Dunkirk - Official Movie Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- Dunkirk starring Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy, and Harry Styles is reviewed by Matt Atchity (Rotten Tomatoes) and Ben Mankiewicz (Turner Classic Movies)
Read what other critics had to say: - www.rottentoma...
Acclaimed auteur Christopher Nolan directs this World War II thriller about the evacuation of Allied troops from the French city of Dunkirk before Nazi forces can take hold. Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance co-star, with longtime Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer providing the score.
Watch more movie reviews: • Reviews of Movies Rele...
People are overly concerned with character development these days. I think binge watching TV seasons has ruined us for certain types of feature.
BawjawzMcGraw character development is pretty vital to good movies lol, but being the movie it is, Dunkirk is very good without needing character development because of the way the movie is directed and the way the screenplay was written. Do not claim to know what you're talking about when you don't just to defend this movie.
I'm a trained writer, and while character development can be crucial to a story, it is not ALWAYS necessary. Those times are very few, but it looks like this was supposed to be more about the event than the individual people, which would make it one of those times.
benmcfee you know who else is a trained writer? David S. Goyer and we all know how shit he is. Your attempt of flaunting your authority on the matter aside, obviously it's possible to make a good movie without much character development if you excel elsewhere, as Nolan did here. However, most of the best movies are heavily dependent on character development, just as Nolan's previous films were heavily dependent on character development
A lot of people complaining about "character development" don't even know exactly what that is.
BawjawzMcGraw this movie isn't about charector development its about the event.
While you said that Nolan failed to show more their emotions,a WW2 veteran said that the movie depicted the mood of those soldiers exactly as it was.
Hi Ben, Matt, excellent review. I have to admit straight away that I am English, and a History BA, MA and currently working on my PhD (political and social history of the Early Modern and Modern period, with a focus on Genocide in C19 and C20). That said, I thought Nolan crafted a fantastic work of fiction, based heavily on real experiences and with a strong 'subaltern' or 'history from below' through-line. My only issue with your criticism is Ben's point about the lack of a focus on the desperation of the troops littering the beaches. In actual fact, I believe that Nolan has pretty much got this right, especially in comparison with previous portrayals of the Dunkirk evacuation. For instance, Joe Wright's very good film Atonement, has a truly striking sequence set in Dunkirk, upon James Mcavoy's characters arrival there amid the chaos of the retreat. This is a wonderful piece of film-making (very David Lean-esque?) but in my view it shows the nightmarish vision of Dunkirk which exists much more within the British psyche (Dunkirk is something ingrained in us, much more than D-Day or VE day, because of its' narrative of 'pulling together as one' and of the idea of triumph against the odds. These are gifts to a nation almost more famous for its' reverence for heroic defeat - a relic of Empire tales, and the echoes of the old (small 'c') conservative, Christian ethos).:- rather than an attempt at realism. Reports of the prevailing mood on the beaches, were generally much more of dour courage and almost reluctant professionalism. These soldiers were basically at the end of their tethers, but were much more of a professional army in 1940, than a 'citizen' army of the like that followed general conscription. My rather long-winded point being, that Nolan has depicted much more, the reality of dogged and grim determination, rather than the cinematic narrative of hysteria and nihilism, previously depicted.
I have seen some truly shocking criticism of Nolan (from a site with the initials BTT) which chides him for apparently being disrespectful to the British soldier in showing both his capacity for courage AND cowardice. This site actually goes so far as to compare it unfavourably with Band of Brothers portrayal of American troops - first off, I found Band of Brothers a truly wonderful series and a tribute to the dynamism and professionalism of the US soldier in the Second World War. I also have to point out, that Stephen Ambrose is not a respected historian within academic circles. This is because he is unwaveringly biased towards the qualities of the US army, very much to the exclusion of other combatants. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this, especially if you want to sell your books, and make money, but at the same time it makes it difficult to take the author seriously. Anyway, the point being that in giving a balanced portrayal of human beings in a crisis (warts and all) it makes the true acts of heroism, all the more awe-inspiring.
Apologies, I appear to have 'gone on' a bit. Writing about my two favourite subjects, history and films, turns me into a bit of a bore I'm afraid.
Thank you again for an excellent review, and a fantastic show overall. What the Flick has kept' me company on many a long night.
Best Wishes from sunny (oh, the irony) Suffolk in SE England, James. :)
James Lambert I got Dunkirk on Blu-ray for Christmas. I lost my shit, I couldn't believe my sister got it for me. I really love this film!
Great write up and response to some of the criticisms usually lobbied against this film. Was very insightful, thank you!
Mannn I wanted to hear Alonso on this one.
I saw his review on Rotten Tomatoes. He loved it!
surprised normally if it doesn't have any gay people making out he marks it down
Why so you could hear him whinge about identity politics like how theres no gay black soldiers or women in it?
How come Americans always have issues hearing other English accents? Everyone else understands different English accents.
I'm American and I understood every word they said. But I noticed the same comments you did and don't have an answer.
But you are a great comedian. I love The Office and Ace Ventura. What about the other Americans? lol
You may be confusing me with Jerry Seinfeld.
Haha! Initially I read your name as Steve Carell.
Yeah I figured.
No Christy? Nooooooooooo
drunk reviews are the only reviews worth listening to.
alternatively, we could listen to MRAs whine about her drinking out of a mason jar because she's a terrible hipster. lol
The average IQ of a what the flick panel is at an all time high.
She chickened out of this review.
A lot of this review felt like them talking about how weird the direction was and how they didn't connect with certain things and how they weren't as emotionally invested and how it felt like there was something missing..... And then they both rock up with a 9.0 and say "I don't understand how people don't like it".... Maybe watch your own review and figure out why people don't like it?
ArkRaider22 if you want to a love story or everyone to sit around a camp fire and tell their life story go watch saving private Ryan, the entire movie is there to what it was really like at Dunkirk
Nolan makes fantastic films but has the misfortune to have absolutely the most obnoxious fanboys in the history of fanboyism. Thank God for the rest of us normal people.
Nolan's third Batman was, to me, a good film. But not great. His first was terrific and yes, Dark Knight was epic. Loved the first two thirds and a bit more of Interstellar. I have yet to dislike any Nolan film so I am going. Simple as that.
Insomniac, Memento and The Prestige were all great too
his batman trilogy is amongst the most overated films of the last decade, people love it because it treats the comic genre seriously rather than the camp versions that had come before.
if you put this aside, and analyse the movies as just another movie, they dont stand up well, christian bales acting is awful i think, almost laughable when he dons the cape and adopts that voice.
the plots are nonsensical with holes you could drive trucks through.
various supporting actors do their best with what they have, heath ledgers performance being the standout.
in the end they are simply expensive popcorn movies that get taken far, far too seriously.
Memento is light years better in every way, dunkirk has good reviews, im hoping its a return to form.
the green man nah man you're just a hater. The philosophical themes, the phenomenal direction, the infinitely quotable dialogue, the dramatic tension and of course that Ledger performance elevate TDK to classic status
Matt Stevens the following
I actually kinda agree! I saw the Dark Knight the other day on TV and already it doesn't seem like it is ageing well. Takes itself very seriously but some of the scenes are embarrassingly inauthenthic and hammy (the pencil disappearing scene , for example). Also, think that Heath Ledger's performance is over-rated! Sure he executed it well...but all those ticsks he employs are exactly the sort of gimmicks I was expecting even before I saw or knew anything about his performance! This trilogy will not be a classic in the eyes of our Frandkids!
The guy walking into the sea was probably not killing himself, the situation got so desperate for some that they simply tried to swim the channel. I know of one story where a soldier managed to swim across, and a few stories where the soldiers simply drowned. But many who tried ended up swimming to boats docked further out to sea. So i think the story Nolan was told was not about suicide.
I just saw this movie. It's incredibly intense from beginning to end. There are a few characters that you can get involved in. But, the main character is the British Army as a whole. I'm guessing that this is what actually happened. Anyone will love this movie. Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Cinematography, and Editing ?
Matt is the best review on WTF. Not always been the most confident or showy, or the loudest, but he is the best.
No Christy and her vodka jar?
She's under the table drunk
Mason jar-it's big enough to hold a bowling ball.
Joe Smith 😂😂😂
Ben had it right at the end,"maybe there's something british in it". Nearly all american movies are plot driven. The characters take actions that don't make sense but move along the plot, and they often rely on dialogue to explain what's going on.
This film does none of those things. Characters act true to their nature and the nature of the situation they find themselves in. Visuals and sound are the main mode of conveying story.
Kinda of take issue with Ben saying the British and French "ran away" when the USA at this point was happy to sit back and let millions of people die under the Nazi's. My Great Uncle died on one of those Navy ships, he drowned. It is a great sense of family pride that he helped in some way to save 300,000 men on that beach from certain death. Dunkirk was a victory because we never gave up and we never surrendered. We fought the Nazi's from day one and the Americans cant seem to understand that because they showed up to the war, 4 years late. Americans think they have moral superiority over those that had been fighting at that point FOR YEARS just because the US never "retreated". They marched over the graves of those that had been at Dunkirk before they ever arrived on D-Day. Everyone who fought against those overwhelming odds and survived DEMANDS RESPECT!
It’s a film about British people from a certain era. It’s a mentality that Americans might not get and a mentality that is sadly no longer as prevalent as it once was.
Considering hwo Nolan fans raged at Jeremy Jahns for daring to not gush over Interstellar and simply like it, I'd say it's about the Nolan fans more than Batman obsessed people.
And they're kinda doing the same with this film, it turns out.
sounds like they really liked corn
Yeah the Batman theory seems like an over simplification.
That doesn't negate the Batman theory.
Tom Caine I'm a huge Nolan fan. I've loved everything he's done, and my appreciation for The Prestige, Inception and Interstellar deepens with every viewing. But, I'll be the first to admit: He's not for everyone. At this point, he's come into his own as a filmmaker and has his own unique style of storytelling, some people like it, some people don't. It's a real shame that he has become so divisive to the point where you can't even have an opinion on him. You mention how Nolan fans insulted you for not liking his movies, but I myself have been called a "pseudo-intellectual Nolanite who likes to feel smart" for simply saying I loved Interstellar. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
After the rescue there wasn't a lot to be thankful for. The war was just getting started, England just had their ass handed to them in France and most of those soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk would be back on a battlefield within a month. Dunkirk was humiliating for England and one of Hitler's greatest failures. Holding off a ground assault at Dunkirk cost Germany an easy, early victory over England.
Did someone just criticize Nolan's Interstellar? May he spend eternity trapped in a black hole and not mysteriously escape and be reunited with his family.
Because most people can't understand Interstellar. And then say fuck it, it was a mess. You really need to do some research and watch it multiple time to fully appreciate it. It was too ambitious, not for everyone.
I don't get the physics of Interstellar, but I still liked the movie. I liked the human side of it, and Hans Zimmer's score.
Simple, time is literally the fourth dimension. When you fall into a BH you get twisted by 90 degrees, your motion in space translates to motion in time far from the BH. Aliens dumped coop back at his house, where he can only move up and down through time. Hence he was his daughters ghost,
Seen lots of these reviews. No one has mentioned that the lead character in the 'Land' scenes is called Tommy for a specific reason. British soldiers nick name from the 19th century until the last 30 years was 'Tommy - like the US 'GI', because the Duke of Wellington called his average anonymous British soldier Tommy Atkins. So Tommy in the film is any average British soldier; that's why he needs know back story and why on his uniform there is nothing to identify his Regiment or Corps. It does not matter
This film is a Masterpiece. It's not about the characters it's about the event, you don't need to know what hobbies the characters had back home, you know everything you need to know by what they're willing to do to just survive. I think you missed the point of the movie.
Was it me or was Matt really struggling for words here? Lots of pauses, lots of repeated phrases ("very effective"). Doesn't sound as articulate as you'd usually expect, like he's out of practice or something.
Wow, Christy's really let herself go.
Dunkirk is fictional story based on a true event that occurred on the beaches Dunkirk, France in May 1940. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan this movie wastes no time from the opening scenes with the sounds of planes and bombs. The action is great and feels real in the sky and on the ground. The film score by Hans Zimmer is amazing using his mastery of shepard tones to really drive the intensity. But if you go in looking for character building and development don't! This movie is a story of survival and courage and not about the soldiers families back home. I walked out of this movie not knowing the characters past but empathizing with them and their present situation. This movie wins at really putting you in the driver's seat and making you think how would you have reacted in this situation. I give Dunkirk an A.
1. The Dark Knight -10 /2.The Prestige -10 /3.Inception -10 /4.Memento -9 /5.The Dark Knight Rises -8.8 /6.Interstellar 8.5 /7.Batman Begins -8.1 /8.Dunkirk -7.9 /9.Insomnia -7.7
I dont care if it is Nolan. Here is my opinion. The positive: its a beautiful movie visually, the sound and music are awesome, not alot of bull shit talk, not boring at all, it feels realistic. The negatives: there is no character build up, at times you cant distinguish who is who, the time skipping is confusing and totally unnecessary. All in all it is a good movie if you take all this in consideration and still want to go see it in a theater go ahead. My husband loved it, i didnt, i liked it.
LulyTubee Same here. Beautiful filming. Worth seeing even if spoiled by the precious timeline tricks.
You nailed it. Although I would call it a so so movie as opposed to good but still worth seeing in spite of the ridiculous time frames.
Good that Matt brought up the obsessive Batman fans. Never forget their immaturity with sending critics who didn't like "The Dark Knight Rises" death threats before they could've even seen it. That's why you can't comment on critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes anymore.
I really feel bad for anyone not able to see this in true 70mm IMAX. BREATHTAKING.
I haven't heard about any backlash on Twitter. I posted a favorable review and people seemed to agree with me. This isn't Dark Knight 4 and it's not meant to be. As far as dialogue is concerned, I thought there was enough there to satisfy the critics. I don't expect characters who are in a constant state of peril to start popping off with long Tarantinoesque monologues. We may not learn every character's backstory, but it obvious that the actors know them and they influenced the performances.
What happened with Matt and Rotten Tomatoes???
Matt is now Head of Programming at TYT.
It has attracted my attention that British and the Americans almost always make epic heroic movies about the battles they lost. Dunkirk, Alamo, Charge of The Light Brigade, A Bridge Too Far, all those movies about Vietnam and even 300 and Kingdom of Heaven(not particularly from american history but from european history and fits the profile)... I find it quite weird.
The Japanese, Russians, Indians and especially the Chinese have made the biggest epics
did you just say interstellar was a mess???? What you smoking?
it was it had some cool ideas but went on to long
It felt like multiple films stuffed into one. Plus the whole "the answer is love" thing was cheesy.
Daliachan You can't say that the movie was bad because of one cheesey line.
Great review! Miss my man Alonso on this one!
Everyone in reviews is saying 'see it on a big screen' but a lot of people are nowhere near an IMAX. There are not enough of them. This makes me very frustrated that the rollout of IMAX screens has been so patchy e.g. California 1 screen per 500,000 ; New York 1 per 1.3 million and where I live 1 per 1.6 million. Of course population density is another factor as New York City only has 1 per 1.2 million people. Germany hasPopulation and IMAX figures are from WikipediaI will try to see it on a big screen but it will involve some traveling.
I really didn't think much to it. I thought the whole thing with splitting it into different time periods in the run up to the Dunkirk evacuation was odd and didn't serve much of a point. I don't think anyone says no to Nolan anymore which means he gets away with some odd choices.
Nolan fundamentalists must be so frustrated right now, no one to issue death threats to.
Call it blasphemy, but I prefer Dunkirk to Saving Private Ryan, with the caveat that the opening scenes of SPR is incredible, but then, as Ben ascribes, SPR is smothered in hokiness.
Wonderful review guys _-and especially Ben for making it_! 👏 This film was truly an unforgettable, harrowing experience. It honors the struggles and sacrifices of these men. We just got a glimpse of what it was like, and Nolan brought that to life like I've never seen or felt it before.
I haven't seen the film, but I get the impression Nolan doesn't provide the background prospective to the Dunkirk evacuation, which rather renders the subsequent events he displays somewhat incomprehensible. Especially to non-British audiences. Contrary to what many think there wasn't a battle of Dunkirk as such; so there wasn't a defeat. It followed a defeat. Which makes it totally different. The British army in Europe was a tenth of the size and of the French and German armies and under French command. The French ordered the British (and some French) forward into Belgium to face the Germans there. But shortly after that, the Germans broke through French lines further south and then, instead of moving west further into France they turned north behind the British and French forces who had moved into Belgium. The British quickly realised that their fate depended on the French stopping the German advance northwards behind them. When that didn't happen, the British took themselves out of French command (without actually telling the French) and then when the Belgians surrendered, the British had no choice but to retreat to the coast. The question then was about what would happen next. The Nolan film should have given such background information, because it's obvious that non-British people would have absolutely no idea what-so-ever about what was happening. The true significance of Dunkirk is completely lost in the film, which was the realisation that Britain (that normally doesn't spend much on armies) had lost its only ally with a proper army, but instead, was on its own, with no proper army, a completely outnumbered airforce but a powerful navy; and faced a serious choice, fight on, or make peace - which Hitler's offered. For better or worse the British decided to carry on.
It's also OK to make a film that isn't "the complete 10/10 package" of characters, story, action/horror/laughs/whatevergenrethefilmis, cinematography, editing and score. This was a more documentary/vignette style film and while that does compromise emotional investment, it allows focus to be on seeing as much of the war as possible. It's a compromise and I thought the film was very solid. I actually thought it was much better than Interstellar which was all about the characters and emotional investment and in my opinion failed on both those counts. My biggest issue with the film is that the fragmented time structure was confusing more than it was satisfying and it just felt superfluous. We only see it go from night to day once for the timeline that's meant to be a week and there's no reappearance of the timer or lines from the characters to better communicate the passage of time. The one week timer catches up to the one hour timer within 110 minutes and you have no idea how. The 15/70MM IMAX print though was amazing to see!
Las Vegas needs to apologize for not showing Dunkirk in an IMAX 70mm theater.
I really love this channel, and I love the reviews here generally... but, for me, I found it hard to identity what merits a 9.0 for this film when most of the review was spent discussing why it didn't quite hit the mark. If they revisit or expend this review at some later point, perhaps they could go more into the film's positive points.
I have just seen the movie and I have to admit I was expecting more from it after all the glowing reviews I have read. It looked like a low budget film, all the scenes were under populated with men and materials. Hardy's Spitfire seemed to have limitless ammo; planes of time had about 18 seconds of ammo.............................5/10
What was missing were the battles of the Allies against the German Nazi War Machine which the Allied defeats that led to the Exodus of Dunkirk. Even the fact the many of the French Forces stayed behind at Dunkirk. Nolan is a great story-teller in his unique way.
Though the reason it's a daze than relief, at the end, is most of the men felt shame on retreating and making it back.
Video starts at 2:36
The thing is, most of the negativity toward Nolan online comes from Batman fans that disliked his interpretation of Batman.
Why so serious?
LOL someone got triggered.
calm down bruv
"The tide is turning."
"How can you tell?"
"The bodies come back."
I've seen complaints about the lack of blood and gore. It's boring. The sound is awful. There's no character development. That mere snippet of conversation conveys so much about the situation, without the need for someone to be clutching a limb, screaming.
This movie is one of my favourite Nolan movies. Tense from beginning to end without over the top special effects. A great story from beginning to end.
Aren't they doing the Rotten Tomatoes score anymore?
Matt left Rotten Tomatoes
'Or I could be wrong on that...' - Listen, I thoroughly enjoyed Dunkirk and I'm not giving dirty looks at anyone who says its a shit film. It's film, and no film is without things that could have been done better. If you have a critique, own it.
Completely agree, Nolan fanboys are CRAZY ANNOYING!
Max Levin every fanboys are annoying
Operation dynamo was a success, so while it was a retreat, it was also the most successful rescue mission in human history.
Oh noes! Soldiers have regulation haircuts, confounding dumb movie critics.
It seems to me that everyone is afraid of saying that they didint like this movie because its a Nolan movie, these two gentlemen included. Half of the review is issues they had with it and still gave it a 9.
Imo: Beautifully shot and immersive but kind of boring. 7/10
Maybe they're not afraid and you just want more reviewers to conform to you?
Nolan Inceptioned WWII - 3 dream levels in Inception, in Dunkirk, 3 stories - land, longest - sea, shorter - air, shortest.
15:08
If he's talking about Murphy's Character, he's got it wrong.
We see him stranded halfway between France and England,
and later (this is a Nolan movie) we see him in a scene happening BEFORE, just off the French coast.
Really enjoyed the movie. I'd rank his films in this order
1. Memento
2. Dunkirk
3. The Dark Knight
4. Inception
5. Insomnia
6. The Prestige
7. Batman Begins
8. The Dark Knight Rises
9. Interstellar
following?
I never really put that in there, but I would place it last
I agree on Memento being first and TDKR and Interstellar being both last.
1. Memento
2. Dunkirk
3. Batman Begins
4. Inception
5. The Dark Knight
6. The Prestige
7. The Dark Knight Rises
8. Interstellar
9. Following
10. Insomnia
Memento I think is one of the best movies ever made. Batman Begins has flaws, but I think it's otherwise his smartest and most focused film (excluding Memento).
Interstellar looks low but I like it leagues more than than Following.
I just saw this and Valerian today. Dunkirk on Imax has some amazing shots of planes and the ocean. I think Nolan does some beautiful/heroic things with the cinematography (of course that's the cinematographer [and everybody else] too) on IMAX!
Spoiler: The "V water" piece towards the end with the following scenes and music are spectacular.
BUT
I think there is still an ounce of Spielbergian "formalistic heroism" going on (or Ben Mankiewicz's, "hokey.") And I think there are also failed attempts at formalism. But then again, all of the movie can be taken in the context of attempted propriety amidst impossible odds. It's good!
It took me 4 minutes to realize they weren't satirizing the fact that the movie had a slow start
Reminded me of The Thin Red Line.
I was a bit annoyed with the non-linearity of the timeline given how much effort was place into my immersion in the three situations. People can say how clever or genius it was but the first time through it just felt like a cheap trick on the order of Irreversible.
But I did love the individual bits of it to bits.
Matt looks NOTHING like his score board picture!!
Time for a new one parhaps?
your reviews looks like.........you kind of starting to understand the movie while reviewing it.....you both might need a second watch....!
I don't understand the controversy over posting twitter reactions at the start of the video? Is Matt suggesting that people are hesitant to post negative thoughts about this film because they don't want to be inundated with angry responses from crazy batman/nolan fanatics?
DUNKIRK= MASTERFUL.
After listening to Ben & Matt's opinions I wish someone at WTF would review a British film called 'KAJAKI' that was released around 3-4 years ago.
Why can't Ben understand english accents?
It sucked. Watched it yesterday. Empty shell served with special effects and depressive horror movie music that goes on and on and on. It's like watching a dying fly. The type of movie you will not ever watch again.
I don't just go into a Christopher Nolan movie for what he does, but also what I'll hear from Hans Zimmer.
My last comment meant to include that Germany only has four screens for the entire country I.e. 1 per 20 million, according to Wikipedia.
100% correct. I am one of those die hard Batman fans. Yes, TDK Trilogy made me love Nolan. You know why? Because Batman.
Saw this tonight in IMAX 70mm. Great movie, though the lack of graphic violence was a curious choice. Action-wise, it is the saving private Ryan of naval warfare. Of course it lacked the personal story of that movie. In fact I could only understand about half the dialog because the accents are so thick.
Just me who found all the characters extremely easy to keep track of? Maybe it's because these guys are older than I am but for me it was ridiculously easy to separate the characters
Cameron UK yup, could even spot Harry Styles character escape in the dark torpedo scene and was only shown for about 3-4 seconds haha
Okay, Matt. Let's be honest here, Christopher Nolan only had two great Batman movies the Dark Knight Rises he phoned in. Had Nolan used any more of A Tale of Two Cities in that script Charles Dickens would have received a writing credit.
Considering how the total mess that was the action of Wonder Woman, Dunkirk's action is absolute genius.
what does "official" mean in your title?
I hope he is joking, Shakespeare In Love is hot garbage.
Chris O'Keeffe he was joking lol
Chris O'Keeffe he's joking because Shakespeare in Love won the Best Picture Oscar.
I really don't understand the love for this movie, at all. I didn't feel any suspense whatsoever, the movie was so utilitarian and basically showed zero consequence or danger for anyone until the abandoned boat scene. That, and basically the message I got from it was that soldiers, not just the government but individual soldiers, are idiots who don't deserve respect or praise, as they constantly made the wrong decisions and actively made the life of the one character with an arc worse by killing his son with basically no motivation. That's not a particularly great message, nor is it particularly profound or enriching. So what exactly did I miss?
I think you have to be British to REALLY understand this movie.
I've been a fan of Christopher Nolan for a long time. I'm glad to see he's still got it.
Great subject matter. The sound was fantastic and the acting very good. The problem I had was realism. I know Nolan was trying to get away from CGI, but this movie really needs one or two scenes that show the true scale of the actual occurrence. There were over 1000 ships that crossed the channel and when they arrived, we got to see like 13. There was 500000 men on the beach. We saw 400 in lines. Just didn't work for me.
The films antagonist is more 'survival itself' than the Germans which reflects Dunkirk completely.
Don't say "those batman movies were great." The Dark Knight was GREAT. That's it. ONE of those movies was great.
What happened in the office prior to this review? Been watching for a long time and this is hands down the most awkwardly flowing review they've done in a few years
This movie was fucking great. I can’t stop thinking about it. Definitely gonna see it again.
It's always hard to understand what his characters are saying.
when you go to war. most ppl you fight with outside your unit you dont even know. it kinda swoops you down as an observer to history.
Wow its rare to see the best two reviews together!
Love it when Ben does tv and movie reviews!
I haven't seen it yet but I suspect what Matt is called reserved is cerebral(ity?) and I don't mean in the sense that "oh look at me, I'm so smart" but like how your brain is always ticking and rethinking and recalculating and fretting. It runs through all of his work. Batman is in a battle of wits against the Joker. Cobbs is trying to outsmart his own mind in Inception. Nolan is an amateur when it comes to expressing human emotion but a master at expressing of the kinetic energy of human reason. He uses it to build tension but I can see how it comes off as reserved.
I was going to say something here, and then Ben commented on how there's no hokiness to this film and all was right with the world.
i think you should revisit this movie with the entire crew.
i'd like to hear everyone weigh in on this.
I saw it today in IMAX 70mm and it was so immersive it was my first time seeing something in 70mm and I have to say that I am hooked.
If the 400k had been lost there is more than an even chance that a demoralized defenseless Britain might have fallen. This represented almost all of the allied army in Europe at that time. The evacuation gave the West a defiant moral victory as well as ready to be rearmed army. The movie was tight, oppressive, scary, and almost no heroes here hero movie.
This may sound crazy but I actually agree with Shakespeare in Love winning best picture. I love Private Ryan and I totally understand why people don't "get" Shakespeare in Love, but SPR script is pretty bad and if it wasn't for Tom Hanks I would have lost interest in the story. The reason why people bash Shakes in love is because it's a giant inside joke that goes over people's heads and I totally understand that. Now I do think that Shakespeare won for the wrong reasons (Weinstein politics) and I honestly don't give a fuck about the Oscars...but its better than people on the internet give it credit for.
Sounds like a documentary without narration.
I honestly found it to be mediocre, but I think I'm alone on that one. It's fine, I guess, but it's just not quite up to the level of a Schindler's List or a Saving Private Ryan. Let's be real here.
Correction: Nolan made TWO great Batman movies.
Why do people think that a man who is *swimming* into a *channnel*, that is bombarded with bombing raids, automatically want to kill himself. He wasn't trying to kill himself. He was trying to swim to England.
Learn geography.
Wtf was that tangent about in the beginning