Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan's next film

[Libano]

For me this is one of the best movies of the last years. Ticks all the boxes - edge of the seat stuff from start to finish, beautiful imagery, emotion, the harrowing psychology of war, great score. Consistently great from start to finish. Left the theater thoroughly satisfied.

This is just a million times better than any of that superhero crap.

10/10

 

[ArmandTamzarian]

Saw this last night and loved it. The score was masterfully woven throughout the film. The sound effects were top notch too, they way the gunshots/explosions/planes hit you, they had a real visceral quality to them, I just wish there was a bloody Imax screen in Belfast.

 

[FCBarca]

Fan of Nolan but suffering from PTSD via the endless war films/series, I'll pass

 

[Zarlak]

Not nearly as bad as someone who completely fails to comprehend others arguments. I never said the film was poor or terrible so you've clearly got no idea what you're talking about. I've already said it's a good film.

I said the characters were not fleshed out, and they weren't. That they could be summed up by one or two sentences sums up how generic and uninteresting they were (due to a lack of dialogue). Whether you agree with that manner/phrasings of the criticism is not something I care about, and is barely worth discussing.

Watch the movie and then discuss the film. Might make for a better discussion.

Semantics. I typed the word quickly without thinking, the sentiments are still the same. The example you used was poor, who cares if you can sum up the characters in one paragraph you can probably do the same for your favourite movie of all time. The point still stands. There is no correlation between how much effort got put into characters and the ability to sum them up in a paragraph or not and that's why I pointed out that it was a lazy point to make. It doesn't really require this many replies, it's just an observation.

 

[Jev]

I watched this in the cinema the other night.

I can see why cinematically some critics would be praising it. Some of the shots of pilots chasing down the enemy, the realistic way the planes go down as opposed to the extravagant explosions. Ships sinking were quite realistic too.

But in terms of story line it is very lacking. There is literally no context for the situation the troops find themselves in bar a few opening lines and a couple of shots of a troop running through streets at the start.

It has left me scratching my head as to whether Dunkirk is even movie worthy.

The only kind of tenseness created come from the incidental music, and then that's not even tense.

The characters are almost non-existent. No names, no arc, nothing.

Not sure why there was all the hype. I wouldn't pay to watch it if I knew what I was going to see.

What more context did you need? They've lost the battle, they're waiting for evacuation, they're fighting for their lifes. That's all the context you need to understand the story.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Semantics. I typed the word quickly without thinking, the sentiments are still the same. The example you used was poor, who cares if you can sum up the characters in one paragraph you can probably do the same for your favourite movie of all time. The point still stands. There is no correlation between how much effort got put into characters and the ability to sum them up in a paragraph or not and that's why I pointed out that it was a lazy point to make. It doesn't really require this many replies, it's just an observation.

And really this is semantics if anything. Let's not carry it on. Good film but not as good as the rave reviews for me. Everyone I saw it with felt it lacked something as well.

I really liked the whole multiple perspective/timeline thing though.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Huge Nolan fan, but I was left pretty underwhelmed by Dunkirk. From a technical point of view it's of course a fantastic achievement, it looks and sounds incredible, but there's something about it that just left me completely cold. I thought the first half hour was building up the tension pretty well, and I was wondering whether I would be experiencing something like Mad Max where I'd be on the edge of my seat throughout, but it didn't pan out like that and I found very much by the numbers and a bit dull. Good looking film, but I just wasn't engrossed in it, at all.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Another think that bothered me about Dunkirk is that it keeps going on about how many soldiers are involved, how important the evacuation is, how real the threat of the Germans is... and I feel we never get that sense or scope of despair throughout.

 

[Scarecrow]

Another think that bothered me about Dunkirk is that it keeps going on about how many soldiers are involved, how important the evacuation is, how real the threat of the Germans is... and I feel we never get that sense or scope of despair throughout.

Indeed. Plus, they didn't really convey the scope of the final evacuation very well. They showed a dozen boats and a lady from Cornwall or whatever, and the next scene is "we saved 300 000 people". Really?

 

[11101]

Indeed. Plus, they didn't really convey the scope of the final evacuation very well. They showed a dozen of boats and a lady from Cornwall, or whatever, and the next scene is "we saved 300 000 people". Really?

Yeah, there was no sense of scale whatsoever. Considering how harrowing and desperate it must have been too the film really doesn't convey any of that.

 

[Libano]

Another think that bothered me about Dunkirk is that it keeps going on about how many soldiers are involved, how important the evacuation is, how real the threat of the Germans is... and I feel we never get that sense or scope of despair throughout.

How eagerly everyone wanted to get on the ship tells me enough about the desparation of these soldiers. I don't know how much more clearly you need this spelled out.

 

[Untied]

Not sure i can agree. I felt some scenes really took away from any tension. EG

Spoiler

In the scene where Tom Hardy is trying to take out the bomber we see that he has to break off and the bomber gets his target. Later in the movie we get the same scene but from the boats perspective. Its all building to whether Tom Hardy can stop the bomber but we already know he didnt. Which took away any tension i should have felt, cant blame the score or how it was shot but the editing could have been better

Nolan tends to get a bit caught up in the mechanics of telling the story and this is a great example. It's "oh that's clever the director/writer is making the narratives cross" rather than necessarily the best way to tell the story. There was also a good twist on this mechanic though - when you thought the pilot waved because he was safe but actually he was desperately trying to open the cockpit. So overall, 2 points lost for the "look at how clever I am" storytelling ahead of plot/character but 1 point gained back for that twist.

 

[Camy89]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...styles-cillian-murphy-tom-hardy-a7856456.html

Lovely piece.

The fact this 97 year old veteran was moved to tears suggests just how close this was to the real event. Having seen the film, that really sends tingles down my spine that these guys went through that, unbelievable.

There's been a lot of talk about how there was no character development, or the film didn't allow you to emotionally engage with it as it seemed disconnected. That opinion is fine, everyone is entitled to one, but I personally disagree with it.

From my point of view, I felt the film wanted you to be on the side of the Allies in general. The fact it didn't delve deep into one character allowing you to become emotionally attached is because war is not about one person. It was, on that day, about those 400,000 men on the beach waiting to either be rescued or slaughtered. I felt I was already emotionally involved having learned about Dunkirk and reading what happened that day, this film just applied an amazing visual representation and made me appreciate the horror they endured.

Music, effects, sounds were all spot on. I found myself tearing up a little when the civilian boats arrived, I don't normally do that (the only other time I welled up a bit was when Marley died in Marley and Me).

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Indeed. Plus, they didn't really convey the scope of the final evacuation very well. They showed a dozen of boats and a lady from Cornwall or whatever, and the next scene is "we saved 300 000 people". Really?

Yeah good point, you saw a few people getting on boats, one guy being really happy with his makeshift pier, and then cut to Kenneth Brannagh being all cocky about getting 300.000 people out. A bit weird.

Yeah, there was no sense of scale whatsoever. Considering how harrowing and desperate it must have been too the film really doesn't convey any of that.

How eagerly everyone wanted to get on the ship tells me enough about the desparation of these soldiers. I don't know how much more clearly you need this spelled out.

I'm more with 11101 on this one, Libano. While of course we know they're desperate to get out straight away, I don't think we ever felt quite how desperate they were. It lacked that emotional aspect, for me.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I don't even think it wanted you to be on any 'side' - that's why we never actually saw the Nazi's. This is a story of human survival in WWII, not WWII itself.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

There's been a lot of talk about how there was no character development, or the film didn't allow you to emotionally engage with it as it seemed disconnected. That opinion is fine, everyone is entitled to one, but I personally disagree with it.

From my point of view, I felt the film wanted you to be on the side of the Allies in general. The fact it didn't delve deep into one character allowing you to become emotionally attached is because war is not about one person. It was, on that day, about those 400,000 men on the beach waiting to either be rescued or slaughtered. I felt I was already emotionally involved having learned about Dunkirk and reading what happened that day, this film just applied an amazing visual representation and made me appreciate the horror they endured.

Fair enough, I just don't agree with the bolded part. I don't feel the film manages to convey the sense of 400,000 men in dire need of help, not on an emotional level in any case.

 

[Camy89]

Fair enough, I just don't agree with the bolded part. I don't feel the film manages to convey the sense of 400,000 men in dire need of help, not on an emotional level in any case.

I suppose I agree with you on the conveying of scale, there were a couple of wide shots showing the soldiers (like when they were getting dive-bombed) but not much else other than all the helmets and faces packed onto the pier. Fair enough.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I do agree with it not really conveying the scale, maybe due to budget constraints? Apart from them regularly saying there were 400,000 soldiers, it never felt like anything close to that, and if the film was anything to go by I'd have never copped that 60,000+ of those soldiers died.

Hell, even with the rescue on the last day it only looked like they had enough boats for a few thousand

 

[Adam-Utd]

Probably a bit unrealistic for them to hire 400,000 extras for the film guys.

 

[Archie Leach]

It's also not the point. 400,000 is an impossible number to convey. Its emotional heft is meaningless because people can't empathise with that number. The film focussed on the struggles of a few and it's left to internal logic to fill in the fact that these stories would repeat endlessly.

 

[Moby]

Exceptional movie. Not a single complain as far as I could say. Nolan has hit the nail on the head on what to display and especially what not to display when covering this event. The approach was flawless start to end.

 

[prath92]

It's also not the point. 400,000 is an impossible number to convey. Its emotional heft is meaningless because people can't empathise with that number. The film focussed on the struggles of a few and it's left to internal logic to fill in the fact that these stories would repeat endlessly.

It's not impossible. James Cameron made a small reservoir seem like the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[JustAFan]

Probably a bit unrealistic for them to hire 400,000 extras for the film guys.

It would be a long ass movie to show the rescue of every person from Dunkirk.

Over 300K including troops from the UK, France, Belgium and a few other allies were rescued over the course of about a week and a half. Overall I seem to remember it was between 750 and 1000 ships of various sizes were used to evacuate the troops.

 

[Archie Leach]

It's not impossible. James Cameron made a small reservoir seem like the Atlantic Ocean.

But...people...and that's water...and what?

 

[Green_Red]

What more context did you need? They've lost the battle, they're waiting for evacuation, they're fighting for their lifes. That's all the context you need to understand the story.

OK, so if they have just come off a battlefield wouldn't it have made sense to show some part of the battle and order for retreat etc? Maybe show some of the German commanders making decisions and explain why Panzer devision hasnt just rolled onto the beach and started killing everyone. As I said, context. I know nothing about Dunkirk or what led to it. As a story teller he shouldn't have assumed I knew anything.

 

[Green_Red]

Isn't that the whole point, these weren't some super hero soldiers who were going to win the war single handed. These were average blokes off the street thrust in to one of the most defining moments in human history. They weren't all brave and some of the things they did to survive were pretty shitty (pretending to be medics carrying the body, trying to force the french guy off the boat so they would float).

We're conditioned to expect a hero and villain and a structured plot but I thought this approach was way more realistic and refreshing for it.

Every character is two characters at once. He could have used back story to show that, like he did with Murphy's character. Show something more than just bloke sat on a beach. I felt literally no connection to the characters because they were pointless. I couldn't have cared less if they survived or not. The directors job is to engage the audience in the story. I wasn't engaged because the characters had zero dimension. Whether they're Hero's or cowards was completely irrelevant. Maybe if the director had shown what they were retreating from, created a sense of urgency I would have been more engaged. But looking at lines of troops on a beach did nothing for me.

 

[Raoul]

Every character is two characters at once. He could have used back story to show that, like he did with Murphy's character. Show something more than just bloke sat on a beach. I felt literally no connection to the characters because they were pointless. I couldn't have cared less if they survived or not. The directors job is to engage the audience in the story. I wasn't engaged because the characters had zero dimension. Whether they're Hero's or cowards was completely irrelevant. Maybe if the director had shown what they were retreating from, created a sense of urgency I would have been more engaged. But looking at lines of troops on a beach did nothing for me.

Agreed

 

[Green_Red]

I absolutely love Inception but I didn't find it particularly complex either tbh. You do need to pay attention through the movie but it's not overtly complex or deep. I found Memento a more complex movie but that's probably because I was pretty young when I watched it.

As for Dunkirk, I sort of agree with @Raoul . The lack of any real characters/dialogue gives a sort of emotional disconnect with the protagonists and the lack of any enemy makes it not really feel like much of a war movie. It's still a great movie for me though but he can do better. I kind of wish this had been longer so he could actually have thrown in some actual scenes of them fighting the Germans.

What the director of this movie has failed to recognise is that what makes Dunkirk as an historical event so incredible is the events leading up to it. British troops beig pushed back by Panzer division to the point they need to retreat or die is completely lost in the plot of this movie. Sad, because as a highly rated director it's hard to comprehend that he didn't see thats where the source of drama for Dunkirk is.

 

[11101]

It's also not the point. 400,000 is an impossible number to convey. Its emotional heft is meaningless because people can't empathise with that number. The film focussed on the struggles of a few and it's left to internal logic to fill in the fact that these stories would repeat endlessly.

The evacuation took place over 8 days and involved nearly 1,000 ships shuttling back and forth. At no point does the film give any hint to the scale of it all.

As there is no character development you can't empathise with them on the human level either. Every time a Stuka appears it's just 'oh look there's another dive bomber', rather than the sheer terror it must have been in real life.

It's a collection of brilliant scenes with no story or cohesion between any of them.

 

[Archie Leach]

The evacuation took place over 8 days and involved nearly 1,000 ships shuttling back and forth. At no point does the film give any hint to the scale of it all.

As there is no character development you can't empathise with them on the human level either. Every time a Stuka appears it's just 'oh look there's another dive bomber', rather than the sheer terror it must have been in real life.

It's a collection of brilliant scenes with no story or cohesion between any of them.

Except they literally say how many soldiers there are and the events on the mole happens over a week.

there is character development but a few people in here seem to wish for long unnecessary backstory and a load of expositional dialogue, two elements that weighed down previous Nolan films and a key reason to why this is his best.

 

[Tosicsleftpeg]

Really wish they'd shown the outside defensive ring more, and maybe shown a bit about Calais. The French army and parts of the British army were literally fighting to the death against the advancing German forces to give the other lads a chance to survive. Absolutely selfless actions by countless men weren't shown, fair enough the spitfire pilot bit had an element of that but you don't really get a glimpse at how hard the fighting was to hold the enemy back.

 

[Sepukku]

Most of you fail to realize that its an art representation. Obviously he knows all about Dunkirk. He made the movie like that because he wanted to. I thought it was great.

 

[NinjaZombie]

Really wish they'd shown the outside defensive ring more, and maybe shown a bit about Calais. The French army and parts of the British army were literally fighting to the death against the advancing German forces to give the other lads a chance to survive. Absolutely selfless actions by countless men weren't shown, fair enough the spitfire pilot bit had an element of that but you don't really get a glimpse at how hard the fighting was to hold the enemy back.

Yeah, if I didn't know my history lesson, I'd have wondered what all the fuss is about. Sure, that leaflet painted an idea of how bleak the situation was, but you don't really see the horrors of what awaited the Allies if the Germans had pushed through.

 

[11101]

Except they literally say how many soldiers there are and the events on the mole happens over a week.

there is character development but a few people in here seem to wish for long unnecessary backstory and a load of expositional dialogue, two elements that weighed down previous Nolan films and a key reason to why this is his best.

I expect a bit more than a few lines on the screen at the start and a sentence buried in the dialogue.

 

[golden_blunder]

I thought it was fantastic

However I do agree that it could have been better if we'd seen 1 or 2 panzers chasing the lads at the start of the movie. Would have given more of a sense of desperation.

Also just to add in here; my father in law had 3 brothers fight in Dunkirk (kinda like the Scottish saving private Ryan but they all survived). The reason I'm telling you this is because they used to tell stories about how the British were more or less out of ammo and they resorted to chucking stones at the Germans. I think that alone conveys how desperately mad they were to survive.

In terms of the boats I thought that the movie potrayed it well. The navy was sending limited ships because they didn't want them sank. When the flotilla of small boats arrived at the end, this was done well. It must have been quite a sight in real life.

My only slight gripe is that maybe they could have cgi'd a few more soldiers on the beach on shots that look down the length of the beach. After all there was meant to be 400,000 trying to escape.

On a side note it's mad that the government aim was to save 30,000 men. WWII may have been lost if that had happened. Dunkirk s evacuation was crucial in the end.

 

[Jev]

OK, so if they have just come off a battlefield wouldn't it have made sense to show some part of the battle and order for retreat etc? Maybe show some of the German commanders making decisions and explain why Panzer devision hasnt just rolled onto the beach and started killing everyone. As I said, context. I know nothing about Dunkirk or what led to it. As a story teller he shouldn't have assumed I knew anything.

That's kind of the concept, though, to make it a very intimate and claustrophobic story where our perspective and knowledge is restricted to the soldiers we follow.

To not show a single German soldier is clearly a very deliberate choice with a clear effect.

 

[Jev]

I expect a bit more than a few lines on the screen at the start and a sentence buried in the dialogue.

Why? The information is there.

Perhaps you should just pay a bit more attention when watching a film? One of the things Nolan has been criticised for before is the amount of exposition in his films. Here he keeps things subtle. I think he deserves praise, not criticism, for that.

 

[stu_1992]

Saw this yesterday and I have to say I really enjoyed it, but it's a hard one to compare as it's really quite different. i wouldn't even say it's a war film as such, it's more a story about survival that uses this event during WWII as a backdrop. Fantastic looking and sounding film. I was concerned heading into about what I had read about a lack of dialogue, but I thin it's impressive enough in others areas to make this a non-issue really. It's not a story about character development at the end of the day, but I can understand if people can't get over this issue. Usually I'd be the same, but I'll make an exception in this case because i invested regardless.

 

[John_Jensen]

Most of you fail to realize that its an art representation. Obviously he knows all about Dunkirk. He made the movie like that because he wanted to. I thought it was great.

I suppose, but he's the U2 of film directors.

 

[Sky1981]

People complains about lack of characters, i find it refreshing compared to.. Say pearl harbour where you follow 2 buddies staying alive at all cost.

Dunkirk is a disaster, it's a near miss for the british, there's no bravado there. There's bodies everywhere, people dies by the thousands, and nolan portrays it very well imho. At times like that there are no gun toting heroes, just people doing anything to go home.

If any most of the characters are very relatable, it's war against an army of german, you either run, or left behind and probably ended up dead.

Although the scale looks like a cheap b-movie, 300thousand? We barely see a hundred let alone 300 thousand.