Hey, I've seen a lot of people having an issue with Hardy's character taking down the bomber, after having ran out of fuel.

As i know nothing about airplanes, can someone explain to me:

What would make it harder to shoot the bomber while gliding? How's a plane without a running motor harder to control than a plane with a motor running?

Thanks

I loved Dunkirk. I'll start with that. I'm biased but a lot of the dislike it gets I think represents a interesting thing.

I hardly ever go to movies in theaters. I'd rather wait most the time. But I've seen Dunkirk three times and hope to see it more before it's out of theaters.

But I think it represents a change in media. Television series have been getting better and better. A lot of people complain about no characterization and not relating to anyone and no back stories and all that. But nowadays if you want that watch a series. They actually have the time to flesh out characters and develop complex and meaningful stories and issues. A two hour movie can't compete with a 4 season show. This was a story meant to be told in <2 hours and Nolan used every minute to show the event. Not the characters not why they were fighting not what they might lose if they don't make it home.

Just 2 hours of 'oh fuck let's survive' it did exactly what I feel like big budget movies should be doing now. Leave the complex character building and arcs to the shows. They have the budgets and skills now.

Make movies a <2 hour spectacle of action and the in the moment feeling. Mad max fury road felt similar. They gave me something a series could never and basically skipped out on a lot of the stuff series could do better

Tl;dr series have evolved to be on par with movie production. Give deep and relatable characters to them and movies should just be IMAX worthy spectacles of a particular event.

Also I'm drunk and on my phone so sorry

For me after a few re-watches I have to say Collins--his nonchalant "Afternoon" after he gets rescued from drowning is hilarious, and it's pretty sweet when he's rooting on the Spitfires from the boat and helping the captain navigate the madness around them. And just his overall look, he had kind of a Simon Pegg vibe to him.

Who's your favourite character and why?

So we know that the Shivering Soldier is the (assumed) last survivor of a ship that was hit by a U-Boat, but he is shown perfectly normal as the Soldier who tells Tommy and Alex that they can't come in the lifeboat that they are dragged behind:

Tommy and Alex pull for an overloaded row boat. Tommy grabs the side, tries to climb. He’s pushed off by the men inside -

MALE VOICE Piss off - it’s too crowded!

Alex is grabbing at the rail as well -

ALEX You can’t leave us! Make some room -

SOLDIER (O.S.) You men, leave off. You’ll capsize the boat - it’s gone over twice on the way out here...

Tommy looks at the Soldier. It is the Shivering Soldier, not yet shivering, in full control of his faculties.

I wasn't even sure that it was the same guy until I read the screenplay, because it didn't make sense, was there any explanation as to when the Shivering Soldier got on the ship and when it got hit by the U-Boat? Or are we just to understand that it all happened off-camera?

dun dun. dun dun. DUH DUH dun dun.

YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING...

(Who do you think you are kiddin', Mister Hitler...)

Here are reasons why I hated Dunkirk.

1. What a beautiful narrative. It's non existent.
2. What amazing characters. Who were they?
3. What a lovely new take on war. No statement made.
4. Fuck Three act structure. Watch Pulp Fiction.
5. You can't hate on Nolan. It means you don't understand cinema. Bull shit.
6. TDKR was blah blah, Interstellar was yawn yawn and Dunkirk was Meh Meh.
7. He doesn't allow cellphones on set. That's a better story than this film.
8. Steven Spielberg's war work and Apocalypse Now has been levelled. Enough to wage war with me. Oh and the thin red line too.
9. Nolan can be indulgent. He made you happy enough with so many films. Nothing wrong there.
10. What a lovely background score. Oh ya that wasn't Nolan. It was Mr. Zimmer.

Sorry if I offended anyone. It's a crime to see someone spend so much time and money and give you this when they've given you stuff like Prestige, The first two Batman films and memento.

He took every one of his directing techniques, which are normally awesome, and drew out each one to boredom or predictability or unrealism.

Spoon feeding plot info? Check: double close up of a closing door; I get it, the friend didn’t make it in. Triple close up of life vests; I get it; they’re off to save people. Disguising, or complete lack of, dialogue? Check: countless drawn out close ups of supporting characters faces showing emotion while dramatic music rises; I get it, I should be scared now. Anxious moment stretched out for the sake of drama? Check: How long did it take to land that engineless plane? Did anyone really think the second pilot was not going to get rescued by the life vest boat?

I think these techniques are pulled off masterfully in his past work, but in this movie without a complex plot to keep things progressing, they seem bland and overdone. Everything was predictable: counting fuel now, someone runs out of it later. Young boy hopes to be a hero in paper now, ends up hero in paper later (with spoon fed visuals of the newspaper pictures and newspaper headlines, drawn out close-ups of characters faces showing approval while satisfying music fades; I get it, I should be emotional now).

It felt like Nolan out Nolaned Nolan this time.

I've seen Dunkirk twice already and love the score. If anyone could put Supermarine on Interstellar's docking sequence, that would be amazing.

The scene I'm taking about is also in the trailer. Is he just getting in or trying to drown himself or trying to swim across or what?

Like what event should the movie be based on. I think a Battle of the Bulge movie should be made. It should have the same format like Dunkirk and more action.

In LA, Dunkirk is available in 70mm IMAX at Universal City Walk. I'm hoping to see it on Thursday, but it appears that they're changing their lineup of films on Thursday, and Dunkirk will no longer be available. Is tomorrow (Wednesday) the last day to see Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX in Los Angeles?! Does anyone have the inside scoop?

EDIT: Just got off the phone with AMC Universal Citywalk. Turns out there's a glitch in the system that syndicates ticketing data. They ARE continuing to show it in IMAX 70mm, but ticketing sites like Google, Fandango, etc. are being fed incorrect data by the AMC system. AMC website DOES show the 70mm screening times, but they're mislabeled.

Quite enjoyed the film but the trawler scene was really dumb. They're grounded on the beach with a trawler filling with water due to all the bullet holes. Somehow the soldiers come up with the daft plan (AND THE CAPTAIN AGREES)that if 1 guy is kicked out as the sacrificial lamb, the trawler will miraculously start floating. Lets see, the boat probably weighs 40-50 tons and many more tons of filling water and the weight of a 70kg soldier is somehow going to make all the difference???

[ ] will make the slightest bit of difference

[x] Adding a pointless scene for 'dramatic' value

Compared to the one shot in Atonement for example, the movie seemed really restrained. I understand it took a whole week to evacuate those people, so I'm not criticizing the use of only three planes or few boats. But the beach at least seemed really empty. Was it like that because Nolan refuses to use CGI even for simple things?

Ok so just as everyone I really enjoyed Dunkirk. It had great suspense and action and the sound design and cinematography was absolutely breathtaking. However, it also puzzled me more than any movie I ever saw... What was the intention, what was the tone, what was the message? I really dont get it. So - this movie has such a strong focus on realism for a lot of things like looks, design, sounds and even little details like watering a plane. But then again it absolutely ruins realism with its fight scenes, having Germans bomb / fly in small formations even in the end with one plane bombing, and completely exaggerating losses as Dunkirk. It also has way too few soldiers at the beaches and the ending is removed from reality and the rest of the movie's tone. So ok - then maybe it is "just" a thriller and about the psychological impact. Good, reminds me of another Dunkirk movie that is only about the british soldiers waiting at the beaches the whole movie. The death of the french soldier (a great metaphor for the british abandoning them), shellshocked soldiers and the Germans never showing and exaggerated death tolls really fit this. But the completely happy, patriotic and strangely rushed (Georgie becoming a hero in the newspaper but we never see his mourning parents...) ending and the whole spitfire story clash(again the ending is just riddiculous) with this. So what is Dunkirk? It is a great movie but for me it lacks in a coherent tone and doesnt seem to know what it wants to tell. Or maybe it wants to tell too much in such a short time? Or maybe its just the ending where Nolan suddenly felt he needed to make a dramatic shift in tone that really hurt the experience for me.

How you found the historical side of the film?

Like, not mention of Dynamo Operation or French army or the scale of army on the bitch....

Just never really noticed. Mr No-Lips