Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (2017)
Reply to Topic
You know nothing of my intentions. I was reacting to you disagreeing with Guap saying Churchill wasn't perfectly moral, Guap even disagreed with Nameless Paladin wondering if Churchill was much better than Hitler and you said nothing to him.
So you're telling me Churchill was perfectly moral?
So you're telling me Churchill was perfectly moral?
Apparently, you don't know my intentions either.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
Exactly. You can weigh the bad against the good with Churchill and come to your own decision as there was certainly plenty of both, but to pretend there was no bad is world class blindness and most likely hero worship.
Plus it was ignoring Nameless Paladins more incendiary comments to jump on Guaps smaller more agreeable point since everyone else already was jumping on him. That seems like piling on when it wasn't needed to me and i'm the one deliberately being incendiary?
Plus it was ignoring Nameless Paladins more incendiary comments to jump on Guaps smaller more agreeable point since everyone else already was jumping on him. That seems like piling on when it wasn't needed to me and i'm the one deliberately being incendiary?
X
Favorite Movies
I was reacting to Guap comparing Churchill to Hitler & Stalin. I was reacting to your comment that Churchill was awful. Both incendiary posts IMO.
Apparently, you don't know my intentions either.
Apparently, you don't know my intentions either.
X
Favorite Movies
Exactly. You can weigh the bad against the good with Churchill and come to your own decision as there was certainly plenty of both, but to pretend there was no bad is world class blindness and most likely hero worship.
Plus it was ignoring Nameless Paladins more incendiary comments to jump on Guaps smaller more agreeable point since everyone else already was jumping on him. That seems like piling on when it wasn't needed to me and i'm the one deliberately being incendiary?
Plus it was ignoring Nameless Paladins more incendiary comments to jump on Guaps smaller more agreeable point since everyone else already was jumping on him. That seems like piling on when it wasn't needed to me and i'm the one deliberately being incendiary?
I suppose I can hero worship Churchill if I want to?
I suppose I can reply to whomever I please. Or do I have to check in with you first?
I don't think Churchill was on the same level as Hitler or Stalin, those two were on a league of their own in terms of monstrosity, its just that he wasn't perfectly moral either.
BTW, I guess he can speak for himself?
Don't put words in my mouth. Where was I pretending there was no bad?
I suppose I can hero worship Churchill if I want to?
I suppose I can reply to whomever I please. Or do I have to check in with you first?
I suppose I can hero worship Churchill if I want to?
I suppose I can reply to whomever I please. Or do I have to check in with you first?
Do as you please, just pointing out it's funny you ignored the person you actually disagreed with because he wasn't being piled on.
X
Favorite Movies
If you guys want to keep discussing WW2 outside of how it relates to Dunkirk, that's fine, but it'll be moved into a new thread.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
This what he wrote. That's what I responded to.
BTW, I guess he can speak for himself?
BTW, I guess he can speak for himself?
Of course he can but i don't think he's here and i don't think it's fair him being needlessly piled on for things he's not even saying.
X
Favorite Movies
If you guys want to keep discussing WW2 outside of how it relates to Dunkirk, that's fine, but it'll be moved into a new thread.
X
Favorite Movies
So you didn't read the comment he was responding to despite it being inside that post? Your problem is with Nameless Paladin not Guap.
Of course he can but i don't think he's here and i don't think it's fair him being needlessly piled on for things he's not even saying.
Of course he can but i don't think he's here and i don't think it's fair him being needlessly piled on for things he's not even saying.
Of course. The US never played a decisive role in WW2.
The Soviet Union won the war and inflicted 90% of the total German dead, winning all the decisive battles. Actually, being the only Allied country present in the decisive battles: Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk. Some historians even argue that the effort of all other Allied countries combined was irrelevant for the outcome.
Substantial number of US, UK and other non-USSR troops only arrived in Europe in late 1944, well after the war was strategically won by Stalin's armies.
Even in 1945, the size of all other Allied armies in Europe was 100 divisions compared to 265 divisions for Stalin's armies. A British study called Operation Unthinkable showed that if the other Allies declared war on Stalin they would be effectively giving the whole of continental Europe to the communists.
While the most important US's role in WW2 was to basically help Stalin through logistical supply through lend-lease. Which they were doing before the formal declaration of war by Germany.
Therefore, without Pearl Harbor and the US's involvement WW2 would have ended with Stalin conquering all of Continental Europe up to the border with Spain.
The Soviet Union won the war and inflicted 90% of the total German dead, winning all the decisive battles. Actually, being the only Allied country present in the decisive battles: Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk. Some historians even argue that the effort of all other Allied countries combined was irrelevant for the outcome.
Substantial number of US, UK and other non-USSR troops only arrived in Europe in late 1944, well after the war was strategically won by Stalin's armies.
Even in 1945, the size of all other Allied armies in Europe was 100 divisions compared to 265 divisions for Stalin's armies. A British study called Operation Unthinkable showed that if the other Allies declared war on Stalin they would be effectively giving the whole of continental Europe to the communists.
While the most important US's role in WW2 was to basically help Stalin through logistical supply through lend-lease. Which they were doing before the formal declaration of war by Germany.
Therefore, without Pearl Harbor and the US's involvement WW2 would have ended with Stalin conquering all of Continental Europe up to the border with Spain.
http://necrometrics.com/battles.htm
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I was thinking of IMAXing this. You reckon it's a big nope on audio? Too soft?
I guess it was just my expectations. I saw the extended trailer in IMAX and the audio was flipping amazing. I am guessing maybe the theater toned it down due to complaints, but who expects an "on scene" war movie (or "movie during war" for those that say this is not a war movie) to not be loud?
Again I enjoyed it, but really wanted to be immersed more into it.
X
Favorite Movies
To get an idea of the scale of casualties in Eastern front battles in WW2 here is a list of bloodiest battles of the 20th century:
http://necrometrics.com/battles.htm
http://necrometrics.com/battles.htm
Anyway back to Dunkirk, I kinda really wanted to IMAX it, but it's summer holidays here. But then again, how many kids want to see Dunkirk?
X
Favorite Movies
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The New Yorker gave Dunkirk a very good review, which is good enough for me.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...s-wartime-epic
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...s-wartime-epic
4/10
Not being a Christopher Nolan slappie, I was able to judge this effort all on its own merit. Watching what hits the screen plays out like a tedious and poorly constructed cable documentary.
Honestly, there is literally not one ounce of character development or establishment at all. It’s just a dry depiction of three round robin events that cascades from one harrowing circumstance to the next…. one revolving around a fighter pilot, another around a foot soldier and his French imposter hanger-on trying to survive and the other about an elder statesmen boat owner and his efforts to aid the cause. The only one that is even remotely interesting involves the boat owner, his son and poor lil’ George. In fact, the only character name given as to remember it was poor sad lil’ George. I didn’t make it to the final credits but I wonder if the rest of the cast of characters was simply titled “nameless soldier”?
Having no depth means limited emotional impact and that does a disservice to the real life heroes this movie tries to honor. What alleviates the shear dullness of what is depicted often comes in the form of a racing soundtrack. It’s as if the frantic music is your cue on how to react because it’s hard to tell by just watching the visuals. The movie itself is all one grim repetitive note. After a while, the grinding soundtrack does start to annoy and pushes towards headache inducing territory. Is that some kind of sloppy film making trick? Trick the audience in to feeling uneasy using other senses rather than simply writing an impactful story?
It IS dull and it can hardly be called an actual movie given how it’s structured but it’s not offensively bad and does its job showing the grim events of Dunkirk.
Not being a Christopher Nolan slappie, I was able to judge this effort all on its own merit. Watching what hits the screen plays out like a tedious and poorly constructed cable documentary.
Honestly, there is literally not one ounce of character development or establishment at all. It’s just a dry depiction of three round robin events that cascades from one harrowing circumstance to the next…. one revolving around a fighter pilot, another around a foot soldier and his French imposter hanger-on trying to survive and the other about an elder statesmen boat owner and his efforts to aid the cause. The only one that is even remotely interesting involves the boat owner, his son and poor lil’ George. In fact, the only character name given as to remember it was poor sad lil’ George. I didn’t make it to the final credits but I wonder if the rest of the cast of characters was simply titled “nameless soldier”?
Having no depth means limited emotional impact and that does a disservice to the real life heroes this movie tries to honor. What alleviates the shear dullness of what is depicted often comes in the form of a racing soundtrack. It’s as if the frantic music is your cue on how to react because it’s hard to tell by just watching the visuals. The movie itself is all one grim repetitive note. After a while, the grinding soundtrack does start to annoy and pushes towards headache inducing territory. Is that some kind of sloppy film making trick? Trick the audience in to feeling uneasy using other senses rather than simply writing an impactful story?
It IS dull and it can hardly be called an actual movie given how it’s structured but it’s not offensively bad and does its job showing the grim events of Dunkirk.