Skip to comments.97 Year Old Calgary veteran who survived Dunkirk attends premiere
Posted on 07/23/2017 10:21:33 PM PDT by Kriggerel
Theatre goers watching the premiere of Dunkirk at Calgarys Westhills Cinemas on Friday night got a surprise encounter with a 97-year -old man who was at the battle in 1940. The Battle of Dunkirk took place during the Second World War between the Allies and Nazi Germany in Dunkirk, France.
Calgarian Ken Sturdy, dressed in a jacket adorned with medals, viewed the movie and was impressed by what he saw...
(Excerpt) Read more at globalnews.ca ...
God bless him. His reaction to the movie is similar to D-Day vets who saw the Normandy landings in “Saving Private Ryan”.
Wow. That is profound in every way.
Now I do want to see it.
Wonder what his thoughts are on the moocher muslim rapist invasion...
Or the Nazi unification of Europe under Soros.
Good for him, I was just in Alberta. Nice people.
I have seen some very bad reviews, but now I have to see it.
You mean to say he didn’t think it sucked because it had no diversity, or Churchill, or an absolutely linear storyline?
If you are expecting typical CGI masses and huge explosions with no plot, no cinema photography, no excellent musical; scores, poor production and bad directing then you will be disappointed by this film.
The film is well done...enjoy it.
And while director Christopher Nolan does a good job of conveying the sense of dread, and of feeling like a hunted animal, the film does very little to really explain why Dunkirk happened. For example, if Germany's idea was to destroy the British Expeditionary force on the beach with the Luftwaffe, why do we see only a single Henkel bomber, three Stukka's, and two or three Messerschmitt 109"s? Where was the might of the Luftwaffe, and why wasn't it brought to bear? The film doesn't bother to explain. Nolan also spends far too much time on the Spitfire pilot and the aerial combat, though it is well done.
Not saying it was terrible, but it is hardly "the greatest WWII movie ever made", as a review in Rolling Stone suggested.
Many Americans don't realize that Canada was in WWII about 2 years before we were.
I was it last night, it was a good movie, not really what I was expecting but good none the less.
We saw it yesterday and enjoyed it even though we had to sit through a trailer for the new Al Gore movie.
“We saw it yesterday and enjoyed it even though we had to sit through a trailer for the new Al Gore movie”.
It’s too bad you had to endure the Algore propaganda. Glad you enjoyed the movie.
But, in terms of knowledge of recent history and world events, the average American must rank last among the Group of 20 nations. I believe there are several reasons for this.
The US is vast and the land is so bountiful that America literally needs nothing from overseas. So, why bother with other countries? Additionally, after your basic needs are met the variety of sports/entertainment options available in the US will keep you entertained forever. No time to learn about other countries while the Kardasians are on the tube.
I can understand the black community not being represented in the movie - heck, weren’t there black LGBT’s serving pancakes on the beaches during the evacuation?
“Where was the might of the Luftwaffe, and why wasn’t it brought to bear?”
The sky is vast. A few hundred planes spread out over hundreds of cubic miles (the whole region) and not all flying at once.... well you don’t need to much to show that. There weren’t as many planes involved that early in the war. Most of the real aerial fighting wasn’t near the beach.
“Zero character development,”
“he film does very little to really explain why Dunkirk “
You wanted them to tack on artificial character development and a history lesson? And you don’t like Zimmer? Sorry dude but you now have zero credibility as far as movie critique.
I wasn't looking for a "history lesson", or "artificial" characters. But if you're going to tell a story, it's a good idea to provide some context, and in the case of an historical movie, that would include some of the history relevant to the story. As for characters, you don't have to "invent" a character, or even give much in the way of details about who they are, to make them interesting and/or a character that you find yourself caring about or curious about.
As for the Luftwaffe, a combination of command decisions and delays, coupled with bad weather, were largely responsible for the time that allowed the BEF to get out of Dunkirk. My point is that, apart from a single line about armor, and nothing about what was going on with German command or the Luftwaffe, many people are left to wonder 1) how the BEF ended up encircled in Dunkirk, and 2) why they had so much time (around 11 days in all) to get out of there.
You're entitled to your opinion ("Zimmer is the second coming of Mozart!"), and I am entitled to mine ("Dunkirk" is hardly the greatest WWII movie ever made).
By the way, I am not trying to say that Zimmer never wrote a good movie score, or that he has no talent as a composer. But his scores for Interstellar and Dunkirk struck me as similarly ponderous and overbearing, and comprised primarily of very long, blaring chords played on strings and pipe organs. Again, that’s my opinion. YMMV.
Very nice... going to see Dunkirk in IMAX tomorrow... To think there was a time when we won without a bunch of college educated guys who use gummie vitamins.. cuz real pills are hard to swallow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.