Loved how realistically it dealt with the value of human life and the very thin line between life and death.
It's almost a concept film in the sense that the characters are basically non-existent. I think it serves the purpose of the film well, to the viewer war would be a huge bunch of anonymous people dying.
Dunkirk is a resounding technical success. Obviously, the story of British and French soldiers trapped on a beach, waiting for an evacuation that may never come, then arrives from surprising quarters is well choreographed and shot. The structure is also intriguing, with the beach action taking place over a week, the fishermen's tale over a day, and the air force story over an hour, cutting back and forth through the time frames creating a fair bit of suspense and mystery as events converge. Most incredible is the sound design, filled with driving percussive beats that continually evoke alarms and ticking clocks, or else gives the scenes loud immediacy. Dunkirk is a resounding technical success, but while its thin character work is probably meant to signal how cheap life is in war, it also tends to leave the audience cold. For the most part, I did not feel particularly engaged emotionally, though I know some of my viewing mates cried their eyes out. I respect the film as a sometimes clever recreation of historical events (though historians will be quick to bark at every inaccuracy, I just don't care about that), but did not find it as moving as some.
A fairly compact storyline, with some good but not great acting. Scenes seemed repetitive because the story was told from several different perspectives, giving you the consequences of actions you'll see later. The young dead boy was a bit random, considering the storyline.
Just as soldiers appeared numbed by the war, so was I numbed by the sustained tension. But I was also relieved of this numbness and — in sharp contrast — vehemently moved by the acts of forgiveness, heroism and gratefulness, by the music, by the scale of things, the officer's tears, the chance deaths.
I'm not a 20th century soldier, but I can imagine this being one of the better portrayals of WWII. Nolan didn't have to resort to a high level of dialogue, gore, grittiness and overly dramatic action sequences or a collection of thoroughly explored characters to make you identify with and root for at least one of them. No, Nolan's vision for Dunkirk was on point!
I also feel like the epilogue was juxtaposed with the rest of the film (typical Nolan move?), as if history itself is rewritten, I am forced to look at the rest of the film with new eyes, feeling betrayed by my own sentimentality and sense of heroism. It is no coincidence that Churchill, by the berth of the gazette, claimed "We shall never surrender", while we witness the helmets, washed ashore from all the dead soldiers. The sharp divide between commander and soldier becomes clear. By re-framing the heroism, the deaths, the return home with that shot, you are forced to reflect on both the necessity and futility of war. With this film, there's certainly more than meets the eye. Perhaps that's why the blind man has a sage quality over him when he replies with: "that is enough" [survival]
War is the continuation of politics by other means. — Carl von Clausewitz
I think movies like this, especially a war film, tend to confuse people upon viewing because we're used to a different formula. Kind of paradoxically (considering what happens) I'd call this film quiet and contained. Masterfully so. Nolan corners the audience between a harbour, a beach and the open water. We look down, up, across and we wait, we wait, we hope, we fear and we wait. And most importantly we experience. The soldiers are nameless and near voiceless. Nolan doesn't manipulate our emotions through dramatic character arcs or even a solidly linear narrative. You might think that because of it, it's hard to relate to the characters but the deft handling of audio and image to build and maintain not only tension but a sense of yearning for "home" should push you into feeling not for one solider but for all of them, for them and those that came to their aid. Is it the absolute best war movie ever made ? Probably not. Is it absolutely worth viewing? Without a doubt. Don't miss this one!
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 35
rabsi1
Loved how realistically it dealt with the value of human life and the very thin line between life and death.It's almost a concept film in the sense that the characters are basically non-existent. I think it serves the purpose of the film well, to the viewer war would be a huge bunch of anonymous people dying.
MonsieurBlutbad
Amazing cinematography, but the relentless nervous tension quickly wears off and the scenes become quite repetitive.Siskoid
Dunkirk is a resounding technical success. Obviously, the story of British and French soldiers trapped on a beach, waiting for an evacuation that may never come, then arrives from surprising quarters is well choreographed and shot. The structure is also intriguing, with the beach action taking place over a week, the fishermen's tale over a day, and the air force story over an hour, cutting back and forth through the time frames creating a fair bit of suspense and mystery as events converge. Most incredible is the sound design, filled with driving percussive beats that continually evoke alarms and ticking clocks, or else gives the scenes loud immediacy. Dunkirk is a resounding technical success, but while its thin character work is probably meant to signal how cheap life is in war, it also tends to leave the audience cold. For the most part, I did not feel particularly engaged emotionally, though I know some of my viewing mates cried their eyes out. I respect the film as a sometimes clever recreation of historical events (though historians will be quick to bark at every inaccuracy, I just don't care about that), but did not find it as moving as some.vendetta
details are good...still lacking something....may be expectation ruined it for me.BlueSharkh
A bit disappointed. I could not get a real connection with the different characters but I liked it nevertheless.ynrozturk
Boring. Great cinematography, though. Also loved the color grading. But ehh.TheOnlyRogueAngel
A fairly compact storyline, with some good but not great acting. Scenes seemed repetitive because the story was told from several different perspectives, giving you the consequences of actions you'll see later. The young dead boy was a bit random, considering the storyline.God
watch out for the nolan fanboyscfish80
Hans Zimmer's score is one of his best.252
Just as soldiers appeared numbed by the war, so was I numbed by the sustained tension. But I was also relieved of this numbness and — in sharp contrast — vehemently moved by the acts of forgiveness, heroism and gratefulness, by the music, by the scale of things, the officer's tears, the chance deaths.I'm not a 20th century soldier, but I can imagine this being one of the better portrayals of WWII. Nolan didn't have to resort to a high level of dialogue, gore, grittiness and overly dramatic action sequences or a collection of thoroughly explored characters to make you identify with and root for at least one of them. No, Nolan's vision for Dunkirk was on point!
I also feel like the epilogue was juxtaposed with the rest of the film (typical Nolan move?), as if history itself is rewritten, I am forced to look at the rest of the film with new eyes, feeling betrayed by my own sentimentality and sense of heroism. It is no coincidence that Churchill, by the berth of the gazette, claimed "We shall never surrender", while we witness the helmets, washed ashore from all the dead soldiers. The sharp divide between commander and soldier becomes clear. By re-framing the heroism, the deaths, the return home with that shot, you are forced to reflect on both the necessity and futility of war. With this film, there's certainly more than meets the eye. Perhaps that's why the blind man has a sage quality over him when he replies with: "that is enough" [survival]
War is the continuation of politics by other means. — Carl von Clausewitz
Welcome home, boys!
PrinceJax
I think movies like this, especially a war film, tend to confuse people upon viewing because we're used to a different formula. Kind of paradoxically (considering what happens) I'd call this film quiet and contained. Masterfully so. Nolan corners the audience between a harbour, a beach and the open water. We look down, up, across and we wait, we wait, we hope, we fear and we wait. And most importantly we experience. The soldiers are nameless and near voiceless. Nolan doesn't manipulate our emotions through dramatic character arcs or even a solidly linear narrative. You might think that because of it, it's hard to relate to the characters but the deft handling of audio and image to build and maintain not only tension but a sense of yearning for "home" should push you into feeling not for one solider but for all of them, for them and those that came to their aid. Is it the absolute best war movie ever made ? Probably not. Is it absolutely worth viewing? Without a doubt. Don't miss this one!Biki
A frenchman hearing Aneurin Barnardmarlarkey
Good cinematography... but boring and disjointedEarring72
Exciting, tense, war drama with great sound and cinematography. Don't expect any character development but what an intense movie. Very goodHolds up on repeat viewing. Blu ray looks/sound terrific
Pike
A story told by an extremely intelligent man. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.Showing items 1 – 15 of 35