Warner Bros. | Release Date: July 21, 2017
8.3
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 2865 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,418
Mixed:
255
Negative:
192
Watch Now
Buy On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
dangersJul 25, 2017
I have seen a surprising amount of great blockbuster films this year but none of them has been like Dunkirk. Giving a 10/10 to Dunkirk isn't enough. It's another flawless masterpiece from Nolan and such a unique experience. Easily the bestI have seen a surprising amount of great blockbuster films this year but none of them has been like Dunkirk. Giving a 10/10 to Dunkirk isn't enough. It's another flawless masterpiece from Nolan and such a unique experience. Easily the best movie I've seen all year and among the best films I've seen that were made in the last 17 years. Expand
114 of 144 users found this helpful11430
All this user's reviews
3
TheDirtyGermanAug 4, 2017
Underwhelming. For me that's the only word can describe this movie. I saw this movie with my 73 year old father in law and we both had the same reaction to this movie. We really wanted to like it. We both love great war movies. This movieUnderwhelming. For me that's the only word can describe this movie. I saw this movie with my 73 year old father in law and we both had the same reaction to this movie. We really wanted to like it. We both love great war movies. This movie was beautiful to watch, especially in IMAX. The first 10 minutes or so was pretty good. After that, no real substance. No character development. Virtually no dialogue. It was so difficult to really care about any of the characters. Tom Hardy's character was pretty good, but still no depth. The timeline is a bit odd, but I didn't feel that it added anything to the movie. Nothing like Memento, my favorite Nolan movie. The movie seemed so much longer than than the 107 minutes that it was. Pacing was awful. I have no idea how it gets so many 100 scores. Expand
27 of 36 users found this helpful279
All this user's reviews
2
ARBonaventuraJul 28, 2017
I pride myself on my judgement of movies and Metacritic nearly never fails me, yet it did this time. I am blown away by the "professional" critic reviews. It just does not make sense and I find myself sitting here wondering what is wrong withI pride myself on my judgement of movies and Metacritic nearly never fails me, yet it did this time. I am blown away by the "professional" critic reviews. It just does not make sense and I find myself sitting here wondering what is wrong with everyone. The other reviews below consistent question of "was this the same movie I watched?" ring so true. It was plain bad, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the "critics" thought it good. Were they paid off? Were they caught up in the Nolan hype? There were so many fallacies and inconsistencies in this movie that I do not want to cover them all, but I really felt the need to say... Please do not waste your money if you are an intelligent, analytical, deep, perceptive adult... This movie is not for you. If you are a teenage boy or someone who just needs to turn their brain off for two hours and watch stuff happen in front of them, this movie may be for you. It is not a logically executed, well written, or intellectually / emotionally stimulating movie. It is shallow, dry, and poor from start to finish. War is hell, and this movie did not have the emotional capacity or grit to show that reality. Expand
22 of 30 users found this helpful228
All this user's reviews
3
mbmartinsJul 30, 2017
booooring movie... I really don't understand what people see so good. Confusing and simplistic plot. Shallow characters. Want a good war movie goes see until the last man, because this is a noolan hype and nothing anymore
45 of 62 users found this helpful4517
All this user's reviews
3
AlprJul 30, 2017
Found the movie quite boring, and it was hard to follow sometimes, specifically with the pilots. Dunno how this movie is rating so well honestly. Been awhile since I found a movie so dull, I'd rather watch Wonder Woman again and that movie was meh.
39 of 54 users found this helpful3915
All this user's reviews
2
AxeTJul 31, 2017
Even worse than expected. There was no doubt the jackass critics herd perennially on auto pilot would laud praise upon a noble little known true war story put on screen by a massively over-rated pompous director because they all sensed itEven worse than expected. There was no doubt the jackass critics herd perennially on auto pilot would laud praise upon a noble little known true war story put on screen by a massively over-rated pompous director because they all sensed it must be important purely based on the subject and pedigree. They in their utter dishonesty and phony pretentious lack of any shred of integrity assume in order to be perceived as serious and smart must heap praise on something like this. Venture to say, no matter what Christopher Nolan came out with the praise would be the same near unanimous nonsense it is. They didn't see the actual movie. They only saw the pretense. For the last time: subject matter is not primarily what you are reviewing idiots, the way it is executed is.

Here's why it's not only not the great movie they exclaim, but a pretty bad movie! There is no plot nor any character development, and there is no true suspense precisely because of this! You can't be on the edge of your seat no matter what the action on screen if you are not invested in the characters. This is an uninspired, stodgy, overly reverent trudge through a historic event with no invention working to transform such into a movie. Hollywood movies are supposed to entertain. Hey, that goes for whatever the content and no matter the tone. If you want a dry history lesson on the event, go read a text book or watch a documentary (and nearly any fathomable documentary on this battle would be more interesting).
Just imagine had James Cameron's "Titanic" not invented the fictional core love story and characters both modern day and past for that story in favor of pure, straight documented, totally accurate depiction of the historic event? It would not resonate as the epic Hollywood classic it became in short time. And it's not as though they blew off the historical accuracy which was painstakingly recreated in nearly every detail. It's that Cameron understands what movies should be for the audience, not just himself. The characters here are puppets whether real or imagined. The spare acting caught on screen is devoid of performance which while realistic is dull and it's not the cast's fault. There's no script! Kenneth Branagh tries, but sorry a watery eye in one close up and looking up for a few seconds in alarm of coming doom is not all there is to acting. If it is, then anyone can do the job on cue and to effect as professional actors must do. Worse still, like his last lame pretentious effort "Interstellar", the sound mix is AWFUL again! The freaking dialogue is mixed too low to the sound effects and even more so to the music! It's bad enough these actors have mumbled hard to understand heavily accented deliveries, but to then self indulgently attempt to be more "real" by making the decision to compromise intelligibility is just plain asinine. It's unprofessional. It's downright incompetent! Music is artificial to begin with, so his illogical argument last time about being more real to life experience is again just a fallacy here!

The staged big screen aerial dog fight footage is how this movie initially seemed to showcase itself in advertising and is about the only worthy of attention aspect of the entire production. So a few real flying shots of vintage WWII fighter planes from some unique angles with unnoticeable not overdone CGI is worth sitting bored out of your mind for two hours? Ah, no.

A-lister Nolan is a moviemaker who cares about the audience and the entertainment value he is delivering, but he is gravely mistaken in his efforts. No question he is highly intelligent, creative in general, a scholar of cinema history, and understands all the technical mechanics of filmmaking as well or better than anyone. What he is not is an artist who delivers genuine emotion. That's what great movies and great art in general is truly about. Nolan is a very cerebral writer/director not unlike say Kubrick who also fell short on emotion in all his work. However, Kubrick was such a genius and brilliant designer of mind bending psychological exploration that the lack of emotion in his art is acceptable as the canvases are overflowing with inspiration as it is just on an intellectual and aesthetic level. Nolan is only a pale imitation of that (though granted a better poser than say PT Anderson, another retro junkie also falling for old gimmicks of the medium over good storytelling). The truth is he hasn't made any great films, only a few good ones, and the rest are all pretentious mediocre bores. The only good thing about this thing is that surprisingly it is not overlong as is the stupid trend. That's because the story is thin to begin with and padded out for running time. If you must still go see it, go digital. The film prints are literally half the resolution and quickly damaged by today's uncaring theaters! Mr. Nolan the luddite is delusional in his denial of reality. Passé tech 70mm is a hoax now!
Expand
22 of 32 users found this helpful2210
All this user's reviews
2
TantricSkyJul 30, 2017
Obviously I missed something here, a lot in fact. I found this film to be boring, annoying (the highly intrusive score didn't help on that account) and, considering the potential of the material, strangely limp and lifeless.
27 of 40 users found this helpful2713
All this user's reviews
1
kingdodeeJul 25, 2017
If you want a 2-hour long extended version of its trailers, go see Dunkirk. If you have seen even one of them, you have already seen this movie. It is so dull and uninteresting that the best thing about this one is that it is not 2,5 hoursIf you want a 2-hour long extended version of its trailers, go see Dunkirk. If you have seen even one of them, you have already seen this movie. It is so dull and uninteresting that the best thing about this one is that it is not 2,5 hours like Nolan's other movies. It really fails on every level: it does not entertain (even the intended 'suspense' scenes are so cliché that they are a pain to sit through), it does not appeal to your senses (even Hans Zimmer's score is bad), it does not give you any sense of relief or achievement, nor does it paint a cruel and realistic picture about the horrors of war. If you want the story of Dunkirk, go with any of the documentaries, and forget about The Overrated Movie of the Century. Expand
31 of 48 users found this helpful3117
All this user's reviews
2
AreYouSeriousJul 22, 2017
How? How is this getting the 10/10's? Four of us saw this together - age ranging from 21 to 47, and all disliked it. The first few minutes are good, but after that - what a complete bore-fest. No characters that you care about, or gravitateHow? How is this getting the 10/10's? Four of us saw this together - age ranging from 21 to 47, and all disliked it. The first few minutes are good, but after that - what a complete bore-fest. No characters that you care about, or gravitate to. No real story; 3 separate stories that are disjointedly strung together, but are worse for wear by the added time-jumps. The relentless score that literally wears you down. No blood (I'm not one for the gratuitous slo-mo violence of Hacksaw Ridge - far preferred the documentary feel of Saving Private Ryan), but no blood, when they have just been blown up by a bomb, pulled me straight out of the film.

We all felt like it was 4 hours long, as the shots seemed to all look the same, repeating, over and over again. This is the first time in my life where I TRULY feel like the reviews have been bought. I reckon the studio executives watched it and thought "How the hell is this going to appeal to a wide audience? We better buy some amazing reviews, or we'll never get our money back."
Expand
55 of 88 users found this helpful5533
All this user's reviews
3
OfficeNinjaJul 23, 2017
While visually impressive, I found Dunkirk to be a mix of boredom and confusion. There is three different timelines that converge which only makes it confusing, and does not add weight to any of the scenes. It's difficult to tell any of theWhile visually impressive, I found Dunkirk to be a mix of boredom and confusion. There is three different timelines that converge which only makes it confusing, and does not add weight to any of the scenes. It's difficult to tell any of the characters apart, especially with very limited dialog. I'm not sure people love this movie so much, it's a pretty forgettable war movie. Expand
43 of 69 users found this helpful4326
All this user's reviews
1
jhepJul 29, 2017
Do war movies need to have a script ?.......YES. Do war movies have to have characters ?......Yes again....."Dunkirk" has neither script nor characters and as a result you rapidly lose interest in what becomes of any of the individuals weDo war movies need to have a script ?.......YES. Do war movies have to have characters ?......Yes again....."Dunkirk" has neither script nor characters and as a result you rapidly lose interest in what becomes of any of the individuals we encounter because you never bond with them. In fact after a while they just seem very unlucky in their various attempts to get away!) This is a very cold film about an amazing event. Nolan seems far more interested in showing what bungled mess the Dunkirk experience was. He depicts the whole thing as futile, messy and basically more ANNOYING than anything else i.e., what a bunch of Losers! The result is a sort of yuppie take on WW2. And a rather desperate tossing in of Churchill's "We shall never surrender" speech in the final moments of the film doesn't make up for this film's fatal wrongheaded approach to its subject. Expand
26 of 42 users found this helpful2616
All this user's reviews
0
iter27Jul 23, 2017
Nothing of substance. A tremendous waste of time and money. I am beyond flabbergasted on how the "Nolan" fanboys can defend such a mess of a movie. Pretentious af.
23 of 39 users found this helpful2316
All this user's reviews
10
PeterAlexanderJul 21, 2017
A masterpiece. Dunkirk is a thrilling, haunting picture of sound and cinematography. With little to no character development, and mostly drowned out dialogue, this movie is truly a spectacle of action, drama and at times, horror. Such anA masterpiece. Dunkirk is a thrilling, haunting picture of sound and cinematography. With little to no character development, and mostly drowned out dialogue, this movie is truly a spectacle of action, drama and at times, horror. Such an intense take on war has never been filmed before, and hasn’t had me so immersed in the cinema for many years. Christopher Nolan has once again created a film that has you drawing for breath by the end. Expand
65 of 113 users found this helpful6548
All this user's reviews
3
SergeantSozJul 22, 2017
I've never given a movie such a low score but I have to this time to help lower the ridiculous overall score. While I appreciate this movie not going over the top, it just doesn't suck me into the story like other war movies. There is zeroI've never given a movie such a low score but I have to this time to help lower the ridiculous overall score. While I appreciate this movie not going over the top, it just doesn't suck me into the story like other war movies. There is zero blood. It shows a guy getting bombed and he remains in one piece. The score was good but all it did was make everyone anxious. I know Zimmer wanted to create a sense of urgency since the film is about an evacuation but even the most simple, boring things, the music is going off the rails trying to rise up some suspense. It WILL drive you nuts. Take the music out of this movie and there's probably 20 minutes or less of dialogue and you're left with the most boring movie ever. I could give it a 5 but honestly I would never watch this twice. I don't know a single name of any of the characters. There's zero development once so ever so why give a crap about any of them. You can barely understand them also. Hacksaw Ridge was too Hollywood and too over the top but at least it was entertaining. This movie's only positive notes is the bone-chilling sound of German fighters about to dive bomb the soldiers. Nolan isn't a bad director but he's a terrible story teller. All of his movies are vague and confusing. Expand
29 of 51 users found this helpful2922
All this user's reviews
5
SeriousReviewJul 22, 2017
It is a good movie, but it could have been so much more. First off, roughly 900 vessels were involved in the Dunkirk evacuation and about 10 are shown. I understand not wanting to use excessive CGI, but it really detracts from what should beIt is a good movie, but it could have been so much more. First off, roughly 900 vessels were involved in the Dunkirk evacuation and about 10 are shown. I understand not wanting to use excessive CGI, but it really detracts from what should be a turning point in the film. Numbers like 400,000 men are bandied about in the film, but all of 500 men are actually shown, even from a distance. Furthermore, Nolan sacrifices character depth and any kind of backstory - even going so far as to have most of the characters pretty much nameless - in order to showcase his artistic vision. The upshot is that I found it difficult to emotionally invest in any of the characters. Whilst his gritty portrayal is beautiful and it has its moving moments, of which the opening scene is particularly memorable, in general the film fails to capture the scale of Dunkirk and at the same time manages to underwhelm in character development. It isn't a bad film, but it is often boring and what really sucks is the squandered potential it had. Expand
32 of 58 users found this helpful3226
All this user's reviews
2
purexiiiJul 21, 2017
Probably one of the worst movies I've seen. The only thing stopping me from walking out was hope that it would get better - it didn't.

I am dumbfounded how this even gets remotely close to an 9.0/10 average here and imdb. (Botted votes?
Probably one of the worst movies I've seen. The only thing stopping me from walking out was hope that it would get better - it didn't.

I am dumbfounded how this even gets remotely close to an 9.0/10 average here and imdb. (Botted votes? Bribery?) Firstly the plot is empty, bland, boring, uneventful - I could go on all day...

The character development is abysmal - non-existent. You feel detached the whole film except for the first minute (which are excellent bar the annoying background title text) and then it goes straight off the cliff into the dump. I was excited and enthralled expecting an amazingly engaging film - boy was I WRONG.

Even watching Tom hardy blast away with his 10% accuracy is uninspiringly dull.


The only good points are 'decent' cinematography(the best of which being the colours and contrasts which i actually enjoyed in some brief scenes), good sound effects, soundtrack is nice but overused and repetitive.

In essence the film over-utilises cinematography and sound to form it's basis while leaving the lacklustre story and characters to support it instead of the opposite i.e developing a strong plot line and delving into the depth and breadth of characters while letting the cinematography and sound support them.

Don't waste your time or money on this cash grab. 2/10 AT BEST!
Expand
42 of 78 users found this helpful4236
All this user's reviews
2
FerdifiableJul 22, 2017
The IMAX version, at least, is fully endorsed by the International Earplug Association. If you don't have tinnitus before you see this overrated disaster movie, you will when you walk out. Abusively, gratuitously loud, with a soundtrackThe IMAX version, at least, is fully endorsed by the International Earplug Association. If you don't have tinnitus before you see this overrated disaster movie, you will when you walk out. Abusively, gratuitously loud, with a soundtrack designed to loosen your internal organs from your skeletal frame. I might have liked this movie but I couldn't tell; it's impossible to appreciate anything else about Dunkirk when your fillings are being vibrated out of your teeth. I suppose the point was to bludgeon me into knowing that war is hell, but somehow Spielberg managed to convey this with considerably more weight without causing me actual physical pain. Overwhelming the senses is apparently the film industry's way of creating a unique theatrical experience. If so, it's inducing me to the opposite: perhaps if I'd waited to watch at home with some control over my viewing experience I'd have appreciated it more. Expand
21 of 39 users found this helpful2118
All this user's reviews
10
BellaSwan1992Jul 25, 2017
Hands down the movie of the year. Incredibly intense, powerful, and moving, and packs an amazing amount of stuff into a lean 100-minute runtime (doubly impressive considering how little dialogue there is). Massive props to Christopher NolanHands down the movie of the year. Incredibly intense, powerful, and moving, and packs an amazing amount of stuff into a lean 100-minute runtime (doubly impressive considering how little dialogue there is). Massive props to Christopher Nolan for making a WW2 movie with an authentically British cast instead of doing the obnoxious modern forced-diversity thing, and for focusing on the courage and heroism of the Brits instead of demonizing German soldiers like Spielberg did in Saving Private Ryan.

For my money this is hands down the best WW2 movie I've ever seen, even better than Mel's Hacksaw Ridge last year. If there's any justice this will take Best Picture at the Oscars.
Expand
31 of 58 users found this helpful3127
All this user's reviews
3
ohsiyoJul 21, 2017
Are there 2 different versions of this movie? The movie that all the "experts" are raving about is not the one I saw. Have they all lost a bet to Christopher Nolan or is there blackmail involved? What showed at my theater was not much moreAre there 2 different versions of this movie? The movie that all the "experts" are raving about is not the one I saw. Have they all lost a bet to Christopher Nolan or is there blackmail involved? What showed at my theater was not much more than a glorified movie of the week. There is almost no dialogue, and what little there is is drowned out by the soundtrack which tells us it's not important in the first place. There is no plot, no character development, no acting, confusing characters, and time jerks from dead of night to simultaneous broad daylight. There is no audience connection or identification with the characters or situation. Granted, this is a critical episode in a World War, but the movie is filmed as "a day in the life." The "experts" claim the acting is fabulous, but there is no acting. Tom Hardy sits in the cramped cockpit of a plane with his face covered by a mask the entire time. 400,000 soldiers are stranded on the beach, and we see maybe 500. There is supposed to be a massive rescue flotilla and we see maybe 12 boats. The "experts" describe the movie as "avant garde" and a "masterpiece". What I saw was "meh". Although I found it difficult at times to watch, "Saving Private Ryan" was a war movie with intensity, plot, and characters. "Dunkirk" doesn't come close. And what is "The Mole?" Expand
32 of 61 users found this helpful3229
All this user's reviews
2
Captain_MisfireJul 22, 2017
After many reviews I was looking forward to seeing the film but came out feeling rather dissapointed. It was dull, uninspiring and had no tension that really grabs and pulls you towards the film with further interest. I felt so detached fromAfter many reviews I was looking forward to seeing the film but came out feeling rather dissapointed. It was dull, uninspiring and had no tension that really grabs and pulls you towards the film with further interest. I felt so detached from the film, I don't know where the good reviews are coming from, are we talking about the same movie here?
The big actors in this film dissapoint because there is hardly any acting. Tom Hardy sits in a cockpit for the entire film (everyone could do that) and can't hit a barndoor with a machine gun, I can only see 2 eyes and a forehead.. At the end his plane runs out of fuel, hovers in the air but he seems to fly on forever. Cillian Murphy mumbles and walks around on a tugboat from time to time. There is no character development or interesting dialogue that makes you feel involved/connected and caring about the troops and their misery. Hardly any signs of fatigue, broken nerves/ shattered spirits and wounded men (except for a few men on stretchers). These scenes do not make me think that I wouldn't like to be in someone's shoes being stuck on a beach, not knowing what's coming next. The possibility of death/ becoming a prisoner or saved by a rescue operation, seeing so many struggles on a beach you can't imagine how you will get picked up..

The beach in the film is very(!) clean (with some dead soldiers that's really impressive) and there seems to be no sign of chaos, fatigue, fear or despair. There is absolutely no equipment scattered over the beach that looks close to a scrapyard, no trash, discarded gear and no abandoned vehicles etc. About 3 to 400.000 soldiers were saved but I saw 500-750 in the film (they all looked the same btw, hair and face), also I saw 10 to 15 boats TOPS. More than 900 boats took part in this operation over the course of 9 days and that's a fact. The smaller boats were used to carry men off the beach and put them on bigger steamers/boats, didn't see that. This film could have improved significantly with an extra 30 minutes at the beginning of the film. Brief fighting/retreating around Dunkirk showing the peril, discussions in Churchill's HQ about the situation in France and trying to save the troops against staggering odds. Such dialogue could have made it gripping, showing wht was at stake in that part of the war. Show me how everyone in England came together with everything they had that could float, trying to save the troops. Tom Hardy would be better placed trying to hold off the Germans and surrender at the end when he knows many troops are saved. In real life many thousands and injured who could not be saved were sacrificed and stayed behind In to keep the Germans away. A dejected Murphy waits on a beach to be rescued, that role could have suited him. The dogfights were rather dull.
I was confused because of the jarring cuts in time and the shift (too fast) between the 3 characters. I can't believe some positive reviews here "intense", "great acting", "best war film" Someone even commented they couldn't find flaws, in the first 5 minutes by looking at the housing in the background and the tiling, didn't look like 1940. Look at the background when they filmed the beach from the sea, modern housing and lights, streetlamps, shipping containers and crains.
Can't understand why Christopher Nolan couldn't just make a straightforward, linnear warfilm that tells a gripping (true)story without all this fancy colouring and artistic filming. I went to see this film for it's story and not for the way it was filmed, coloured or making many switches from one time to another. It doesn't focus on anything in particular except for rescue.

I wish these (expert) reviewers watched some documentary's like the world at war that really grips you and then watch the film again. Heck, even look on google for Dunkirk equipment and such. Steven Spielberg should have made this as Nolan would film Saving private Ryan with no casualties and no dialogue. Wouldn't want to see the film again.
Expand
45 of 91 users found this helpful4546
All this user's reviews
10
crizzyviewJul 25, 2017
Dunkirk engages the audience from the first scene. The soldiers of the British army are being directed by their comrades to the beach at Dunkirk. Thousands of soldiers are lining up with great dignity to patiently await their rescue.Dunkirk engages the audience from the first scene. The soldiers of the British army are being directed by their comrades to the beach at Dunkirk. Thousands of soldiers are lining up with great dignity to patiently await their rescue. Churchill has requisitioned civilian boats to pick them up.

So, you ask with great anxiety about the result of the herculean effort to rescue and deliver the soldiers to Britain, did Harry Styles survive to the end of the movie? My answer is: go and see. The visual display, the persistent and exciting percussion of the musical score, the booming zooms of the aircraft, bombs, gun fire, and other sounds of war immediately brought me to the beach at Dunkirk while my gut rumbled and vibrated in my seat. I became a soldier on that beach, a Spitfire pilot, and an officer of the Royal British Army. I felt excitement, desperation, patience, forgiveness, sacrifice, empathy, the thrill of the rescue effort, and the possible consequential joy of being able to go home. This movie is an artistically delivered rendition of what it means to be a soldier, a sailor, and an officer. Will you be rescued? Will the support of the Royal Air Force be enough to get you off that beach and back into your family kitchen at home? I urge you to experience what I felt in watching Dunkirk. It's a movie that dramatically emphasizes the importance of persistence, strategy, and humanity in the war against impossibility. Ten fingers.
Expand
25 of 51 users found this helpful2526
All this user's reviews
10
MastacraftJul 25, 2017
Flyers drift into the streets dropped from above urging the Allies to surrender after they had been absolutely decimated instead many soldiers literally wiped their ass with it.*

Let us begin with the way the story is shown by director
Flyers drift into the streets dropped from above urging the Allies to surrender after they had been absolutely decimated instead many soldiers literally wiped their ass with it.*

Let us begin with the way the story is shown by director Christopher Nolan which is simply incredible and gives way to the imagination of what was coming for the British and French army. Dunkirk gives this eerie feel to the elephant in the room; Hitler & the axis powers who are not shown on screen but leaves any viewer with some historical knowledge aware the Germans are looming over 400,000 soldiers who nervously wait hat in hand for their fate, all Hitler has to do is snap to cease the existence of Britain as we know it on the jaws of Dunkirk. Instead of taking the typical Hollywood route Nolan focuses on the evacuation, the imagery, the sheer enormity of the task at hand and leaves towering figures such as the likes of Churchill (who recently had his own terribly inaccurate biopic told for the tenth time) as merely a mention – this is a soldier’s story, a people’s story.

Hans Zimmer brings back renditions of the Dark Knight with the soundtrack piercing into your eardrums as the skies roar above with the spray of spitfire bullets hitting the Luftwaffe like rattling drums. One cannot help but feel nervous and uncomfortable with the soundtrack and in a movie depicting such a terrible event and time there is nothing more fitting.

Dunkirk makes you feel as small and helpless as every soldier felt that fateful day and effortlessly avoids pitfalls nearly every war movie makes to glorify the victory while hammering home the evil of Nazi Germany which takes away from the big picture that ALL war is evil. In war sides survive, nobody wins and seeing it depicted in ways like this goes along way for showing the humanity of one side to the other – imagine propaganda films in the early 1940’s showed a little more of that! Right in the cockpit is how one feels during one of several intense Dogfight scenes as we are kept up close. Just as impressive is historical accuracy keeping inline with what occurred as the real heroes of the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe much further away from the beach to allow the evacuations to even be a possibility and we stay focused on the evacuation not the full scale war.

Tom Hardy who can do no wrong lately (fresh from Taboo - go see it!) is the all-star in stellar cast who once again blends in effortlessly to the picture instead of controlling it and this movies momentum builds as every actor keeps stride. As a period piece it is important a movie looks the part and aside from the colouring of the dropped leaflets Dunkirk is absolutely on point from uniform, to locations to planes all of this attention to small details will keep the harshest historians happy.

Action is directed very smartly and replaces blood and guts with that distant feel and imagination asked of the viewer again and again. Darkly mesmerising is the only way to describe in my eyes the early bombing scene as a soldier cowers on the beach as each bomb hits, bam, bam, bam, boom till a soldier disappears near him and you are left to think of the horror laying just off screen, not see it.

In closing go see this movie and when your children are of age show them movies like this and let them understand what happened all these years ago. It is hard to imagine that this really was one of the major turning points of the war and has given way for you and me to be where we are right now. No one knows exactly why Hitler chose to not annihilate the British Army and hold back for three days some even believe he wanted peace with Britain but whatever occurred many sacrifices where made at Dunkirk and it is the job of every film maker and company to do these sorts of films justice (we’re all sick of Hollywood bs) and I can gladly say this certainly was a Victory.

5/5 pounds

*historical fact leaflets dropped made good toilet paper for soldiers something we all take for granted now
Expand
23 of 47 users found this helpful2324
All this user's reviews
9
TheApplegnomeJul 21, 2017
This is an experience like no other. Powerful imagery and emotional symbolism made one almost weep, because the scope of this war-epic is phenomenally crafted. It’s a dark film for sure, but it serves as a glimpse of light over and over, withThis is an experience like no other. Powerful imagery and emotional symbolism made one almost weep, because the scope of this war-epic is phenomenally crafted. It’s a dark film for sure, but it serves as a glimpse of light over and over, with a forever returning theme of truthfulness to humanity. This, combined with the realism and empathetic feel to the setting that C Nolan masterfully has achieved – will make even the dullest being emotional.

Dunkirk is very different from Nolan’s previous achievements, mainly due to the very lack of character inside through dialogs. But, amazingly, we can still relate and understand their thinking through the surreal events and clever filmmaking. The scope is real. You feel the seriousness. You feel trapped, just like the young soldiers. This is done almost without any dialogs. The silence between the characters says it all. The ones that stand out from the pack of men are Commander Bolton, Mr. Dawson and Tommy; this is where most of the focus lies and where we get most character depth. The non-linear structure helped with this, it almost trapped the audience in a loop with different perspectives on the event of Dunkirk. And the whole movie is all about the event, not the specific characters. You feel like you’re in it so you care for the situation and the characters, even though you might not remember their names fully. All of this is very rare and not often seen on film. It really works in the film’s favor, and yes even more inside to characters could never hurt a film like this one. But this isn’t a flaw in this film. To relate to characters in this extent with so little talking – is an Oscar-worthy achievement.

To follow these characters in Dunkirk is an exhausting and adrenaline-packed experience with realistic action that you will not question. The realism is stunningly shaped. It might be one of my most surreal film experiences ever. Hans Zimmer’s score boosted the experience by tenfold, it got this “ticking” feel to it, almost like a heart beating faster and faster throughout the film – Zimmer is a propulsive force that never stops to amaze. The camerawork is just as stunning; you fly like an aircraft and feel the full gravity of the situation! It’s a smooth, stylish and artistic direction from C Nolan and ‘Interstellar’ cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema.

Some minor flaws do exist. The action is at a few places very identical as to what already has been seen in previous scenes, so it took the “wow-feel” down a bit. Some individuals will without any doubt attack the “too realistic” WW2 feel, because it’s not bold enough for them. But to create this movie isn’t about being bold. It’s about creating something real. And it is, very!

It’s an epic experience filled with realism but also small acts of heroism, kindness and forgiveness. Dunkirk is as action-packed as ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’, and stunningly realistic as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ but with a bigger slam to it. It reveals the true nature of war, the men behind it and what the bigger picture of it can be.
Dunkirk is a visual and emotional experience that will take the gasp out of you. Period.

Personal rating: 92/100

Critical rating: 96/100
Expand
21 of 43 users found this helpful2122
All this user's reviews
10
FranzHcriticJul 21, 2017
Christopher Nolan has surpassed himself with what I can almost say is a masterpiece. Even with its little dialogue, I found myself captivated from the time the movie started till the credits rolled. With the visuals, acting, and raw realism,Christopher Nolan has surpassed himself with what I can almost say is a masterpiece. Even with its little dialogue, I found myself captivated from the time the movie started till the credits rolled. With the visuals, acting, and raw realism, 'Dunkirk' may be one of the best, if not the best, film of 2017. Expand
27 of 56 users found this helpful2729
All this user's reviews
1
TalvarJul 21, 2017
The film is nothing more than a DVD release story line. Very poor showing for something that was hyped by "professional" reviews. If you are expecting an epic war movie (which i believe the true story line could show) then you will beThe film is nothing more than a DVD release story line. Very poor showing for something that was hyped by "professional" reviews. If you are expecting an epic war movie (which i believe the true story line could show) then you will be disappointed. Some big name actors do not perform, largely down to the poor directing. Save yourself the cinema ticket. Expand
27 of 56 users found this helpful2729
All this user's reviews
9
EpicLadySpongeJul 21, 2017
Is this even possible for a movie to score this high nowadays because I believe Dunkirk broke the record for possibly best movie of the year if other movies being released on this year aren't as powerful or memorable as this movie right here.Is this even possible for a movie to score this high nowadays because I believe Dunkirk broke the record for possibly best movie of the year if other movies being released on this year aren't as powerful or memorable as this movie right here. No seriously, how am I supposed to find flaws in this amazingly-made movie? This remark on history is stronger and more powerful than I thought it would be. Expand
23 of 48 users found this helpful2325
All this user's reviews
0
moviestalkerJul 23, 2017
Here's a short guide how to win an academy award: Step 1) Make a movie about the second World War (because nobody ever had *that* idea) Step 2) ???, Step 3: Profit.
27 of 57 users found this helpful2730
All this user's reviews
0
marco34laJul 22, 2017
I'm sorry, this movie was a piece of crap. There's no story, barely any dialogue, no character development, but it does have big AUDIO SCORE THAT BLASTS SO LOUD YOUR WANT TO SCREAM. There were apprx 25 people at the showing I just saw here inI'm sorry, this movie was a piece of crap. There's no story, barely any dialogue, no character development, but it does have big AUDIO SCORE THAT BLASTS SO LOUD YOUR WANT TO SCREAM. There were apprx 25 people at the showing I just saw here in Los Angeles and over the course of the 90 mins... 4 people WALKED OUT. Expand
37 of 79 users found this helpful3742
All this user's reviews
10
johnem95Jul 21, 2017
"Dunkirk" earns the title of "masterpiece". It's a masterclass in suspense, a history lesson, and an inspiring story of heroism all rolled into one perfect package. See it on the biggest screen possible.
22 of 47 users found this helpful2225
All this user's reviews
5
Roy_HobbsJul 21, 2017
After reading the reviews, I had high expectations for this film, but in the end was completely underwhelmed. It wasn't bad, but certainly not as good as what I had expected. Overall, I found the fractured way the story was told, dialogueAfter reading the reviews, I had high expectations for this film, but in the end was completely underwhelmed. It wasn't bad, but certainly not as good as what I had expected. Overall, I found the fractured way the story was told, dialogue that I couldn't always decipher and an on-going struggle (this was probably just me) to figure out who was who (many of the characters were similar looking to me) took away from my overall enjoyment of this film. Expand
26 of 56 users found this helpful2630
All this user's reviews
9
JyroJyroJul 24, 2017
Dunkirk is a viceral masterpiece. The lack of character development and narrative is essential for inferencing the sheer scale of the situation. This isn't a story about individuals... this is a story about a narrowly avoided catastrophicDunkirk is a viceral masterpiece. The lack of character development and narrative is essential for inferencing the sheer scale of the situation. This isn't a story about individuals... this is a story about a narrowly avoided catastrophic military disaster. It is the chronology that is pure genius, although we should be accustomed to that with Christopher Nolan's work - and the music & sound design is awesome; barrages of deafening gunfire and plane fly-overs are followed almost immediately by near-silent expanses of hopelessness. Has to be seen in IMAX to be fully appreciated. Expand
24 of 52 users found this helpful2428
All this user's reviews
5
numcrun2Jul 21, 2017
Don't believe the hype. I saw it in Imax and a lot of the dialogue was indecipherable (Rex Reed makes the same point). There is surprisingly little dialogue and a lot of unnecessary time shifting. There are some decent action scenes sure, butDon't believe the hype. I saw it in Imax and a lot of the dialogue was indecipherable (Rex Reed makes the same point). There is surprisingly little dialogue and a lot of unnecessary time shifting. There are some decent action scenes sure, but the plot is a bit thin (yes I know it's a true story) and it's just OK overall. Rex Reed's review very closely matched my own views. Expand
22 of 52 users found this helpful2230
All this user's reviews
0
Vl_czJul 21, 2017
This is a film about Nolan, but not about war. Operator work and sound are very good, but the story is very boring, and the characters are not interesting.
Dunkirk is the worst film of Nolan. Better once again review the "Saving Private Ryan"
35 of 85 users found this helpful3550
All this user's reviews
10
zlatanmazuidiJul 21, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. it is the best movie of this sdecade and to the comment of numcrun 2 , rex reed is only jealous, nothing else, you know if you are so intelligent, then you have to be a director, ( and i suppose, that your movie would have a a rating of 10(metacritic-critics rating) and would have no content contrary to this movie, which is the next Platoon, Apocalpyse Now, Full metal jacket of our generation. If you would have read Joseph Conrad's book, you would no longer write such comments(as also the other jealous guys here). Expand
18 of 45 users found this helpful1827
All this user's reviews
5
mahcussmahtJul 21, 2017
Like if the history channel had an unlimited budget to make a historical recreation. There are no characters - the people are just scenery. There's not much story or plot. It's epic and beautifully shot, but I genuinely feel it's beingLike if the history channel had an unlimited budget to make a historical recreation. There are no characters - the people are just scenery. There's not much story or plot. It's epic and beautifully shot, but I genuinely feel it's being overrated. As a film, it's sort of dull. As a historical recreation, it's solid. Expand
18 of 46 users found this helpful1828
All this user's reviews
2
zachlenDec 26, 2017
How is it possible for critics to sit through a film and not question what they are seeing that makes zero sense. Wearing a life jacket in water will keep one from sinking. Not according to Christopher Nolan . We see ,as did critics ,hundredsHow is it possible for critics to sit through a film and not question what they are seeing that makes zero sense. Wearing a life jacket in water will keep one from sinking. Not according to Christopher Nolan . We see ,as did critics ,hundreds of soldiers under water wearing life vests. That in of its self is an impossibility. There were also scenes that went fron day to night,back to day. This happened more times to count.Why do people feel the need to agree with todays critics instead of THINKING for themselves. Expand
9 of 9 users found this helpful90
All this user's reviews
2
AidinKianyMar 11, 2018
so boring.no story. no character. if it was for another director i vote 6 but for nolan it was awful. mr nolan, i suggest you to watch your previous movies again so you understand why this one disappoints us.
differences always cant be good.
so boring.no story. no character. if it was for another director i vote 6 but for nolan it was awful. mr nolan, i suggest you to watch your previous movies again so you understand why this one disappoints us.
differences always cant be good.
at least not in this one.
Expand
8 of 8 users found this helpful80
All this user's reviews
2
s053714Jan 27, 2018
I can't understand why so many people liked this movie. While the production values were good, they seemed to have forgotten things like a plot and character development, and maybe a little enlightening dialog. It was very uninvolving andI can't understand why so many people liked this movie. While the production values were good, they seemed to have forgotten things like a plot and character development, and maybe a little enlightening dialog. It was very uninvolving and ultimately quite dull. Expand
7 of 7 users found this helpful70
All this user's reviews
5
SikkoDec 18, 2017
Do not buy into the critical hype. This is an ordinary war film at best.

Pro: The sense of desolation on the beach is decently represented. Con: The scale of the evacuation never hit home, 1000 ships participated, and some 84 allied
Do not buy into the critical hype. This is an ordinary war film at best.

Pro:
The sense of desolation on the beach is decently represented.

Con:
The scale of the evacuation never hit home, 1000 ships participated, and some 84 allied aircraft were lost. I got no sense of scale from the movie, except troops on the beach.
Lack of character depth and development
Poor aircraft CGI (patchy, there are scenes where Hurricanes are shown banking perfectly together, which ripped me out of the immersion)
Strangely, no sense of urgency around anything that happened.
Expand
6 of 6 users found this helpful60
All this user's reviews
3
MaxPayneIsGodFeb 25, 2018
I understand the historical significance of this event, but as a movie? What a snore fest, this is a war movie not an after school special, not a single drop of blood spilled and the disjointed timeline is an overt way of admitting that thereI understand the historical significance of this event, but as a movie? What a snore fest, this is a war movie not an after school special, not a single drop of blood spilled and the disjointed timeline is an overt way of admitting that there is absolutely zero story. Give me Saving Private Ryan any day. Expand
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
1
rlw1955May 15, 2018
Soldiers lined up on a pier waiting to board a ship that’s taking wounded only. Officer states we are like fish in a barrel as you look back down the pier towards the beach as hundreds of non wounded are standing in line. A look on the beachSoldiers lined up on a pier waiting to board a ship that’s taking wounded only. Officer states we are like fish in a barrel as you look back down the pier towards the beach as hundreds of non wounded are standing in line. A look on the beach shows dozens of lines of men standing out in the open all in neat rows waiting on ships that aren’t there. German planes strafing and bombing the beach all the while you have a town right behind with all types of empty buildings where you could be taking shelter and be out of sight. Men taking fire in a beached ship and out of 300,000 men not one group got together to recon for the firing Germans. Not sure if this movie was actually trying to convey how terrible this situation was for the stranded at Dunkirk or to make the British military leadership look like buffoons. This movie was way overhyped. Not the worst movie I have ever watched but it could have been much more than what it was. Expand
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
2
lucasquaresmaJan 6, 2018
Eutinha achado o filme bom quando terminei de assistir, apesar de arrastado no meio. Porém, depois percebi que não gostei: Achei um filme de guerra avulso, pretensioso (escorado total em fotografia e som), emocionalmente vazio (não senti nadaEutinha achado o filme bom quando terminei de assistir, apesar de arrastado no meio. Porém, depois percebi que não gostei: Achei um filme de guerra avulso, pretensioso (escorado total em fotografia e som), emocionalmente vazio (não senti nada pelo soldados). Sinceramente um filme esquecível. Expand
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
0
erikmc12Jun 7, 2018
A theosophical war movie: Nature is a clock... Nolan is god, and the soldiers... his puppets; 'igne natura renovatur integra'... sacrifice is necessary, but peace will come with the new world order...
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
0
ShermaAug 20, 2018
This movie is terrible, totally bloodless, thousands of British and French soldiers on the beach getting bombed and straffed by the Luftwaffe and yet there are no bodies no blood no dismemberment, hardly any bodies on the beach. No germanThis movie is terrible, totally bloodless, thousands of British and French soldiers on the beach getting bombed and straffed by the Luftwaffe and yet there are no bodies no blood no dismemberment, hardly any bodies on the beach. No german soldiers to be seen just an invisible enemy apart from some CGI warplanes. Dunkirk didn't try to depict the true horrors of war. Totally the opposite of Saving private Ryan, Hacksaw ridge etc.
Christopher Nolan wanted a suspense film, and not a war film as such, and yet this is a failure too, as I had no empathy with any of the characters weather they lived or died. Hans Zimmer is a great music composer, however the music was supposed to add some intensity and suspense to the film and yet I just found it annoying as it was constant throughout. The only shock and horror I found regarding this film are the positive reviews. This film is for snowflakes and people who suffer from a very nervous disposition.
Expand
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
3
Slovenly_MuseAug 31, 2018
A film that has nothing to say about the events of Dunkirk, war in general, or the people affected by it. The time-shifting device is needlessly confusing, and serves no narrative purpose but to give you something to think about, since theA film that has nothing to say about the events of Dunkirk, war in general, or the people affected by it. The time-shifting device is needlessly confusing, and serves no narrative purpose but to give you something to think about, since the story and characters won't. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
5
WorldofLuckyFeb 3, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overhyped, and ultimately a disappointment.

It is great to see a World War II movie come out this year. It is even better that it isn't American centric. I love my country, but we have made it this idea we won World War II by ourselves which isn't the case.

The movie has some pretty spots, taking the story of three groups that intertwine. The first group about British Spitfires (fighter planes) trying to give some cover, and engaging with German air force. Resulting in Tom Hardy having the only interesting action in the movie.

The second story about a small civilian ship as part of the armada of civilians coming to rescue the trapped soldiers and the story that unfolds when they pick up a soldier from a sunk ship.

Finally the third story is about two soldiers trying to survive on the beach, and wait for the rescue coming from the civilian ships.

It was interesting that all three stories occurred over different period of time but ended together. The fighters story was within an hour, the ship within a few hours, and the soldiers within a couple of days. I think this could work in other movies, and I suspect this will spark a lot of copycats for that style. We will hate this just as much as other niche storytelling styles within a few years.

The problem is there is actually very little story. It is hard to see that because the story keeps jumping around, but when you step back the story itself lacks anything. I have seen documentaries on Dunkirk that had more story. I don't know if there was never a full story, or if maybe the story got lost when Nolan was trying to break it up to fight the weird timing, but either way it is pretty barren.

I cared nothing about the soldiers at all, Nolan provided nothing for the audience to care about. Tom Hardy was interesting, but that was because of him, not because the story gave him anything. The only story I felt a little compelling was about the civilian ship, its crew of two teens and an older man and how they handle picking up a survivor. Even this story though was lacking on details and when you step back you wonder where the other half of the story went.

I will admit the possibility that the hype was so big that my expectations may be too high. I was told huge action sequences, and I didn't see that. This isn't Saving Private Ryan, or The Battle of Britain even. It was fairly boring for me, and I can really like slow movies. The movie has a short run time, but I was still looking at the clock before it was over.

The good: It is an interesting way to tell a story, and it is nice to see a non-American based World War II movie.

The bad: The pacing was slow, very little action or story, and very overhyped.

This is a movie I would recommend if you are a die hard World War II fan, but even then wait until it hits Netflix.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
TB1284fbFeb 4, 2018
Although the picture of the movie was phenomenal, the movie wasn't phenomenal. I thought it was good but didn't live up to the hype that everyone was saying. I didn't think the characters were really developed like they should have. They wereAlthough the picture of the movie was phenomenal, the movie wasn't phenomenal. I thought it was good but didn't live up to the hype that everyone was saying. I didn't think the characters were really developed like they should have. They were really just jumping from scene to scene on different events going on and didn't seem like the movie was really going anywhere. The acting was pretty good for the most part but the dialogue was the issue. Certain times in the movie there would be scenes where it had you on the edge of your seat so it was exciting in some parts. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
HotelCentralFeb 7, 2018
What a shame that filmmakers of a former age wasted time and effort inventing characters and composing dialog and developing stories, when all they really had to do is patch together a few action scenes, instruct their thespians to ad lib aWhat a shame that filmmakers of a former age wasted time and effort inventing characters and composing dialog and developing stories, when all they really had to do is patch together a few action scenes, instruct their thespians to ad lib a few grunts or shouts, and call it a movie!

I mean, really, there is no story here. It's a series of anecdotes. It's a Studs Terkel oral history with newsreel footage substituted for words.

Watch this if you must. Myself, I'll re-watch a film with characters and story, such as Mrs. Miniver (1942).
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
JabboMar 7, 2018
I knew the basic story of Dunkirk, and was very excited to see a movie that expanded and detailed what happened at that historic event. I was severely disappointed that none of this occurred. The plot was bare bones, the character developmentI knew the basic story of Dunkirk, and was very excited to see a movie that expanded and detailed what happened at that historic event. I was severely disappointed that none of this occurred. The plot was bare bones, the character development non-existant, and in spite of the exemplary production values, it was a total letdown. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
3
Astor_May 25, 2018
I have never been a fan of war films. If the plot is good enough, I would still give it a go. This film took itself too seriously. It feels like a historical book. No notable interesting characters. I could not get into this. Sorry.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
CharlibabesAug 18, 2018
Utterly disappointing and totally bewildered at the reviews - clearly made for, and watched by, the snowflake generation who have no historical knowledge! Shameful lack of historical context, where were the stories of the many many civiliansUtterly disappointing and totally bewildered at the reviews - clearly made for, and watched by, the snowflake generation who have no historical knowledge! Shameful lack of historical context, where were the stories of the many many civilians who answered the call and rescued the hundreds of thousands of soldiers? Come to that where were the hundreds of thousands of soldiers? Where were the boats so laden there was no room to squeeze another man on? Where were the boats, the thousands of aircraft?

Underwhelmed, even angered, goodness on only knows what still living survivors thought!
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
AxelskullDec 4, 2018
I wouldn't really call this a film but I'd say it was an interesting experience. The story follows a few characters that are completely forgettable and they each have their own little storylines that are also forgettable. I watched this inI wouldn't really call this a film but I'd say it was an interesting experience. The story follows a few characters that are completely forgettable and they each have their own little storylines that are also forgettable. I watched this in IMAX and the sound and photography were great and very immersive. For the first 20 minutes. Then the gunshots and noise just hurt your ears. I'd say unless you're watching it in imax don't bother with it. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
MacsMusicDec 29, 2017
I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't love Dunkirk. It feels very slow and long, with long intervals with no dialogue. When people did speak, it was sometimes hard to understand what they were saying. The movie has long, anti-climatic dogI'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't love Dunkirk. It feels very slow and long, with long intervals with no dialogue. When people did speak, it was sometimes hard to understand what they were saying. The movie has long, anti-climatic dog fights that feel really boring. It has several long intervals where nothing happens. The music is really good, but often is more intense than the scene the music is playing in. All in all, not as good as people make it sound. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
erom1943Jan 5, 2018
I was very disappointed in this movie, primarily due to the rave reviews and hype. I expected a much more entertaining experience. Instead, I got more of a docudrama, showing the politics and horrors of war. It was, however, enlighteningI was very disappointed in this movie, primarily due to the rave reviews and hype. I expected a much more entertaining experience. Instead, I got more of a docudrama, showing the politics and horrors of war. It was, however, enlightening as to what went on at Dunkirk, which many Americans are unaware.
The director constantly used time changes which confused the viewer throughout, Not until I was more than half way through did I start realizing what he was doing. Characters were not well developed, and there was little plot, other than reenactment of actions during that battle, and the horrors the soldiers endured. I came away knowing more about what happened at Dunkirk, but felt depressed and unentertained. “Saving Private Ryan” it is not.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
luke100Jan 9, 2018
Visually masterful and with complex storytelling, this movie ended up being somewhat boring due to my complete lack of attachment and emotional response to almost any character or scene. It may be perfectly crafted, but it's also not thatVisually masterful and with complex storytelling, this movie ended up being somewhat boring due to my complete lack of attachment and emotional response to almost any character or scene. It may be perfectly crafted, but it's also not that interesting outside of that. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
SrPepeFeb 15, 2018
Mal filmada con personajes vacíos y partes muy aburridas. Tiene una excelente banda sonora y grandes efectos de sonidos, pero carece de la mística cinematográfica que atrapa al espectador y lo introduce en la historia.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
BladeLover2049Aug 17, 2018
When the cinema wants to explore the human soul and reality, it usually searches the characters to find them through our search of them. But in an unreal movie where the characters are simple figures of wax is very impossible. In the warWhen the cinema wants to explore the human soul and reality, it usually searches the characters to find them through our search of them. But in an unreal movie where the characters are simple figures of wax is very impossible. In the war where the deepest emotions of the human being are shown there is nothing in this case. And the narrative form is a simple complacent work in which the meaning of the ending gives nothing substantial. A movie about cowards. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
msg78Sep 15, 2018
Absolute rubbish. It's so boring I almost fell asleep but the worst thing of all is the constant background music. It never stops and once you notice it's there it's all you can think about.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
abm0Dec 9, 2018
Not much happens here. Very slow movie with very little to say. Its most prominent feature is the overly dramatic and ominous music that stands out in the excessive slow scenes with not much happening except soldiers shuffling about. StartedNot much happens here. Very slow movie with very little to say. Its most prominent feature is the overly dramatic and ominous music that stands out in the excessive slow scenes with not much happening except soldiers shuffling about. Started skipping ahead after 30 minutes out of impatience. I thought this was at least a shocking reminder of the horrors of war but it fails to be even that. It's just bland and half-empty and mostly pointless. Same content could have easily been presented in a 1-hour cut, and it'd have been be easier to watch - less of a waste of time.

Also, it joins the likes of Transformers 2 and Snowpiercer etc. in being the victim of a certain psychopathology going around in Hollywood that makes their editors impoverish the colors of the movie and make them all revolve around Teal and Orange (many things that should be grey are actually greenish/teal, even white shirts have a teal hue to them; anything wooden or warm-color textile will be a shade of orange; hardly any blue or magenta or true red or true yellow to be found anywhere). I thought the Teal and Orange insanity might be dying out, but it seems not - Hollywood is still holding on to this idiocy.

I watched this on HBO, so I had complete control over the sound volume the whole time. I guess that nullified the most impressive part of the movie: the unnecessarily loud soundtrack (to where even some veterans commented that the movie might have been louder than the actual war). But the Industry can pat itself on the back, I guess: once again it has fabricated another "blockbuster" for itself, complete with paid-for favorable reviews and awards.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
jordynSep 6, 2017
I'll be totally honest. I don't understand any of the hype for this movie. Is it just because it's Christopher Nolan? Because that's the only reason I went and saw it, and I was unimpressed. The plot was simultaneously boring and confusingI'll be totally honest. I don't understand any of the hype for this movie. Is it just because it's Christopher Nolan? Because that's the only reason I went and saw it, and I was unimpressed. The plot was simultaneously boring and confusing and none of the characters had any depth. Most of them didn't even have names. I honestly don't know why I was supposed to care about anything that was happening onscreen. Like, I didn't enjoy watching people die - I'm not a monster. But it's hard to understand why this story was told. It was just a story of how sad war is, and even then, it didn't even do a great job of telling that. There's a million war movies more compelling and meaningful than this "artsy" **** Just cause it's sad doesn't make it a good story. Expand
7 of 8 users found this helpful71
All this user's reviews
1
tosideDec 5, 2017
minute 1 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
minute 45 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
minute 90 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
7 of 8 users found this helpful71
All this user's reviews
1
thovarainDec 19, 2017
If you didn't know the story of Dunkirk and missed the few explanatory lines at the beginning, you wouldn't know any more after watching this mess. Weak script, flat characters, too much filler (overlong dogfight, umpteen shots of sailorsIf you didn't know the story of Dunkirk and missed the few explanatory lines at the beginning, you wouldn't know any more after watching this mess. Weak script, flat characters, too much filler (overlong dogfight, umpteen shots of sailors abandoning ship). Nearly 40,000 soldiers died there but the 2 deaths of any import in the film are completely pointless. I'm sure it had a huge budget but you'd never know it. Expand
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
3
PhrogressDec 12, 2017
Completamente una película ridícula, esperaba muchísimo del tan estimado Nolan, la historia es demasiado confusa y no deja muy en claro de que se trata todo ese cuento de más de 2 horas. Una completa decepción.
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
5
SavageYetiJan 13, 2018
one of the most boring war movies or movies in general that i have ever seen, i was so let down by this movie. it is by far one of if not the most overrated movie of the year. if you want a great war movie go watch fury because it blows thisone of the most boring war movies or movies in general that i have ever seen, i was so let down by this movie. it is by far one of if not the most overrated movie of the year. if you want a great war movie go watch fury because it blows this one out of the water. Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
0
eeyoreDec 6, 2017
BORING. AS. HELL. The most overrated war movie of all time. I wouldn't be able to sit thru it once again even in five years from now. I don't get the insane hype.
7 of 9 users found this helpful72
All this user's reviews
3
sandbornAug 15, 2017
This is a masterpiece? Although the movie looks great, everything else just falls apart. I found the subplot with Rylance and Murphy to be bizarre, and does nothing for the movie. The soldiers are mostly faceless and devoid of any characterThis is a masterpiece? Although the movie looks great, everything else just falls apart. I found the subplot with Rylance and Murphy to be bizarre, and does nothing for the movie. The soldiers are mostly faceless and devoid of any character or humanity. I would like to compare this movie with 'Saving Private Ryan', but there is no comparison. 'SPR' is engaging from start to finish but this movie doesn't grab the audience at all! Expand
10 of 13 users found this helpful103
All this user's reviews
0
xlt3000Dec 6, 2017
Fails utterly as a war and history film. Decent as thriller.
Very surprising how metacritic users give this film such high praise.
Dunkirk is essentially Nolan's excuse to make another one of his thriller, the WW2 setting is just accessory.
Fails utterly as a war and history film. Decent as thriller.
Very surprising how metacritic users give this film such high praise.

Dunkirk is essentially Nolan's excuse to make another one of his thriller, the WW2 setting is just accessory. As a thriller, it delivers. Coupled with the stressful (but repetitive, one of his weakest) score from Hans Zimmer, the film always keeps the viewer under suspense.

However, in all other regards, the film is an abject failure. As a historical WW2 film, it fails because it is not realistic. Every shot is obviously filmed in stylistic ways to deliver suspense, but not realism. It is opera, almost. You do not see the Germans (even less than in a Spielberg film), you do not see real combat. You see bullets coming from nowhere and killing people. You see and hear bombs falling. But you dont see the enemy.

On a historical realism level, it is also completely out of place. Dunkirk is a ghost city, not a city full of scared French civilians. Again, the German Army (at least Recon troops) is nowhere to be seen. I did not even feel the scale of such a magnificient evacuation. I did not feel like 300,000+ people were just evacuated from that city. I felt like a couple line of people on board some destroyers, were saved. Not to mention the film itself is chock full of historical myths and inaccuracies, which I would have expected such a great director as Nolan to not make. The biggest myth being that the 300,000+ people were saved by the "small boats", when in fact most of them (at least 1/3rd French, which you also do not see in the film) were evacuated on board large ships (as historical footage on youtube shows). To summarize, the entire film takes the script from the most ridiculous British ego-stoking mythical writing of this battle. "300,000 men on that beach, thousands of little boats, in an élan of British National pride, came to save the soldiers, etc". Instead of what should have been a gritty battle in the streets, mass of people on destroyers, etc.

Finally, my biggest gripe, above and beyond the repetitiveness of the film and historical inaccuracy, is the laughable PG rating. The rating turns whats supposed to be a gut-wrenching war film, where I expect flak-decapitated soldiers, Stuka bombs disembowelling people, dead bodies rotting on the beach, etc...Into a completely colourless film. The entire film is strangely grey and dark, and when a bomb falls or shot is fired, bodies fly in the air (completely intact) without even a drop of blood on their face.

All in all, this film is a pretty thriller, not the realistic war film I expected Master Nolan to produce. And its a shame because the Battle of France (and generally the Western Front before the Americans came into the war late in 1944), is a very unexplored setting that merits much better.

Nolan, you disappoint me.
Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
6
wesker2012Mar 20, 2018
Another over-rated movie. Not enough characterization to be engaging. Didn't feel connected enough to the characters to feel their plight. Another case of beautiful cinematography and visuals, but hugely lacking in characters, emotion, andAnother over-rated movie. Not enough characterization to be engaging. Didn't feel connected enough to the characters to feel their plight. Another case of beautiful cinematography and visuals, but hugely lacking in characters, emotion, and drama. Felt more like a Hollywood depiction of something you'd see on the History Channel. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
0
xrararaMay 5, 2018
Movie was horrible. Obnoxiously loud and incredibly boring. The worst movie I have ever seen, even more disappointing because I love the Dark Knight.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
6
senorcampbellJul 30, 2017
Didn't feel that there was any emotional weight and scale to this major WW2 event. For example when the soldier boy died the father didn't show any emotion and I never care at all about the boy. The characters or soldiers, since I don'tDidn't feel that there was any emotional weight and scale to this major WW2 event. For example when the soldier boy died the father didn't show any emotion and I never care at all about the boy. The characters or soldiers, since I don't remember anything about them, were never given enough time throughout the movie to make us care about them. I also think that there was never time throughout the movie to let us breath for a minute with all the tension and action that's happening because with all of whats going on the beach there was never a time where we never got a scene to where there was character development. However there was some good things about the movie. The movie is gorgeous to look at. The action is good and Nolan does do a good job of making you feel that your right on the beach but in my opinion its not enough to make it a great movie. If I don't care about the characters then why should I feel anything when they are finally home. Apparently according to rotten tomatoes and metacritic I was suppose to really like this movie, but for a story this big of a scale there must be some emotional weight to it in order to make it huge and epic. Overall, Dunkirk was kind of a disappointment and coming from Christopher Nolan I'm a little shock. 6/10 Expand
12 of 17 users found this helpful125
All this user's reviews
5
BratJul 31, 2017
I'm sorry it's not getting to me. The music is the strongest part, the visuals are... fine, but still it's a movie about nothing. Don't get me wrong, it is a very well known historical event, but do not expect a Serving Private Ryan or BlackI'm sorry it's not getting to me. The music is the strongest part, the visuals are... fine, but still it's a movie about nothing. Don't get me wrong, it is a very well known historical event, but do not expect a Serving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down kind of thing. It's a slow unfolding of interlacing plots, leading to not so well executed and a little trivial ending. Still only worth to see in IMAX. Oh, and a very loud movie. Read about it before you go to see it. Expand
10 of 15 users found this helpful105
All this user's reviews
0
raporgiJul 16, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. its like phuuking a hot chick only to find out its a frickin blow-up doll. Nice visuals but its too immaculate and sterile. you arent invested in the characters and by the movie's end you just dont give phuuck.Zimmer scores this like something was gonna happen but no. The Blitzkrieg was not shown so people with no familiarity with history have zero context to what was happening. Tom Hardy wears a Bane mask and has a weird accent again. This is the cinematic equivalent of constipation with no relief in sight. Expand
6 of 9 users found this helpful63
All this user's reviews
6
TheWaffleAug 5, 2017
A decent, middle-of-the-road war movie. The evacuation at Dunkirk was one of the most harrowing, nail-biting moment of World War 2, and this film somehow manages to drain all the narrative out of it. The action is great, and there's plenty ofA decent, middle-of-the-road war movie. The evacuation at Dunkirk was one of the most harrowing, nail-biting moment of World War 2, and this film somehow manages to drain all the narrative out of it. The action is great, and there's plenty of tension. But the film is pretty scattershot, jumping around in time and locations with no real narrative arc driving it. It felt like watching three separate movies about the same event, all directed by the History Channel. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
8
DefinitelyMaybAug 18, 2017
Great survival (war) film with amazing cinematography. There is no denying how tense the film is and the amount of practical effects that went with it. However, I dont think this is Nolan's best work nor ranks as one of the best war films. IGreat survival (war) film with amazing cinematography. There is no denying how tense the film is and the amount of practical effects that went with it. However, I dont think this is Nolan's best work nor ranks as one of the best war films. I agree with most people that the story is rather bland and doesn't quite work because the scale is shrunk to a minature size. What most people seem to overlook is that the evacuation occurred over 5 days, with most soldiers saved actually by the actualy navy, but the creative choice in this film does not seem to capture this enough, instead spends more time on characters that at the end serve really little and I dont think you will necessarily get much following them at all - I rather Nolan just spent the entire film looking at different people in the process. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
syhpayDec 16, 2017
I am not fan of Nolan, i haven't ever seen something exept Interstellar, but this movie made me think, that he is genious. But after Dunkerk i was disappointed, why is this movie was so BORED, i almost fell asleep. The idea is cool,I am not fan of Nolan, i haven't ever seen something exept Interstellar, but this movie made me think, that he is genious. But after Dunkerk i was disappointed, why is this movie was so BORED, i almost fell asleep. The idea is cool, realisation is too bad, it's second time i regret spending money. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
shoulderoforionJan 23, 2018
Sorry, but Dunkirk wasn't all that great. To take one of the most heroic naval rescues in human history & to make it as boring as Nolan did should be a criminal. This was 2 hrs of a movie waiting to happen, but never did. Protip : get anSorry, but Dunkirk wasn't all that great. To take one of the most heroic naval rescues in human history & to make it as boring as Nolan did should be a criminal. This was 2 hrs of a movie waiting to happen, but never did. Protip : get an empty beach, shoot a movie on it, profit, i guess. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
8
isjoaoJan 23, 2018
I have no comments to make about this movie, I just want to use the 75 character minimum limit for reviews.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
DrchoreOct 10, 2018
Dunkirk is a good movie which produced by the top notches.
But it uses the cheapest trick to raise heartbeat, increase the feeling of suspension and tension in its audience; it is nothing but using a repetitive pulsive sound which is a lot
Dunkirk is a good movie which produced by the top notches.
But it uses the cheapest trick to raise heartbeat, increase the feeling of suspension and tension in its audience; it is nothing but using a repetitive pulsive sound which is a lot like heartbeats. It runs through the whole movie long without any stop except when it turns to a clock ticking sound on some occasions or stops for some seconds in the train cabin to make you feel it's safe now.
After the movie, you might feel exhausted or hyped and I think that's why.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
RelaxedmikeAug 1, 2017
Critics gave this movie a 10. I don't see how. It was quite slow in parts as I almost fell to sleep. I'm giving it a 6. Ok 7 at best and thats stretching it!
8 of 13 users found this helpful85
All this user's reviews
0
AesopfussygitJul 31, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Millions of dollars spent on a movie that can't even get the train right ... They were carriages that never saw service until at least 40 years after the event. A spitfire with endless bullets and able to cruise without an engine for mile after mile after mile, then turn around and come back again only to land on an empty beach ... with that amount of glide available, he could have turned left and gone home for tea. And where were all the thousands of troops, four hundred thousand was mentioned in the movie, about the only part in the entire thing that they got right! So where were they? What was all the money spent on? The container depot behind the beach maybe? Where was the dialogue? A boy, someones son, his other sons brother get killed by a British soldier, trying to get away from Dunkirk ... The brother says 'Oh, ok."
The sound left a lot to be desired as well. But the thing that really bugged me, was that the buildings behind the beach were all modern! A lot of money wasted as far as I can see.
Expand
14 of 23 users found this helpful149
All this user's reviews
2
GarrAug 3, 2017
Dunkirk, more like Dung-Crap! This movie looked and sounded great in I-Max. That's the end of the good. Now to the bad. This movie had no characters. I felt zero emotional connection to anyone in this movie. I didn't care if anyone lived orDunkirk, more like Dung-Crap! This movie looked and sounded great in I-Max. That's the end of the good. Now to the bad. This movie had no characters. I felt zero emotional connection to anyone in this movie. I didn't care if anyone lived or died. Mark Rylance's character was the only one who was halfway interesting. He was the only character who had a decent amount of dialogue in the film, who had a clear goal, and who made decisions. The other character that had more than 5 lines in the picture was Kenneth Branagh's. He was utterly pointless. It seemed like he was watching the movie, and his purpose was just to say a cheesy lines about "Home" every once in a while. Tom Hardy's character was boring, repetitive, and predictable. This movie is so messed up, it is really hard to decide who the main character is, but if I had to decide, it'd be the guy we see 1st. He is very forgettable. He looks and acts almost identical to almost everyone in the whole movie. He meets a friend while he is taking a dump. No joke. He stops and helps his new friend bury a body. And he doesn't poop the whole movie. Him and his new friend just try to escape the whole movie. That leads me to my second point: there is no plot. It's just a bunch of explosions. There's more plot in a Transformers movie. 'Poop guy' and 'bury dead body guy' just go from ship to ship trying to live. By the way, the movie is almost over before 'bury dead body guy' says anything. So these guys try to live, Kenneth Branagh stands on a dock and says things that don't matter, Mark Rylance picks up survivors in his boat, and Tom Hardy shoots other planes, while in his plane, over and over and over again, while not being seen or heard. And that's your movie. I kept waiting for the opening action sequence to be over. I kept waiting for it to slow down a little and have some exposition, but it never did. It was like I missed the beginning and just tuned into the climax of a long, humorless, silent picture. That's not to say that a movie can't be action packed and be great. U-571 is an example of a nearly non-stop, action packed, WWII movie, thrill ride. U-571 managed to have memorable and distinct characters with different purposes. U-571 had a plot with a clear goal and twists and turns. If Dunkirk could've just cut out some of the unnecessary bits, like Kenneth Branagh, and had the 1st half hour be set up and character development, then it could've been really good. But as it was, I didn't care about any of it. I kept watching English soldiers die and thinking, "I don't care. This movie didn't make me care." As simple as the plot for Dunkirk was, the movie was really confusing. You'd think if you're going for an exciting, action thriller, that a simple linear plot would suffice. This movie jumps all over the timeline without giving any hint that it just made a jump in time. Christopher Nolan does a great job of jumping all over the timeline in his movie Memento. In Memento, he manages to keep things coherent and engaging. Not so here. This is just disappointing. The time jumping is completely unnecessary here. What little dialogue there is in this film is really hard to hear because of thick accents, loud explosions, masks over faces, and the music being really loud in the mix. With a really simple plot that is really hard to follow and characters with zero development or even distinguishing traits, I found myself in a really big struggle to care about what I was watching, even with incredible imagery and sound design. Yet, the whole time, the movie was telling me what I was watching was really exciting with it's music score. And that leads me to my last point: I hated the music. It pains me to say that because I usually love Hans Zimmer, especially under the direction of Christopher Nolan. There is virtually no melody in this score. It's relentless and annoying. I guess I can't blame Zimmer, considering he was just scoring to picture. Imagine watching The Dark Knight, but during the entire movie all you heard was The Joker's theme, non-stop. That's what it's like. The whole soundtrack may as well just be an air raid siren. And it's not just the music. The sound effects, as incredible as they were, were also loud, annoying, and relentless. At times, I found myself covering my ears. I thought, "Why am I paying money to cover my ears? What I'm covering my ears to is what I paid for." You know what movie is better than this: all the movies I have seen this year. Valerian and The Mummy were even better. They were at least fun. The best movie I've seen this Summer is War for the Planet of the Apes, but you really need to see all the Apes pictures to get the full enjoyment out of that one. The next best is Spider-Man: Homecoming, but maybe you're not up to date with the Marvel movies. In that case, see Wonder Woman. You don't need to see the other DC movies to enjoy that one. But what ever you do, don't see Dunkirk. I beg of you not to give that garbage your support. Expand
14 of 23 users found this helpful149
All this user's reviews
1
subseqAug 1, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. There is a phenomenon in filmmaking these days I like to call the "Gravity" effect, named after the ridiculous Sandra Bullock film in which a truckload of spiffy CGI and cinematography was wrapped around a nifty space premise producing a preposterous and scientifically implausible bore. It seems to have taken over Hollywood, and "Dunkirk" is its latest manifestation. As a history teacher very familiar with the Dunkirk story, I was eager to see the intense drama exhibited on the big screen, and superlative reviews from everyone assured me it had to be good. Nope - it was just like "Gravity". There was no story, it was merely one perilous situation after the other. Over and over and over again, people I could not care less about were in danger. In "Gravity" it was Sandra Bullock in space, here it was British troops in the waters off the coast of France. Over and over and over - interminable anguish splashed in our faces. While Christopher Nolan's technical work with the CGI and film editing was terrific, I can't believe he didn't just sit back and say, "With all this filmmaking technology at our fingertips why have a engaging story with flowing plot lines and defined characters? Let's just pound them with the horrors of war and make it so the viewer can FEEL IT." (Needless to say do not see this film if you are aquaphobic.) There were also the extraordinarily annoying scenes like those when the car doesn't start and you need to drive off to avoid something very bad - in this movie it was the gun that malfunctions or the hatch on the plane won't open as it sinks into the sea. Please. Then there is the completely unnecessary tussle on a small pleasure yacht that results in the death of a sympathetic character - oh my. Sorry but I'm sick of directors taking my feelings and ruthlessly yanking them for the purpose of trying to tell us what a grand filmmaker they are. At least Nolan didn't move the camera all around making the scenes artificially jagged and distorted - thank you! Still, after the 57th time we had to tortuously endure wondering whether or not people were going to die horrific deaths - this one having to do with men in the water trying not to let the surface flames reach their oil-soaked bodies - I was done. I left. So yeah, count this one among "My Blue Heaven" and "Grease" as one of those terrible films that I actually walked out on. Expand
12 of 20 users found this helpful128
All this user's reviews
6
rbbJul 28, 2017
Seems like the professional reviewers are too young or don't know history. The film shows only chaos during most days and real rescue only at the very end. In fact, 8,000 to 45,000 were picked-up each of the nine days of the operation. AndSeems like the professional reviewers are too young or don't know history. The film shows only chaos during most days and real rescue only at the very end. In fact, 8,000 to 45,000 were picked-up each of the nine days of the operation. And the film drags out each mini-story to interminable lengths. Operation Dymnamo was a frightening but unexpected success. Many were lost but most were saved. Expand
9 of 15 users found this helpful96
All this user's reviews
1
GleefulnessJul 30, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Terrible script, unsympathetic characters, confusing plot sequences and corny story lines. Silliest bit is when soldiers try to stop their boat sinking by covering up the bullet holes with their hands; they only abandon ship when the hull is completely inundated with water. This is just completely ridiculous. Everything gets blown up around the central characters, who get out of a lot of narrow scrapes in a series of sinking ships (I lost count in the end). They survive intact and unscathed, barring their blackened faces - a bit like Wile E Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons. The flotilla coming to the rescue looked like it was a handful of boats, so one of the most remarkable incidents of the war, the rescue of the British Expeditionary Force from the Nazis, comes across as an anti-climax. Trawler segment with Mark Rylance could have come straight out of the send-up in the recent comedy Their Finest (a much better film). I can only assume that the director has spent so much time making dumb action movies based on comic books he's completely lost his touch when it comes to creating engaging characters and plausible stories. There wasn't much of a script and the little dialogue was hard to make out. No wonder (spoiler alert) nobody spotted the French soldier earlier - as hardly anyone was saying anything! I'm not a scholar but the film seemed to overdo conflict between Brits and French, overlooking the fact that (according to Wikipedia), 139,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. I'd be interested in reading a historian's perspective. Expand
14 of 24 users found this helpful1410
All this user's reviews
7
MixedMessageJul 25, 2017
Unquestionably a very good film and worth seeing, but doesn't live up to the hype. Many people knock the lack of characterization but I had no problem with that, it is plot driven and a conscious statement about the smallness of individualsUnquestionably a very good film and worth seeing, but doesn't live up to the hype. Many people knock the lack of characterization but I had no problem with that, it is plot driven and a conscious statement about the smallness of individuals in a the largest war ever fought. Starts strong with a sense of immersion in the moment but becomes needlessly complex and distant as it goes on. An IMAX war film about 400,000 soldiers trapped by the Nazis is by definition a spectacle, but it never looks like more than a few hundred people are on screen at one time, and the climactic scene has what looks like a few dozen boats. I never thought I would say this, but this movie could have benefited from some gratuitous CGI to give it a feeling of scale. Instead the IMAX screen is filled with mostly empty beach. It feels intense for a handful of people but hardly epic. Spielberg may have had the same number of extras to work with, but he put them all on the screen at the same time and conveyed the immensity of the struggle. In my opinion Spielberg is best as an action cinematographer, he could never have made Memento. But Dunkirk shows Nolan is too cold and abstract to make an epic. Dunkirk was a small film with a lot of empty space on the screen. Patton was 70mm and balanced intense small scenes with battle scenes that used the expanded screen space to purposefully convey the epic scale of war as a human activity. Dunkirk is a smart and meaningful film, but misses the mark at being something greater due to an overly complex structure that adds nothing to the experience and poor use of screen space to depict a genuinely epic event from real life modern history. Expand
11 of 19 users found this helpful118
All this user's reviews
3
RipandreadJul 26, 2017
My suggestion is wait until this movie is on cable TV next year instead of spending good money seeing this movie at the theatre. Trailers always show the best scenes of a movie, and in the case of Dunkirk, the trailer was the best part.
13 of 23 users found this helpful1310
All this user's reviews
3
3ebfan511Jul 23, 2017
Over-rated, and disappointing. The first 15 minutes were decent, and then I was almost falling asleep for the rest of the movie. (I think I did in fact fall asleep it was so boring.) This was advertised as some kind of super exciting warOver-rated, and disappointing. The first 15 minutes were decent, and then I was almost falling asleep for the rest of the movie. (I think I did in fact fall asleep it was so boring.) This was advertised as some kind of super exciting war movie, and saving private ryan is one of my favorite movies ever, and I go and instead I get one of the most boring war movies ever. I don't even mind if there isn't much action, but then at least give me interesting characters and story (like the Thin Red Line, also one of my favorite movies where the characters daydream in the middle of battles for minutes and minutes but you get to actually know the characters and their lives etc....great film.) This film had a lack of compelling action, guys are pretty much just retreating and you see the same few types of shots over and over again for an hour. I saw about 3 planes the entire movie, (the same 3 planes) and the same 100 guys, and thats about it. I did not see a single enemy soldier in the ENTIRE FILM. Almost NO CHARACTER even has DIALOGUE. Almost every character is nameless and faceless, which is fine for the first 15 minutes when they are under direct diress, but at some point people will like, open their mouths and want to know things about each other and character should be revealed. Film had weak action, with guys on boats doing nothing, and then not even any dialogue. and the music itself should have been good if it actually matched the action on screen. It was like hearing the great music from the Dark Knight during a foreboding moment of action when you are expecting a climax....only to see no climax, ever, throughout the entire film, repeat process for 1 hour, and that is "Dunkirk". Horribly over-rated and not a very good war film being over-rated based on the directors past work. I would rate is as one of Nolan's worst films, and the only one that...made me actually fall asleep. Terrible writing, and the music did not match the (lack of) action. Sub-par and a disappointment overall compared to these mindless "great" reviews. It was OK, but that was about it. Expand
14 of 25 users found this helpful1411
All this user's reviews
10
Supahbanana56Nov 27, 2017
This is a great movie, and all its fails make up for its beautiful perspectives. The different people show the different perspective and jobs during the war. Even the actors do a perfect job of portraying the people who they are. However,This is a great movie, and all its fails make up for its beautiful perspectives. The different people show the different perspective and jobs during the war. Even the actors do a perfect job of portraying the people who they are. However, even though it may be confusing at first, Dunkirk really does win one of the best movies this year. Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
6
yosemiteJul 27, 2017
So many qualified critics gave this film a high score that my six (6) is in the minority. It was o.k. but could have been a lot better. The story is worthwhile and the casting seems decent. The photography is at times very good and at otherSo many qualified critics gave this film a high score that my six (6) is in the minority. It was o.k. but could have been a lot better. The story is worthwhile and the casting seems decent. The photography is at times very good and at other times, very confusing. Didn't need all the almost drowning scenes. The style wherein one character's story overlaps another or is shown concurrently did not work for me. Too confusing. The story was dramatic but the movie wasn't. Not impressed with this director Expand
8 of 15 users found this helpful87
All this user's reviews
4
JasonJJul 28, 2017
I don't know what movie everyone else saw... but the only ones I agree with here are the ones giving scores of 2 through 6. I'm a huge war movie fan. This movie had very little action, which isn't a big deal if you had an interesting plotI don't know what movie everyone else saw... but the only ones I agree with here are the ones giving scores of 2 through 6. I'm a huge war movie fan. This movie had very little action, which isn't a big deal if you had an interesting plot with characters you can connect with. I didn't care about any of the characters in this movie. When I saw SPR, I didn't want it to end. When I saw this movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. There was absolutely no connection to the audience. I have no idea what the critics or the 9 and 10 viewers are talking about. Expand
8 of 15 users found this helpful87
All this user's reviews
9
BrianMcCriticJul 21, 2017
Nolan gives us a war film that works not because of characters, but by atmosphere and an incredible sound design. You learn nothing about any of the characters here, but for what Nolan was going for it makes perfect sense. You feel likeNolan gives us a war film that works not because of characters, but by atmosphere and an incredible sound design. You learn nothing about any of the characters here, but for what Nolan was going for it makes perfect sense. You feel like you're there with these men and Hans Zimmer's score is breathtaking. Overall Dunkirk marks a familiar, yet new kind of Nolan film. You see his finger prints all over it especially the finale, but to go with such little dialogue is foreign to him, he still nailed it. A Expand
10 of 19 users found this helpful109
All this user's reviews
10
markydiscoJul 26, 2017
Incredible film!!! I viewed it in IMAX and it took movie watching almost to a whole new level. A roller coaster ride from start to finish, I was mesmerized and choked up all at the same time. Demonstrates the horror of war as well as anyIncredible film!!! I viewed it in IMAX and it took movie watching almost to a whole new level. A roller coaster ride from start to finish, I was mesmerized and choked up all at the same time. Demonstrates the horror of war as well as any other war movie classic by putting you right in the middle of it. I see that some critics/viewers criticize the film for lack of dialog...I just think that makes it more real since everything was all happening so quickly during this event on so many levels that most involved were probably just in a state of shock. Technically everything about this film is amazing and the soundtrack took my breath away. Highly recommend this movie! Expand
11 of 21 users found this helpful1110
All this user's reviews
3
GinaKJul 27, 2017
I am trying to figure out why this movie got such good reviews. It was unrelentingly loud (perhaps partly a problem with the theater we attended) and boring – unless you’ve never seen a war movie before. What annoyed me the most was how allI am trying to figure out why this movie got such good reviews. It was unrelentingly loud (perhaps partly a problem with the theater we attended) and boring – unless you’ve never seen a war movie before. What annoyed me the most was how all the soldiers looked alike, except for the principal “star” cast (Rylance, Branaugh, Hardy, Murphy). I realize this is what happens with CGI – but really did all 300,000 of the British “common” soldiers need to be the same age, have the same hair (longish, black, wavy), the same height, weight, build, etc.)? I have been aware of CGI somewhat in crowd scenes (for example, in Gladiator), but this film was full of unrelenting close-ups of clones. Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance were excellent, but Branaugh and his “stiff upper lip” was one of the most clichéd performances I have ever seen him give. Thank God, Nolan didn’t drag Churchill in. Expand
11 of 21 users found this helpful1110
All this user's reviews
5
philatJul 30, 2017
Why Dunkirk is so highly praised if unclear. Lots of battle scenes, endless air battle [about six planes], ships blown up, guys in the water swimming--really--with their heavy gear. The constant shifting from air/sea/land was confusing. SoWhy Dunkirk is so highly praised if unclear. Lots of battle scenes, endless air battle [about six planes], ships blown up, guys in the water swimming--really--with their heavy gear. The constant shifting from air/sea/land was confusing. So was the time sequence--Spitfire with 50 gallons or less of fuel fights on and on. Movie would have helped early on with an enlarged map of where Dunkirk is, nearness to England, something about how Brits had defensive perimeter that Germans did not attack--and maybe why. Great photography--but essentially disappointing. Only story that seemed connected and moving was the small Brit ship and its part in returning soldiers home.... Expand
11 of 21 users found this helpful1110
All this user's reviews
10
MAFIAxMaverickJul 24, 2017
It's hard to find words for just how amazing Dunkirk is. It's one of my favorite pieces of history adapted into just a phenomenal feature film. The best part about the movie, in my opinion, was the score. Mr. Zimmer you have done it countlessIt's hard to find words for just how amazing Dunkirk is. It's one of my favorite pieces of history adapted into just a phenomenal feature film. The best part about the movie, in my opinion, was the score. Mr. Zimmer you have done it countless times throughout your fabled career, and I think Dunkirk may be your best score yet. The acting was top notch. It was refreshing to see a war film from a very different perspective. This was about about survival and living to fight another day. The different perspectives of our main characters all made me feel like I was right there with them. What amazing film. Oscar for sure. Expand
14 of 27 users found this helpful1413
All this user's reviews
10
timaoJul 21, 2017
Best movie of the year! This suspenseful thriller Dunkirk, will bring some hard ware home, come award season! Best Picture, Score and Director! Thing is, Nolan never ceases to disapoint in his films, and best of all this is an intense historyBest movie of the year! This suspenseful thriller Dunkirk, will bring some hard ware home, come award season! Best Picture, Score and Director! Thing is, Nolan never ceases to disapoint in his films, and best of all this is an intense history lesson! Tom Hardy wears masks so good and the cast were all aces. This movie will have one picking up history books after you leave the theater! Expand
13 of 26 users found this helpful1313
All this user's reviews
10
moviemitch96Jul 22, 2017
Pretty much every film that Christopher Nolan makes is a flat-out masterpiece as far as I'm concerned, and I'm more than happy to say that this film is no different! In fact, I think that this just may be the best war film I've ever seenPretty much every film that Christopher Nolan makes is a flat-out masterpiece as far as I'm concerned, and I'm more than happy to say that this film is no different! In fact, I think that this just may be the best war film I've ever seen (sorry to say it, but step aside 'Saving Private Ryan'). I honestly can't remember another as suspenseful or one that got my heart pounding and gave me goosebumps as much as this one did! From the very opening scene to the film's final moments, it never lets up, giving us an intense and nonstop look at the epic and historical moments and events that unfold throughout the film. The three-way narrative structure (land, sea, and air) is handled seamlessly, and the imagery/cinematography, sound, actors, etc. made this an all-around fantastic and unforgettable experience that fully immersed me in this great and historic moment in history, plain and simple! Overall, not only is this hands down the best film of the summer, but it's well on its way to maintaining its status as my favorite film all year long most likely! Mr. Nolan sir, you never cease to blow me away! Expand
12 of 24 users found this helpful1212
All this user's reviews
10
samb1Jul 23, 2017
Mr. Nolan has shown that details are not always elaboration, sometimes it's just a few strikes from a paintbrush of an artist that explains the whole world.
11 of 22 users found this helpful1111
All this user's reviews
10
corinthiansJul 21, 2017
Dunkirk is many things: it's a technical masterpiece--cinematography, sound, and its clock-ticking score; it's an intense thrill ride that feels like it is never going to stop; it's a brilliant innovation in regards to the way it tells itsDunkirk is many things: it's a technical masterpiece--cinematography, sound, and its clock-ticking score; it's an intense thrill ride that feels like it is never going to stop; it's a brilliant innovation in regards to the way it tells its story; and it's a heart-wrenching journey into the psyches of the countless troops who are trapped in war and just want to go home. Any movie would be considered great if its director did one of these things, and Nolan does them all. It's a film that requires you to think in order that you can feel. Expand
10 of 20 users found this helpful1010
All this user's reviews
10
E-DogJul 21, 2017
Dunkirk is a masterpiece of cinematography, acting, writing, score and editing. This is easily one of Christopher Nolan's greatest films and one of the greatest war films of all time.
10 of 20 users found this helpful1010
All this user's reviews