Dunkirk

"Surely the filmmakers insistence upon imposing his favourite device upon all his narratives is edging towards Shyamalan-like overkill..."

Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/7/22/dunkirk.html

I was a little disappointed with this movie. I expected much more. Cinematically it was brilliant and it was an event/action driven movie when left me feeling a little disconnected. We don't know anything about these characters that we see and I personally didn't feel any emotions for the movie, even though I wanted to. I found myself quite bored halfway through the movie, the whole time I kept expecting more.

Tense film draws you to a doomed group.

Those how are veteran war historians will quibble at some parts of Dunkirk, notably the separation of English and French troops in evacuation and the ships used to evacuate them. Dunkirk uses a few conceits to keep you involved. The first, which adds a notable amount of tension to the film, is a ticking clock in the background moving you to the final day. We see intercut scenes from different periods, prior, during and enacting the rout.

Acting is excellent throughout, and versimilitude is achieved with models of aircraft, uniforms, landing stages and so on. Injections of friendship and subsequent loss direct our affection to the sufferers. Harry Styles is more than competent as a young troop an...

Dunkirk is a beautiful and unconventional World War 2 epic that is undoubtedly captivating, but it takes risks that may alienate some viewers.

When people talk about a film they think it's about the setting, but it's actually about the characters. Saving Private Ryan isn't about World War 2. It tells a story about a squad of soldiers tasked with finding a young Private Ryan and getting him back safely to his family. Saying Dunkirk is a film about the Battle of Dunkirk however, is not inaccurate. The setting and characters are one. The choppy waters of the English Channel are equally as important, if not more so than the people who fought and died in them. As much as this makes for an interesting way to make a mainstream war film, it's a...

Dunkirk was my best mate's favourite film of 2017. I find it difficult to understand exactly what drew him to this film so strongly. I find it difficult to say anything passionate about Dunkirk at all. I think I arguably felt some tension in the earlier moments, and some of the shots were beautiful... I think? I honestly can't remember. Dunkirk washed over me in the least impactful way possible, and then, like the tide, it was gone.

Final rating: - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product.

I want to start by saying Im tired of seeing the big names in every movie I see, I think at times big name actors can take away from a movie more than benefit. Dunkirk did a great job of allowing us to focus less on the actors and more on the story. I feel this movie put me in the story and allowed to experience first hand some of the lives that were impacted.

There wasnt a lot of character building in this movie, but thats what I loved, I feel like I was allowed to more so build on the experience over one persons story. Since were not typically used to a movie being experience based over character based, I think some may find this as a flaw. I did not. There were multiple stories and perspectives, all which immerse you into the curren...

Okay first off, who came up with the idea "Let's all cast guys who look exactly the same"? With all the jumping around in the story I could not tell who was where and what was going on half the time. I see what he was trying to do on the cinematic side but it made it difficult as the viewer to fully follow it all the way.

Production value was amazing and some of the scenes were absolutely stunning! Tom Hardy just flying over the coast was amazing. But Tom Hardy could not save this movie. I didn't know who was running where or if this person had died yet and the lack of dialogue was no help at all.

Wouldn't watch it again

I have put off viewing this film for quite a while. The main reason for this is that I am somewhat reluctant watching a movie where the story is pretty well known before you sit down to watch it. However a few days ago I finally did and, given all the hype, I have to say that I expected more, a lot more.

Sure the movie is a cinematically very well down movie. Acting, camera and all that is excellent. Unfortunately that is all there is.

First of all, where the hell did the over-inflated budget go? Dunkirk was a major undertaking with almost 400 000 soldiers involved and hundreds and hundreds of boats. We get to see what? A few columns of soldiers, a handful of boats and three pitiful spitfires against a bomber and two Fock Wulfes. To a...

Very good.

'Dunkirk', as you'd expect given the director, is extremely well made. I particularly enjoyed how the film is shot, the sound editing and the score. It's a watchable story about an event from World War II.

I wouldn't, personally, say there's a standout cast performer. I don't mean that negatively, it's just more a film about a group of people rather than individuals - which I assume was the intention. There are still good performances, from the likes of Tom Glynn-Carney and Jack Lowden. It also features star names, including Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and Mark Rylance.

The music and how the sequences are crafted is what elevates this film up, while the pacing is almost spot on - they could easily have made this 2hr 15mins...

It starts off well, with a little glimpse of a British Soldier that was as unprepared as the UK for the war. It's a nice teaser...

...then a little story about the civilian involvement with the evacuation...

...And it all comes with the promise of being a British "Saving Private Ryan."

Unfortunately it ends up being a lot more Michael Bay than Steven Spielberg. that is to say that it looks nice and sleek and professional but is otherwise lacking in a real story.

Spielberg managed to tell a story that was both pro-Soldier and anti-war, and that made the whole Normandy Beach until the very end a pleasure to watch.

Dunkirk, on the other hand, gives up about 15 Minutes in and decides to just focus on the action with the story being an after thought.

In short it's boring.

Considering the quality and talent of those involved, the budget and all the variables, the film is unforgivably disappointing.

The Dunkirk disaster was one of the opening moments of World War II: in the face of the unstoppable advance of German troops, a mixture of British, Belgian and French soldiers were pushed into the English Channel, fortifying themselves in the French city of Dunkirk. The prospects could not be worse: in a few weeks, hundreds of thousands of exhausted Allied soldiers found themselves surrounded by a powerful Panzer division and under constant attack by German aviation, having no port capable of evacuation, which would be carried out by smaller vessels in the so-called Operation Dynamo. And everything indicated...

Yes.

Faced with imminent annihilation, over 400,000 troops are stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk facing bombardment from superior Nazi air and land power. Christoper Nolan manages to condense into the next 95 minutes the grimness of the situation, and the sheer determination of the ordinary soldiers; how they deal with fear, learn to trust and co-operatate with others from many different nations - as the logistical nightmare that is repatriating them gradually is taking shape. We take the perspective of three individuals as they try to survive and get home and really do get a sense of the existential threat they each face; some more bravely than others. The events are historical fact, but the performances from Fionn Whitehead, Barry Keoghan are...