Yea Dunkirk was an utter disappointment!
The first carrier landing where he shut everything down was far from fine lol. It was practically a cartoonLoved the movie. Based on real heroes of the war, real events, some embellishment, but it's Hollywood.
As for CGI, you're not going to get away from it. Especially with a movie like this. You can't use old footage, you can't find the machinery that was used from WWII, so you have 1 option: CGI.
Written by Wes Tooke, he said he didn't want to fictionalize any of it and by historical standards, he did a pretty good job. Most Navy guys that I've spoken with say the landings are fine, so I'm not sure what is actually incorrect about them, physics wise.
Yes.Is it true that at the end they dedicate the movie to all of the American AND Japanese soldiers who fought in the battle?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it true that at the end they dedicate the movie to all of the American AND Japanese soldiers who fought in the battle?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The first carrier landing where he shut everything down was far from fine lol. It was practically a cartoon
I wasn't complaining about the CGI itself. More so the -80° attitude landings on the carrier and the way they popped up miraculously. Only 2 scenes did this, the rest was fine. But I still felt the battle scenes cut off short.If the movie had a Star Wars budget, then I'd complain more about the CGI. The fact that someone made a movie that wasn't over embellished, about real heroes of WWII and the generation that is almost gone, I think I can get over some shitty CGI.
View attachment 1610673
^My father, who enlisted in 1946.
I agree. That one was the most disappointing war movies I've ever seen.Yea Dunkirk was an utter disappointment!
The documentary pointed out something new to me. Torpedo planes flew at speeds just over stall speed and about 90' above the waterline. Making them so easy to shoot down.I liked that they touched on two problems the Navy had in WWII: torpedos that didn't detonate, and oxygen masks and systems that in many cases did not work, and in all too many cases, irreparably harmed the flight crews.
It got horrible reviews. Ratings of one star (out of four) in my paper. I'll wait til it's on free TV. Too bad, because it's an awesome piece of our history.
Yep. Another thing left out: skip bombing. At some point, some U.S. dive-bomber figured out he could come in low, like a torpedo plane, but much faster, release his bomb early, and it would skip across the water into a Japanese ship. It became widely adopted, and was very effective. Not sure when it became a useful tactic, can'tr remember if it was before or after '43.The documentary pointed out something new to me. Torpedo planes flew at speeds just over stall speed and about 90' above the waterline. Making them so easy to shoot down.
The otehr thing left out was how out-classed our fighters were by the Mitsubishi Zero. There was a saying, if you were flying an F4 Wildcat, and you saw a Zero, what do you do? Head for home and hope he doesn't see you, because you're out-matched right off the bat.The documentary pointed out something new to me. Torpedo planes flew at speeds just over stall speed and about 90' above the waterline. Making them so easy to shoot down.
Oh man, that is terrible to hear. I was hoping this one was going to be good. It's been awhile since a good war movie has been out. Hopefully that WWI movie that is suppose to be coming out soon (I think) will be better. I can't remember the name of it.
so you base your movies on critic reviews? Even after many of us said it’s worth seeing?
Couldn't pay me enough to drive one of those on the deck like that ...those boys had tungsten balls no doubtThe documentary pointed out something new to me. Torpedo planes flew at speeds just over stall speed and about 90' above the waterline. Making them so easy to shoot down.
Couldn't pay me enough to drive one of those on the deck like that ...those boys had tungsten balls no doubt