Dunkirk

Although Dunkirk is not as labyrinthine as Nolan’s “Memento” (2000) or “Inception” (2010), its strike rate upon our senses is rarely in doubt, and there is a beautiful justice in watching it end, as it has to, in flames. Land, sea, air, and, finally, fire: the elements are complete, honor is salvaged, and the men who were lost scrape home.

It’s one of the best war films ever made, distinct in its look, in its approach and in the effect it has on viewers. There are movies — they are rare — that lift you out of your present circumstances and immerse you so fully in another experience that you watch in a state of jaw-dropped awe. Dunkirk is that kind of movie.

There may be money on the screen, but cash alone can’t guarantee this kind of pulsating, cinematic magic, delivered by a director at the height of his powers, mustering the very best at their craft.

This is a powerful, superbly crafted film with a story to tell, avoiding war porn in favour of something desolate and apocalyptic, a beachscape of shame, littered with soldiers zombified with defeat, a grimly male world with hardly any women on screen. It is Nolan’s best film so far.

Dunkirk wants us to sense what made this moment so pivotal without reducing it to an individual tale. And at that, it succeeds richly.

The action is the attraction. If that means some of the film feels a little distant and chilly, it’s in the admirable service of avoiding simplistic drama or easy sentiment.

In devoting so much time to the dull, counterproductive mechanics of the action assembly, Dunkirk dispenses with nearly all other elements of drama.

Greetings from Lithuania. First of all - "Dunkirk" (2017) is not the best war film ever made in my opinion. By far. I don't think that there ever will be a better war movies then "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or even "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), "Platoon" (1986) or "The Thin Red Line" (1998). It is not even the best Christopher Nolan movie at the moment (the crown goes to "Interstellar (2014)). That said, "Dunkirk" is something absolutely unique, stunning, kinda mesmerizing movie going experience. It is not perfect, sometimes even a bit confusing (because of the time lines, but its not "overdone") movie, but the one which absolutely has to be seen in a movie theater. The best thing about "Dunkirk" is the craftsmanship and the biggest star of "Dunkirk" is without a doubt Christopher Nolan. The script in here is not a great one, and like i said i was a bit confused at some moments, but the storytelling here is so powerful itself that it tells everything. Music is simply astonishing. Hans Zimmer (again) does something absolutely unique with Nolan movie - it transcendence the whole experience. Cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema is a masterpiece. Sound design and sound mixing are so good, so sharp that it adds more to this movie then just a sound - it makes you kinda grab your seat. So here are the 4 Oscar nominations for sure - best director, music, cinematography (probably a winner) and sounds (sure winners). Acting was good given the roles, but nothing very memorable except for a great Mark Rylance and Fionn Whitehead which i really liked in this role. Overall, "Dunkirk" is not a bloody or gore war movie. Its "horror" is terror. The situation itself and how it is presented in this movie made me think couple of times about the war that this is a true terror. This is not an "easy" movie going experience because you have to pay attention during a whole movie and it doesn't have sharp characters to which you can relate - its about a situation at the moment - right here right now. There are "time line" sections / intersections that makes you think about what you are seeing. And it is done so unique, so ambitious that i probably haven't witnessed this kinda movie before. "Dunkirk" is not a mainstream "war movie", basically it is a thriller set in a WW2. But its crafted so uniquely that it can not be missed. A sure classic, if not for everyone.

Ce film est long pour pas grand chose : il raconte l'histoire d'un retrait des troupe anglaises des plages de dunkirk (2 heures trop longue pour moi ) Néanmoins la réalisation est exeptionnel

you losers only watched it because harry styles is in it but the movie itself wasnt 10/10 worthy maybe like 7/10 at most

I think *Dunkirk* is a film where Nolan's ambitions finally work against him. Nolan wants to break stereotypes and do something new - which is great. But unfortunately, he didn't ask himself beforehand: doesn't this subversion of stereotypes violate the basic laws of cinema and storytelling? Or rather: is this cinema at all? The lack of characterization in the film is clearly a deliberate choice on Nolan's part. But can cinema really exist without characterization? In this film, Nolan is essentially saying: "I don't want to create a hero; I want to make a hero out of an entire army. I don't want to create individual characters; I want to make a single, unified character out of the entire army." This is precisely Nolan's biggest mistake. In cinema, we go from the "individual to the collective", not the other way around. That is, if the "individual" is not created first, the "collective" will not be created. This is exactly what Nolan does not understand. Breaking this rule is not breaking a stereotype, it is breaking a vital rule in cinematic storytelling. The result of this lack of characterization is a film in which we see action, we see exciting events, but because we do not know any of the people in the film and none of them have become characters, we do not give them any importance. And it turns this film into a 106-minute torture. Now, let's hope that Nolan, with all this confusion, narrates the film non-linearly!! The result is a crowded, baseless and boring film that will leave nothing in your mind when it ends. When the characters shout victory and rejoice at the end of the film, but their joy seems ridiculous and ridiculous to us, it means that the film has not achieved its goal of "turning a defeat into a victory."

A film that has nothing to say about the events of Dunkirk, war in general, or the people affected by it. The time-shifting device is needlessly confusing, and serves no narrative purpose but to give you something to think about, since the story and characters won't.