13 of all the negative reviews have one major complaint showing all 13 completely missed the point or they will not be invested in this Type of movie ever
1. Christopher Nolan wants us to experience things viscerally and visually, without the hindrance of exposition or back stories – or any kind of character development
2. Why not trust their patience by slowing down Dunkirk's pace? Why not include some nuance and characters conversing with one another?
3. Nolan doesn’t invest you into the characters or their situations. Many in the drama have nothing to do.
4. Had there been an actual cohesive film, offering context, character, story and history, it could have been one of the most powerful movie’s I’ve ever seen
5. None of the characters are fleshed-out beyond their base role in the war and are fairly stock types otherwise. So we watch as terrible things happen, acknowledge as much, and move on.
6. There’s little doubt, then, that sequences meant to generate suspense and tension fall almost uniformly flat, as the viewer’s inability to form a rooting interest in the various characters makes it impossible to sympathize with their ongoing exploits – which is disappointing, to say the least, given the plethora of near-death moments
7. the characters are not developed enough to allow us to care about their survival.
8. But there is very little emotional investment on our part watching this film because we know nothing of these men.
9. Not only is “Dunkirk” bereft of a single, glorious speech, it appears to lack written dialogue, at best a film that could have been improvised.
10. The greater loss in Nolan’s approach, however, is a lack of character development. Simply put, all the figures are little more than sketches
1. Christopher Nolan wants us to experience things viscerally and visually, without the hindrance of exposition or back stories – or any kind of character development
2. Why not trust their patience by slowing down Dunkirk's pace? Why not include some nuance and characters conversing with one another?
3. Nolan doesn’t invest you into the characters or their situations. Many in the drama have nothing to do.
4. Had there been an actual cohesive film, offering context, character, story and history, it could have been one of the most powerful movie’s I’ve ever seen
5. None of the characters are fleshed-out beyond their base role in the war and are fairly stock types otherwise. So we watch as terrible things happen, acknowledge as much, and move on.
6. There’s little doubt, then, that sequences meant to generate suspense and tension fall almost uniformly flat, as the viewer’s inability to form a rooting interest in the various characters makes it impossible to sympathize with their ongoing exploits – which is disappointing, to say the least, given the plethora of near-death moments
7. the characters are not developed enough to allow us to care about their survival.
8. But there is very little emotional investment on our part watching this film because we know nothing of these men.
9. Not only is “Dunkirk” bereft of a single, glorious speech, it appears to lack written dialogue, at best a film that could have been improvised.
10. The greater loss in Nolan’s approach, however, is a lack of character development. Simply put, all the figures are little more than sketches
