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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 35
danisanna
Beautifully made. Incredibly boring.shitmovies
What a poop. Literally no story. A sequence of set pieces like a fuckin amusement ride.You done fucked up Nolan. No bravos for you this time.
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.buc86
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.DisneyStitch
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.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.lachyas
Nolan playing 4D chess, you can't be accused of having weak characters if you have no characters.Leonard1168
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.marlarkey
Good cinematography... but boring and disjointedmarlarkey
Good cinematography... but boring and disjointedcfish80
Hans Zimmer's score is one of his best.ynrozturk
Boring. Great cinematography, though. Also loved the color grading. But ehh.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!
Paravail
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.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.Showing items 1 – 15 of 35