You wrote:
Despite a $150m budget you do NOT “see it on screen.” Looks like there are maybe 50,000 guys waiting to load, rather than 400,000. The most planes you see at a time are three Spitfires. When the civilian rescue fleet appears, it looks like maybe 30 boats instead of the hundreds that actually arrived.
The whole point of cinema is not necessarily to “wow” you with CGI effects where one “sees” 300,000 actual individual men lining up on the beach. This is the American style - no good story but plenty of boom, boom, boom replete with explosions, cars flipping, lots of robots (or Godzilla) destroying Manhattan (again, flipped cars) or fantasy films with advanced civilizations dressing up like Roman warriors.
No, this is not a typical war film where the hero shoots 5,000 Germans or Japanese without reloading his magazine.
Nolan has actually taken a story as seen from 3 main perspectives, land, sea and air.
I thought it was brilliant, well photographed, scored to excellent music and of course good acting about an amazing story. I too had high expectations and they were all met.
So maybe give Nolan some credit on the epic film?
Didn’t like it. Neither did my two friends. I know exactly what Nolan was trying to do. He wasn’t successful in my opinion. Glad you liked it.
I agree with you for the most part.....just saw it today
2 points.....I wish we could have actually heard Churchill’s voice reading his speech. at the end
And I wish they had included England’s response of their boats was because of the message sent......AND IF NOT
My generation would have understood this