Dunkirk (Summer 2017) directed by Christopher Nolan

Watched it with the Mrs yesterday evening. Really enjoyed it, although I get some of the comments about the lack of 'epic' scale as you never got the impression that there were hundreds of thousands of troops waiting on the beach and surrounding areas. I thought the balance between the different stories was good, and liked the 'time-shifting' (The Mrs thought there was too much focus on the air battles - but hey, you can never have too much Spitfire right...?)

Also loved the music/sound by Hans Zimmer/Nolan. Perhaps a bit of overuse of Shepard Tone, but the ultra-slowed down and overlapping notes from the theme of Elgar's 'Nimrod' works really well for me (although to be fair, it is one of my favourite classical pieces so I am perhaps biased).

9/10 from me.
 
Dunkirk - 6/10

It's alright, but hardly the epic that it has been lauded as. Nolan has a recent habit of trying to wring out maximum drama from not that much actually going on, and this is one movie where o me it was more noticeable than lets say Interstellar which also has its dragged out moments. Plus I don't consider him such an emotionally subtle director and there were a few parts in the movie where things were clearly shoehorned in without making much sense such as the blind man near the end (cue the soldier saying "he wouldn't even look us in the eye"). Pointless. The young soldier roles in general were extremely lacking in character, completely bland and it felt intentionally so, forced, instead of natural.

You could also have replaced Tom Hardy with anyone and the part would have worked fine. Cillian Murphy was also a bit of a damp squib. The score could also hardly be classed as a musical score, it was even more sparse and mute than Interstellar.

I will forget this movie pretty damn quickly, of that I am sure.
 
Last edited:
The best new film I've watched for a long long time. It grabbed me from the first minute and I think it nailed everything it set out to do. I loved the minimalistic dialogue and the lack of character backstory. And I loved the run time, it's so refreshing when films don't go on too long.

For contrast/comparison I watched Inception last night, which seemed to run forever. Inception is exceptional in some aspects, but nowhere near as enjoyable and thrilling as Dunkirk in my opinion.

9.25/10
 
Seen it last night.

Visually (in parts) and audibly just superb, but the story and character build and delivery was far from it.

Everything seemed quite bland to me to be honest. The beach scenes were just so plain, absolutely no emotion in them at all. I know Nolan said it's not a war film and he's conformable working at the PG rating, that this is about the survival and intensity of emotion for those involved but you can't have people getting blown up on a beach, then just lying there without a scratch and other people just standing up, dusting the sand off their trousers like nothing has happened. I get the idea is that you're supposed to feel the peril and trepidation from just their faces. These souls just standing, waiting for their fate but it really didn't connect with me, I didn't feel their fear. Similarly when the young lads get into the beached boat and they are waiting and the thing starting to get riddled with bullets I just didn't think any sadness towards them, more along the liens of 'what are you doing, you idiots?!'.

The Spitfire scenes were just brilliant to look at, but they were not intense. At no point did I think that Tom Hardy would get into trouble though, probably because it is Tom Hardy and he's fighter ace who'll get his mates out of trouble, save some people, shoot down some Germans etc.


Visually as a cinematic experience though it's great, but I don't know it just didn't connect. I doubt I'll watch it again.
 
This documentary, which looks at not only the British but also the French and German perspective is very interesting. It explains some of the events of the film.

 
I was 45mins in when I had to look it up on IMDB to see what it was about because I was getting very bored with no action.
After realising what it was about it didn't get any better.
I never watch trailers or read reviews so it's my fault, I won't watch it again.
 
dowie said:
Eh? surely a film about 'Dunkirk' would obviously be about the evacuation?
Click to expand...

When I visited we went with a guide who told a massive story around the whole thing - I was expecting that, not just a film about the evacuation.
I thought the evacuation would be the last 15 minutes or so.
I'm so sorry if I don't come up to your expectations of what I should have expected, I'm not perfect.
 
Azza said:
Seen it last night.

Visually (in parts) and audibly just superb, but the story and character build and delivery was far from it.

Everything seemed quite bland to me to be honest. The beach scenes were just so plain, absolutely no emotion in them at all. I know Nolan said it's not a war film and he's conformable working at the PG rating, that this is about the survival and intensity of emotion for those involved but you can't have people getting blown up on a beach, then just lying there without a scratch and other people just standing up, dusting the sand off their trousers like nothing has happened. I get the idea is that you're supposed to feel the peril and trepidation from just their faces. These souls just standing, waiting for their fate but it really didn't connect with me, I didn't feel their fear. Similarly when the young lads get into the beached boat and they are waiting and the thing starting to get riddled with bullets I just didn't think any sadness towards them, more along the liens of 'what are you doing, you idiots?!'.

The Spitfire scenes were just brilliant to look at, but they were not intense. At no point did I think that Tom Hardy would get into trouble though, probably because it is Tom Hardy and he's fighter ace who'll get his mates out of trouble, save some people, shoot down some Germans etc.

Visually as a cinematic experience though it's great, but I don't know it just didn't connect. I doubt I'll watch it again.
Click to expand...

Agree with this analysis, the movie not only lacked pace, it lacked a soul and anything you could really relate to, and to me felt overly contrived in the way people spoke and behaved.

VincentHanna said:
You didn't know about the evacuation of Dunkirk?
Click to expand...
I didn't. *shrugs*
 
Saw it last Thursday with my missis, we were both really disappointed, was bland and sterile as others have already said.

The beach looked like it was ready for holiday makers not like it was in the midst of war......
The characters were ok but the movie never seemed to get going then ended..

It was propped up by the Spitfire/action scenes (with arcade ammo supply) that went on and on.

Definitely not worth watching again, this wasn't epic or memorable and I think it will be forgotten in years to come. (just my opinion of course as others have enjoyed it)

I think Nolan should stick to Fantasy/action stuff as it's done well but if doing historical stuff don't pick real life history and murder it like this.

There have been other war movies that have done it better long before this....They Were Expendable (1945)
Das Boot etc just for starters.
 
Erm...Dunkirk at this point was'n't touched by war, just as far as you could see in the village at the start. Even then tanks/ Bombers where diverted elsewhere.
Spitfire Ammo that went on and on?...even though Belts where counted, Spitfires always ran out of fuel before they could run out of ammo.
How...how on earth did he even come close to "murdering" a real life story, when veterans talk of how much it was like they remembered it.
Some people have this stupid notion that they all joked and stood around smoking with cups of tea. They where retreating badly from there first exposure of war for many, this ludicrous nothion they all wanted to "talk" is daft.

Just to add when I say Dunkirk I mean the beech front etc.
 
Last edited:
Ayahuasca said:
Agreed @cu3ed think some people here are comparing it to their time on COD/MOH and world of warplanes :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agree all you like, doesn't make the story told any more thrilling, interesting or engaging! And please don't insult people's intelligence just because you disagree, it's pretty damn lame. This was clearly a passion project for Nolan, with the studios understandably giving him the support, but it really fell short of the mark in almost every way.
 
I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence the things @cu3ed said were correct.

It also hasn't fallen short of the mark in almost every way either, that's an over exaggeration and you know it. Films that do that get nowhere near the ratings this has had.
 
TriedandTested said:
Agree all you like, doesn't make the story told any more thrilling, interesting or engaging! And please don't insult people's intelligence just because you disagree, it's pretty damn lame. This was clearly a passion project for Nolan, with the studios understandably giving him the support, but it really fell short of the mark in almost every way.
Click to expand...

Apart from jsut saying that...could you give some examples how it falls short of the mark in "nearly almost EVERY way"?
 
Ayahuasca said:
It also hasn't fallen short of the mark in almost every way either, that's an over exaggeration and you know it. Films that do that get nowhere near the ratings this has had.
Click to expand...
It does fall short in terms of delivering what audiences were expecting and, in many cases, what the average audience needs in order to connect with the narrative... an assertion echoed by a number of those critics that gave it rather low ratings, of which there were a fair few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom