It seems like most of the complaints in this thread boil down to "it doesn't do the same thing as other war movies".
LTTP: Dunkirk is terrible
- Thread starter adrem007
- Start date
I thought it was overrated. Not terrible, but basically a bit dull - it was trying hard to be smart and different, and I don't think it worked.
Well, there you go. Dunkirk is ok on its own but this is one of those movies you absolutely had to see in IMAX.
I usually greatly enjoy Nolan's movies, The Prestige being one of my all-time favorites, but I was really disappointed in Dunkirk.
It was a bore fest, the usual "Nolan's mindfuck" was missing and the construction of the film made everything unsurprising and redundant.
Probably watched it it the wrong expectations but still, what a dull movie.
It was a bore fest, the usual "Nolan's mindfuck" was missing and the construction of the film made everything unsurprising and redundant.
Probably watched it it the wrong expectations but still, what a dull movie.
I think it's possible to be simultaneously overrated and underrated which Nolan seems to have become especially on ERA (and formerly). Too much praise from his fans, and I think the dislike sometimes as hyperbolic. But I guess that's the internet these days, a lot of people really go out of their way to overpraise something or tear it down. I struggle to call Dunkirk 'terrible' and that's the kind of stuff that I just don't understand. People have their own tastes and what not, but I think even if this movie just didn't work on any engagement level for you, there's still plenty of technical aspects to consider. I realize that doesn't make a film for everyone. If there's one movie that I think is just sloppy across the board from his, it's TDKR. I think Interstellar has its moments, but also highlights some of his greatest weaknesses, specifically as a writer.
But I thought Dunkirk was pretty great. To me, it felt like Nolan at his most focused since at least Inception. I'm glad he pared back the dialogue which remains generally on the nose as ever when it is there, but I think there are plenty of moments that it's good to just read into their character's reactions. Take note of Rylance's acknowledgement of George dying when his son tells Cillian Murphy which I thought was a rather elegant interaction between father and son that said a lot more than what Nolan typically expresses through words. He's stripped down the story to the point that there's very little bloat and thus doesn't risk overstuffing the film with too many ideas. Granted, he tacks on one theme at the end about soldiers going home in disgrace that doesn't feel fleshed out enough to earn, but I think what happened in TDKR and Interstellar especially was that it felt like he had 5 different roads he wanted to explore and many of them feel half baked in the process. Now, that will come at the expense of his usual traits which some of his fans love him for, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Dunkirk feels like his least popular blockbuster film with TDKR probably among his fans, but to me, I can buy into the intentions and feel immersed. The blank slates was something I understood and even on some level I was able to care for say Hardy's character despite minimal time and recognize the noble actions of Rylance and his son. Of course, it looks beautiful, the sound is generally pretty incredible, and really pretty well acted across the board (Tommy, the lead, being the weak link). Also, saw it at home and still found it pretty much as enjoyable as I did in theaters.
I understand those complaints about lack of scale, as Nolan's insistence on practical is a bit of a detriment here at times, but not to the point of it too adversely affecting the film to me. But beyond that, I think it was a necessary exercise for Nolan to experiment and I think he was mostly pretty successful at it. It's not like he's gonna do specifically films like Dunkirk going forward, but I think it'd be good for him to take some of the elements he learned/applied here and take that into account in his future films.
But I thought Dunkirk was pretty great. To me, it felt like Nolan at his most focused since at least Inception. I'm glad he pared back the dialogue which remains generally on the nose as ever when it is there, but I think there are plenty of moments that it's good to just read into their character's reactions. Take note of Rylance's acknowledgement of George dying when his son tells Cillian Murphy which I thought was a rather elegant interaction between father and son that said a lot more than what Nolan typically expresses through words. He's stripped down the story to the point that there's very little bloat and thus doesn't risk overstuffing the film with too many ideas. Granted, he tacks on one theme at the end about soldiers going home in disgrace that doesn't feel fleshed out enough to earn, but I think what happened in TDKR and Interstellar especially was that it felt like he had 5 different roads he wanted to explore and many of them feel half baked in the process. Now, that will come at the expense of his usual traits which some of his fans love him for, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Dunkirk feels like his least popular blockbuster film with TDKR probably among his fans, but to me, I can buy into the intentions and feel immersed. The blank slates was something I understood and even on some level I was able to care for say Hardy's character despite minimal time and recognize the noble actions of Rylance and his son. Of course, it looks beautiful, the sound is generally pretty incredible, and really pretty well acted across the board (Tommy, the lead, being the weak link). Also, saw it at home and still found it pretty much as enjoyable as I did in theaters.
I understand those complaints about lack of scale, as Nolan's insistence on practical is a bit of a detriment here at times, but not to the point of it too adversely affecting the film to me. But beyond that, I think it was a necessary exercise for Nolan to experiment and I think he was mostly pretty successful at it. It's not like he's gonna do specifically films like Dunkirk going forward, but I think it'd be good for him to take some of the elements he learned/applied here and take that into account in his future films.
Last edited:
Yes it's nominated for oscars because it's terrible.
It's another awesome example of what a true filmmaker Nolan is. The best of our generation
It's another awesome example of what a true filmmaker Nolan is. The best of our generation
That was the most jarring thing to me. Took me right out of the immersion actually having read what Dunkirk was like.
Personally I don't consider Dunkirk to be "terrible", but it's not a movie I'd want to watch again.
Loved the movie, saw it twice in theatres, first in digital iMax, then tracked down the 70mm print.
Were the characters underdeveloped? Honestly, most characters in most movies are underdeveloped. I don't need a scene where a dude doesn't get out of bed when an officer comes in (wow, what a washout), and then you see a photo of his girlfriend back home (gee, he must be someone that has a good heart), to be "invested" in their story.
Here's the story. Nazi's are trying to take over the world and the guys in the film are trying to stop it.
There is a great sense of the impersonal throughout the film. The Navy requisitions vessels of people they don't know, the teen, George, impulsively hops on, we don't know his reasons (he's not established to be "fleeing" anything). The French dude evacuates a completely unknown person on a stretcher (not established as a wounded fried, like in other films) in order to try and get on a boat himself. The soldiers get on a run-aground boat and are warned of unseen and unknowable Germans over the ridge. The Germans then begin shooting at them and once again, are never shown or established. Which is fine, because I don't need an allied soldier going through a German's belongings and pulling out a bloody photo of his fraufriend back home (gee, he must be someone that has a good heart).
Before that boat is shot up, there's an altercation because the other soldiers suspect the Frenchman because he's dressed as a Brit but seems "off." Once again, driving at the theme of unknowable motives, and the impersonal nature of all the characters, least to us, but especially to each other.
When the Navy boat is hit with a torpedo, and it goes down, the character that chooses to open the door so people can escape isn't doing it to rescue anybody specifically, he's doing it to rescue "anybody."
When the old dude in fishing boat goes to Dunkirk, he's not rescuing his son or anything, he's doing it because there are people out there like his son.
Even at the end, the dude thanking everyone is literally blind so he literally doesn't see any of the characters either.
Churchill isn't given a rousing speech, or depicted as a great charismatic leader, his words are read from a newspaper not by a general addressing the troops or anything, but by one soldier reading to another.
Given how impersonal and chaotic war is, we have a film from the perspective of the chaotic and impersonal.
I'm not saying it's better or worse than Saving Private Ryan, just that it's different, and that different is worthwhile, than trying to tread the same ground again and again. There are so many WWII films out there and I can't help but think, "gee, there's nothing in here that Band of Brothers didn't do already, and better." Dunkirk wisely chose to go with a different style and presentation than other WWII movies.
Last point, after the movie ended I turned to my friend and said, "I'm stressed and deaf," and they were like, "me too." I think it was just a really unique theatre-going experience, and there's value in getting something different sometimes. Emotional manipulation can happen many ways in films, in fact, it's all emotional manipulation, no one ever feels happy or sad over characters in films that you get to know over two hours, it's trying to evoke and tap into something in your own life and draw out your emotions from that. I think the large film format, the alternatively claustrophobic and agoraphobic scenes, the constant ticking, the quick cutting between three timelines in different scales converging into one, it all creates this sense of stress.
If you look at suspense movies, Hitchcock often downplayed subplots and supporting characters because those story beats distract from the main narrative, which when building stress, would serve as a release valve. Watching action movies, often there are comedic scenes where there are no threats, those are release valves so that viewers can come down to be thrilled again by the next action sequence. Dunkirk is more of a suspense film, and to have moments of the personal in order to "invest" in characters takes the foot off the pedal. Especially difficult because Dunkirk can't front-load those types of scenes because of the three timelines.
Anyhow, the film is definitely an odd duck and it's cool to think about it, rather than it just being something that copies the beats of Saving Private Ryan or something.
Were the characters underdeveloped? Honestly, most characters in most movies are underdeveloped. I don't need a scene where a dude doesn't get out of bed when an officer comes in (wow, what a washout), and then you see a photo of his girlfriend back home (gee, he must be someone that has a good heart), to be "invested" in their story.
Here's the story. Nazi's are trying to take over the world and the guys in the film are trying to stop it.
There is a great sense of the impersonal throughout the film. The Navy requisitions vessels of people they don't know, the teen, George, impulsively hops on, we don't know his reasons (he's not established to be "fleeing" anything). The French dude evacuates a completely unknown person on a stretcher (not established as a wounded fried, like in other films) in order to try and get on a boat himself. The soldiers get on a run-aground boat and are warned of unseen and unknowable Germans over the ridge. The Germans then begin shooting at them and once again, are never shown or established. Which is fine, because I don't need an allied soldier going through a German's belongings and pulling out a bloody photo of his fraufriend back home (gee, he must be someone that has a good heart).
Before that boat is shot up, there's an altercation because the other soldiers suspect the Frenchman because he's dressed as a Brit but seems "off." Once again, driving at the theme of unknowable motives, and the impersonal nature of all the characters, least to us, but especially to each other.
When the Navy boat is hit with a torpedo, and it goes down, the character that chooses to open the door so people can escape isn't doing it to rescue anybody specifically, he's doing it to rescue "anybody."
When the old dude in fishing boat goes to Dunkirk, he's not rescuing his son or anything, he's doing it because there are people out there like his son.
Even at the end, the dude thanking everyone is literally blind so he literally doesn't see any of the characters either.
Churchill isn't given a rousing speech, or depicted as a great charismatic leader, his words are read from a newspaper not by a general addressing the troops or anything, but by one soldier reading to another.
Given how impersonal and chaotic war is, we have a film from the perspective of the chaotic and impersonal.
I'm not saying it's better or worse than Saving Private Ryan, just that it's different, and that different is worthwhile, than trying to tread the same ground again and again. There are so many WWII films out there and I can't help but think, "gee, there's nothing in here that Band of Brothers didn't do already, and better." Dunkirk wisely chose to go with a different style and presentation than other WWII movies.
Last point, after the movie ended I turned to my friend and said, "I'm stressed and deaf," and they were like, "me too." I think it was just a really unique theatre-going experience, and there's value in getting something different sometimes. Emotional manipulation can happen many ways in films, in fact, it's all emotional manipulation, no one ever feels happy or sad over characters in films that you get to know over two hours, it's trying to evoke and tap into something in your own life and draw out your emotions from that. I think the large film format, the alternatively claustrophobic and agoraphobic scenes, the constant ticking, the quick cutting between three timelines in different scales converging into one, it all creates this sense of stress.
If you look at suspense movies, Hitchcock often downplayed subplots and supporting characters because those story beats distract from the main narrative, which when building stress, would serve as a release valve. Watching action movies, often there are comedic scenes where there are no threats, those are release valves so that viewers can come down to be thrilled again by the next action sequence. Dunkirk is more of a suspense film, and to have moments of the personal in order to "invest" in characters takes the foot off the pedal. Especially difficult because Dunkirk can't front-load those types of scenes because of the three timelines.
Anyhow, the film is definitely an odd duck and it's cool to think about it, rather than it just being something that copies the beats of Saving Private Ryan or something.
Adored the entire film. It has some of the most stunning flight cinematography I've ever witnessed, my shoulders hurt both at IMAX London and at home because go how tense I was watching it and it's one of the few war films that focus on a unique element of war (An evacuation) rather than just a battle.
Dunkirk was one of the most unique moments in modern warfare, where hundreds of thousands of troops waited to be rescued, with no possibility of launching a counter attack. It's a bleak moment in UK history and the film conveys that brilliantly.
I appreciated the tone Nolan took, not getting to know each other as quite frankly, everyone was just willing to come home. Dunkirk is not a traditional war movie, because Dunkirk was not a traditional battle.
Dunkirk was one of the most unique moments in modern warfare, where hundreds of thousands of troops waited to be rescued, with no possibility of launching a counter attack. It's a bleak moment in UK history and the film conveys that brilliantly.
I appreciated the tone Nolan took, not getting to know each other as quite frankly, everyone was just willing to come home. Dunkirk is not a traditional war movie, because Dunkirk was not a traditional battle.
Never Get On A Boat: The Movie
To me, it just felt like the chronicles of a soldier with the worst luck. Practically every boat he got on sank. Any time I saw a boat, I already knew what was going to happen.
I didn't watch it in theaters, but I will say I liked the plane sequences. Everything else just felt so muted and uninteresting to me. Can't say I enjoyed the film much, but I do think the overhype from friends and family caused my expectations to be higher than they should have.
I think I'd prefer to watch a documentary about Dunkirk rather than a film.
To me, it just felt like the chronicles of a soldier with the worst luck. Practically every boat he got on sank. Any time I saw a boat, I already knew what was going to happen.
I didn't watch it in theaters, but I will say I liked the plane sequences. Everything else just felt so muted and uninteresting to me. Can't say I enjoyed the film much, but I do think the overhype from friends and family caused my expectations to be higher than they should have.
I think I'd prefer to watch a documentary about Dunkirk rather than a film.
That's ridiculous lol, Dunkirk isn't some complex movie lmao. At the end of the day it's still a blockbuster, no more complex than Memento (which was a better movie), Inception (which was a better movie) or even The Prestige (which was a better movie).
I can't tell if you guys are serious in thinking that people who don't like Dunkirk just don't get it.
What did people expect? Young boy from New Jersey joining the war after his brother died? We have a million of those war hero films. Dunkirk left me feeling like I had witnessed the birth of a new type of war film. You don't need to know each soldiers background to care about them. You know they are the allies, you know Britain's fate was in their hands, you know Germany was winning at this point, you know if you were their age at that time you'd be right next to them. The juxtaposition between the chaos at the start and the massive lines of organized soldiers only a few hundred meters away, and the the pilots face as he concentrates while the machine guns burst with deafening noise. It was all amazing. I really don't agree with the story critiques, you don't need to have it all fed to you. If you have no context and don't know your history then maybe you'll feel lost. The cinematography was excellent, the sound was excellent. If you didn't feel you must've not been able to put yourself there for whatever reason, but I don't think that's Nolan's fault.
This is a terrible post. And i say this as a guy nearing his 40s.
You can't just dismiss someones objective opinion by insulting their taste or intelligence
He's not as good as Denis Villeneuve, David Fincher, Edgar Wright, David Lynch, Mel Gibson or Quentin Tarantino.
These are the best of our generation imo.
And being nominated for oscars is not a seal of quality any more.
The last great Nolan movie was Inception. Interstellar was good, TDKR was okay, Dunkirk was terrible. Imo this definitely is a decline but..this is just my opinion of course.
It's fine for movies to be not loved by everyone because if that's your goal of filmmaking you might just end up making garbage to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Posts like these say some people are far too obsessed on moderating at what movies other people like. I really liked Dunkirk because it was something different, and there's absolutely no way you can convince me that the world is a worse place because Dunkirk was made the way it is.
Posts like these say some people are far too obsessed on moderating at what movies other people like. I really liked Dunkirk because it was something different, and there's absolutely no way you can convince me that the world is a worse place because Dunkirk was made the way it is.
I just rewat hed the film for the sexond time. First in theaters, second at home.
I still liked it.
To me, the movie isn't supposed to be about the characters and I don't think every movie has to be.
The movie more impressionistic and the overall impression that the film gives is desperation. I think they achieve that.
I also think the movie has a very novel way of expressing the German army as a force of nature. Not once do we see a German human until the *very end* for a split, blurry secind when they are wrangling Tom Hardy. For the entirety of the film we only see their planes and their bullets. The movie treats the bombings like incoming hurricane winds. It treats bullets like flames reaching towards you. I thought it was refreshingly different.
I still liked it.
To me, the movie isn't supposed to be about the characters and I don't think every movie has to be.
The movie more impressionistic and the overall impression that the film gives is desperation. I think they achieve that.
I also think the movie has a very novel way of expressing the German army as a force of nature. Not once do we see a German human until the *very end* for a split, blurry secind when they are wrangling Tom Hardy. For the entirety of the film we only see their planes and their bullets. The movie treats the bombings like incoming hurricane winds. It treats bullets like flames reaching towards you. I thought it was refreshingly different.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Dunkirk. The acting is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of nuance most of the dialog will go over a typical viewer's head. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these lines, to realise that they're not just emotional- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Dunkirk truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the fact that the movie cuts across three different timelines. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Nolan's genius wit unfolds itself on their movie screens. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Christopher Nolan tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid
Also didn't catch this in a theater but still enjoyed the unconventional approach to portraying an unconventional WWII story. Nice visuals on the beach, dogfights felt authentic.
Liked it fine in the moment but not a movie I'd watch again, the characters and setpieces didn't really stick afterwards. Lost patience with the boat storyline, don't think it all tied together in a satisfying way and I respect the soundtrack choice but kind of hated it in practice.
Liked it fine in the moment but not a movie I'd watch again, the characters and setpieces didn't really stick afterwards. Lost patience with the boat storyline, don't think it all tied together in a satisfying way and I respect the soundtrack choice but kind of hated it in practice.
I'll agree with this, but that's not me saying it's bad. It's still a good ass movie. But, definitely Nolan's "worse" for me.
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as one can reasonably elaborate it. Saying something sucks and that its bad is not what you would call a reasonable elaboration. And if that's the mindset you have when you want to discuss a movie on a forum, all you get is oneliners lacking depth.
I don't know. There are numerous posters here that bring in a level headed argument to the ball. For what it was worth, sound really is an essential component in Dunkirk. And i do agree with the end notion that the plot was rather poor, aswell as
The endless running towards a new shelter when the old one got destroyed. Its a design decision that works two times, but here it was way too numerous. I understand this was done to retain the idea of ''everlasting danger'' but to see the same sequence of events play out over and over again, i just found that a poor design decision.
This. Dunkirk is a very different movie in that regard.
And this. I went in with an open mind and left not disappointed.
Nolanites? What are those? Given the phrasing, it sounds like a derogatory, insultive term.
I cringe a little bit when the movie's usage of ''Shepard Tones'', aka the huge droning sound throughout the movie is translated to ''crap mixing''. Its not crap mixing, its intentional. I am sorry that it had the adversal effect on you, however! I recall that this is an unfortunate byproduct of using those tones; some people experience ear problems because of it.
Fully agree OP. I saw it for the first time just last week. I have a nice home theater that I prefer over the cinema so the experience wasn't lost on me. The only thing I enjoyed was the audio from the dogfights.
Literally everything else was bad/forgettable. Telling chunks of the story out of order didn't work. Pulp fiction this was not. For a movie that's probably intended to be emotional, I felt nothing watching it. I thought, wow, it must really have sucked for those soldiers, what a hopeless situation. But that was the extent of the emotion it made me feel.
Acting? There was hardly anything I could consider as such. Tom Hardy spends half his scenes thinking about how much gas he has left. The moment where he's running out of fuel and has to consider wether or not to chase the bomber went on waaaay too long and had no impact.
Honestly, like episode 8, this kind of felt like a movie where almost nothing happened and most of it was throwaway. Which is really sad since it's based on a true story. I usually love movies like this but it was done so poorly. Hacksaw ridge was ten times better. More than ten times!
I walked away feeling like this movie did not do justice to the events at dunkirk....
Literally everything else was bad/forgettable. Telling chunks of the story out of order didn't work. Pulp fiction this was not. For a movie that's probably intended to be emotional, I felt nothing watching it. I thought, wow, it must really have sucked for those soldiers, what a hopeless situation. But that was the extent of the emotion it made me feel.
Acting? There was hardly anything I could consider as such. Tom Hardy spends half his scenes thinking about how much gas he has left. The moment where he's running out of fuel and has to consider wether or not to chase the bomber went on waaaay too long and had no impact.
Honestly, like episode 8, this kind of felt like a movie where almost nothing happened and most of it was throwaway. Which is really sad since it's based on a true story. I usually love movies like this but it was done so poorly. Hacksaw ridge was ten times better. More than ten times!
I walked away feeling like this movie did not do justice to the events at dunkirk....
It was a pretty great film slightly ruined by the end. Why would you have film full of the horror and chaos of war and the mental suffering of the war survivors only to throw in that jingoistic BS at the end?
Fantastic sound design, cinematography and acting. The film is light on characterisation but that's not the aim of the film. People don't get to have much character in battle.
Fantastic sound design, cinematography and acting. The film is light on characterisation but that's not the aim of the film. People don't get to have much character in battle.
I prefer the exposition heavy style of his older films. I still enjoyed the beautiful cinematography and re-watch because of it, but it's probably my least favorite of his films.
I enjoyed it when I saw it in theaters due to whole 70mm Imax theater experience. But I don't know how well this movie translates into a home experience.
The film is more about spectacle (the dogfights, the visuals, the loud sound) than character development or plot twists.
The film is more about spectacle (the dogfights, the visuals, the loud sound) than character development or plot twists.
???????!!!!
Nolan and BAD editing? Nolan can be a bit of a "cold" filmaker, much in the same way Kubrick could be quite clinical but having bad editing in his films is a new one.
It's worth a watch for the theater experience but I wouldn't watch it again.
Kind of miffed it got a best picture nom. It was technically well-made, but there was little justification of the 3 timeline structure besides them having a "crescendo" at the same time and the story/characters were thin, and there wasn't really a tangible antagonist, which is odd for a war film. I guess it's not supposed to be opposing armies and rather time, there just isn't a satisfying way that it comes together. Tom Hardy showing up to shoot down one plane is hardly a good pay off. They even had to play triumphant music when the civilian reinforments arrived just to let you know it was what all the build up was for and they accomplished something. It probably sounded better on paper.
Kind of miffed it got a best picture nom. It was technically well-made, but there was little justification of the 3 timeline structure besides them having a "crescendo" at the same time and the story/characters were thin, and there wasn't really a tangible antagonist, which is odd for a war film. I guess it's not supposed to be opposing armies and rather time, there just isn't a satisfying way that it comes together. Tom Hardy showing up to shoot down one plane is hardly a good pay off. They even had to play triumphant music when the civilian reinforments arrived just to let you know it was what all the build up was for and they accomplished something. It probably sounded better on paper.
Disagree with pretty much everything here. People disliking the movie aren't "missing the point", it's just that the movie is monotonous as hell and doesn't do anything to convey emotion. It's not about it not being your usual war movie about heroes and well known events. You can have characters that aren't traditionally fleshed-out, aren't set up as being "the main character" and such but if the setting and events were actually fleshed out that would work. Dunkirk doesn't do any of that, whole movie is pretty much people drowing in a big boat, people arguing about that small boat, and dogfights. Sure the movie is competently shot but that's not enough to carry it, even the whole multiple timelines thing doesn't matter because the movie is too damn monotonous. Whether they are close or far from home there is basically no difference, it's always the same kind of scenes.
Btw it's not even comparable with Blade Runner, the genres and actual stories are too different. You mentioning that movie and that last paragraph about "it's the filmmaker's choice it won't work with everyone" makes it feel like you on your high horse saying "look I like good directors and movies that aren't about plot or characters, imax/70mm is the optimal viewing". In 2049 everything between the start and the destination felt distinct and relevant, can't say the same about Dunkirk
I think he's referencing some of the bad car chase/fight choreography in the Batman films. I remember in particular that one car chase in the tunnel being torn apart for it's messy left/right confusion.
I thought Dunkirk was ok. Saw it at home on 4k hdr w/surround sound cranked. It does a good job in giving realistic depictions of the event, the sounds, and sites etc. But was a bit meandering and the timeline jumping stuff was pretty annoying rather than effective. Had a tense feeling throughout but the lack of investment in the characters dampened the effect.
Saw it in 70mm. Really dug it.
Then again, I also dug the shit out of TDKR, so your miles may vary.
Then again, I also dug the shit out of TDKR, so your miles may vary.
I think people focusing on its bare plot for the primary reason others didn't like it is a little misguided. Blockbusters can and should be kinetic and frantic without sacrificing depth visually and emotionally. The quintessential example being Fury Road at this point, and how meticulous its world and character building is, conveyed mostly from its imagery. Obviously it's apples and oranges, but Nolan's approach to war, as someone likened to the BBC documentary, Dunkirk, is fairly standard and straightforward, and not really a refreshing take on the now retreaded war film genre, even if it tries to be an antidote to it. It doesn't explicitly focus on the brutality of war or the psychological states of the soldiers. It loudly moves from setpiece to setpiece until the boats and Tom Hardy arrive; you can't help but think 'that's it?' by the end of it.
Last edited:
Those who say Nolan didn't accurately recreate the events at Dunkirk should watch this: https://vimeo.com/246597114
That's Rotten Tomatoes, though. I think you misread my post, but you're right. A film that scores 94 on Metacritic is most likely seen as a masterpiece. I don't like to resort to reviews and such, because personal preferences are what matter most, but the way folks here talk like Dunkirk is this undoubtedly awful film that nobody likes is a head scratcher.
Last edited:
The opening was meant to signify the true horror of battle and how it was, Dunkirk focused more on the low parts, not much on the battle aspects (hence ignoring the actual town and fighting that was taking place with the Germans) aside from the strafing runs Dunkirk doesn't really go into the "Battle" aspect of Dunkirk, it's more about the survival of the soldiers on the beach and ignores the rest of Dunkirk and soldiers that were fighting and not trying to get off the island.