The Navy was going to commandeer the boat, but Mr. Dawson chooses to take the boat out himself. George jumped on board because he wanted to impress his family/friends, despite the Dawsons explaining the dangers to him.
On George jumping aboard on the peer. In reality most of the small vessels requisitioned by the naval for the evacuation were operated by navy personnel not their civilian owners, although many were. I saw that sequence as the owner rushing off, before the navy arrived to assigned officers to his boat, as they were to the vessels before his, meaning he won't be making the trip himself and had nothing to do with George's motivation. George just waited to the last minute so they couldn't kick him off.
Amazingly tense and well executed. Really liked how we didn't have to deal with the typical dialogue cliches of war films like "can't wait to see my girl back home", "when I get back im gunna get this/that". This is a serious film that has characters focusing on what's happening and in tune with the present. Nolan is a master of his craft
iirc, George got on the boat bc he felt like he was a nobody, and wanted to make his dad proud (by being in the newspaper). Thats why at the end you can see the sailors son go to the "newspaper office" (idk what its called) and ask to have a story written about him
The timeframes were a genius way to tell the story in my opinion. It allowed us to cut between scenes, maintaining tension and it also stopped the film from being 2 1/2 to 3 hours which it would have been if it covered the whole week chronologically from start to finish.
The ending of interstellar was based on studies in quantum physics, something never shown before on film visually. Nolan took a risk but I personally liked it
I realize I'm probably late with this, but to explain the cutting, Nolan was using a style called a triptych. The idea is having 3 separate stories converging at 1 point. The soldiers story took place over 1 week, Rylance's story took place over 1 day, and Hardy's over 1 hour. Honestly I feel Nolan could have executed this better. I feel if people didn't know this going in, it is easy to get lost, as you originally seem to have (not trying to down talk you, I work at a movie theater and have had to explain it to a lot of people so it is a common problem.) Love your videos, even when I don't agree, always nice to see someone really analyze and explain their opinions like you do.
Oh yeah I get the format, it's the same as Crash. I agree though, Nolan could have executed it way better. It comes across as unnecessary and confusing as opposed to the "ahhhh.... wow" response it's meant to evoke.
The timescales for each story are different, hence the jumps between night and day. The beach is over one week. The boat is over one day and the air combat, one hour. The stories have very different timescales but are spread evenly across the film, culminating in a focal point at the minesweeper sequence. It allows each story to be paced similarly and prevents the story becoming very cluttered at the end.
+Becky Twigg Ahhh. That was the point of the time scales at the start! I found those confusing. Ok. I get what Nolan was doing now, but I think he could have pulled it off better. Thanks for clearing that up!
Interstellar's ending is actually plausible in a sense. I found Dunkirk to be a rather boring sit. The movie did not have a point since plot and characters are absent. If it is all about showing what the troops on the beach went through then that could have been and has been done in documentaries. As somebody who has been in combat I can tell you that most of it is a mix of sheer boredom and almost crippling fear. Whilst I do feel the former when watching Dunkirk, the fear of losing a friend, my life or a limb impacts only if I know who is threatned by the air raids. Moreover, though it pains me to say it, the Frenchies did quite a good job holding the German forces in place and could have been mentioned a few more times in the movie. I might have liked it better if there was anything to take away from the movie. As is I am left wondering as to how many great ideas for movies must have been rejected in order to make this waste of my time.
I really enjoyed the film. I Did not know about Dunkirk but the film does a great job explaining what went down. A beautiful looking film. Great characters. The film score is excellent. The suspense leaves you on the edge of your seat. I like that there is little to no dialogue in the film. The negatives are when there is dialogue in the film it is muffled. I blame this more on where I saw the film, the cinema had the volume on too high.
Let's not forget that the Miracle at Dunkirk had nothing to do with military response. It was a miracle because the everyday British people came together and pulled those men off the beaches with a flotilla of over 700 private and commercial vessels. Nope... can't showcase that. Because National Pride is E.V.I.L. in 2017... along with the word "German" if you're director Nolan.
The correct term for your opponent in the military is THE ENEMY!!! Not Fritz, Hun, Jerry, Etc, thought the troops do use all. P.S. It wasn't everyday British people coming together, but more somebody in the Government making plans way in the past that could be activated at a drop of a Hat. The Myth that the British always muddle through is just that a Myth.
I'm not sure how that really impacts the story. The time difference between England and France is 1 hour. When you're in the English Channel I'm not even sure where the time difference applies.
on the beach soldiers were stuck for one week,which is why that takes place over the span of multiple days ,the civilian boats only started to come during the last two days of the evacuation, which is why that story takes place over the span of one day, the spitfire could fly an hour and half when it is full, which is why the story starts when he takes flight and ends when he runs out of foul
You know what, people liked Dunkirk more than I did. But I can't stand Dunkirk for the following reasons: 1) It doesn't feel like a cinematic experience: Never for once in the movie do I feel like it is in a battlefield. Everything is well shot and clean which took me out of the experience. For instance, in the opening scene we see the empty town. There is no people other than the soldier, no smoke, no damaged building, just very clean buildings. You may argue that it is real, but I am watching a movie, not a documentary. If I want to know the truth I will read a book. For Cinematic reality, at least they should try. Therefore when the soldier start dying, I can only buff of smokes. This is not dying, they are falling (yes this is a PG-13 movie, but I have been PG-13 movies done better). That whole sequence is tense, yes, but it felt like a stage play. In fact, 2) No characters: Not once do I see character development, not once. there are individual moments of heroism, but without context, it is meaningless, is it there duty to safe people, are the doing it for pride. Imagine you saw Dark Knight, you see Bruce Wayne saves people as Batman but we know nothing about Bruce Wayne. How would you feel? Also I noticed at least 70% of dialogue are monologues. What I mean by that is people are explaining things rather than expressing them. For instance, when Clian Murphy's character showed up, the old man said "he is not the same man". We already know that, Murphy is a great actor and he is very convincing. So why have that line? It is for the audiences? In fact, there are more than one occasion where I hear lines like that and frankly I was insulted. Also, the kid who died in the boat... good lord.... 3) Storytelling: Before you say anything. Yes, I understand why Nolan did it and yes, I wasn't confused, but I HATED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why because it was unnecessary and painfully pretentious. Let me explain: there are three arcs and each have different time span, so telling them at the same time means there will be time shifts. Why is that a problem? Because a) it will ruin the suspense for other arcs, for instance, in the air arc, we have overhead shots with soldiers jumping into the sea from the boat they are about to ride on. But in the mole arc, the story didn't happen yet, so we already knew the results of the events. b) it creates more distraction than needed, first time I was annoyed by the radical shift of day and night, second time I was still annoyed because I don't understand they have to do it. Imagine you write a thesis, imagine you have three points and imagine before finishing you point, you start another, and then move on to the third point, and then back to the first one. How would your professor feel? You may say "o so you don't like non-linear storytelling?" I like it when it works? Momento works because there is a clear pattern despite it seemingly random time jump and it is fitting because our main character's condition is perfect for the story. Tarantino films worked because there is a rhythem to his non-linear stories, like reading a novel. There is a climax and there is a moment of truth, and even when he is telling you non-linear story each arc is told with a focus. In Dunkirk, it is a luster-fuck. At the end of the film, they try to tell you the three comes together, but it felt so forced, like in your face. I can go on. If you want to see more just see RUclips video I made. If I don't like something, I will not complain without giving concrete reasoning because it won't be fair for the people who put efforts in the film. I know why people liked it (just like all other Nolan films), but I am sorry: to say this film is overrated is an understatement on my book, I hated it. People will tell me everyone loved it, people will say that vets loved it. I respect them and I respect their opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to like it where obviously I don't!!!
as soon as love island was mentioned I switched off, this film deserves to be taken seriously with a straight review due to the subject joking was in bad taste IMO
My reviews are always done in a somewhat informal and humourous manner, regardless of the subject matter. However, I understand your feelings if you were looking for a more serious review. I also switch off when people talk about Love Island.
In my Opinion coming from a guy who just likes movies I thought Dunkirk was fairly shite. I don't want to sound like I'm copying what you and everyone else in the comments is saying but I just felt with no plot and no characters I just didn't find anything to grasp on to in the movie and so I never really go into it. I felt it was more of a dick measuring competition for Christopher Nolan trying to show off all his skill in filmography, sound etc etc rather than making a interesting story to go with it. Now putting that obvious aside I felt not seeing the enemy or the front line for any of the movie was shit, I'm not sure was I just walking into the film expecting more action or something but regardless the lack of enemy in the movie was shit like in the final 20 mins I was thinking " are these german cunts ever going show up? ". I just felt all the urgency in the movie to get people on the boats was just unnecessary, even if he put a few front line scenes with the French it would have reminded the viewer " oh shit the Germans are right there get on the boat quick lads " but no it was just urgency with no visual purpose in my mind and took away fear of failure for the brits in the film. Lastly When I was walking out of the cinema with my girlfriend I just said to her " that would be portrayed so much better as a war mini series ". Even though the movie was long I felt it didn't have enough time to fit in everything, in my opinion the evacuation of Dunkirk would have been portrayed so much better if they took Christopher nolan's filming techniques and made 1 hour long episodes concentrating on individual aspects of the movie, for example 1 episode surrounding tom hardy and the planes, develops tom hardy as a character and importance of the airforce during Dunkirk etc etc, an episode for ground troops getting evacked eg. Harry styles and the lads, again character development and characters bonding within film and so on, an episode for the volunteer boat, an episode for the captains and high up officers trying to get all the troops off the beech and a episode for the front line as a homage to the French along with that fact that the viewer will encounter the Enemy rather than not see them at all. You can see how that as a war series of hour long episodes could function better than a movie which tries to cram all of the content into 2h 15 odd mins or so. I just feel they could have done a mini band of brothers or Pacific on it rather than a in my mind poor movie. Rant over good video haha
Dunkirk is SOOOOOO overrated it's actually untrue. I'm pretty much done with Nolan atm because of this film (Not to mention Batman V Superman and justice league) The whole thing was a cash-grab in my opinion, a realistic, tense 90mins of survival. Is it heck. The explosions were everywhere, the only action in the film but 30min of the film feels like "Aww hell this boats blown up lets get to another one" like WHY, no one wants to watch that for 30min of a 90min film. The boatman and his son felt lacklustre, great acting, ZERO DEVELOPMENT, 5min at the start to explain what they feel like doing. Tom Hardy (Brilliant actor) had a stupid role, an airman who never speaks and shoots some stuff, floats for about 20min on an empty fuel tank (Realistic War film) like why did they not just give us a dog fight scene rather than switching characters every time something good happened. This film gets called an emotional journey for those who survived Dunkirk, when soldiers have slandered the film. It gets called realistic, when a plane on an empty fuel tank glides for 20min. It gets called hard to judge due to mixed opinions. Some people look WAY to much into Nolan's "Vivid imagination" the people get picked up. Tom Hardy floats down and gets captured . The end. What really cracks me up is when people who worship this garbage say "ooh the explosions were loud!" yeaaaah you are in a cinema what did you expect? "ooh Nolan used real planes and boats" Pfft is that the saving point? a real boat, not a CGI boat, a real one. What really is funny though is how this "Realistic war film" has one of the those boats WITH A HELIPAD COVERED UP WITH TARPULIN. end me just end me.
Christopher Nolan didn't do Batman v Superman or Justice League... Those were Zach Snyder and Joss Whedon. Nolan did Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises.
I liked how the Germans could drop a bomb and hit a boat, but Tom Hardy struggled to shoot down a Metzerscmidt. No way I'm sitting there watching a Spitfire ace take so long to splash a German. And then he surrenders to the Germans at the end just a few meters from Dunkirk. And buggers, what was that shell shock music playing through the entire movie. Germany made this film. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Just one problem at that time there were no Spitfire aces as the Spitfire had not operated over France. Germany bombers have over 600lbs of Armour fitted. Spitfire Mk 1 only fires bitty little .303 bullets, not 20mm Cannon shells.
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't necessarily think we NEEDED characters' backstories but maybe a bit more dialogue and a bit more personality to them would've helped.
scifinerd17 100 percent agreed. I'll be saying the same thing in my review
The Navy was going to commandeer the boat, but Mr. Dawson chooses to take the boat out himself. George jumped on board because he wanted to impress his family/friends, despite the Dawsons explaining the dangers to him.
The Navy are not looking for George, they are just assigning sailors as they commandeer them.
On George jumping aboard on the peer. In reality most of the small vessels requisitioned by the naval for the evacuation were operated by navy personnel not their civilian owners, although many were. I saw that sequence as the owner rushing off, before the navy arrived to assigned officers to his boat, as they were to the vessels before his, meaning he won't be making the trip himself and had nothing to do with George's motivation. George just waited to the last minute so they couldn't kick him off.
Amazingly tense and well executed. Really liked how we didn't have to deal with the typical dialogue cliches of war films like "can't wait to see my girl back home", "when I get back im gunna get this/that". This is a serious film that has characters focusing on what's happening and in tune with the present. Nolan is a master of his craft
iirc, George got on the boat bc he felt like he was a nobody, and wanted to make his dad proud (by being in the newspaper). Thats why at the end you can see the sailors son go to the "newspaper office" (idk what its called) and ask to have a story written about him
The timeframes were a genius way to tell the story in my opinion. It allowed us to cut between scenes, maintaining tension and it also stopped the film from being 2 1/2 to 3 hours which it would have been if it covered the whole week chronologically from start to finish.
The ending of interstellar was based on studies in quantum physics, something never shown before on film visually. Nolan took a risk but I personally liked it
I realize I'm probably late with this, but to explain the cutting, Nolan was using a style called a triptych. The idea is having 3 separate stories converging at 1 point. The soldiers story took place over 1 week, Rylance's story took place over 1 day, and Hardy's over 1 hour.
Honestly I feel Nolan could have executed this better. I feel if people didn't know this going in, it is easy to get lost, as you originally seem to have (not trying to down talk you, I work at a movie theater and have had to explain it to a lot of people so it is a common problem.)
Love your videos, even when I don't agree, always nice to see someone really analyze and explain their opinions like you do.
Oh yeah I get the format, it's the same as Crash. I agree though, Nolan could have executed it way better. It comes across as unnecessary and confusing as opposed to the "ahhhh.... wow" response it's meant to evoke.
NOoo ( gets shot at )
Nooooooo ( gets shot at more )
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ( shots down Dunkirk with Shotgun)
The timescales for each story are different, hence the jumps between night and day. The beach is over one week. The boat is over one day and the air combat, one hour. The stories have very different timescales but are spread evenly across the film, culminating in a focal point at the minesweeper sequence. It allows each story to be paced similarly and prevents the story becoming very cluttered at the end.
+Becky Twigg Ahhh. That was the point of the time scales at the start! I found those confusing. Ok. I get what Nolan was doing now, but I think he could have pulled it off better. Thanks for clearing that up!
Interstellar's ending is actually plausible in a sense.
I found Dunkirk to be a rather boring sit. The movie did not have a point since plot and characters are absent. If it is all about showing what the troops on the beach went through then that could have been and has been done in documentaries.
As somebody who has been in combat I can tell you that most of it is a mix of sheer boredom and almost crippling fear. Whilst I do feel the former when watching Dunkirk, the fear of losing a friend, my life or a limb impacts only if I know who is threatned by the air raids.
Moreover, though it pains me to say it, the Frenchies did quite a good job holding the German forces in place and could have been mentioned a few more times in the movie.
I might have liked it better if there was anything to take away from the movie. As is I am left wondering as to how many great ideas for movies must have been rejected in order to make this waste of my time.
I really enjoyed the film. I Did not know about Dunkirk but the film does a great job explaining what went down. A beautiful looking film. Great characters. The film score is excellent. The suspense leaves you on the edge of your seat. I like that there is little to no dialogue in the film. The negatives are when there is dialogue in the film it is muffled. I blame this more on where I saw the film, the cinema had the volume on too high.
Yeah I saw this in IMAX and there was no issue with the dialogue.
I love your content. You make decent reviews that I trust. But my question is....where are you from?
North East England :)
Film Rant thank you ;) was having trouble pinpointing your accent. Really enjoy the content, keep up the good work
Let's not forget that the Miracle at Dunkirk had nothing to do with military response. It was a miracle because the everyday British people came together and pulled those men off the beaches with a flotilla of over 700 private and commercial vessels. Nope... can't showcase that. Because National Pride is E.V.I.L. in 2017... along with the word "German" if you're director Nolan.
The correct term for your opponent in the military is THE ENEMY!!! Not Fritz, Hun, Jerry, Etc, thought the troops do use all. P.S. It wasn't everyday British people coming together, but more somebody in the Government making plans way in the past that could be activated at a drop of a Hat. The Myth that the British always muddle through is just that a Myth.
You forgot to mention that their in different time zones from each perspective
I'm not sure how that really impacts the story. The time difference between England and France is 1 hour. When you're in the English Channel I'm not even sure where the time difference applies.
on the beach soldiers were stuck for one week,which is why that takes place over the span of multiple days ,the civilian boats only started to come during the last two days of the evacuation, which is why that story takes place over the span of one day, the spitfire could fly an hour and half when it is full, which is why the story starts when he takes flight and ends when he runs out of foul
You know what, people liked Dunkirk more than I did. But I can't stand Dunkirk for the following reasons:
1) It doesn't feel like a cinematic experience: Never for once in the movie do I feel like it is in a battlefield. Everything is well shot and clean which took me out of the experience. For instance, in the opening scene we see the empty town. There is no people other than the soldier, no smoke, no damaged building, just very clean buildings. You may argue that it is real, but I am watching a movie, not a documentary. If I want to know the truth I will read a book. For Cinematic reality, at least they should try. Therefore when the soldier start dying, I can only buff of smokes. This is not dying, they are falling (yes this is a PG-13 movie, but I have been PG-13 movies done better). That whole sequence is tense, yes, but it felt like a stage play. In fact,
2) No characters: Not once do I see character development, not once. there are individual moments of heroism, but without context, it is meaningless, is it there duty to safe people, are the doing it for pride. Imagine you saw Dark Knight, you see Bruce Wayne saves people as Batman but we know nothing about Bruce Wayne. How would you feel? Also I noticed at least 70% of dialogue are monologues. What I mean by that is people are explaining things rather than expressing them. For instance, when Clian Murphy's character showed up, the old man said "he is not the same man". We already know that, Murphy is a great actor and he is very convincing. So why have that line? It is for the audiences? In fact, there are more than one occasion where I hear lines like that and frankly I was insulted. Also, the kid who died in the boat... good lord....
3) Storytelling: Before you say anything. Yes, I understand why Nolan did it and yes, I wasn't confused, but I HATED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why because it was unnecessary and painfully pretentious. Let me explain: there are three arcs and each have different time span, so telling them at the same time means there will be time shifts. Why is that a problem? Because a) it will ruin the suspense for other arcs, for instance, in the air arc, we have overhead shots with soldiers jumping into the sea from the boat they are about to ride on. But in the mole arc, the story didn't happen yet, so we already knew the results of the events. b) it creates more distraction than needed, first time I was annoyed by the radical shift of day and night, second time I was still annoyed because I don't understand they have to do it. Imagine you write a thesis, imagine you have three points and imagine before finishing you point, you start another, and then move on to the third point, and then back to the first one. How would your professor feel? You may say "o so you don't like non-linear storytelling?" I like it when it works? Momento works because there is a clear pattern despite it seemingly random time jump and it is fitting because our main character's condition is perfect for the story. Tarantino films worked because there is a rhythem to his non-linear stories, like reading a novel. There is a climax and there is a moment of truth, and even when he is telling you non-linear story each arc is told with a focus. In Dunkirk, it is a luster-fuck. At the end of the film, they try to tell you the three comes together, but it felt so forced, like in your face.
I can go on. If you want to see more just see RUclips video I made. If I don't like something, I will not complain without giving concrete reasoning because it won't be fair for the people who put efforts in the film. I know why people liked it (just like all other Nolan films), but I am sorry: to say this film is overrated is an understatement on my book, I hated it. People will tell me everyone loved it, people will say that vets loved it. I respect them and I respect their opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to like it where obviously I don't!!!
lol Sheerans cameo was fine though
+Tanvi ahh man I really wasn't a fan.
as soon as love island was mentioned I switched off, this film deserves to be taken seriously with a straight review due to the subject joking was in bad taste IMO
My reviews are always done in a somewhat informal and humourous manner, regardless of the subject matter. However, I understand your feelings if you were looking for a more serious review.
I also switch off when people talk about Love Island.
Honestly you should totally make a gamerant channel though haha, or maybe do it whenever movies are slow
I've thought about it, but if I can talk for 20 minutes about a 2 hour movie... imagine how long I could talk about a 30+ hour game.
Film Rant oh my, I can't speak for the rest of us but 5 hours of content sounds pretty great to me
I saw Love Island recently, there wasn't really a lot of love in it.
More like drunken wuss island.
In my Opinion coming from a guy who just likes movies I thought Dunkirk was fairly shite.
I don't want to sound like I'm copying what you and everyone else in the comments is saying but I just felt with no plot and no characters I just didn't find anything to grasp on to in the movie and so I never really go into it.
I felt it was more of a dick measuring competition for Christopher Nolan trying to show off all his skill in filmography, sound etc etc rather than making a interesting story to go with it.
Now putting that obvious aside I felt not seeing the enemy or the front line for any of the movie was shit, I'm not sure was I just walking into the film expecting more action or something but regardless the lack of enemy in the movie was shit like in the final 20 mins I was thinking " are these german cunts ever going show up? ".
I just felt all the urgency in the movie to get people on the boats was just unnecessary, even if he put a few front line scenes with the French it would have reminded the viewer " oh shit the Germans are right there get on the boat quick lads " but no it was just urgency with no visual purpose in my mind and took away fear of failure for the brits in the film.
Lastly When I was walking out of the cinema with my girlfriend I just said to her " that would be portrayed so much better as a war mini series ".
Even though the movie was long I felt it didn't have enough time to fit in everything, in my opinion the evacuation of Dunkirk would have been portrayed so much better if they took Christopher nolan's filming techniques and made 1 hour long episodes concentrating on individual aspects of the movie, for example 1 episode surrounding tom hardy and the planes, develops tom hardy as a character and importance of the airforce during Dunkirk etc etc, an episode for ground troops getting evacked eg. Harry styles and the lads, again character development and characters bonding within film and so on, an episode for the volunteer boat, an episode for the captains and high up officers trying to get all the troops off the beech and a episode for the front line as a homage to the French along with that fact that the viewer will encounter the Enemy rather than not see them at all.
You can see how that as a war series of hour long episodes could function better than a movie which tries to cram all of the content into 2h 15 odd mins or so. I just feel they could have done a mini band of brothers or Pacific on it rather than a in my mind poor movie.
Rant over good video haha
Dunkirk is SOOOOOO overrated it's actually untrue. I'm pretty much done with Nolan atm because of this film (Not to mention Batman V Superman and justice league) The whole thing was a cash-grab in my opinion, a realistic, tense 90mins of survival. Is it heck. The explosions were everywhere, the only action in the film but 30min of the film feels like "Aww hell this boats blown up lets get to another one" like WHY, no one wants to watch that for 30min of a 90min film. The boatman and his son felt lacklustre, great acting, ZERO DEVELOPMENT, 5min at the start to explain what they feel like doing. Tom Hardy (Brilliant actor) had a stupid role, an airman who never speaks and shoots some stuff, floats for about 20min on an empty fuel tank (Realistic War film) like why did they not just give us a dog fight scene rather than switching characters every time something good happened. This film gets called an emotional journey for those who survived Dunkirk, when soldiers have slandered the film. It gets called realistic, when a plane on an empty fuel tank glides for 20min. It gets called hard to judge due to mixed opinions. Some people look WAY to much into Nolan's "Vivid imagination" the people get picked up. Tom Hardy floats down and gets captured . The end. What really cracks me up is when people who worship this garbage say "ooh the explosions were loud!" yeaaaah you are in a cinema what did you expect? "ooh Nolan used real planes and boats" Pfft is that the saving point? a real boat, not a CGI boat, a real one. What really is funny though is how this "Realistic war film" has one of the those boats WITH A HELIPAD COVERED UP WITH TARPULIN. end me just end me.
Christopher Nolan didn't do Batman v Superman or Justice League... Those were Zach Snyder and Joss Whedon. Nolan did Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises.
Welp!! Virgin Movies lied to me. And my Mum!!!!
I liked how the Germans could drop a bomb and hit a boat, but Tom Hardy struggled to shoot down a Metzerscmidt. No way I'm sitting there watching a Spitfire ace take so long to splash a German. And then he surrenders to the Germans at the end just a few meters from Dunkirk. And buggers, what was that shell shock music playing through the entire movie. Germany made this film. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
*Messerschmitt
Just one problem at that time there were no Spitfire aces as the Spitfire had not operated over France. Germany bombers have over 600lbs of Armour fitted. Spitfire Mk 1 only fires bitty little .303 bullets, not 20mm Cannon shells.
what a silly review, cannot take it seriously
What do you find so silly about it?