Dunkirk (Summer 2017) directed by Christopher Nolan

ttaskmaster said:
Then why did he bother tagging main characters for each of the sequences?
I suspect the answer will be to serve as narrators, anchors or some such, for the audience to relate... but then the very idea falls apart because he failed to expand on the characters enough that the audience could really relate to them anyway, rendering the technique useless again.
He even presented the stories in a style that suggests they were based on real people, even though they were complete fiction.
In short - What the hell is he playing at?
Click to expand...

Seeing as this particular storytelling tactic didn't work for you, it's sort of pointless trying to convince you otherwise. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. Your criticism is neither valid nor invalid.
 
DrToffnar said:
Seeing as this particular storytelling tactic didn't work for you, it's sort of pointless trying to convince you otherwise. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. Your criticism is neither valid nor invalid.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more about how those who praised it cite different things, whereas those who panned it seem to all pick on the same common flaws.
 
Just seen it at the Waterloo imax. Got to be honest, I wasn't amazed. The visuals and audio are indeed first rate, but it didn't feel like a film to me, more like a very high budget docudrama. Couldn't connect to any character at all, and I think all the overlapping narratives with different timelines got tiresome in the end. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I found it hard work piecing it all together.

Felt a bit all mouth and no trousers. It is good, but I don't think it's totally worthy of the reviews it's been getting.

I did like the end though. Especially the address and the use of Nimrod. Stirring stuff.
 
Last edited:
Saw it last night in IMAX, not largest format IMAX though. I struggle to get the hype to be honest. Wouldn't give it more than 7.5/10. Some good action shots and general cinematography but as others have said didn't feel a strong affinity to many characters (maybe Mark Rylance's character). It felt 'by the numbers' in terms of what most war films are like. Didn't see a massive advantage to IMAX, would be just as good at home. The Spitfire scenes took me right out of it in terms of realism. One Kenneth Branagh scene was so mawkish I nearly puked.
 
Finally got to see this the other day.
Really looked forward to it but...

1/10

Thought it was total trash. Nearly got up and walked out, couldn't relate to any character, story was all over the place, sound was far too loud. Was only a few of us in the cinema but no one was impressed at all.
The trailer was the best part.

Went home and watched the 1958 version which leaves this rubbish miles behind.
 
Oh really?

10/10 followed by a 1/10?

**** this rating carp. Some people just love to polarise and hate on stuff. Call me triggered, but 1/10? My as well just close all the cinemas, there is no need for them any more if this is 1/10.
 
Giving a film/movie a rating is meaningless to anyone other than the person rating the film, because there is no consistency.

There have been a fair few people after watching whatever film, post saying it was average at best, then gave it 7/10?

People moan about critics reviews, but at least you know if a critic finds a film average, you know it's not going to get a bizarre score of 7/10.

Someone giving this film 1/10 says nothing, only that they didn't like it. I wouldn't pay any more attention to that than I would someone giving Transformers 10/10 (and some people have). No point getting irked over it.

Really, it would be better if people just said what they thought of the film and left it that.
 
1/10 was my opinion only but this is what I thought the film deserved in my eyes.
Im a world war 2 film buff and was really looking forward to seeing this but I was left totally empty by it.

Everyone has their own opinions and what one person loves another can hate.
By giving it a score out of ten it's just highlighting that I didn't enjoy it at all and thought it was one of the worst films id watched in a long time.
 
VincentHanna said:
Sounds like you had issues with the converging time-lines.

Did you understand that the soldiers POV was shown over a week, the 'little boat' was over the course of a day and the RAF squadron was 1 hour?
Click to expand...
The converging time-lines were the only things that helped to maintain any interest in this movie because it helped to break up the monotony.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
1/10 was my opinion only but this is what I thought the film deserved in my eyes.
Im a world war 2 film buff and was really looking forward to seeing this but I was left totally empty by it.

Everyone has their own opinions and what one person loves another can hate.
By giving it a score out of ten it's just highlighting that I didn't enjoy it at all and thought it was one of the worst films id watched in a long time.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
I watched this last night and I was extremely underwhelmed.

There seemed to be very little dialogue, so for me the characters just seemed very two dimensional/simple.

There was simply no sense of "scale", there were 100,000's of men and 1000's of ships/boats and aircraft involved yet the beaches seemed to be pretty much empty and we got to see a couple of dozen ships and aircraft.

The 1958 film with John Mills was much better than this.

Seems it's up for multiple BAFTAs as well.

HEADRAT
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom