"Dunkirk" (2017) - Director Christopher Nolan's Historical Drama about the 1940 Dunkirk Evacuation

[DonRocks]

This surely must be the most boring war-action film I've ever seen: I just finished watching it, and remember almost nothing.

I know, I know, I'm "supposed" to like it, but it took all my resolve not to fall asleep.

"'Dunkirk' is a Booming, Bloodless Bore" by Matthew Gault on warisboring.com

Criticize me if you will, but Matthew Gault pretty much says exactly how I feel - at least he remembered George's name; that's more than I can say.

The best description I've read about this tale of the Dunkirk Evacuation - the largest evacuation in human history, at about 330,000 people (that Wikipedia link is well-worth reading) - is that 'it's one hell of a story that deserves a better film.'

[DIShGo]

I was shocked by how boring this film is, given the subject. There is zero character development. I couldn't keep the soldiers straight--it was like watching a Star Trek episode featuring nothing but a bunch of "red shirts." The talents of Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance are wasted. Director Christopher Nolan is talented, and his "Inception" is one of my favorite films, but here he misses the mark completely. 

On a positive note, pop idol Harry Styles can act, and his character Alex gives one of the only speeches in the film that isn't recited in monotone. Sadly, this wasn't enough to redeem this tedious, forgettable film.

Matthew Gault's review sums up my impression perfectly (I'm the one who found it!)

[DonRocks]

15 minutes ago, DIShGo said:

Matthew Gault's review sums up my impression perfectly (I'm the one who found it!)

Click.

[genericeric]

On 1/19/2018 at 11:33 PM, DonRocks said:

This surely must be the most boring war-action film I've ever seen: I just finished watching it, and remember almost nothing.

I know, I know, I'm "supposed" to like it, but it took all my resolve not to fall asleep.

"'Dunkirk' is a Booming, Bloodless Bore" by Matthew Gault on warisboring.com

Criticize me if you will, but Matthew Gault pretty much says exactly how I feel - at least he remembered George's name; that's more than I can say.

The best description I've read about this tale of the Dunkirk Evacuation - the largest evacuation in human history, at about 330,000 people (that Wikipedia link is well-worth reading) - is that 'it's one hell of a story that deserves a better film.'

Completely agree, and I, too, read the wikipedia article.  After wasting a few hours of my life watching the film, I had to google to see what was actually going on.

[dracisk]

Interesting. War films are not generally my bag, but I didn't mind Dunkirk. I saw it in the theater, which may have helped, especially since I rarely get to see movies in theaters these days, so it was a bit of a special treat. I thought the film was very tense; I was stressed out the entire time and not bored. I knew nothing about the actual events upon which the film was based, so the story was fresh to me. I'd probably give it a 7.5 out of 10.

[DIShGo]

15 minutes ago, dracisk said:

Interesting. War films are not generally my bag, but I didn't mind Dunkirk. I saw it in the theater, which may have helped, especially since I rarely get to see movies in theaters these days, so it was a bit of a special treat. I thought the film was very tense; I was stressed out the entire time and not bored. I knew nothing about the actual events upon which the film was based, so the story was fresh to me. I'd probably give it a 7.5 out of 10.

"Dunkirk" was nominated today for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. I can see how it would be impressive to view on the big screen. The other Best Picture nominees I have seen are, "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Mo" and "Get Out." Of those three, "Get Out" gets my vote, with "Three Billboards" second. The picture that received the most nominations today, "The Shape of Water," garnered 13. Has anyone seen it? I hope to see it and "Lady Bird" soon.

[dracisk]

Unlike pretty much everyone I'm aware of, I didn't love "Get Out." I've had trouble articulating why. I should look for critical reviews, if any exist, to see if anyone else has articulated my criticisms for me. That said, I'm glad it was nominated for Oscars.

I've only seen "Dunkirk" and "Get Out." Of those two, I'd choose "Dunkirk" for best picture, for what it's worth when choosing between only two films. I don't know much about a lot of the other nominated films, but I've heard great things about "Lady Bird" and would probably most like to see that of the remaining Best Picture nominees. If not for the Steven Spielberg schlock treatment I've heard about in "The Post" I'd be much more interested in it.

[DonRocks]

4 hours ago, dracisk said:

Unlike pretty much everyone I'm aware of, I didn't love "Get Out." I've had trouble articulating why. I should look for critical reviews, if any exist, to see if anyone else has articulated my criticisms for me. That said, I'm glad it was nominated for Oscars.

Did you like the first half? If so, I'm pretty sure I can articulate your criticisms.

*** "GET OUT" SPOILER ALERT ***

The ending got full-bore weird, and I mean *weird* weird - surrealistic, scientifically impossible (or close enough), and the entire film had an "amateurish" feeling permeating throughout - the second half was "Night Gallery-esque" (or, if you're familiar with it, like the 1995 reboot TV series of "The Outer Limits") - almost as if it was done in a hurry. It went from an interesting character study, to hell-in-a-handbasket, fairly quickly. Close enough?

"Three Billboards" came across as contrived to me (not unlike "Crash"), but never did either of those films feel amateurish.

"Dunkirk," at the other extreme, felt wholly professional - like a finished product.

But to me, "Dunkirk" indeed felt like a *product*; "Get Out" felt like a flawed work from the heart.

[dracisk]

2 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Did you like the first half?

I definitely liked the first half better than the second half, but I didn't love it.

*** "GET OUT" SPOILER ALERT ***

The second half started to feel like the latter part of "Django Unchained," a film I enjoyed overall but also found to be cartoonishly bloody.

[DonRocks]

31 minutes ago, dracisk said:

I definitely liked the first half better than the second half, but I didn't love it.

*** "GET OUT" SPOILER ALERT ***

The second half started to feel like the latter part of "Django Unchained," a film I enjoyed overall but also found to be cartoonishly bloody.

In "Django Unchained," the whole first part (up until the shooting of the Sheriff), was pretty darned good; from there forward, it went downhill. Excellent analogy, btw.