Personally, I was *glad* to see the Maille-Breze on film (just as I was glad to see Salem on film playing Graf Spee in “Battle of the River Plate” all those years ago), and that they *didn’t* use CGI. Virtually everything in this movie is real, which is a rare thing in war films any more. I think CGI would have ruined this.
I think the filmmakers made the right decisions here – in order to really tell the story of Dunkirk, you’d need a humongous budget and much more screen time. This movie doesn't try to be *the* story of Dunkirk, and rightly so -- it’s *a* story of Dunkirk, and I think it was very well done, as long as you take it for what it is.
And as is usually the case, if you want to learn naval history, you’re going to have to read a book. :)
: I recommend seeing the film. It was
: interesting and in general well done. Not
: the Oscar contender it's been hailed as
: being, however. Major disappointment: The
: use of the ex-French Navy DD Maille-Brez
: (currrently a museum ship) as a stand in for
: WWII RN DDs. IMHO, I'd have rather them
: used computer graphics for the ships - more
: realistic than the "real" things.
: The a/c were both real and nice. Wrong
: variant of Spitfire for this early in the
: war, but hey.... They didn't ever do
: close-ups of the He-111 or Me-109s, and I'll
: bet they were actually the postwar-built
: Spanish variants, but from a distance they
: looked great.
: All in all.... talk about a diorama project
: one would only want to do in small scale....
« Back to index