[deleted]
[deleted]
But iron man wudve shot down those enemy planez wid no issuez.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > [deleted]
I liked Dunkirk. Did not love it though since it is all about violence and glorifies coercion and rape. There is no national pride when soldiers kill, steal and rape other people because "muh orders". War is hell and biggest crime of all. It is ok to feel good watching Dunkirk, but then you have to realize the consequences of war and going to war and submitting to political orders. you are not fighting for your country, you are fighting for politicians. You are literally a hired killer. Screw all soldiers.
share[deleted]
pacifist nonsense
shareLook, this kid is obviously an idealist, and that's ok. There's room in the world for idealism. Every so often, the idealists work their way into the system and make improvements in the overall quality of life for everyone. Not often, but it does happen. What young idealists need to be taught is that the world is much more complex than the lyrics of the latest social justice virtue-signaling top 40 hit on the radio. They need to be taught this in a calm, rational manner, rather than just calling them pansies and dismissing the very real need they have for guidance from their elders. I hope Maikowski here grows up, and I hope he or she has elders willing to help that process in a kind, patient manner.
shareI'm glad you abhor war. But your comments are incoherent.
"glorifies coercion and rape"?
I missed the rape scene. When was that part?
He's talking about war in a general sense...
His rationale seems to be that by showing heroism in war, or the preciousness of soldier's lives, yet ignoring the negative aspects of war (the destruction, killing and rape), that the film in this sense shows a distorted view of war and elevates it into something noble and good thus "glorifies coercion and rape"...
Or at least that's how I read his comment...
I think there is room for filmmmaking such as Dunkirk, as there are lots of other films that explore the nihilism and evil of war... Especially as Dunkirk is a depiction of a retreat rather than an aggression.
"I liked Dunkirk. Did not love it though since it is all about violence and glorifies coercion and rape."
He is referring specifically to the movie "Dunkirk", not to "war in a general sense".
Perhaps he got it confused with Fury 😂
yeah... I don't know what he's on about.... doesn't really apply to Dunkirk...
If only Britts, Americans and Russians thought like that during the WW2...
Hitler would be one lucky man.
[deleted]
https://providencemag.com/2017/07/dunkirk-millennials/
share[deleted]
Aren't you making a broad general statement claiming that all millennial's wouldn't understand this film. You're just another elitist snob who shits on every one else to make your self feel superior. Quite sad really!
share[deleted]
I thought the Avengers, with Captain America, was a millennials film. And the Transformers are about loyalty to America... I mean earth.
I can't think of a "millennial" film which isn't a very white cast.
Are you trolling? I'm not a millennial, and the movie was shockingly bad! Especially Tom Hardy flying about at the end for 15 mins with no fuel. Jesus Christ. I'm not a pilot and even I know that's just ridiculous. My fiancé is a pilot and he was pissing himself laughing for the last 30 mins. The acting wasn't great, can't believe that was Cillian Murphy and why such a small shitty part?
And as for national pride, I assume you're American. Nationalism is toxic. I feel sorry for you.
The Spitfire could glide for about fifteen miles after cutting its engine at speeds of around 400mph. So it's not that ridiculous.
However it was extremely lucky for the pilot to come across a Stukka in the process of attacking and was therefore able to shoot that down without any power.
My fiancé is a pilot and said it isn't possible and that it was quite laughable. He was gliding for far too long and than that landing, just no way. The movie was just one big joke that was't funny.
shareI'm sure your fiance isn't a Spitfire pilot.
It wasn't even half an hour before the end of the film anyway.
Also, you're also forgetting the narrative structure meant we kept cutting to scenes that take place before the Spitfire has run out of fuel. The time it is gliding for is actually broken up and spread out in the ending of the movie.
I'm sure you're not any kind of pilot. Pilots require a certain level of education about planes and different scenarios, plus he has a wealth of knowledge about WW2 planes. Why are you defending such a rubbish movie? Did you make it?
shareYeah. I made it.
Why did you first say that you don't need to be a pilot to know that it's impossible, then claim that you know it's impossible because your fiance, who is a pilot, told you so?
If pointing out all the facts you've got wrong is defending the movie then it's a fact that I'm defending the movie.
The Spitfire was just such a well designed plane that it could glide very flat and therefore without too much drag. 15 miles was possible.
The Kent coast to Dunkirk is about 20 miles. They were already nearing the French coast when his fuel ran out.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Read the whole thread and appreciated landofree and martoto comments. I would not have responded so often to the "hellcat," but then, that's just me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, the movie is so complex. lol
share