Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

coolantic Ho ho! I see we're all at it, having seen Nolan's version of events but, coincidentally (I'm sure) More 4 Channel screened the earlier version of Dunkirk last weekend. Although I'd seen it before, I just had to compare the two films; just like everyone else! Anything war, with John Mills, is a must-see for a start. I've never seen him give a bad performance, whether he's playing a middle-class character, or his familiar chirpy cockney type as here. The action, though familiar, was well executed, featuring rearguard disruption of the German advance but not shying away from the brutal realities e.g. when the refugee column is machine-gunned from the air. The expletives uttered by the soldiers, though tame by today's standards, appear quite strong for the time, as well as occasionally humorous. "Don't mind him, he's just a moaning bleeder!" British viewers will be amused early on in the film when Flanagan and Allen are featured singing "Hang out our washing on the Siegfried Line" accompanied by an on-screen animated map showing the German advance and the British retreat across France. This idea was later copied for the title sequence for the TV comedy "Dad's Army" which also featured Bud Flanagan singing. The beach sequences are very similar to those in the newer film including the action on The Mole with recently loaded ships being immediately sunk and soldiers remarking on the number of times they've had to go back. However, the beach and dunes seem more crowded and chaotic during the air attacks which, this being a black and white film, tend to feature footage of real aircraft. The common view of the missing RAF was also emphasised when ground crew airman Michael Bate is harangued on the beach by angry soldiers and advised to change his uniform for battle dress. The little boats sequence is particularly well done even if the stoicism of the largely middle-class owners seems a little corny now. Richard Attenborough plays a self-satisfied, slightly cowardly factory owner who eventually sees where his duty lies and adds his craft to the flotilla. Bernard Lee plays a steady middle-aged reporter who is not averse to openly criticising those in charge of the war effort but who is also prepared to do his bit to help out. The big difference between this and the new film is that we get character development and get to know, like, empathise with and dislike them. As with any film of the time there is a host of well-known British character actors in the many roles featured. It's fun playing the "whatsisname game." Well done Leslie Norman, you have it over Chris Nolan.

malcolmgsw The night before I went to see the 2017 film of the events I watched this film again.It was everything that the new film is not.A faithful retelling of events told in an involving but not over emotional way.The scale of production may not have been as large as the new film,but you learned a lot more.Peopled with many fine actors including Mills,Attenborough and Lee.It captures the mood of the times which the new film does not.

tieman64 Director Leslie Norman's "Dunkirk" tells the story of Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of British and French troops from the beaches of Dunkirk during WW2. Much of the film follows Corporal Tubby Binns (John Mills), an out-of-his-depth platoon leader who finds his unit trapped behind enemy lines. The film's best moments watch as this rag-tag bunch navigate the French countryside, skirmishing with Germans and doing their best to evade superior forces.Another subplot tells a familiar, propagandistic tale of war-time responsibility. Here Richard Attenborough plays a businessmen who casts aside cowardice and complacency in favour for rallying behind Britain's war effort. Running parallel to this is the story of Charles Foreman (Bernard Lee), a journalist who tries to shake up his indifferent readers."Dunkirk" ends with a massive set piece which won't impress modern viewers. Still, this is an interesting, idiosyncratic war film, and one which offers some fine views of rural, post-war Britain.7.5/10 – See "The Big Lift". Worth one viewing.

Theo Robertson The evacuation of Dunkirk is one of these moments in history that splits opinion in half - was it a defeat or a victory . There's no middle ground on the argument . Some state that the British Expiditionary Force ( BEF ) losing 68,000 men killed , wounded or captured during the battle of France and leaving all their heavy equipment behind can't be described as anything less than a defeat . The other argument is that 200,000 British troops were evacuated along with 140,000 French and Belgian troops is the epitome of snatching a victory from the jaws of defeat . Regardless of your views ( I'm on the victory of sorts side )it was a pivotal moment in history and this film tells the story of that moment DUNKIRK tells the story too well . By this I mean from the very opening sequence we're shown a history lesson as newsreel tells of " The Phoney WAr " . Cut to a war office were a group of war reporters are given a briefing " X corps is guarding the Y Flank while Z corps is BLAH BLAH BLAH " One sturdy seen it all before correspondent isn't convinced as he tells his colleagues that " This is the biggest mas maneuver of the war so far this isn't a manvoure because ... "All this sounds painfully unaturalistic as we see the same corespondent visit the French embassy to be told by the French ambassador that the Germans have broken through the Maginot Line as in " The Magniot line was reinforced by two and a half million men . How many men have the British sent ? two hundred thousand , three hundred thousand ? BLAH BLAH BLAH " It's absolutely impossible for someone in authority to open their mouth without factual statistics and in depth analysis being given out so it's nice when the action cuts to The Battle Of France Actually Coporal Tubby Binns platoon also suffers from the dialogue disease that the home-front suffers from " We move up to the front in order to protect the French flank at ... " and we're later shown a scene on the beaches were a RAF man points out that the RAF can't provide cover because of a number of factors . No one no matter who they are or where they are feel the need to spout exposition regardless of the fact that there's no need for them to do so and is very problematic for the film I notice the screenplay is credited to two screenwriters . I have no knowledge of the film's production but my instinct is at least one of them is an academic historian who was told to emphasise the details of the operation while the other is a trying to bring a human element to the dry history lesson . If this is the case the dramatist has failed because while it's not a dry dull history lesson it is certainly a bit too dry This is a great shame because some scenes do work quite well and is rather graphic for a 1950s British war film such as Tubby trying to convince himself that his commanding officer was dead before a lorry exploded or the aftermath of a refugee column being shot up by the Luftwaffe where a young child runs to its dead mother . It's an outstanding film when it concentrates on these scenes but is frequently let down by the painfully expositional dialogue