Was disappointed a certain vocalist survived but otherwise the film was beautifully shot and very atmospheric... No idea how anyone could call it boring, though I do think the 3 separate timelines helped keep it moving
(I spotted this as soon as I saw one of the planes go down and the boat didn't stop)
Just got home from seeing Dunkirk at the Imax at Waterloo. I cannot understand the hype around this film. This review sums up my thoughts exactly except I would add that I found the soundtrack boring and intensely annoying.
Just got home from seeing Dunkirk at the Imax at Waterloo. I cannot understand the hype around this film. This review sums up my thoughts exactly except I would add that I found the soundtrack boring and intensely annoying.
I think it was deliberate to stay away from the scale. It was meant to be concentrated and focused. I didn't need to see the numbers, I got that from the dialogue from Rylance.
Just got home from seeing Dunkirk at the Imax at Waterloo. I cannot understand the hype around this film. This review sums up my thoughts exactly except I would add that I found the soundtrack boring and intensely annoying.
Saw War for the planet of the apes last night what a waste. Predictable plot, awful script and terrible mistakes. I love Sci fi/fantasy films but this was executed in an appalling manner.
Just got home from seeing Dunkirk at the Imax at Waterloo. I cannot understand the hype around this film. This review sums up my thoughts exactly except I would add that I found the soundtrack boring and intensely annoying.
Dunkirk is almost a concept film. And I think it's very brave for Warners to let Nolan do that with such a big budget (although he's an incredibly safe pair of hands given that he's a student of film like few others).
Every Nolan movie has an interesting approach to timelines. The much-loved Prestige is a prime example of a Nolan script dotting from one period to another.
And every Nolan movie has a triple storyline crescendo at some point. Inception thrives on it (three different dream levels being edited together), The Dark Knight might be the best use of it, and Insterstellar cheated with it (he created drama using music and editing that didn't necessarily exist within the images or narrative).
Dunkirk very specifically focuses on three areas, making an entire movie out of what Nolan usually does for action sequences in his other movies.
It doesn't aim to tell the story of Dunkirk as much as the story of what it was like for a handful of people, representing the overall experience. I like that he did it that way. I don't want it to be like Pearl Harbour.
That said, I don't think it was perfect. His exposition dialogue is always too in-your-face, and there were times when the building music didn't match the images on screen, and the falling down the stairs thing was a heavy-handed way to create drama. But when it did work, it really bloody worked.
Edit - I'd also add that 2D IMAX is by far the best viewing experience possible and Nolan gets that. I hope he keeps doing it and others follow suit.
Watched Dunkirk yesterday and whilst thinking it was a very good film, I'm def in the slightly underwhelmed category, whilst appreciating what they produced.
I think it is a stunning work. Very emotional for me. It helped me understand even more why relatives and older friends never want to talk about their war experiences.
On the critical side, I think like others that it didn't give a sense of the scale of having so many people in one place.
I feel that the greatest omission was of the rear guard actions fought largely by the French to give every chance for the fight to continue.
All in all, I think this has to be one of the best films I have seen and deserves award recognition.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
What was you hoping he would include that we have not seen or read before? That doesn't leave much does it?
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
What was you hoping he would include that we have not seen or read before? That doesn't leave much does it?
As Jimmy said , it's not a documentary.
Well if anything it shows the huge part played by the RAF.
I watched a Channel 4 documentary on Dunkirk prior to the film which was excellent yet was surprised by the slagging that the RAF received from the veterans in the documentary as many were saying they never saw a single Hurriance or Spitfire during the evacuation.
That feeling was played out in the film (from the extra who after the sole bombing of the soldiers on the beach demands to know where the RAF were and at the end when the airman is given a jibe back in England)... At the same time though the film highlighted by Tom Hardy just what the planes did during that time.
One thing that left me open mouthed from the second Guardian article was moaning that there was no back story nor was there ever any scenes describing why they were there with Generals etc... The film did show the issue (with the leaflets in the opening minutes) and if people still dont understand Dunkirk they need to pick up a damned book as its part of our bloody history!!!!
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
What was you hoping he would include that we have not seen or read before? That doesn't leave much does it?
As Jimmy said , it's not a documentary.
If someone came to me and asked for millions to make a film about Dunkirk I would expect that the film was going to offer a new insight, a new revelation or new angle on what we already know. Or shot in a new way or using a new technology that conveyed the sense of what happened in a different or better way than we had ever seen before. But, as I hinted earlier, long ago I came to the conclusion I am a very unsophisticated cinema goer.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
And, at the start, showed the French on the barricades.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
Didn't we take about 70k French to Blighty after our lot? I understand the imperative for getting our now experienced troops back home, however difficult that order was.
I agree about the rear guard as I posted earlier.
A viewpoint from the Germans would be of interest for sure.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
Didn't we take about 70k French to Blighty after our lot? I understand the imperative for getting our now experienced troops back home, however difficult that order was.
I agree about the rear guard as I posted earlier.
A viewpoint from the Germans would be of interest for sure.
That's why, at the end of the film, Branagh said he was waiting for the French.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
Didn't we take about 70k French to Blighty after our lot? I understand the imperative for getting our now experienced troops back home, however difficult that order was.
I agree about the rear guard as I posted earlier.
A viewpoint from the Germans would be of interest for sure.
That's why, at the end of the film, Branagh said he was waiting for the French.
Yes indeed. The free French played their part in the war, even fought the Vichy forces.
Thing is, it's not a documentary. Nolan doesn't have a responsibility to show anything other than the story he wishes to tell. Given that he had the concept of telling land, sea and air through the eyes of specific people in those areas, he wouldn't be able to suddenly introduce a French contingent, or pop down the beach to show another 200,000 soldiers or whatever.
I have read countless articles about Dunkirk in books and newspapers, that included factual eyewitness accounts, over many years. I have also seen many films depicting different aspects of Dunkirk and seen documentaries that (I am pretty certain) included actual film of some of the events. It is an immense and epic story in our country's and europe's history. Nolan's film and story added absolutely nothing to what we already know about Dunkirk. I am not a sophisticated cinema goer. I could not see the point of the film Arrivals either. But what insight or story did Nolan's film provide that we have not seen or read before?
Personally, I think the personal perspectives of the featured characters was interesting and not usually done in war films in this way.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
Absolutely not saying it shouldn't have been made. It is a story I am keenly interested in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it. I am surprised we have not seen many more modern feature films on Dunkirk. There are so many stories to tell; from many points of view. For instance I would like to see film that depicted the story from the German angle or the French army that defended the perimeter. In fact, that was one point that was made in Nolan's film that I had forgotten..where the British navy were refusing to evacuate members of the French army.
Didn't we take about 70k French to Blighty after our lot? I understand the imperative for getting our now experienced troops back home, however difficult that order was.
I agree about the rear guard as I posted earlier.
A viewpoint from the Germans would be of interest for sure.
French troops came back with British troops. The rearguard was made up of French, Belgians and British. Around 40, 000 Britons were captured.
Dont think Id ever want to see a French side of Dunkirk, currently reading the excellent book on the subject by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore.
The French supposedly had the best and by far larger army compared to the Germans yet were a shadow compared to their army in WW1 and countless ran away whicu ensured that Dunkirk was forced to happen else we ourselves would have been trapped.
Of course not all Frenchman had that attitude so would be wrong to tar them all with that brush (i.e. the Free French and Resistance)
Comments
Wow what a truly brilliant bit of cinema.
Was disappointed a certain vocalist survived but otherwise the film was beautifully shot and very atmospheric... No idea how anyone could call it boring, though I do think the 3 separate timelines helped keep it moving
Anyway for me it's an 8.5/10.
5/10
400,000 troops and we saw perhaps only 1,000.
Masses of boats sent to help and we only saw/heard about one of them.
Half a dozen fighter planes and an ear splitting sound track.
Mark Rylance is as wooden as Ken Barlow and as for the dialogue, well there was very little.
Kenneth Branagh didn't have to do much except stand and stare out at sea.
6/10.
I wont even recommend it to people I dislike.
Every Nolan movie has an interesting approach to timelines. The much-loved Prestige is a prime example of a Nolan script dotting from one period to another.
And every Nolan movie has a triple storyline crescendo at some point. Inception thrives on it (three different dream levels being edited together), The Dark Knight might be the best use of it, and Insterstellar cheated with it (he created drama using music and editing that didn't necessarily exist within the images or narrative).
Dunkirk very specifically focuses on three areas, making an entire movie out of what Nolan usually does for action sequences in his other movies.
It doesn't aim to tell the story of Dunkirk as much as the story of what it was like for a handful of people, representing the overall experience. I like that he did it that way. I don't want it to be like Pearl Harbour.
That said, I don't think it was perfect. His exposition dialogue is always too in-your-face, and there were times when the building music didn't match the images on screen, and the falling down the stairs thing was a heavy-handed way to create drama. But when it did work, it really bloody worked.
Edit - I'd also add that 2D IMAX is by far the best viewing experience possible and Nolan gets that. I hope he keeps doing it and others follow suit.
I think it is a stunning work. Very emotional for me. It helped me understand even more why relatives and older friends never want to talk about their war experiences.
On the critical side, I think like others that it didn't give a sense of the scale of having so many people in one place.
I feel that the greatest omission was of the rear guard actions fought largely by the French to give every chance for the fight to continue.
All in all, I think this has to be one of the best films I have seen and deserves award recognition.
The insight it gives is just how desperate those poor sods were to get away in a way the 1958 film didn't. Some people are shown as selfless and determined to be there for the greater good. Some are shown as being from the 'every man for himself' school of thought but without making them out to be the scum of the earth.
Who's to say what camp we would be in when the chips were down? I don't for sure.
I also think that it touched on the limited desperate role played by the RAF in a way that I don't recall shown previously.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have been made? I think it is always good to remind a new generation of such pivotal moments in world history as long as the story isn't screwed around with.
As Jimmy said , it's not a documentary.
I watched a Channel 4 documentary on Dunkirk prior to the film which was excellent yet was surprised by the slagging that the RAF received from the veterans in the documentary as many were saying they never saw a single Hurriance or Spitfire during the evacuation.
That feeling was played out in the film (from the extra who after the sole bombing of the soldiers on the beach demands to know where the RAF were and at the end when the airman is given a jibe back in England)... At the same time though the film highlighted by Tom Hardy just what the planes did during that time.
One thing that left me open mouthed from the second Guardian article was moaning that there was no back story nor was there ever any scenes describing why they were there with Generals etc... The film did show the issue (with the leaflets in the opening minutes) and if people still dont understand Dunkirk they need to pick up a damned book as its part of our bloody history!!!!
I agree about the rear guard as I posted earlier.
A viewpoint from the Germans would be of interest for sure.
The French supposedly had the best and by far larger army compared to the Germans yet were a shadow compared to their army in WW1 and countless ran away whicu ensured that Dunkirk was forced to happen else we ourselves would have been trapped.
Of course not all Frenchman had that attitude so would be wrong to tar them all with that brush (i.e. the Free French and Resistance)
A German perspective would be really good though.