiain was very ill equipped for war, A spitfire was very rare. A Spitfire had about 16 or so seconds of machine gun fire, yet the magazines seem bottomless, of course a single .303 round is enough to down a 109. Messerschmitt BF-109Es which would have been used were completely outclassed and useless and apparently made of paper and bubblegum shooting spitballs, in reality the 109 was very close in performance, and early in the war had the upperhand. Of course the Germans miss every shot. The Stuka dive bombers, not only lacking in number but their bombs mostly miss... German dive bombing was extremely accurate it's one reason why they were obsessed with dive bombing throughout the war rather than carpet bombing. A Heinkel 111 would not turn around for another pass after dropping it's payload, This is to add a sense of threat and sadism of the faceless germans in this flms. not to mention rapid firing MG-18 machine guns as defense but in Nolan's Dunkirk they're equipped with muskets apparently as the guns belch out a bullet or two and bounce off the vaunted Spirfires. Of course a skilled pilot fires directly at an opposing aircraft.. not lead the sight to get his rounds on target. Oh and of course have to have the landing gear lowered just in the nick of time to land.. How can you praise this rubbish?
There are no hordes of Spitfires, only 3. They could be very rare, it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure there were situations where 3 Spitfires appeared together on the sky.
As many British fighter pilots get shot down as German ones, so if we can judge the performance of those planes by that, the movie presented them equal.
The word "German" doesn't appear in the movie, because this movie is not a historical recreation of all the facts and dates and so on, but rather shows human element to the whole situation. How people felt, how great of tragedy it was and so on. Germans are not shown in this movie almost at all, because they represent an uncontrollable force, almost like a natural disaster. It's not to denigrate Germans, it's to create a proper atmosphere.
Stukas bombs didn't mostly miss. They destroyed parts of mole, sunk few ships and so on. British soldiers couldn't get off the bitch because their ships were sunk constantly.
As for sadism, it's not about it at all. There is no ill will shown in German forces, their feelings and motivations are not in the movie at all. When you see He attacking a boat, you should see something like a hawk trying to kill it's prey. It's not personal at all.
You are just blinded by your aversion for British. At least this is how your post reads.
I don't have an aversion to the british, quite the opposite I sympathise with them. War was hell for everyone, But not a historical recreation? The film is called 'Dunkirk' which is a historical event, and it begins with text to explain the historical event of the battle of Dunkirk. Of course the human element is important, I grant you that, but it's not the whole story. So much effort has been made to make the Germans a faceless uncontrollable force which was nothing of the sort, The Germans are mentioned more than once, Big black crosses are painted on the aircraft and the shape of the Stahlhelm make it impossible to make the enemy vague. The reasons why ships were sunk often was because alot of the Luftwaffe was commited to Dunkirk, The sky literally filled with aircraft, This is one of the few times CGI would have helped.
As for the aircraft, yes we see only 3 spitfires, But no Hurricanes which were much more prolific, I can forgive having spitfires on screen, But the captain of one of the ships is explaining in loving detail just how great spitfires are. One spit is shot down offscreen, have no idea how it met it's end, And the other is because the pilot was too busy celebrating and wasn't paying attention, When there was actually fighting the 109 Pilots do virtually nothing and shown to be completely outclassed and made of paper as one .303 round is enough to fatally damage a 109 and down it.. Spitfires with bottomless magazines and overpowered rounds? Care to tell me again how equal they were in the film?
My aversion is not to the British but to Propaganda, the near bloodless nature of warfare, piecemeal attacks and bloodless battle, not much suffering really just boredom. That wasn't the human experience in Dunkirk, it was alot uglier than that. The Wehrmacht also didn't like what was happening in Dunkirk. That's my problem with the film, Nolan had he resources to show the human tragedy of Dunkirk, But it's reduced to British sentimentality rather than the actual experience of war. I'll refer you to a superior film made many years ago called 'Das Boot' there too it wasn't personal, But we see both sides as people, suffering in the war, The human experience wasn't abandoned for convenience and was much more realistic, And this was 'the enemy'. My ultimate problem is Nolan decided to name this film Dunkirk which is a historical event, both tragic and miraculous, and uses that to make his own sentimentality piece. The film could have easily been named something else and it wouldn't have mattered, but would be alot less insulting. And I guarantee you had some no name first time director made Dunkirk, reviewers would be bashing the film non stop. But because Christopher Nolan is a darling of Hollywood seems a cult of personality has developed.
DC Frank the 109 was also really really really fucking fast though.
I think when it comes to historical movies nitpicking is bound to happen.
My problems with the movie were probably a result of lack of resources (Money). The scale of the whole thing was way off. You never in the movie got a sense of the magnitude of the problem. The actors a forced to say several times "400,000 men", because nothing visual in the movie gave you that sense of scale. There really just wasn't anywhere near enough guys on the beach! Or... that many ships and boats off the beach, or that many planes in the sky. I understand there are only a few flying Spitfires and Hurricanes (and even fewer '109s, '111s and Stukas) still that's why God and George Lucas created CGI. There is less excuse for the men, ships and boats. Longest Day, Gettysburg, A Bridge Too Far and others all manage to get enough bodies in place to give a sense of the scale. All before CGI (yah they cheated and used CGI in Gettysburg).
And don't even get me started on the 'Rubberbanding' back and forth in the plot! If you haven't seen Dunkirk, save your money and wait for Netflix.
Exactly my thoughts. The movie felt completely unauthentic because it didn't manage to depict the actual scale of the whole event.
David Rose You do realise that not all the troops would be actually on the beach at the same time. The BEF (and the French divisions with them) had to maintain a defensive perimeter. As the evacuation progressed more troops were moved into place ready to get off the beach.
You couldn't be more wrong, christ. Don't watch this on Netflix people. Watch it in IMAX. in a MOVIE THEATER.
van Kralingen I watched it in a movie theatre (no IMAX though) and had the impression described in the original comment. My brother (who I watched it with) also felt the same way.
David Edwards Fuck off you haven't seen the film. You literally never see a German soldier close up in the movie.
Great review - and I 100% agree about the final Stuka kill. I watched that and went, "What?" But rest of it was worth it. My favorite part about the air combat scenes was the sound; the rattles & shakes, and the coordination between members of the formation. I think it captured the feeling, more than the action, and I think that was the point. Thanks for posting this.
IMO, Dunkirk is one of the worst War movies I've ever seen. EVER!
IMO, Dunkirk is THE best war film I ever seen.
Phizer Aldai then you haven't seen Red Tails then. Literally an american biased film
Edit : and beside. It's not a war movie but rather a thriller imo
Hi Bismark. I'm a subscriber and fan of your channel. I've seen Dunkirk now several times and my take on the dogfighting scenes with the three Spitfire Mk II and Spanish Buchon 109s Is that all the BFM that was depicted was done primarily from the context of first person POV. All the scenes were real, not CGI and we're shown from what seems go-pro like cameras from different angles on each Spitfire. Primarily from inside the cockpit, outside looking at the canopy, bottom tailplane, and at one point a go pro on the pilots head showing clearly a 109 behind a spitfire weaving back and forth with the camera angle bobbing like its on swiveling head. With what they wanted to display clearly with the frames and angles they have I believe they deliberately toned down the BFM, otherwise they must have believed the audience would not really understand fully what's going on, wanting to show everything in the camera frames so as not to leave any doubt to those who are not students of air warfare. Perhaps the cameras could not take the strain of sustained Gs and maintain upright to depict real BFM or the flashes/glimpses of and aircraft flashing by your gunsight/canopy realistic to air combat is too rapid to film properly or show non aviation audiences. That's my take so far on Dunkirk. Keep up the good work.
Piss poor and disappointing film.
Hey Bismarck, very good and balanced commentary on this film. I guess you're right about the limitations of the use of historical planes. They can't afford to lose one. There is actually a fully restored and flying Bf109 E3. It is in England. It s the only one in the world right now. It's a BF109 E-3 3579 White 14 4/JG 5 at Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar, first flown at June 13 2017. I am a great fan of the BF109 and I think I m one of the few people who actually had the privilege to sit in one (not allowed to fly in it off course) :). Go on with your good work on UA-cam
I really enjoyed the aerial combat scenes and i had no complaints personally. As for the maneuvering, how often did pilots actively perform defensive maneuvers vs just sort of slightly turning and weaving? I've heard, especially with IL-2s, that many pilots didn't really maneuver much when they were under attack.
Bismarck, I agree that the writer-director's device of giving Farrier a u/s fuel gauge - perhaps the last single instrument you want to lose in a powered a/c - adds greatly to the sense of cockpit realism. While he continued in formation with Collins, the latter's fuel state would have mirrored his, but once they went into combat that no longer applied, and soon Collins was out of the picture anyway. Having recorded Collins's last fuel report and time, Farrier might have been able to guestimate the average fuel- flow, but in combat would have had little spare mental capacity to do the arithmetic required to calculate what time he should break off and return to the nearest home airfield. The exhaustion of the main tanks, at which point he recovers the engine by selecting the reserve tank, would mark the precise fuel remaining at that point - presumably not enough to return to Blighty. As others have commented, he seems to sacrifice his chances of avoiding capture by engaging the diving Stuka.
Others have commented that the Spitfire is not a glider. Any aeroplane will glide at some angle of descent for a given airspeed and weight (even the Space Shuttle!). It's true that Farrier's eventual glide is unrealistically shallow. The propellor of the model continues to turn lazily. In reality, on a piston-engine a/c, the prop would either be windmilling furiously, further degrading the glide performance, or be stationary.
Farrier's decision to extend the undercarriage and his need to do so with the manual system apes the Memphis Belle, but is hard to justify in the context of a forced landing on a beach. Tail-draggers are notoriously susceptible to nosing over or cartwheeling if one or both wheels dig in - more than likely on a sandy beach. No point in trying to avoid damage when you are going to torch the a/c anyway.
Collins's decision to ditch rather than bail out could be justified by his low height, if nothing else. Both he and Farrier have a change of mind about opening the canopy for their respective touchdowns - another nice human touch.
the director could have been better advised on speeds in two respects:
1) The scale speeds of the models used for the dive bombing (Stukas) and the two Spitfire crash landings are much too high. A high-speed camera should have been used, and the resulting footage slowed down to about 30% of that shown in the movie.
2) When Collins starts his approach (descent) for the ditching, initially filmed with the real aircraft, he is overhauling Farrier, who is flying at something like cruise speed. Collins would maintain height, slowing down to a much lower airspeed before starting his approach for the ditching.
After the ditching, another nice irony is Farrier's understandable misinterpretation of Collins's waving hand through the small opening of the jammed canopy.
I couldn't help noticing how proper ditching procedure is to open the canopy first so you don't get stuck...
Great video! Amazing, I really appreciate you interest and in depth talk
Similar to Bismarck's point on risk-assessment, a friend of mine knew someone who worked on Fury and said that the infamous final tank duel was initially planned to be far more realistic and thus more exciting for tread-heads. Unfortunately, when Bovington loaned out Tiger 131 for the film they had done so on the assumption that it would at most move about 100m or so in a straight line, thus the duel had to be re-written and re-choreographed around that limitation, hence what we got in the final film.
I find it funny that the first Mk Stuka couldn't turn the horn/siren off, the pilots hated the sound more than anyone else
Im a little surprised you didn't mention the constant ticking throughout the movie along with the actual music. It really kept you on edge.
I completely agree, Dunkirk was the first movie I saw with my glasses, and I thought it was very authentic, especially because I could see everything with absolute clarity
Your comments are very understanding and even forgiving.
1. Your comment about the Stuka siren is very insightful - had the movie used the same sound it would have altered the desired effect.
2. The comment about the producers and pilots not wanting to risk damaging the flying warbirds is also helpful. I noticed that the first view of the Spitfires was as a trio in a v formation - that seems right for that era - the RAF did fly as a trio at that time, but the planes seem pretty close together.
3. The damage inflicted was also more realistic.
4. Due to years of sound effects "sweetening" gun fire, machine guns, cannons, etc, the sound of an actual weapon now seems trivial. Curious if anyone knows how noisy it was inside the planes?
Anyway I liked the film but knew what I was going to see - it is NOT a Saving Private Ryan type of film.
Theres also the he111 with a slow firing presumably high caliber turret despite the fact they hadnt made any service variants with 20 or 13mm machine guns yet
0:45 Air combat scenes seem to be getting a lot of...FLAK?
Was that deliberate? :)
My personal criticism of "Dunkirk" was that the beaches seemed deserted ! Where were all the destroyed and abandoned vehicles and equipment, the hundreds of wounded soldiers being treated in provisional aid stations...etc. etc. The list could go on for ever. The film was nothing like the real event as far as authenticity was concerned, but it did have its good sides as long as it didn't concentrate on large area shots.
In reality, the beaches held about 400,000 men - in the film there were about 400 soldiers queuing up quietly, as if waiting for a bus.
the container cranes in shot got me
The Stuka horn actually filled me with dread and fear, I loved it.
I appreciated your emphasizing that it is not acceptable to stress these old airframes by actual hard aerobatics. That is why at airshows you see a pretty limited subset of gentle aerobatics. Aside from possible loss of life, you have an irreplaceable, very valuable old airplane.
There was a sim player who mentioned while playing a game , his grandfather happened to walked by and mentioned that he _recognised_ that sound of Ju-87 dive siren.
Were the He 111s equipped with 20mm cannons in the rear gunner position ? I noticed that the gunners on the bomber some low velocity MGs / cannons in the movie...
With the stuka sirens I believe part of what we are hearing is not the stuka sirens but is in fact bombs equipped with whistles in the case of the high pitch sound that increases in pitch and volume. Which if that is the case kudos to them for including that.
Lowering your gear before a landing on a beach; an interesting and unlikely(?) choice. He must have had a lot of faith in the sands firmness and their being no holes or ditches.
Also only reason i can think of ditching in water with the canopy not already open would be the fear of it snapping forward and jamming, which happened anyways.
One thing I know about the movie, is that some of those (do not know how much) action scenes were recorded near Urk in the Netherlands on the Ijsselmeer. So I also think that they took into consideration that it was too risky to go all out in those scenes due to civilians living nearby (like really close) to where it was recorded. You might argue "so take a different spot" but they probably chose this spot on purpose due to it (not actually being dunkirk) looking like the historical right spot, but still relatively safe compared to other location (like maybe actual dunkirk). If they shoot the movie on a location without an actual town near it, they would be criticized for the fact it doesn't even look like it happens at Dunkirk or something... I'm kinda struggling with making my point here but I hope you guys understand what I mean xD
What is the standard ditching procedure like for spitfires with the sliding canopy? I know for later models the pilot is supposed to jettison the entire fixed canopy before splashdown but I couldn't find any information on the early models. In any case, is there any reason not to leave the canopy open when the pilot is committed to ditch?
00:46 lol, nice efficient use of the word Flak at that moment
I appreciated that they gave the impression that dog fighting was hard, which to me felt more realistic. It took the spitfires multiple attempt to be able to shoot down another plane and I think they somehow succeeded in giving the feeling that shooting down another airplane is very hard.
As an aside, it just struck me from your video that the early curved panel Bf109 canopy offers much better visibility than the later square version. Looks like they prioritized ease of production over pilot convenience for a while there, until the late war erla.
My issue with the air combat wasn't the lack of dogfighting but how it always showed the crosshairs being right where they needed to be for a hit, and then tom hardy would move them, shoot and miss. It's one thing to show him having a hard time getting the aim right and another showing him having it right, holding it there and then moving it.
If you want to know a little of the sound esp the Stuka visit postperspective blog .. 'Stuka dive bombers appear in the film, but there are no high-quality recordings of these aircraft, which had sirens built into the wheel struts for intimidation purposes. There are no Stukas still flying, nor could I find any design drawings so we could build our own..'
Is there any existing Stuka sirens in existence? Could one use a wind tunnel to stimulated the effect of the plane power diving?
About the final stucka attack: I kind of got it was implied it was one of the two escorting the bomber which sank a ship earlier near the coast. They managed to kill one plus the bomber but the other survived so it was probably going back to base and saw an oportune target. Also the point of that scene: however near salvation may be you arent safe unless you are home. It was to build tension in the final part of the escape.
Also they artificialy extended the glide time for the spitfire by a lot, but it is progresively moving lower and lower, that detail I really apreciated. Its a movie about how just living and fighting a few more minutes can make a great difference, so all this serves the theme very well
It was also to tie the three timelines and places together. Its at that moment when everything is happening at the same time and not a couple of days/hours earlier.
So film wise it makes sense even if it doesn't realistically