Dunkirk Nolan Fans Member Reviews (NFometer)

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
User avatar
Posts: 19209
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
m4st4 wrote:Image
Dunkirk - mini-(dead tired) review

Dunkirk is the first film by director Christopher Nolan that is on the mastery filmmaking level equal to that of our greatest cinematic legends: Lean, Ford, Kurosawa, Kubrick, to name the few. That thought was very clear in my mind somewhere around the first quarter of the movie, and it literally made me smile, this widest grin on my silly face. Of course, I continued being utterly amazed by the precision mechanism that was the driving force of the spectacle, also completely terrified by the events on the big screen (thanks a lot, Hans Zimmer). Dunkirk is superbly edited and, finally, Nolan here manages to pull off that perfect synchronization of time and space. He's been playing with ticking narrative bombs and perspective ever since Memento, and Inception, along with Interstellar, were his most recent examples of how to make it work on a grand scale, whereas The Dark Knight Rises often went in another direction, by doing it the the right way only sporadically. Fret not, in Dunkirk everything, almost frighteningly, works. And not just that, it's elevated to a completely different level, we are now witnessing the birth of a new era for Christopher Nolan. Dunkirk might be his 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Ran... Zodiac. Whatever comes next (please be Bond in a not so distant future) is expected to meet the newest challenge face to face. I won't talk about the stuff you folks have already talked about for over a week now, how the characters are in service of a grand theme, and how there are no immediate favorites because everyone did their best to deliver the most sincere human flaws, and heroics. But I will say this: Farrier is the best Spitfire pilot ever and easily wins the show and you know it tra-la-la-la.

So many beautiful and unexpected moments in the film, both in the script and visually; Hoyte van Hoytema is a serious rival to Deakins this year. There are at least a dozen moments where I literally gasped in awe of the scenery, especially during knuckle biting dogfights. The fact that you don't even see the enemy but still feel them breathing right there near the end of the frame was a truly inspiring choice that will make quite a few seasoned filmmakers jealous this year, I'm sure.

I also feel like this film gave me everything during my first viewing and, unlike literally every other Nolan movie, it's already deeply imprinted in my brain. There's no sweet mess and ear buzzing, the need to immediately watch it again just to connect the dots. Instead I only feel this strange serenity. Perhaps it's what happens when you go to cinema with zero expectations and leave the seat not just completely satisfied with the outcome, but also proud that one of your favorite directors, for a lack of better term - 'has reached supersayan form right before your eyes'.

VERDICT: 10/10*

*of course it's a perfect 10 don't be ridiculous, no decimals for me with this one
:clap:

User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: January 2016
Location: DE
Watched it for the first time today, twice. I think I suffer from PTSD now.
Full review tomorrow. I need to gather my thoughts first.

User avatar
Posts: 26414
Joined: June 2011
Dobson wrote:Watched it for the first time today, twice. I think I suffer from PTSD now.
Full review tomorrow. I need to gather my thoughts first.
Did you like it? Can you say if you have positive thoughts on it? lol

User avatar
Posts: 13506
Joined: February 2011
Dobson wrote:Watched it for the first time today, twice. I think I suffer from PTSD now.
Full review tomorrow. I need to gather my thoughts first.
How was the audience's reaction? How do you estimate the film is performing based on the crowd and all that.£

User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: January 2016
Location: DE
Bacon wrote: Did you like it? Can you say if you have positive thoughts on it? lol
Yes, I'm absolutely positive on it. Would rate it 9/10 at least, but first I need a good night's rest. Can't really form any coherent thoughts right now, I'm awake for nearly 24 hours, had to travel a bit lol
Master Virgo wrote: How was the audience's reaction? How do you estimate the film is performing based on the crowd and all that.£
First of all, I went to showings at 2 pm and 5:30 pm, the earliest available on opening day in 4k Laser IMAX and 70mm respectively, so they were maybe half full. For later showings a lot more seats were reserved, as I saw on the cinema's website.
Audience reaction was pretty good, nobody left early, looked at their phones or even went to pee, so I think that's a good sign lol. Nobody clapped at the end, but tbh I never experienced that with any movie. Most viewers stayed through the credits and talked about it, from what I heard they liked it a lot, but some found the structure a bit confusing. (I also had some minor problems with completely understanding the film the first time around, but the second viewing cleared them up).
I can't really judge how the film will perform though. But I think Interstellar numbers are possible in Germany.

PS: The sound was just sooo good and the whole movie was bloody intense. I also cried both times.
Last edited by Dobson on July 27th, 2017, 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 3346
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Cilogy wrote:what's Lelek's issue?
I mean, you can simply click on our names on the first page to see everyone's thoughts on the film but to save you the hustle I'll repost it:
LelekPL wrote:I'm a bit let down by the movie. The lack of strong characters really hurts the film in my opinion. There was nobody I could have attached myself to emotionaly. I understand it was the intention and in an experimental way it might work in certain scenes that are still quite thrilling without the character connection but I never cared for the ultimate fate of the people on screen in the final minutes of the film. It was more like a chronicle of the historical event that tried to put you inside the carnage. But after half an hour I was looking at my watch. This being Nolan's shortest studio film still felt like the longest to me.

I must respect the technical brilliance of the film, the cinematography and the practical effects are amazing. That's why my score will still be positive or rather mixed-to-positive. Zimmer's score is also great... at times, and sometimes I felt like they were overdoing it with the amping up the tension when it wasn't really necessary (or maybe there was a tense scene but since I stopped caring I didn't even notice).

Funnily enough, I don't think the lack of dialogue was an issue at all. I quite enjoyed it in this film. I just thought it could have used stronger characters, a real lead perhaps or at least a standout supporting character. I guess Farrier is the closest being the film's "heroic figure" but due to the edits and switches in time, at first it was difficult to grasp who's he saving and what his role will be, and later when it's clear I guess I missed any sort of personal motivation.

However, for the people who have seen the film...
I'm pretty sure, Nolan's "lucky charm", Michael Caine is actually in this movie. The person Farrier and his partner are talking to on the radio must be Caine, right? Have I missed the annoucement that he's in it?

Overall, I'd give it a 6/10 (mark me down as mixed to positive). The good stuff that it does is great (I have to mention the sound mixing and editing - THE MVP of the film) but overall it didn't really connect with me. Maybe a second viewing at home will be better in terms of story.
In short, it just didn't click with me emotionally AT ALL. Well, maybe not at all, some scenes can feel tense, especially at the beginning (with the bombs falling closer and closer to Fionn) but the other ones just felt distant. The characters were either boring or plain awkward (for a moment I thought Rylance was going to be some sort of psychopath, taking kids with him and locking Murphy inside for a moment/the mole was a plot point out of nowhere and didn't go anywhere - yeah he dies, but I really noticed him doing anything significant in the film only once before that, when he saved them on the boat/Styles' character is equally strange for that matter). I guess it's supposed to be more realistic, that they don't have clear cut personalities in such circumstances but it left the movie being cold and without anyone to connect with. I know it's not a character based film, it was supposed to be an experience... but so where Gravity and Speed and yet those films really made me care for the protagonists first.

User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: May 2014
Location: Recife, PE - Brazil
10/10

MASTERPIECE

User avatar
Posts: 6778
Joined: February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
Felt like adding some plot oriented details to my review even though I basically feel the same way about it as I did earlier.
Its mostly worth the praise it has gotten but as an experience it didn't blow me away like half of Nolan's other films have. Its great feat is that it seems, from what I can imagine, extremely realistic which is the best way to honor the event. The aerial scenes looked as good as it gets. From the ground those dive bombers were extremely effective at evoking terror as well as establishing the technological advantages the other side had in real life. The spatially and temporally converging plot lines served a great purpose in highlighting the gravity of the subtle decisions made in the three storylines.

Kafka's "A Little Fable" (You can't find a shorter read) seems to be what Nolan had in mind when he described the mole as a Kafkaesque nightmare in interviews. Another element of Kafka was the shivering soldier, who as someone of higher rank tells Whitehead and co to just soldier on in an almost out of touch way after they were torpedoed in that night scene. He's later reduced to an incompetent when something similar happens to him where he resembles all of the pathetic authority figures in Kafka's stories that undergo similar role reversals.

Paths of Glory is really the best analog for this since their battles are both losing death traps, PG rating, we never actually see the Germans, bungling military commanders doom their subordinates, cynicism among comrades, essentially movies about morale (that ridiculous trial in Paths of Glory was an unjust sacrificed for the sake of re-establishing troop morale) that focus on cowardice while having similar ending scenes of ambivalence that couple a profound sense of defeat with a restored moral resolve and ofc Nolan being influenced by Kubrick more than anyone else. However, since the characterization/dialogue was minimal in the case of Dunkirk I really feel that it could have used some more visible combat, or something else, for a better climax. Apparently Hardy taking down a bomber without us seeing it coupled with that shot of eight or so civilian boats coming to the rescue was a great enough climax to elicit a standing ovation at my screening, and to receive critical acclaim in general, but it honestly didn't work for me the way that most of Nolan's other climaxes have. That would have been a major problem if the suspense wasn't great throughout the rest of the movie since there needs to be a positive force to balance the lack of dialogue/characterization. Hans delivers as always but this is probably my least favorite Nolan/Zimmer collaboration but like with my feelings towards the film in general I say that only because I hold the rest of their work in extremely high regard. For now it seems like Paths of Glory remains my favorite war movie but hopefully this'll grow on me some more.
9/10
Last edited by dafox on August 2nd, 2017, 5:56 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 26414
Joined: June 2011

User avatar
Posts: 15512
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
Anyone else think the color grading was really inconsistent?

Post Reply