Dunkirk Official Reviews Discussion

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
Posts: 3394
Joined: September 2013
Location: Copenhagen
Interstellar is Nolan's 'Contact'.

User avatar
Posts: 2409
Joined: March 2010
Location: Texas
Spert wrote:I thought critics loved 2001 on release

Edit: well half of them did
Some of the biggest publications absolutely destroyed it (NY Times, Variety, etc).

User avatar
Posts: 1016
Joined: April 2013
Even Interstellar has always had it's fair share of love particularly from the critics who didn't take kindly to Nolan's other blockbusters. Still, the fact that they are in the tiny minority and also refuse to praise the movie wholeheartedly because of some quite obvious flaws doesn't bode well for it.

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: June 2012
redfirebird2008 wrote:
Spert wrote:I thought critics loved 2001 on release

Edit: well half of them did
Some of the biggest publications absolutely destroyed it (NY Times, Variety, etc).
Yep, 2001 was hated by critics. general audiences (particularly younger people) saved the film. Kubrick said there were something like 250+ walkouts during a screening.

User avatar
Posts: 2060
Joined: April 2013
Interstellar has passionate defenders among critics and a decade from now it'll be held in even higher regard. Oddly, its initial reception is exactly what it needed if it was going to be Nolan's 2001.

User avatar
Posts: 633
Joined: June 2017
Location: Holland
About those Dutch crititcs, quote from this review:
http://cine.nl/dunkirk/
Dunkirk regisseur Christopher Nolan en cameraman Hoyte van Hoytema zijn grote liefhebbers van het klassieke 70mm filmformaat, het liefst in IMAX. “Ga de film vooral zien zoals we hem bedoeld hebben, op een groot scherm!” roepen ze beide in koor in alle interviews. En dus kreeg de Nederlandse filmpers Dunkirk deze week te zien in een kleine screeningruimte bij distributeur Warner in Amsterdam, op een postzegeldoek en zonder surround geluid. Het is een wonder dat het oorlogsepos van Nolan toch nog behoorlijk overeind bleef.
In short, Warner showed the Dutch press the film on a very small screen without surround sound. Which is insane.

User avatar
Posts: 9849
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
We'll just ignore the recognition 2001 got from AMPAS for the sake of convenience...

Posts: 381
Joined: November 2014
Just to keep the RT score updated:
Dunkirk is now at 91/94 - still 97% and 9/10 avg. rating.

User avatar
Posts: 2409
Joined: March 2010
Location: Texas
Sure sounds like the WSJ review will be a 90-100 on MetaCritic. Full review is in the spoiler tag below. His review of Interstellar was a 40 and TDK was a 60. So anything above 80 is a big improvement.
MeLVaNoaTe wrote:Review is behind a paywall so I posted the entirety of it below:

The Wall Street Journal - Joe Morgenstern
'Dunkirk’ Review: Finding Humanity in Calamity

Christopher Nolan revisits the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Allied troops from a French beach during World War II
In “Dunkirk,” an astonishing evocation of a crucial event during the first year of World War II, Christopher Nolan has created something new in the annals of war films—an intimate epic. The scale is immense, and all the more so in the IMAX format that shows the action to best advantage. The density of detail is breathtaking; it’s as if the camera can barely keep up with what’s happening inside and outside the frame. Yet the central concern is steadfastly human. Whether we’re watching a huge Allied army encircled by Nazi forces on a beach in France or tracking the progress of their would-be rescuers, the drama turns on individuals and their feelings—of terror, excruciating vulnerability and fragile hope that they will make it back home, only 26 miles across the English Channel.

What the film excludes is historical context. It is not, and wasn’t meant to be, an explanation of the circumstances that led, in the spring of 1940, to the entrapment of some 400,000 British, French, Belgian and Canadian troops, including what Prime Minister Winston Churchill called “the whole root and core and brain of the British Army.” Instead, “Dunkirk,” which Mr. Nolan directed from his own screenplay, is a fictionalized, impressionistic account of a calamity that culminated in a near-miracle, although many lives were lost in the process—the rescue of 338,000 of those soldiers by shallow-draft naval vessels plus a large civilian flotilla of fishing boats and yachts.

With sparse dialogue, a minimum of digital simulations and an emphasis on spectacular images, the production follows, among others, a young British enlisted man, Fionn Whitehead’s Tommy, from the moment he emerges from the streets of Dunkirk to join vast throngs of other men, most of them young and all of them frightened, on the sands of what was formerly a vacation resort. They have no more idea than he does what’s in store for them. All they know is that they’re totally vulnerable to German tanks and planes, and unlikely to survive. (The cast includes Harry Styles, of One Direction, making his acting debut.)

“Dunkirk” is hardly the first film to depict the mad chaos of modern war. The champion in that category remains “Apocalypse Now,” with “Black Hawk Down” and “Saving Private Ryan” as strong contenders. Still, Mr. Nolan has spoken of his own list of influences being topped by “The Wages of Fear,” Henri-Georges Clouzot’s peerless thriller, made in 1953, about desperate men in South America driving nitroglycerin-laden trucks over primitive roads. What’s the common denominator? Existential terror, for sure, an awareness that one’s life may be snuffed out at any moment, but also classic suspense.

A superlative thriller in its own right, “Dunkirk” wields its power in equal measure through the general (in one memorable overhead shot, hundreds of troops standing defenseless on a breakwater look up to the sky as Nazi bombers scream in for the kill) and the particular (countless vignettes of soldiers in extreme peril and anguishing suspense). Who will live and who will die as bullets fly, bombs drop, water rises in the hull of a sinking ship? Those are familiar questions in war films. The difference here is that we care intensely even though no one on screen has been characterized through familiar speeches about hopes for the future or dreams of girls back home. Long dialogue-free stretches of “Dunkirk” could qualify as silent film if—a big if—it weren’t for the shattering sounds of war, and for Hans Zimmer’s brilliantly piercing, keening score, which often merges with those sounds of war. It’s the images that tell the essence of the story, and you should try to see the film in the largest format possible, either IMAX or a 70mm print. (The production was designed by Nathan Crowley and photographed by Hoyte Van Hoytema. )

Until now Mr. Nolan’s stories—in “Memento,” his Batman trilogy, “Inception” and “Interstellar”—have been notable for their intricacy (or, to my taste on occasion, notorious for their opacity). This time he has dared to keep things simple, except for manipulations of the timeline that heighten narrative urgency without diminishing structural clarity. The structure is tripartite, with more or less equal attention given to tumultuous events on and around the beach and breakwater ( Kenneth Branagh has a small but significant role as a naval commander); in the air, where RAF Spitfire fighters woefully short on fuel struggle to protect the soldiers; and on the Channel, where the little boats of the civilian flotilla make their painfully slow way from Dover to Dunkirk.

The aerial sequences, featuring Tom Hardy as one of the Spitfire pilots, are a marvel. Once again, the form could hardly be more familiar. Dogfights—enhanced by hand-tinted muzzle flashes and engine fires—were an impressive part of the 1927 “Wings,” which won the first best-film Oscar, and the first one for special effects. Here, though, the use of IMAX cameras is transformative. By turns the screen is filled by pilots’ faces, Kabuki-like behind goggles and oxygen masks, and skies so capacious that we understand, as never before, the near-impossibility of keeping guns trained on the tiny gyrating dots of enemy fighters.

Simplicity also reigns at sea. Instead of spending time on various boats in the flotilla, as an affecting 1958 feature about Dunkirk did, Mr. Nolan’s film, surprisingly short (especially for him) at 106 minutes, focuses on a single 40-foot wooden yacht, the Moonstone, and its crew of three: the owner, Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance); his son, Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney); and George ( Barry Keoghan ), Peter’s 17-year-old friend. (They’re joined during the Channel crossing by Cillian Murphy as an unnamed survivor of a torpedoed ship.) It’s part of the film’s distinction that the taciturn Mr. Dawson is played by one of the world’s pre-eminent actors, but Mr. Rylance’s gifts aren’t wasted. When young George asks the yacht owner where they’re going, Mr. Dawson replies briskly, “Into war, George.” With three words he conveys the audacity of the voyage.

User avatar
Posts: 3588
Joined: June 2010
Location: Secret Canadian Bunker
RT update: 97%

92 Fresh
3 Rotten

Average Rating: 9/10

Post Reply