|
Here is what I said earlier on a different thread.
I didn't like the way the pace of Dunkirk was laid out. It kept going back in time to pick something up with a character point of view that they showed almost happening earlier with another character.
Spoiler:Example: When the German plane is bombing the ship, you get 3 perspectives, but they are shown during different parts of the movie: 20 minutes the British pilot downing the bomber away after it dropped the first bomb; 65 minutes shows the boat rescuing the men from the sinking tugboat and sees the bomber drop the bomb; 80 minutes shows the boat sinking and the civilian boat rescuing those in the water just before the bomber crashes into the sea and lights the oil on fire. (Not the actual times, but it is an accurate account).It was kind of hard to follow. I love WWII movies and was really looking forward to this.
I give it 2 1/2 stars.
As I said Nolan was trying to be over clever in telling the story. It is actually three stories being told that intersected with each other at various times. The story of the soldiers at Dunkirk took over a period of a week...the boat took over a period of a day...the fighter pilots took place over a period of a hour.
It is confusing especially if you did not "get it"...
I got it. I know about Dunkirk from reading about it in history class.
The large boats only had one place to dock in order to evacuate.The small boats were used for more than just one day.
Some picked up soldiers and went home, then came back the next day after gassing up.
Others that the Navy could supply fuel to ferried men from the beaches to the Navy Vessels during the week.
Other than at the beginning, the movie also doesn't show the armies resisting the Germans.
And it was just more than French and Belgian troops that were defending the beaches. British were fighting that week also.
I'm just saying Nolan could have made the movie more linear and shown more of what was going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked the film.
At first I did not realize the movie was switching through three different timelines, but by the middle of the film it was pretty obvious that's what was happening.
And Dunkirk was such a huge event, it's simply impossible to show everything that was going on. I've seen reviewers lament that Churchill was not shown, that the generals/admirals planning the evacuation were not shown, that the Germans were not shown, that Hitler's decision to stop the tanks was not shown, that British cabinet discussions about making peace with Hitler were not shown, that more civilians were not shown, ect, ect. If all those things had been shown it would be a 4 hour movie (and a lot more expensive to make).
As a history buff I really liked the authenticity and realism; rather than having digital animations of dogfights, they actually got some real World War 2 planes and had them flying over the English Channel - awesome! Some Dunkirk vets who saw the film said it was very realistic.
It's a powerful true story about ordinary people put in an extraordinary situation and I'm glad I saw it.
@Murg7: They did mentioned that Hitler stopped the tanks.
@Charles: The idea of the movie was to focus on a smaller areas of the battle...perhaps in a attempt to personalize it more.
I liked it...fort what it was...which is not a comprehensive depiction of Dunkirk...
I liked it well enough... but the Spitfire pilot bits pretty much crippled my suspension of disbelief- that was some Hollywood-grade John Wayne crap. Endless ammunition, downing a bomber while in an unpowered glide from a lower altitude... feh.
|
Dunkirk was neither realistic (for example not a single drop of blood was seen in the first scenes), nor authentic (the planes used were not historically correct).
I really disliked the movie, because it was neither a "war movie", nor an emotional story of likeable people trying to survive.
After the mediocre "Interstellar" (which at least had emotional scenes), Nolan has made his least appealing film yet, at least to me.
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved Dunkirk.
It was one of my favorite movies of the summer and will climb pretty high in my catalogue of best Nolan movies, still losing to Prestige and Dark Knight.
It was beautifully shot by amazing Hoyte van Hoyteman who's work is exemplary, Nolan directed the s%~+ out of it and I really liked the ticking clock music.
Like so many Nolan movies, Dunkirk was all about desperation of time. By making three separate time stamps, it threw audience in small disarray of what is happening and when, and for me it enforced the "time is running out" narrative. It was not about action, but just trying to live, survive long enough to get home which just-right-there. And the ending really nailed the tone as well.
Cillian Murphy was brilliant. Mark Rylance brought real heart to the movie and the reason why he was so adamant to get there was made very clear by the end of it all. The young soldier on the beach that everybody said was flat and without persona- duh, his name was Tommy. TOMMY. He was just one face to follow; normal young soldier, one of thousands stuck on the beach, terrified out of his mind just trying to survive. I did not need for him to have complex personality, actor did great with small things and since the movie was pretty light on dialogue to begin with, it worked for me.
And I did not care at all that the movie did not have any gore or exploding people or any of that other crap less talented filmmakers think are vital on war movies (looking at you, Gibson) to "make it realistic" as it that was some sort of degree of which by movies should be judged. I do not care for aboslutely-every detail right-historical accuracy. If I want that, I watch documentaries. I don't- as most people as well- recognice right planes or count down bullets of guns to nitpick about them later. I got sucked in to the intensive drama and raging heartbeat-esq pace of the movie. I really, really liked this one.
Saw it tonight. Pretty underwhelming- all spectacle, no real history, story or character.
Pacing was occasionally all over the place, but mostly just glacial, which is very strange with the amount of time skipping going on. As for drama, I thought it was mostly on life support for the duration, with occasional surges from the paddles right after it flatlined.
Most of the 'drama' came from jump scares from sudden shots or explosions (which were far, far too loud).
Too much CGI, which for me always pulls me out of a movie and looking for the time.
The deserters probably got shot out of two ships too many: got the point already, thanks. Could have used one or two soldier characters (ie, not pilots or civilians) who weren't dark-haired moppets so the 'characters' were distinguishable.
The fighter sequences don't line up well. I get that they were showing the same event from different perspectives, but the film gives the impression that 'Glider Ace McCree and his SuperCGI Spitfire variant' were up there for a half a day or more.
Boo to the soundtrack for often washing out what little dialogue existed.
Tip to the hat to Kenneth Branagh for removing his hat so people could more easily recognize that he was Kenneth Branagh.
It was not about action, but just trying to live, survive long enough to get home which just-right-there.
Yes, the actors did go out of their way drop the moral anvil on the audience repeatedly in the most hamfisted way possible, didn't they? Five or six times by my rough count.
Dunkirk was neither realistic (for example not a single drop of blood was seen in the first scenes), nor authentic (the planes used were not historically correct).
I really disliked the movie, because it was neither a "war movie", nor an emotional story of likeable people trying to survive.
After the mediocre "Interstellar" (which at least had emotional scenes), Nolan has made his least appealing film yet, at least to me.
So the Me 109 and Spitfire didn't exist in June 1940? Huh?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is only so much 'realism' I need in a war movie. I find it easy to believe there is war. I don't need body parts strewn across the screen.
If the beef you have with 'historically correct' means the specific model of the planes involved, then that is nit-picking. I would rather have classic warplanes do the action than completely unrealistic CGI ("Redtails" was sooo bad about that! The original "Tuskegee Airmen" is much more authentic.).
It is a war movie that I thoroughly enjoyed but do not expect everyone to like. The various timelines are confusing, but I got it before too long (it's not like we didn't get clued in). Nolan's movies are just fine to me. I really appreciate that this one got made.