User reviews

This is a documentary of the Dunkirk evacuation over 10 days in the summer of 1940. The British Expeditionary Force is trapped against the coast along with French and other Allies. It is purported to be accurate. There are the shakey cam recreations intersperced with some old footage. There are recognizable actors. It's quite straight forward in its telling. After watching Nolan's Dunkirk recently, this is a good companion piece. It has some more information and the rear guard action that is missing from Nolan's movie. There are compelling real historical figures. It's solid work for TV doc that is compelling to watch all the way to the end.

I have just spent a weekend in Dunkirk. Prior to the trip I read a lot about the Fall Of France and Operation Dynamo.

So I am watching this underrated BBC drama documentary again.

I think this is well made and an easy watch. If I was a history teacher or had kids I would get them to watch this as well as doing some old fashioned reading.

I can't understand the heavy criticism of this production,it has few known actors,there is some guy called Benedict Cumberbatch who is good in this,whatever happened to him?

As for Dunkirk the place it is a fascinating place to visit and the locals were freindly.

Curious programme as it seems to almost deliberately and consciously write the Merchant Navy out of the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk. Even when what is clearly a Merchant ship is being attacked by Stukas, in contemporary black and white film, the narrator refers to Royal Navy destroyers! When Merchant ships are referred to they are almost invariably called personnel ships or supply ships, almost never Merchant ships. The only actual reference to a Merchant ship is where one is on fire and a group of Royal Navy people go onboard to fight the fire. Even then there don't seem to be any Merchant Navy people present. Is this a deliberate omission, or one based on ignorance?

It's an American, British, and French production that provides a gripping portrayal of an event during World War II. The storyline revolves around the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of British and French soldiers trapped by the German army. More than 800 civilian boats, alongside military vessels, participated in the rescue operation, highlighting the collective effort of both the military and civilian communities.

The film captures the intensity and chaos of war, focusing on the Dunkirk evacuation, a crucial moment in history. It offers a multifaceted perspective, depicting the experiences of soldiers and civilians alike as they come together to face the challenges posed by the German forces. The cinematography and direction contribute to the immersive experience, creating a sense of urgency and tension throughout.

Having recently watched this again, for a third time, I must strongly disagree with a previous reviewer who described this as meretricious rubbish.

It's true, some of the camera work was a little intrusive, and sometimes the music also got in the way, but these are minor irritations. On the whole, I thought the filmmakers told the story very well. Bearing in mind that at the time the incidents displayed were over over sixty years old, it must have been very difficult to tell the stories of so many men - from the government down to a private on the ground - with complete balance and historical accuracy, but overall I found everything very believable. The acting was top notch, with some well known faces, and Timothy Dalton's narration was also top drawer.

I would recommend this series wholeheartedly.

The drama-documentary Dunkirk (2004) was, in my opinion, the finest example of the genre produced by the BBC and was well reviewed by John Keegan of The Telegraph, whose article of 19/02/04 may still be found on the web, although I could not agree with his suggestion that our men were pasty-faced, underfed soldiers not well represented by modern fresh-faced actors, for most of those I saw as a boy during the war, before and after Dunkirk, were neither pale nor hungry; but those of the BEF who formed an army in retreat and rout and who suffered strafing, hunger and fatigue on the beeches as they awaited embarkation, death or surrender, were no doubt not in the best of physical form.

The quality of this production, its direction and the performance of the cast were beyond reproach and should not have been the target of petty criticism. There were so many really excellent, convincing representations of personnel ranging from soldiers to generals and cabinet ministers that one is reluctant to select any of them for special mention, but among the actors whose roles were portrayed with startling realism were Benedict Cumberbatch as Lt Jimmy Langley, James Loye as Lt David Mellis RN (bearing a strong resemblance to the man whose part he played and, in one scene, carrying a photograph of the real Mrs Mellis, as she was in 1940), Adrian Rawlins as Capt Bill Tennant RN, Beechmaster, Simon Russell Beale as Winston Churchill, all outstanding performances.

The interpolation of archive film was very well done and enhanced the general picture of violent action at sea, the plight of the army, and the huge scale of the operations managed and co-ordinated by the Royal Navy, including those of inshore fishing vessels and other small craft. The disembarkations at Dover (including, I think, those of troops rescued by HMS Malcolm and piped ashore by Lt Mellis) and their entrainment for London could not have been more appropriate or more relevant to the drama, which seemed to fill in the gaps between main events and to inform us of the experiences of individuals and the roles of senior officers and politicians who played a part in the evacuation.

My only complaint is that this great work is not available on DVD.

I watched this dramatization some years back and thought it did an excellent job of telling the real-life story, capturing the desperation of the retreat, case in point, only smoke bombs for one group of soldiers tasked with holding back the German tanks!

Buy it on Blu-ray or DVD if you can find it. Perhaps its also downloadable. Its well worth the time spent watching it.

After watching this re-enactment, I found Nolan's 2017 Dunkirk to be an utter disappointment. It greatly saddened me to see how the Dunkirk story could be so badly told, and more so when I read reviews about how it gives you a sense of what war is like - rubbish. These people really should watch the 2004 Dunkirk dramatization and Saving Private Ryan, and I'd also recommend Schindler's List.

• was what Churchill called the evacuation from Dunkirk, and as narrator Tim Dalton informs us, the quarter of a million British troops snatched from Nazi claws in June 1940 were to be the core of the British Army throughout the war.

Churchill reminded his countrymen "not to assign to Dunkirk the attributes of victory," but still - it proved to be event that would bolster England for the war in general and the Battle of Britain - only a month away - in particular. The British pluck in the face of an enemy that had by then defeated all of Europe helped bring in the Americans without which the war would undoubtedly be lost.

We cannot be reminded often enough what might have happened, and what nearly did happen in 1940. As the film shows with admirable accuracy, Churchill was pretty much alone in his decision not to give in to appeasement policy and make bargains with the Germans, for which determination his fellow politicians, Chamberlain and his ilk, awarded him with the moniker 'warmonger'.

We don't seem to have many Churchills these days, among the heaps of Chamberlains that persist in telling us that 'war is not the answer.' Sometimes it helps to have the question repeated. As in this film. Back in 1940, the question was how to respond to German imperialism, Nazi atrocities and disregard for Geneva Conventions. It was a defense of the British values that Churchill so eloquently voiced.

BTW, I hardly recognized Simon Russell Beale as Sir Winston. Excellent bit of make-up, that.

I found this film to be educational. I learned a lot of facts that I never knew existed. The scenes with Churchill and his advisers were hypnotic. The acting was touching and down to earth. I am now looking forward to the new rendering of 'Dunkirk'(2017) armed with the knowledge from this remarkable film.

I couldn't watch this program all the way through. It's an important subject, the performances are decent, the reenactments convincing, the interior monologues touching, and the budget was adequate.

But it's ruined by the directorial style. The camera seems to be held by a drunk. It wobbles all over the place. There are zip pans from one face to another, and multiple closeups of faces. One pivotal figure, Tennant of the RN, muses over the task he's faced with. And what does the screen show us? A safety razor placidly plowing through a cream-coated face, leaving some ugly black stubble in its wake.

I think this fad -- the cinema of hypermania -- may have begun with MTV because, after all, you can't expect an audience of fourteen year olds to sit quietly and watch a static shot of Elton John playing the piano. You must keep their attention prisoner by cutting rapidly from his face to his fingers to his feet to his shades and when you run out of that, you introduce a display of fireworks.

Maybe it's my fault because I'm too tired or too old. I was very disappointed.

After seeing the BBC Adverts for "Dunkirk" i was honestly looking forward to seeing this Docu-Drama showing us the events leading up to and the evacuation of over 300,000 British,Belgian and French troops from the beaches at "Dunkirk".

It must have only been 10 minutes into the first episode of the Three part series that i began to feel let down by a programme that at best i can only describe as OK.With the BBC's experience of helping to make "Band of Brothers" and resources that should have been made available for such a project,OK just isnt good enough. Did the BBC not think that showing black and white stock footage of Stuka dive bombers and German soldiers might impede the viewers ability to actually feel like they were there with there soldiers.The whole thing contradicted itself,make a Docu-Drama for realism then show old footage(in black and white!) Germans Aircraft and Troops? Just as i found myself getting into "Dunkirk" some stock footage would pop up,presumedly just to remind the viewer that the non black and white images arent actually real,which of course is true but thats not the point. The use of stock footage only showed me that this is a Low budget programme and it didnt take long before my thoughts were confirmed. As in one of the so called "Action" scenes a dozen or so British soldiers are attacked by around 7 German troops and some Tank Tracks.Bizarrly as soon as the Officer sees those Tank Tracks he orders his men to surrender giving the impression that they fought for around 2 mins before giving up.Now this is annoying(even if you do ignore the lack of an actual Tank) because in reality one of the reasons those men were taken to the barn and executed was because they had fought stubbornly and inflicted heavy casualties on the SS soldiers they faced.The German Commander(Moltke) was annoyed by this and the British troops payed a terrible price for their stubborn fighting.

Overall i thought "Dunkirk" was badly let down by its (obviously)Low budget.As it was made by the BBC it really shouldnt have been so cheaply made,is this all our Veterans deserved?. The BBC might do well to bare this in mind for future projects,if youre not going to do it properly then dont do it at all.

The show is a docudrama using original film footage from the 1940's, the true stories of soldiers from the British Army, and adding written drama to tell the story of Dunkirk. Actors took the part of the ordinary soldiers, army officers and government officials, including Winston Churchill, and the whole had intense and dramatic narration by Timothy Dalton. I thought the idea of taking real stories and making a show with the old film and narration was a good one. I have no objection to black and white footage, indeed I found it added to the interest and drama. However, I found the show unwatchable owing to the director's idea of adding immediacy by fancy camera angles and jiggling the camera about. Good dialog and direction added to the superb acting here make this unnecessary. It was ghastly to watch and made me seasick even before the boats arrived. What a waste of good ideas and a great story.

Couldn't watch this. Not an engaging show and a worse documentary

BBC have decided to show this abysmal effort again.The kindest thing that they could have done is dumped the whole mess in the Channel and forgotten about it.I do not know what possessed them to allow this to be transmitted in its present form.I do not recall a programme where the camera work and "music" was so distracting that it detracted so much from the subject.All i was thinking was why such a ridiculous camera angle was being used.Or wont that dreadful "Music" stop so that we can hear what is being said.The idea of incorporating black and white newsreels with colour footage went out with zero budget war films in the 60s.As far as i am concerned "Dunkirk" made by Michael Balcon and starring John Mills is far better in every respect.I just hope that the person who commissioned this meretricious rubbish is never allowed near the schedules again.