Reviewer feels it necessary to mention the lack of women and 'people of color' in

[Burney]

film about...DUNKIRK. :banghead:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/

The world's gone mental.

[Sir C]

film about...DUNKIRK. :banghead:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/

The world's gone mental.

But no mention of the glaring lack of trans and genderfluid Muslims? :banghead:

This film is a fúcking disgrace!

The Guardian's review has some nice anti-UK Guardianisms btl :hehe:

[Burney]

But no mention of the glaring lack of trans and genderfluid Muslims? :banghead:

This film is a fúcking disgrace!

The Guardian's review has some nice anti-UK Guardianisms btl :hehe:

I liked the fact that the reviewer couldn't stop himself from shoehorning in a mention of Brexit.

They really are such predictable twāts.

[Just Trent]

film about...DUNKIRK. :banghead:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/

The world's gone mental.

Surely there was room for a bit of 1940's totty, and a token black character? It is a Hollywood war film. I'm guessing the US Marine Core features quite heavily?

[Burney]

Surely there was room for a bit of 1940's totty, and a token black character? It is a Hollywood war film. I'm guessing the US Marine Core features quite heavily?

The funny thing is that it will almost certainly flop in the states due to not involving any Americans. They don't like to be reminded there was a Second World War before they pitched up.

[Just Trent]

The funny thing is that it will almost certainly flop in the states due to not involving any Americans. They don't like to be reminded there was a Second World War before they pitched up.

Just call it a 'prequel to Pearl Harbour', they'll love it.

[Peter]

The funny thing is that it will almost certainly flop in the states due to not involving any Americans. They don't like to be reminded there was a Second World War before they pitched up.

A Second World War that we were losing before they turned up. I think we can sell them that.

I always had great fun in the States reminding them that Stalin defeated Hitler. Much foaming at mouth ;)

[Sir C]

film about...DUNKIRK. :banghead:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/


The world's gone mental.

Here is an absolute classic Guardian reader :clap: Could it be jorge?

"The problem with historical war and religious films is that the stories present a narrative that is often untrue and misleading. In the case of WW2, historical evidence proves the UK was instrumental in provoking the war, after Hitler had sought peace and agreement with Poland. Britain interfered and ensured the poles didn't make any agreement with Germany, which resulted in the war. That said, Nolan is a terrific filmmaker and no doubt the film will stand out for technical excellence."

[Sir C]

A Second World War that we were losing before they turned up. I think we can sell them that.

I always had great fun in the States reminding them that Stalin defeated Hitler. Much foaming at mouth ;)

The Allies defeated Hitler. Stalin had the luxuries of being able to trade space for time, the Russian weather, and almost unlimited manpower, but without the material assistance of the allies providing equipment and tying up German forces on other fronts, he would probably have been fúcked.

But you knew that, didn't you? And I've just bitten :-(

[Burney]

A Second World War that we were losing before they turned up. I think we can sell them that.

I always had great fun in the States reminding them that Stalin defeated Hitler. Much foaming at mouth ;)

We were just about hanging on in there. Hitler had his hands full with Russia by then.

[Peter]

Here is an absolute classic Guardian reader :clap: Could it be jorge?

"The problem with historical war and religious films is that the stories present a narrative that is often untrue and misleading. In the case of WW2, historical evidence proves the UK was instrumental in provoking the war, after Hitler had sought peace and agreement with Poland. Britain interfered and ensured the poles didn't make any agreement with Germany, which resulted in the war. That said, Nolan is a terrific filmmaker and no doubt the film will stand out for technical excellence."

With regard to the specific instance of Poland, it isn't completely inaccurate. It just ignores the context and that it makes it fantastically stupid.

[Burney]

Here is an absolute classic Guardian reader :clap: Could it be jorge?

"The problem with historical war and religious films is that the stories present a narrative that is often untrue and misleading. In the case of WW2, historical evidence proves the UK was instrumental in provoking the war, after Hitler had sought peace and agreement with Poland. Britain interfered and ensured the poles didn't make any agreement with Germany, which resulted in the war. That said, Nolan is a terrific filmmaker and no doubt the film will stand out for technical excellence."

That was the line that weird provo lunatic Fast Eddie used to peddle on here. Maybe he's moved on to The Guardian?

The sheer level of delusion necessary to interpret Hitler's land grabs in Eastern Europe as a response to British aggression is simply astounding.

[Peter]

We were just about hanging on in there. Hitler had his hands full with Russia by then.

True. America's involvement was crucial in limiting Russian influence in Europe at the end of the war. The outcome of Germany's war was effectively decided the moment he attacked Russia. It might have taken longer and been messier but the result was only going one way.

[Peter]

The Allies defeated Hitler. Stalin had the luxuries of being able to trade space for time, the Russian weather, and almost unlimited manpower, but without the material assistance of the allies providing equipment and tying up German forces on other fronts, he would probably have been fúcked.

But you knew that, didn't you? And I've just bitten :-(

Nah. We helped them out but once you attack Russia you are ****ed.

[Burney]

True. America's involvement was crucial in limiting Russian influence in Europe at the end of the war. The outcome of Germany's war was effectively decided the moment he attacked Russia. It might have taken longer and been messier but the result was only going one way.

Thing is, he was never not going to attack Russia. He wrote a fúcking great big book telling everyone he was going to attack Russia. It was very much at the heart of the whole Nazi Germany thing.

[Burney]

Nah. We helped them out but once you attack Russia you are ****ed.

Vast numbers of American trucks and jeeps were absolutely vital in allowing Russia to going on the offensive. Without them, Russia could never have counter-attacked successfully.

[Peter]

Thing is, he was never not going to attack Russia. He wrote a fúcking great big book telling everyone he was going to attack Russia. It was very much at the heart of the whole Nazi Germany thing.

True. The bloke had issues, no question.

It is slightly offensive that he couldn't be arsed to invade us ;)

[Peter]

Vast numbers of American trucks and jeeps were absolutely vital in allowing Russia to going on the offensive. Without them, Russia could never have counter-attacked successfully.

No. You just sit in Moscow and wait for the other lot to freeze to death. Then you bring in them geezers on skis to see off the rest.

Piece of piss.

[Sir C]

No. You just sit in Moscow and wait for the other lot to freeze to death. Then you bring in them geezers on skis to see off the rest.

Piece of piss.

Had the Germans been able to concentrate on a single enemy they would have been the ones sitting in Moscow when that first winter fell.

[Burney]

True. The bloke had issues, no question.

It is slightly offensive that he couldn't be arsed to invade us ;)

As you well know, he was told by his senior naval figures that an attempt to invade us could well have ended with complete disaster. The Kriegsmarine was in no shape to protect an invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, having lost a lot of its destroyers in Norway and, even if the Luftwaffe had had air superiority, the losses the Grand Fleet could have inflicted on an invasion would have been potentially disastrous.

[Sir C]

As you well know, he was told by his senior naval figures that an attempt to invade us could well have ended with complete disaster. The Kriegsmarine was in no shape to protect an invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, having lost a lot of its destroyers in Norway and, even if the Luftwaffe had had air superiority, the losses the Grand Fleet could have inflicted on an invasion would have been potentially disastrous.

I once read the views of an Admiral about the summer of 1940; he said the Navy was positively licking its lips at the thought of hundreds of Rhine barges being towed at 4kts across the channel. "There would be no need for shooting," he maintained, "we'd simply have sunk them with our wash."

[Peter]

As you well know, he was told by his senior naval figures that an attempt to invade us could well have ended with complete disaster. The Kriegsmarine was in no shape to protect an invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, having lost a lot of its destroyers in Norway and, even if the Luftwaffe had had air superiority, the losses the Grand Fleet could have inflicted on an invasion would have been potentially disastrous.

And for once he listened to them. Everyone told him not to invade Russia. **** wouldn't listen.