I hope it’s better than Dunkirk. Pretty low bar set by that production.
Agree. Saw Dunkirk and it was just ok in my book. These artsy war films miss the mark. No need for fictional stories when there are so many real stories of valor to tell from WW1/WW2.
“I hope it’s better than Dunkirk...” [Magnum44, post 2]
“...Saw Dunkirk and it was just ok in my book. These artsy war films miss the mark...” [lodi90, post 3]
Not sure what “mark” _Dunkirk_ should have been aiming at, but it came closer to the realities than most films. Aside from some technical errors and a somewhat elastic treatment of the timeline, the filmmakers did a fair job of conveying the fear, chaos, squalor, frustration, futility, frustration, and senselessness that a private soldier probably would have felt or been subjected to, caught in that mess.
No film ought to depict combat with perfect realism anyway. Missing from even the most-highly-regarded films about World War Two are the true levels of noise, heat, cold, odors, and the like. Ultra-realistic sfx would injure or kill theatergoers, sicken them, or drive them from the theater wailing in terror. Alienating a paying audience in such a manner would do the bottom line no good.
Some months ago, another forum member complained that _Dunkirk_ fell short because it didn’t convey sufficient “triumphalism” or something like it. I pointed out that in June 1940, anything resembling a sense of triumph on the part of the Allies would have been premature.
Yeah to. E, Dunkirk was boring UN epic, with Christopher Nolan as the draw power. These WWI Movies that come out are quite good. Better than the WWII movies.