Dunkirk (2017)

[Noctis]

A technical marvel with some great action sequences (particularly the jet fights on air) and a tense atmosphere, but there was very little emotional investment for me. I couldn't really care for the characters that much which was a shame.  

 

B 

[KJsooner]

I didn't really know what to expect with this one. If you go in thinking you'll see Saving Private Ryan: Dunkirk Edition then you'll be disappointed. They're two different stories told in two different ways.There were things done in this movie that I normally don't like but I felt worked with this one.Films like Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jakcet, Platoon, etc. follow men through war. We get to know them and witness their experiences in battle. Dunkirk does the opposite. We get to know the battle, or in this case more the event, as a whole and witness the men that were in it as a part of the whole. There really isn't a story. We don't know the characters. We don't know their names. They're just a few of many men experiencing this event of evacuating the British forces off the beaches of Dunkirk. I thought the cinematography was wonderful.

 

I think Saving Private Ryan might have been an inspiration there in terms of the color and mood at times. The music was fantastic. It helped make the movie feel like it was one giant scene building to a climax as it builds and builds as event after event happens. It certainly keeps you engaged into the film.I enjoyed the minimal dialogue. I really enjoyed it. The actors weren't the center pieces.

 

They were more parts to a set or scene and you don't focus on them but take it all in.The editing I enjoyed overall but I do feel it was maybe a little choppy towards the beginning. I liked the three stories taking place over different times but merging together. Overall I think it was done well but certain areas I feel could have been done better. You could make the argument that the confused cuts and jumps in scenes add to the confusion and fog of war. I could maybe see that but in this case not as much.

 

One thing I loved is one thing I hated as well. I thought the dogfight scenes with the Spitfires were some of the best caught on film. That's what I hated. I know I'm watching a movie about Dunkirk but it was so good I wanted more of it in the film. It made me wish it was a Battle of Britain movie instead.

 

I highly recommend this movie. It's a different kind of war movie told in a different way from a different perspective.

 

A

[IndustriousAngel]

7/10, B+

Visually perfect (what else to expect) but when it was over - much too soon in my opinion - I was, like, "that's it?" There's something missing in the mix, can't put my finger on it but I felt a little let down when the end credits rolled.

 

Maybe I'm a little jaded bacause it's just a few weeks since I've been reading Connie Willis' "Blackout" which touches upon the Dunkirk evacuation too and does a better job of it (imho).

[4815162342]

On 7/28/2017 at 4:31 AM, Manchester by the Tree said:

Bad guy from Star Wars?

 

The pirate dude from TFA with the super Scottish accent who goes after Han Solo right after he picks up Rey and Finn

[Blankments]

Dunkirk is quietly Nolan's most ambitious film yet. Brilliantly blending his modern style with old-school filmmaking of the war epic, he breathes new life into his quirks that were beginning to feel old hat. Nolan avoids the pitfalls that have plagued his most recent works and delivers a harrowing experience quite unlike any contemporary war films or any of Nolan's other films. Keep in mind, this is clearly a Nolan film; his idiosyncrasies are evident in nearly every frame. By shifting away from self-important characters and pompous monologue, his cryptic characters finally come off as truly human, no matter how small their role is. More importantly, the setpieces are simultaneously horrifying and enthralling, taking audiences on a journey through war.

 

The IMAX cinematography is utterly stunning, and the sound in it makes it feel like planes are actually flying above or shots are firing right behind you. It has a similar issue to Interstellar that sometimes the mix prevents one from hearing the dialogue, but this aspect fits the disorienting nature of war Nolan is trying to capture. When it comes down to it, seeing this film in IMAX should be one's top priority, as it utilizes the format better than any other film I've seen.

 

The acting ranges from servicable to excellent, but the actors are not the star of the film here; it's the direction. No one stands out as bad, and when trying to pick a highlight, it proves impossible with how even-handed it all is. If one had to find a complaint with the entire enterprise, it's the land segments are slightly less engaging than the sea and air segments, but those segments are still exciting in their own right. The score by Zimmer is also good, but doesn't stand out as much as they have in Nolan's past works.

 

Dunkirk is easily Nolan's best film in nine years, with his ambition finally being accomplished in nearly every way. It's a stunning achievement; a brutal assault on the senses that puts audiences right into World War II and how petrifying it was. One can hope Nolan will continue with this type of "experience" film with his upcoming projects, but if he doesn't, Dunkirk will still exist as the best war films and best summer blockbusters in years. A larger achievement than almost anyone could've expected, and one that I cannot wait to revisit as soon as possible. A+

 

5 hours ago, 4815162342 said:

 

The pirate dude from TFA with the super Scottish accent who goes after Han Solo right after he picks up Rey and Finn

tell that to kanjiklub

[Noctis]

I also feel this should have been R-rated. 

[KGator]

Well, the critics got me again.  Here I go walking into a film expecting a great experience and just like Spiderman Homecoming I end up thinking . . . . "meh".  I put it above SMH but it just never grabbed me.  I was expecting a movie to depict the scale of this historic event.  That's what bothered me the most.  Maybe it was because they refused to use CGI but it just seemed like watching the battle on a smaller scale.  As if what you would expect if 30,000 troops were being evacuated by dozens of private vessels and commercial ships rather than 300,000 soldiers being evacuated by hundreds and hundreds of small and larger craft.  But ehhh . . . I guess if Nolen wanted everything to be real instead of added digitally he would have to cut the scale considerably.

 

The stories were fine.  I found the aviator portion to be, by far, the most fascinating.  To me the heroism at Dunkirk are those sailing the civilian ships into a war zone and the desperate defense of the French to buy the British enough time to escape.   To me, neither one was really portrayed to my satisfaction (one not at all).  I guess having George die was sort of a symbol of the sacrifice of the British civilians but that death just seemed a bit too contrived.

 

I'd say a B-.  Some great, some ehhhh, and an important historical event transferred to the big screen.

[Omario]

Amazing movie. This is why Nolan is the best director working today. One of the most intense movies i have ever seen. Just had to be seen in IMAX. Couldn't make out much of the dialogue because it was so loud but it wasn't really needed. It did get confusing at times so i can understand some people not getting into it. But Nolans technical mastery above all else has to be applauded. Genius at work. It's not his best movie but definitely superior to his previous works in the technical department. 

 

My only gripe is that i didnt see 400,000 men on the beach. There were 200,000 on the pelennor fields. We all know how big that orc army looked. Double that should have been on the screen here but nothing. Just had a few lines of people queuing up. Missed opportunity here. Would have looked amazing in IMAX to see that many on the beach as the camera pans over.  

 

Cinematography and directing oscar nominations should be a shoo in. A travesty if they don't win.

 

A

Edited August 2, 2017 by Omario

[ddddeeee]

Incredible. Possibly Nolan's best.

[ddddeeee]

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 9:59 PM, Travod said:

Second time around I really noticed how empty the beach looked for supposedly having 400,000 people. And there were like 900 civilian boats that went but the most you'll see in a shot is like 20.

 

Also the last shot is worse this time. The burning plane shot actually fades to black and the music comes to a crescendo so it's absolutely the last shot, and then it comes back to the kid. Bizarre, honestly.

Purposefully so. It worked for the reason Coolio mentioned.

[MrGamer]

Repost

On 7/21/2017 at 4:32 PM, MrGamer2558 said:

Holy shit, where do I begin. First, I can understand some of the complaints about the story structure. Once I saw what Nolan was doing, I was all in. 

 

Definitely one of the most technically impressive movies I've seen in a theater. Nolan out did himself. If you can, see this on the biggest screen possible. Even on the standard screens, it still looked amazing. The cast was great as well. Even tho the characters weren't super fleshed out, I was still invested enough in them. Zimmer's music was fantastic and almost a character itself. 

 

One of the best films of the year, period. 9.5/10

 

[ddddeeee]

I'm seeing a lot of complaints about the characterisation (or lack of, apparently) and I actually thought this was a huge step forward for Nolan in that regard. No long, sappy monologues from characters detailing exactly what they're thinking - Nolan finally learnt to show and not tell. Within twenty minutes I was already invested in the young troops and their relationship and they'd spoken around two lines at that point. After the schmaltz of TDKR and Interstellar I was worried I was off the Nolan train but now I'm firmly back on board.

[AndyK]

Saw it last night, I really really wanted to love it, but I don't.

 

I think is is one movie that would have benifitted from a lot of CGI, there was too much sparsness in everything to make me feel it was anything more than a low budget movie.

 

We saw 3 spitfires, yet 150 were lost in the air battle, there were 20 small craft when there should have a thousand.......

 

It just kind of lacked the intensity that I got from Saving Private Ryan.

 

I gave it a B.

[franfar]

Saw this in IMAX last night.

 

• The air battles and plane scenes were beautiful. 
• It felt tense all around
• They didn't really flesh out the characters, but that was ok for me in this instance. The movie was very "in the moment," and I still found myself rooting for the characters in some scenes
• It felt really short and taut, instead of having scenes drag on for too long
• Was really loud

Dunkirk was one of Nolan's best films IMO 

[Impact]

Forgot to grade this!

Saw this a few weeks ago-it was really good, the cinematography was awesome also. My only complaint was that at times it was a bit too jumpy between the stories. Other then that though, I really enjoyed it.

A

 

Doubt this will be topped as my favorite of the year.

[Mrwick]

On 7/25/2017 at 9:59 PM, Travod said:

Second time around I really noticed how empty the beach looked for supposedly having 400,000 people. And there were like 900 civilian boats that went but the most you'll see in a shot is like 20.

 

Also the last shot is worse this time. The burning plane shot actually fades to black and the music comes to a crescendo so it's absolutely the last shot, and then it comes back to the kid. Bizarre, honestly.

Seriously some people need re-educating. 900 boats over the course of 9 days. thats 100 boats a day, so you wouldn't actually see much more than 20 boats at any given time. 

[Mrwick]

On 8/11/2017 at 11:10 PM, AndyK said:

Saw it last night, I really really wanted to love it, but I don't.

 

I think is is one movie that would have benifitted from a lot of CGI, there was too much sparsness in everything to make me feel it was anything more than a low budget movie.

 

We saw 3 spitfires, yet 150 were lost in the air battle, there were 20 small craft when there should have a thousand.......

 

It just kind of lacked the intensity that I got from Saving Private Ryan.

 

I gave it a B.

 

Again 150 spitfires over 9 days. Not at once, The air segments were just an hour of real life, there wouldn't be 150 planes at once. Nolan took a big long 9 days battle and split it into small sections, it's not hard to understand why we didn't see thousands of boats and planes in one epic shot. 

[Mrwick]

Personally i loved this. What i admire is, its a British film that doesn't try to make us look spectacular, unlike films like SPR which cant help but make america look amazing, this one is happy to make the english looks like assholes, which is probably what matters would have been like, down to the french name calling and only caring about individual safety. It's probably the most realistic war movie that has been made. 

 

SPR for all it's intensity still can't help but show shots of american flags or crying Americans citizens after slaughtering their enemy, its like no-matter how blood thirsty this film is showing the horrors of war, we still want it to be a little hollywood and our characters all have to be perfect as possible.

 

A +

 

Ridley scott, you have a lot to top here

[Goffe]

Nolan needs a new editor asap. Quite a few of his awkward cuts took me out of the film. Some moments just needed an extra half second to flow more smoothly.         

 

Loved the closing shot though. One of the most goosebumpy moments in the film.

[Goffe]

10 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

And the overall verdict? 

Best movie ever made, of course.

 

Nolan's weakest since Memento. Slightly boring middle.