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: 835
Joined: December 2013
dormouse7 wrote:I just saw it in 70mm IMAX.

In general I loved the experience, but I found some things confusing, didn't really connect with the characters as much as I hoped, and also wished for more of some parts, so for now I am going with 8.5/10

Some things that confused me...
1. How did Cillian hurt George? I thought I heard Peter say "He has a gun"? Did a gun go off and hurt George? Or did George get pushed? It was unclear to me.

2. Why did Alex want to put one person off the boat so the rest of them could live? I don't think putting one person off was going to make that vessel any more seaworthy. Did they think giving the Germans a person to shoot at would make them stop shooting at the boat?

3. Even with knowing about the overlapping timelines, I found it hard to tell if a particular Spitfire was supposed to be Collins', or what happened to Cillian's boat (there seemed to be several boats around?) my confusion was when you only saw the vehicle on the water and not who was in it.

4. Didn't understand Alex's final line on the train (music was too loud). I think I did understand most other dialogue
Some things I wanted more of
It felt a bit short to me.
I would have liked at least one night scene on the beach. It seemed like a long day instead of a week.
I hoped to see the Moonstone packed with soldiers on deck - it did not seem packed since the soldiers were below decks. It looked more packed during filming.
I hoped to see more struggles getting home (like Lightoller who had to dodge bombs and was nearly capsized by the wakes of big ships)
I feel like Nolan shot a lot of footage we didn't get to see in the film.
I loved the intensity of it. I thought the air scenes were perfect - not too much nor too little.
I loved Farrier's final scenes - gliding with no engine. Very moving.
And btw - Churchill's speech needed to be at the end because he did not make that speech until the last day of the (British part of the?) evacuation.
How was the presentation at King of Prussia? Everything go okay with the projector I'm assuming?

User avatar
Posts: 2577
Joined: June 2016
GeniusNolan wrote:[...]
I felt Fionn didn't act well. He had the same expression throughout and the dialogue delivery in certain scenes paled in comparison to Styles. I know he was trying to show fear and how scared he was, but there was something about him that didn't come through for me. That was my only gripe about the movie. [...]
I don't know if my viewpoint is valid because as a Styles fan, I was often watching Alex in scenes with both Tommy & Alex, but I felt the same way. I feel like Tommy appeared fairly evenly throughout as on edge/wary and a bit lost, but I did not ever get panic from his face.
Gibson - yes - outside the boat. Alex - I guess - but as anger.
The Taxman wrote: How was the presentation at King of Prussia? Everything go okay with the projector I'm assuming?
Here's my post about the presentation at King of Prussia.
http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 0#p1123021

And based on some other peoples' problems with sound, I was say King of Prussia had excellent sound.

Posts: 15
Joined: July 2012
Watched it last night in IMAX 70mm.

It was Nolan's most experimental film. This was his unique way of presenting a movie, and it was just Amazing!! It is very different compared to other WWII movies, and you cannot compare this to any of his other movies, it's just in a different category.

I have to watch it a few more times before I give it a rating. But this is definitely one of his best work, and it will grow on you the more you watch it.

Posts: 173
Joined: March 2013
My entire theatre applauded when we saw Whitecliff in Poole. That's where we are. Immediate 10/10 because of that alone.

Posts: 127
Joined: May 2014

In terms of the formal elements of film, the cinematography, production design, sound design, and editing... these are such orders of magnitude beyond any film that has come out this year.

The innovation in approach to storytelling, the boldness of the vision, and the scale and spectacle demand to be seen in IMAX. The film does not concede to the Hollywood practices that have become agonizingly familiar. It is clear that there are no studio notes interfering with the vision of the film and its execution. My god, there were actual Spitfires in the air. The grandeur of the images, especially in the IMAX theater...

Now, the element that defines DUNKIRK to me as a true masterpiece of cinema, as something that adds do the cinematic canon--the film holds itself to storytelling by visual means. Images chained together to tell a story. That is pure cinema. That is the art form. That is what we are in danger of losing when filmmakers cannot, or will not, put bold images on screen in service of the story. When you see just how far Nolan goes to tell story visually, you realize how deprived we are, how barren the landscape of cinema is.

Given the uniqueness of the subject matter, the absolute brilliance of the filmmaking, and the deft touch of "less is more" with the story, I can only conclude that this is Nolan's best film to date, which by default makes it one of the greatest of all time.

I can state with confidence that it was the best film of the year. With similar assuredness I can say that it is the best film of the decade.

Of the century? More viewings will answer the question.

Posts: 4
Joined: July 2017
it's a war movie but it's more of a movie about the expression and the definition of what a point of view is... I think it's great to make that kind of movie nowadays especially in our society where everything is scrutinized thru the prism of one or multiple point of view or perspective.
so if nolan is taking fire from France (and I'm frech myself) it's just non sensical... it's exactly not understanding the meaning and the purpose of the movie multiple pov on a topic and you choose your angle on it. Nolan's angle was the brits evacuation not how the french protected the brits or whatever...
Plus I haven't seen a french war movie recently (except Indigènes) depicting african soldiers during WW2... Nolan did and just for that respect to him. so screw the french false pride.

User avatar
Posts: 2577
Joined: June 2016
French have nothing to complain about. For a movie that stayed away from the front lines, Dunkirk still managed to showed what French want to see

a. French doing the work, defending the town (the French soldiers behind the sandbag wall)
b. French getting screwed over by British who abandoned them (or at the very least made the evacuation of French soldiers only a priority after all British they could evacuate were out)

Posts: 327
Joined: May 2016
9.5/10 for me. Saw the film in a SOLD OUT IMAX theater - was a bit of a bummer to be honest because we were packed in like sardines and it was a bit too warm, and the biggest disappointment that the occupancy was 366, and there were only THREE cute fangirls in there, and my buddies and I were chagrined at this. Lots of older couples and mostly younger dudes my age, and not exaggerating when I say I've never been in a "sold out" anything where the crowd was as still and quiet as this one. People were riveted. Lots of popcorn and M&M's went uneaten due to the fact you didn't want to look down even once fearing you might miss something.

The standout for me was, Hoyte Van Hoytema, without whom this brilliant picture would have never come together. Honestly I'm still stunned by the cinematography and I can't wait to see it again.

Good things:
I was so impressed with the character, Alex. It was delivered wonderfully by Styles but I also appreciated the realness of a guy who just wanted to get home alive and didn't mind looking like a bit of a dick in doing so. Bonus real-ness points for that.

Fionn was good as well although I thought there was less "character" in his character, if you know what I mean. And I did think there was room for a bit more oomph in his delivery - still though - I was very impressed and you'd never know this was the guys first real acting gig. Notably awesome: Rylance and Branagh. They were truly top-notch in every aspect and particularly Branagh was excellent, IMO.
Not so good things:
There's really only one thing for me to complain about and that was the Cillian/Barry thing. I just thought it was somewhat frivolous. And two thumbs down on the "realness" scale from me. I simply can't imagine being TGC's character and not reacting with vehement anger/frustration/sadness at some dude you don't even know climbing into your boat and killing your best friend. That bit kind of annoyed me. I will say I thought all actors did a great job with their roles, it was just that part of the story itself that really felt off to me, and so, while I am amazed and in awe of what Nolan has done, I'd like to side-eye him for that just a little bit. That doesn't mean I don't think he deserves all the kudos he's received for this film thus far, he certainly does - it was just one sub-story I scoffed at a bit.
All things being said, it was a brilliant film. I loved the Spitfires and dogfights and I LOVED seeing this in IMAX as the sound was incredible (saw some complaints from others, but the theater I was in was PERFECT). I love the way you could feel the sound in your heartbeat. It was THAT intense and immense. Back for another viewing tomorrow night and I can't wait!!

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Virgo. 8.3

User avatar
Posts: 1279
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Anyone ever been in a film where you heard so many more whisperings of "Oh shit..." around you than from any other audience? :lol:

Post Reply