Dunkerque

I guess I shouldn't be surprised how many people don't like this movie in an era of CGI, reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, and generally easy to digest movies/tv shows. This is a real Christopher Nolan movie, not a Batman, but a real Christopher Nolan movie like Memento or Prestige. Watch it a few times. Pay attention to the details. Appreciate the sensory experience.

Most of these bad reviews are because the person watched it once and was upset they weren't spoon fed every aspect of the characters and story. There is a ton of characterization and a great story but you have to pay attention.

For a teenager today, Dunkirk must seem even more distant than the Boer War did to my generation growing up just after WW2. For some, Christopher Nolan's film may be the most they will know about the event.

But it's enough in some ways because even if it doesn't show everything that happened, maybe it goes as close as a film could to letting you know how it felt.

"Dunkirk" focuses on a number of characters who are inside the event, living it minute by minute.

Tommy, the soldier at the centre of the story, seems at first glance to be the antithesis of the Dunkirk legend. Maybe he fits a New Millennium sensibility rather than a 1940's one, more like a contestant on "Survivor". He does show initiative, but a soldier who throws away his weapon then "helps" wounded to the rear risked a court martial in every army from the Roman Legions on. The lines of stoic soldiers waiting patiently on the beach, the enduring image of the evacuation, seem almost like a backdrop as Tommy and his mate run through them.

The man who embodies the spirit to the full is Dawson, the civilian captain of the Moonstone. He is the sort of man who wins wars; the bloke who sticks to the task when others buckle under pressure; "There's no hiding from this thing son," he says to an officer whose nerve has cracked, all the while steering his little boat towards Dunkirk.

The scenes of aerial combat look so real it makes all other depictions pale in comparison. Peter Jackson once planned to do a remake of "The Dam Busters", but possibly Christopher Nolan would add another dimension to the retelling. The brilliant special effects serve the story. Much of the panorama of Dunkirk is glimpsed almost incidentally from the cockpit of fighter planes or by men struggling in the water.

There are surprises for anyone who thinks they know the story or have seen documentaries or other recreations of the event; it's very different to the crowded Dunkirk of "Atonement".

An unsettling score helps heighten the tension in a film that has you holding your breath in scene after scene.

This is a film that demands more than one viewing.

Before you decide to watch "Dunkirk" I have a bit of a warning. While you would expect death and blood in a war film, some of the scenes in the film are amazingly tough to watch. There's actually very little blood, but there are some drowning scenes which are intense and awful. Now I am not saying don't watch it...just be prepared.

The story is a retelling of the escape of the British* from the beaches of Dunkirk. The German army was coming and the combined British and French forces were trapped with little apparent chance to escape. And, as an army of over 300,000 Brits dug in and waited, the Luftwaffe began chipping away at them....and ultimately would have killed and/or captured them all if it wasn't for a rag-tag flotilla of private boats which hastily arrived and spirited away about 80-90% of the men.

By the way, early in the film you hear someone speaking to the pilot (Tom Hardy) over the radio. The voice is that of Michael Caine....an odd and brief cameo.

The story is gripping, well told and brilliant. I have only one complaint, and I am surprised it made it to the film considering how amazing a director Christopher Nolan is. At one point, the scene switches between some men in a boat being attacked and a private yacht rescuing downed pilots. The scenes kept switching back and forth....but one was clearly at night and the other clearly was in daylight. This really didn't make any sense. Still, otherwise an amazing spectacle...a truly amazing war film.

Might as well get right to it, then. At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, I did not love this film. Do I love elements of this? Yes. Is this a 5-star masterpiece? Unfortunately, no.

The cinematography here at least, is masterful. Director Christopher Nolan has, without a doubt, reached the pinnacle of on-screen spectacle here. The feats of practical effects in this film are breathtaking. The casting of nearly 6,000 extras, authentic WWII vehicles, and shooting on location in Dunkirk, France contribute to a great sense of scale here. There is ongoing trend of action films in recent years of relying on CGI, and thankfully Nolan bucks that trend.

Similar to War for the Planet of the Apes, much of the film plays out without much dialogue, leaning on just the score and sound design in most scenes. It almost goes without saying that Hans Zimmer delivers with another incredible score. The sound design is also extremely well crafted, which, paired with Nolan's great work behind the camera, truly transports you to the Battle of Dunkirk. The wailing of planes passing above, the drone of gunfire, and the roar of explosions all contribute to the complete immersion into the world these characters are trapped in. This results in some of the most immersive wartime action scenes since Saving Private Ryan.

This film has and will continue to be compared to World War II classic Saving Private Ryan. Both films are beautifully filmed WWII period pieces with casts that deliver great performances. The similarities end there. Whereas Saving Private Ryan was engrossing as a narrative due to it's characters with depth and arcs, Dunkirk instead leans on it's subject matter and spectacle.

And while the subject matter of Dunkirk is fascinating, as a film it lacks emotional firepower due to the absence of a strongly written protagonist. This is strangely uncharacteristic of a director of Nolan's caliber, especially when you recall the complex character work in his most acclaimed films: The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige. Instead of focusing on a single character or single group of characters, the focus is spread across three protagonists in completely different situations. Showing the Dunkirk Evacuation through the three different perspectives of those on the beach, the sea, and the air is only an interesting proposition on paper. The narrative, due to this writing choice, is spread far too thin, with few characters getting enough screen time to develop even the mildest emotional connection.

While the characters in this film aren't written to even remotely be compelling, the great work from this cast is not to be overlooked. Harry Styles, known for being a member of English boy band One Direction, is surprisingly excellent here in his acting debut. Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, and Fionn Whitehead also all give standout performances despite the limited screen time they are given.

I should love this film. Historical drama? WWII setting? My favorite director Christopher Nolan? Amazing cinematography? Superb performances from an ensemble cast? All of these elements made me sure I would love this going in. But, Dunkirk's lack of emotional connection severely detracts from the awe-inspiring scope and technical prowess displayed.

If I reviewed based on visuals alone, this is a slam-dunk, walk-off home run of a 5-star film. While a focus on grandeur and situation over character depth and emotion may work for some (it obviously worked for 98% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes), it did not work for this critic.

This is without a doubt a cinematic achievement, but without an emotional core, it's impossible for this film not to feel cold and empty. Despite being a technical masterpiece, this is Christopher Nolan's most disappointing film yet.

...it isn't Nolan's worst film.

Where to begin? This was an all-star crew of filmmakers - cinematographer, vfx producer, sound designers and mixers, composer, producers, and yet somehow Nolan managed to undermine them all.

I think the intent was to show the human side of the event by giving us, I suppose, three vignettes of individual stories. And at that it (sort of) works. It's at least a good idea for a film, even if it's completely botched by cinematography that spends more time being artistic than serving the story.

Music is a powerful part of cinema and it's very apparent here because the score is literally the only thing that stirred any emotion in me at any point - when it wasn't making my entire body physically hurt. Maybe that was the point? To emulate the stress of actually being in combat? If so it's well executed.

The actors did their very best to make you care about them but they're fighting the script every step of the way. They're given nothing to work with: at no point is a first name revealed, nor are we given any solid reason to care about any of them, no relatable moments; unless I suppose you've had a head injury, been shot or bombed, or swam the English Channel.

The lack of dialog and overabundance of score combined with the lack of plot, almost non-linear narrative, and dependence on pretty cinematography make the whole thing feel more like an art film. Which is nice but if you want to make experimental cinema don't call it Dunkirk and sell it as a war film.

Nolan has in the past given us excellent sound design, brilliant mixing, a good score, great dialog, and cinematography that doesn't get in the way of the story - sometimes more than one at a time. This film fails on almost every point.

It could have been worse though. It could have been Interstellar - a film with its head so far up its own a#! that it's nearly unwatchable even once.