Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 15 of 33

Limbesdautomne's avatar


No script. Just a catalogue of survival scenes with an atrocious score. Nolan invents the permanent climax: action, fear, sentimentalism. Characters? Just bodies here and there. Hitchcock said that suspense was the opposite of surprises in films, that the fear came from the wait; Nolan create an all surprise -- boom boom -- film. Zero feelings, zero fear -- can't be involved with bodies I don't care.

Read more in French on La Saveur des goûts amers
3 years 6 months ago
frankqb's avatar


Dunkirk is easily Christopher Nolan's best film and Hans Zimmer's best score. The film uses the Dunkirk evacuation as a staging ground for a discussion of self-sacrifice, self-worth, self-confidence and mutual support.

The film crackles with danger, hope, loss, and slowly reveals its conceit: Even you, the audience, cannot trust your memory during this film. This is what the stress must be like for those in the fight.

As smoke rises on Dunkirk beach like plumes out of hell, and the Orpheus comparisons rise as civilians are called into the fray, Dunkirk shows us people willing to band together to achieve the impossible for a greater good. How one man's security is based on all our security. How I only have a home because you have a home.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" was Kennedy's infamous line. To remind us simply of this is surely one of Nolan's goals here, but not all. Perhaps he merely wants to remind us that we'd forgotten that asking what we can do for each other is still an option in this world. In this way, Dunkirk is a nostalgic adrenaline shot that shows how much the world has changed - and hopes we can be that way again.

Incredible cinematography, acting that feels so human you forget it's not a documentary, and a score that exhilarates the very blood cells in the body, Dunkirk is a smash triumph.

Picture your favourite celebrities saying "Dunkirk" because come next February, I have a feeling you'll be hearing it a few times on Oscar night. As of Summer 2017, it's Nolan's Oscar to lose.

5 stars out of 5
3 years 6 months ago
Realenur's avatar


Limbesdautomne unfortunately I think you did not understand the movie. Not all movies are driven by the characters (Or should be to be great)

It's a real war movie that gives you the feeling that you're in the middle of it all. There is no ridiculous dialogue and drama like in Pearl Harbor e.g.

There is not the typical '' I miss my wife '' shows picture of the wife, picture being taken and subsequently thrown among the soldiers in a perverted tone.

Nolan has tried to make it as authentic as possible, like never seen before, and it seems he achieved his goal. This is a true war movie!

The film have received universal acclaim, with critics praising the cinematography, direction, acting and Zimmer's musical score, and some considering it to be one of the greatest war films of all-time and Nolan's best film to date.

I'm sorry if you think it's ''disappointing''
3 years 6 months ago
heat_'s avatar


Top notch work from a true master. Come on, there is ten movie long footage of high quality technical work in one single movie and some plot twist nerds still have some problems!
3 years 5 months ago
misterderp's avatar


A world without war would be a good thing, even if the causa prima was the prevention of Dunkirkian movies.

War is hell. Dunkirk, however, is a breeze with a small chance of rain from the East. Bullets are like firecrackers; bombs are less distressing than an unsuspected bowel movement; every hairdo is perfectly cut; the actors don't act as soldiers: running away central of the line of fire, trying to clog holes where bullets just came from, shellshock being mistaken as a mere temporary loss of temper—barely so...

Do yourself a favor and go to a history museum instead. Even better, watch war archive videos for real authenticity. Unfortunately, my guess is that most people can't stomach the latter, and prefer some artsy-fartsy nonsense to intelligently brag about.

PS This is shellshock: https://youtu.be/SS1dO0JC2EE?t=24

3 years 5 months ago
ikkegoemikke's avatar


"Wars are not won by evacuation."


I'm sure there are already as many reviews about Christopher Nolan's last movie about the battle of Dunkirk, as there were British soldiers on the beach of Dunkirk waiting for their evacuation. An awful lot. Although it wasn't a battle in the strict sense of the word, but rather a massive logistical operation to get the English army back on British soil. Whether this operation had any influence on the course of the 2nd WO, is something for military strategists and analysts to determine. In my opinion, there was an incomprehensible blunder made by the German commanders. Fortunately, because sauerkraut isn't really my favorite dish. It's not a chapter in this terrible world war, with heroic battles taking place. A bold choice, but nevertheless, it was a breathtaking spectacle.

To call it "Film of the Year" is a bridge too far (you can call that flick a masterpiece). But Nolan succeeded in creating an energetic and exciting film that intertwines three different story lines in a non-chronological way. Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) is the key figure who must save his own skin from the beginning on, so he won't be mowed down by German bullets. It seemed like the only thing he did the whole movie was surviving one life-threatening situation after the other. Then there's Farrier (Tom Hardy), one of three Spitfire pilots who try to safeguard the crossing of their troops and hunt down fierce German fighter planes and bombers which are trying to sink as many ships as possible. And finally there's Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance) who's crossing the canal in a simple yacht together with his sons Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and George (Barry Keoghan) to help with the rescue of soldiers. In this way Nolan incorporates three different chapters, each taking place in another territory. By land, at sea and in the air.

The very first thing you'll notice is the largely wordless acting. Particularly Tommy whose lips seem to be sealed almost throughout the complete movie. It is as if in this war every conversation seems useless and body language speaks volumes. The majority of dialogues are at the expense of pilots and commanders. Unfortunately, the conversation between Spitfire pilots is sometimes unclear and restricted to indistinct mumbling. Partly due to deafening noise effects (and when you are watching this movie in a Slovenian cinema where it's hard to read the subtitles as well, this is a slight disadvantage).

And that brings us to the soundtrack. It's omnipresent and, in my opinion, of decisive importance. Hans Zimmer's music seems to be constantly present and bolsters the entire film. At moments unobtrusive in the background after which it swells out into a climax. Let's say that this is the very first time the musical setting demands my attention and impresses me. The same goes for the deafening noise effects, which sometimes make it seem like you're in the midst of the war. The down diving Stuka's and the deadly cargo they drop on the beach with that terrifying, screaming noise. Sometimes I had the urge to crawl deeper into my chair.

The way everything is portrayed is also phenomenal. The dogfights are in my eyes the highlights in this impressive film. The vast shots of the beach where thousands of Allies are crammed as sardines in a barrel. You can feel the threat of dead. The claustrophobic and precarious situations that'll make you feel as if you're trapped yourself. The despair flows off the screen. Thousands of Allies can, as it were, practically see their safe home but they realize that getting there is an impossible matter.

This is, just like "Saving Private Ryan", an epic war story. Only the first one was more brutal and showed the horror of WWII in a terrible way. That's why I still can picture some scenes from this Spielberg spectacle. I'm afraid that won't be the case when it comes to "Dunkirk". The fact that it was a defeat that led to a victory afterwards is an indisputably fact. And yet, I had this "that's-it?" feeling afterwards. Without a doubt, it was a traumatic experience for the thousands of Allies, but the compulsory cheering moment as apotheosis was a bit too predictable. And I'm still wondering why Farrier made that decision in the end. As reasoned as his previous actions were, so stupid I found this final decision. Obviously, "Dunkirk" will win prizes at the major film festivals, but I'm afraid the main prizes will be awarded to others. I hope they'll release films the next six months that deserve the title "Film of the Year".

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
3 years 5 months ago
Rene Narciso's avatar

Rene Narciso

The right didn't like it because it isn't jingoistic enough and celebratory of war. The left didn't like it because it didn't celebrate women and soldiers of color. It seems like one of the symptoms of political radicalism is the inability of enjoying awesome war thrillers.
2 years 10 months ago
Leonard1168's avatar


Linda e interesante forma de torcer el tiempo que muestra Nolan en esta película. Lo hace con naturalidad y fluidez. Muy buena manera de re modelar el tiempo para generar suspenso y generar la tensión del espectador. Seguramente en estos tiempos de atenciones partidas, algún que otro colgado diga que no se entiende, pero serán los menos.
3 years ago
Duke of Omnium's avatar

Duke of Omnium

Nolan's usual willingness to sacrifice clarity of timeline and of story in the interest of world-building harms the film. The viewpoint characters are flat and uninteresting. Some of the CGI was pretty bad (I remember one shot in particular where a Spitfire was shown over the town of Dunkirk, and it looked like a cartoon). Pacing is off (the longest 106 minute film I have ever seen). I expected to love it, but I was bored silly.
2 years 4 months ago
DisneyStitch's avatar


I didn't like it so much, and I think it's because Nolan managed to make a "cerebral" war film. The lack of dialogue took me out of the picture at multiple scenes because it just seemed so unrealistic. Nolan would have us believe that characters lock eyes and telepathically know what each other is thinking in order to do something, and that the hundreds of soldiers waiting to evacuate would just stand tight-lipped like statues. I realise that he was trying to drive the focus by eliminating a lot of script-work but too much is simply too much.
2 years 7 months ago
Paravail's avatar


Nolan at his best. Interstellar suffered because it tried too hard to infuse its characters with emotion. Nolan is best when he sticks to presenting stern, taciturn, emotionally restrained characters driven by a sense of duty. Dunkirk was the absolutely perfect vehicle for that kind of film. The characters are arch but never cliched. You see the courage and cowardice of man as displayed through the actions of those who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and those who, understandably, simply wish to save themselves. I've always respected the emotional restraint in Nolan's films. It allows the themes of the plot to shine through unsullied by the affectations of actors who try too hard. The restraint also translates to the violence. At first I thought it was a mistake to make the film PG-13, but Nolan proves that when a film is sufficiently well crafted, it doesn't need to show blood and gore to get across the horror of warfare. Furthermore, this makes the film accessible to a younger audience. I took my ten-year old nephew to see this, and he "got" it. Saving Private Ryan would have been too much for him. Nolan's lack of emotionality, oddly enough, this makes his movies even more emotionally satisfying than they might otherwise be. A superbly crafted war film. Perhaps the best since Saving Private Ryan.
3 years 4 months ago
few visible scars's avatar

few visible scars

Staring Kenneth Branagh as Kenneth Moore...
3 years 6 months ago
buc86's avatar


I've heard some people say this doesn't feel like a Nolan film. First of all, it felt a lot like Inception to me. But even if it's true that this film feels different from some of his other films, is that a bad thing? Why not make a film that feels a little different every now and again.
2 years 6 months ago
lachyas's avatar


Nolan playing 4D chess, you can't be accused of having weak characters if you have no characters.
2 years 10 months ago
marlarkey's avatar


Good cinematography... but boring and disjointed
3 years ago

Showing items 1 – 15 of 33

View comments