# Dunkirk



## Rocko (Jul 23, 2017)

I wasn't impressed at all. The story lines were weak, the dialogue wasn't impressive and there was no character development. Everyone thinks best movie of all time and I just don't see it.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Terrible movie ... a stain on the memory of the brave men who died in France trying to stem the tide of Nazi aggression.


----------



## DarkFury (Jul 23, 2017)

*Well I was going to watch that movie. You just saved me some money thank you.*


----------



## shockedcanadian (Jul 23, 2017)

I will still watch it, but I will wait for Netflix which means I will probably watch it in 2-3 years, maybe longer for Canadian viewers.  

I enjoy war movies, especially when based on real events, as it's a reminder of how evil man can be and how other, better men rise to the occasion.  

Of all the war movies I've seen it's hard to pin down the best ones.  I would probably draw outside the box and pick two fictional movies, *Brothers with Toby Maguire* and *The Messenger with Woody Harrelson*.  I like these both because unlike what was described with this movie Dunkirk, they do extensive character building in these two movies, and it shows life for soldiers as they interact with civilian life, and the challenges.  It illustrates not just the risk to life, but the life long emotional and mental anguish those brave enough to serve often go through.

Full Metal Jacket and Platoon are classics (after seeing Platoon again recently, I think it's overrated), and Saving Private Ryan was unyielding in it's portrayal of the evils in war, but I preferred the two I mentioned.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

This movie has a decidedly anti-war slant.  But, instead of focusing on the horrors of war, this movie portrays British soldiers as dispirited and cowardly.  British soldiers are seen pretending to be medics to sneak onto hospital ships to be evacuated.  You see a shell-shocked British officer kill a young boy in a panic over having to return to Dunkirk after being rescued at sea by civilians.  You see British soldiers turning on each other trying to get into a sinking boat to escape.

You never see the face of the German enemy, but you see plenty of scenes of British soldiers being bombed, being drowned, and being burned alive.  None of them dying bravely.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Terrible movie ... a stain on the memory of the brave men who died in France trying to stem the tide of Nazi aggression.


"Nazi aggression"

Don´t declare war on Germany.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> This movie has a decidedly anti-war slant.  But, instead of focusing on the horrors of war, this movie portrays British soldiers as dispirited and cowardly.  British soldiers are seen pretending to be medics to sneak onto hospital ships to be evacuated.  You see a shell-shocked British officer kill a young boy in a panic over having to return to Dunkirk after being rescued at sea by civilians.  You see British soldiers turning on each other trying to get into a sinking boat to escape.
> 
> You never see the face of the German enemy, but you see plenty of scenes of British soldiers being bombed, being drowned, and being burned alive.  None of them dying bravely.


The situation didn´t allow the escapees to "die bravely".


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> The situation didn´t allow the escapees to "die bravely".



Actually, hundreds of British and French died fighting a desperate rear guard actions to delay the German advance and give the British 8 days to evacuate 320,000 British soldiers.

None of this was depicted in the film.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Don´t declare war on Germany.



Don't invade Poland and France.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > The situation didn´t allow the escapees to "die bravely".
> ...


Well, should have then.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



I don't believe the point of the film was to depict this battle in anything but an unflattering light.  I checked the credits but UFA and Leni Riefenstahl don't appear to have been connected with the film.  Strange because it certainly appeared to be their work.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Don´t declare war on Germany.
> ...


German-Polish relations are nothing of your concern. Don´t you know Comrade Stalin invaded too and took 2/3 of Poland? He became your ally. Germany invaded France after both the British and French declaration of war and the heroic phony war that helped Poland to repel the German attack 

Phoney War - Wikipedia


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



Ultimately, the war ended with a satisfactory result.  It's a shame that many decent people had to die to bring German aggression under control.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Very strange, indeed. Normally, a single soldier defeats entire Germany during a Sunday stroll in movies.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


I don´t think that the Cold War was somehow satisfactory. Of course, Hitler had to be removed but the means used in the war don´t allow a side to be the good guys in the end. And while English and American soldiers enjoyed five star war captivity, tens of thousands of German POWs died undocumented in the allies´ "camps":


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 23, 2017)

Excellent movie!

Leave your politics at home ago see it.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> tens of thousands of German POWs died in the allies´ "camps":



Must have been horrible for them ...






But I'm having a hard time working up too much sympathy for Nazis.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > tens of thousands of German POWs died in the allies´ "camps":
> ...


You are being undifferentiated. The ordinary German soldiers were not "the Nazis".


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> The ordinary German soldiers were not "the Nazis".



Yes ... it turned out after the war that NO ONE was a Nazi.  Strange, isn't it?


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > The ordinary German soldiers were not "the Nazis".
> ...


That´s not the point. The satisfaction was great when Hitler ended the regime of the Versailles Treaty. That doesn´t mean they were ardent Hitler worshipers. After 33, the Nazis did a lot of shit.

But while the allies´ bombings did not break the Germans but unified them with Hitler´s cause, all the more as they were exposed to the Nazi propaganda 24/7,  the forces, that had to suffer from Hitler and his fanatic leadership, were not that taken with him. After all, it was the forces who tried to kill Hitler and started to disarm the SS. It was the forces that sent false information to the FHQ to shorten the war and it was the forces that even acted without Hitlers approval, for example the escape from the Cherkassy pocket:

Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> After 33, the Nazis did a lot of shit.



The Germans did a lot of shit.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > After 33, the Nazis did a lot of shit.
> ...


Everyone did, everyone. We Germans are not committed to conquest and murder.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> We Germans are not committed to conquest and murder.



Not for a while anyway.  We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## shockedcanadian (Jul 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



I will agree that war is evil, and both sides have some who engaged in cruel actions.  Again, as we see today in the alt-left arguments against American accidental bombings of civilians; it's not a moral equivalency.

For example.  The Germans started the entire war, lead by a Madman.  I won't blame the average German who lived on a farm somewhere for German conquest, but I certainly can blame your leaders and in general, German passion for a revenge of some sort after the French and British imposed reparation Treaties after WWI.  It translated into a rabid desire for payback.

Recall that the Germans bombed the city of London  for nearly three months, in an attempt to break the Will of the British.  This was a direct attack on civilian population and city infrastructure.  In some cases, nearly 1000 German planes were in the skies over Britain.

Furthermore, the Resistance Forces in France in particular, sacrificed a great deal and it is often overlooked in history because the French were defeated so quickly when the Blitz came.  The British were outnumbered 3 to 1 in the air but the RAF bravely fought on in defense of their country, often in run down, unsafe planes.  All of this, much to the chagrin of German leaders.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > We Germans are not committed to conquest and murder.
> ...


It was a special situation. It could happen in any country.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 23, 2017)

shockedcanadian said:


> I will agree that war is evil, and both sides have some who engaged in cruel actions.  Again, as we see today in the alt-left arguments against American accidental bombings of civilians; it's not a moral equivalency.


There was intentional mass murder of the German population by bombings. The most blame take the Brits in that bombings. The American bombers mostly came by day and targeted factories and infrastructure. The Brits came at night and bombed the residential buildings. While the US bombings certainly caused a large number of civilian casualties, British bombings were exclusively targeting civilians.

"We were flying at 6,000 feet which was the minimum height to drop the 4,000 pounder. We dropped it in the middle of town [Koblenz], which gave the aircraft a hell of a belt, lifted it up and blew an escape hatch from out of the top."
Blockbuster bomb - Wikipedia




shockedcanadian said:


> For example.  The Germans started the entire war, lead by a Madman.  I won't blame the average German who lived on a farm somewhere for German conquest, but I certainly can blame your leaders and in general, German passion for a revenge of some sort after the French and British imposed reparation Treaties after WWI.  It translated into a rabid desire for payback.


- The Germans did not start the entire war.
- The Versailles Treaty gravely affected the sovereignty of Germany not only in regard to the military.




shockedcanadian said:


> Recall that the Germans bombed the city of London  for nearly three months, in an attempt to break the Will of the British.  This was a direct attack on civilian population and city infrastructure.  In some cases, nearly 1000 German planes were in the skies over Britain.


It was Hitler´s stupid reaction to Churchill´s sinister plan. Actually, there was a strict ban to bomb London. When Churchill realized he is losing and his airfields are about to completely come off, he decided to bomb Berlin to make Hitler bomb London and Hitler bombed London for six weeks and the airfields could be enabled. The result of the German bombing of London, however, is on a completely different level than the bombings of German cities. Strange is that although we have 24/7 WWII on almost all German TV broadcasters none of the documentations is about the bombings of German cities, except when it is about to further "round down" the civilian casualties of Dresden. I wonder when it will be declared a natural disaster and finally vanish from history.




shockedcanadian said:


> Furthermore, the Resistance Forces in France in particular, sacrificed a great deal and it is often overlooked in history because the French were defeated so quickly when the Blitz came.  The British were outnumbered 3 to 1 in the air but the RAF bravely fought on in defense of their country, often in run down, unsafe planes.  All of this, much to the chagrin of German leaders.


At the time, France was considered to be the military strongest nation on earth. They even had heavy tanks with 75 mm canons.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 23, 2017)

Everyone likes the "just following orders" argument; salves the spirit and absolves the soul. But an individual is responsible for his/her acts, and turning oneself into an automaton is not enough to excuse. That the Wehrmacht conducted large scale murder of civilians makes it part and parcel of Nazi action. 
Of course, the same applies elsewhere, and America has its own atrocities that are only different in scale. So does any other 'great power'.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 23, 2017)

France was 'defeated so quickly' because they agreed to British defensive plans that left its entire army outflanked and unable to defend the capitol. Otherwise configured and led, it might have lasted longer. Better yet would have been a drive on Berlin starting about Sept 5, 1939 (not the lukewarm Saar advance), when the maximum German concentration was far to the east.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 23, 2017)

Rocko said:


> I wasn't impressed at all. The story lines were weak, the dialogue wasn't impressive and there was no character development. Everyone thinks best movie of all time and I just don't see it.



Was it worth paying to watch on the big screen all the same?


----------



## Rocko (Jul 23, 2017)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't impressed at all. The story lines were weak, the dialogue wasn't impressive and there was no character development. Everyone thinks best movie of all time and I just don't see it.
> ...



In my opinion no. The movie just didn't resonate with me. The characters, stories, even the fighting scenes were underwhelming.


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Ultimately, the war ended with a satisfactory result. It's a shame that many decent people had to die to bring German aggression under control.


Hoho, while enabling and rewarding Russian aggression.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 30, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > The situation didn´t allow the escapees to "die bravely".
> ...


I figured out that it is not in the movie because it is not true. Another hero tale with no reference to reality. In fact, Hitler ordered the halt of the German troops to spare the Brits the shame and in hope for a peaceful solution.


----------

