Read Mixed User Reviews for Dunkirk

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

34 of 69 users found this helpful3435

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 64 users found this helpful2638

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 59 users found this helpful2237

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

20 of 55 users found this helpful2035

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 24 users found this helpful1212

All this user's reviews

4

yohoApr 4, 2021

Way over hyped, dunkirk is a slow-paced war movie with very few intense moments. It doesn't worth the time you spend on it and that's the starting point for me for any movie. Many other war films give a better idea of what war world 2 was.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

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 alliedDo 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

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

4

CzaszuJul 28, 2017

Only good, could be a masterpiece. Its incredibly boring, little scale expereience. Air fights was incredible, but again on very little scale. I dont understand that much good opinions. Go watch it and judge yourself.

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

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 22 users found this helpful1012

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 20 users found this helpful911

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 18 users found this helpful810

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 18 users found this helpful810

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 18 users found this helpful810

All this user's reviews

6

Xan_RyilJul 31, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Christopher Nolan’s movies over the year have become a huge craze and have a sincere fan following. With Dunkirk Mr. Nolan has taken a much different work in his resume. I would start with one of the mostly compelling part of his movies.
Background Score
Only work I admire of Hans Zimmer is with Christopher Nolan, Whether it’s TDK or Inception or the best to date Interstellar, Hans has always proven to be diverse and mind bending. But with Dunkirk he has gone way too far. Even from the start score is way too heavy for nerves, movie itself is very short but that intensity and pressure is unnecessary from the scenes which should have been all about sound editing and mixing instead of relying on same technique as Chasing scene from TDK and Docking scene from Interstellar. Hans’ work is good but is not needed at most of the time as it makes it all more artificial rather real.
Memento Mori
We might have missed Chris’ brother Jonathan Nolan, who was absent from writing credits (may be too busy with Westworld) 3rd time since Chris’ breakout film Memento back in 2000. Jonathan was not involved in Insomnia 2003, fan favorite Inception 2010 and now Dunkirk. However he was present in spirit of Memento, a movie which was adapted from his then unpublished short story Memento Mori. Memento was built on a complex web of time lapse and chronology so is Dunkirk. Three different stories of different time period all in 106 minutes and running parallel. To avoid confusion it was displayed at the start how will it be. Although it is beautiful idea, however bringing together three different time periods, by pulling one way too long and shrinking one way too much made it feel uneven and hard to relate to. Movie showed Mole for 7 days and yet not a single night. Mainly because it wanted to focus on its connection to the rest of the two stories.
Chaos without Drama
One thing Christopher Nolan is notorious to create since TDK is the chaos. That’s something movie shines on. Whether it’s the Mole or Air, there is huge fear over the fate of vessel, plane and the lives. Among characters the confusion and fear has played the best, although the lead felt weaker without any outcome and reaction. Drama throughout was cut off, an element which was criticized to cover up the scientific gaps in Interstellar’s plot. At some level it worked as it maintained the tone of the movie but at other side movie was losing its soul over that. Tag line gave it all
Usually it’s the trailer, but here it was the tag line “When 400,000 men couldn't get home, home came for them.” For the people who had no idea of events at Dunkirk, who were only out to see another of Christopher Nolan movie, there was nothing left but Kenneth Branagh’s overly expressed emotions as movie moves into the final segment. Beside the plotline, the fabrication of one day at sailing into one week at mole had also taken most of the suspense away when audience know it from the start that home is on its way. Home being many ships only focused on one. With the movie which propelled ensemble cast, focusing on one ship was narrow for the story. Ship itself was sailed by “Mark Rylance” who was miscast for the role as he could not bring what was required to appear as a man willingly walking into the war without any aid. Good thing is…
Those are too many negative words but there are good things about Dunkirk, which could be the Direction. Even with all the wrong choice Nolan made, still movie keeps audience captive at point. Another quality is by default its length which does not make the viewer suffer through completed of second and sometime third hour which most of the war movies do. Cinematography is very good and so is Sound editing and mixing but unfortunately excessive use of background score has taken over those departments. Over all Dunkirk is a nice job but it does not fill up the hopes one walks into theatre with.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

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 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

6

BHBarryJul 25, 2017

“Dunkirk” is a film written and directed by Christopher Nolan and stars Kenneth Branaugh and Tom Hardy and a cast of thousands, or hundreds, depending on how much you take into account the Computer Generated Imagery's special effects. As most“Dunkirk” is a film written and directed by Christopher Nolan and stars Kenneth Branaugh and Tom Hardy and a cast of thousands, or hundreds, depending on how much you take into account the Computer Generated Imagery's special effects. As most WWII buffs know, and certainly all Britishers, “Dunkirk” is the story of how scores of private British small boat owners traveled across the English Channel to rescue many of the British and French soldiers who were left stranded on this infamous French beach. This is indeed one of the most inspiring stories to come out of the war and yet, to my disappointment, the film manifests no heart or soul. Although there are plenty of dogfights in the air and strafings on the ground, the film dedicates most of its footage to one particular boat owner and three Spitfire pilots with confusing battle scenes filling the rest of the screen. Instead of the epic and awesome story that it attempts to convey, it is grossly lacking in depth and although Mr. Nolan receives a credit as the writer, there are probably more words written in this review than spoken in the entire film. Perhaps, by anticipating that the film would live up to the great story it tries to tell, my unrealized expectations created the letdown I felt after I left the theater. I give this film a 6 and suggest that a better writer and director could have gotten to the truly great story that Mr. Nolan unfortunately left stranded somewhere on the French shore.… Expand

6 of 14 users found this helpful68

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

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

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 7 users found this helpful34

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

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

6

FelipePinillaAug 13, 2017

All the movie I was waiting for something to happen, I was a little desperate about it so I couldn't really enjoy the the good scenes.
A lady was sleeping just next to me. I think that if somebody fall asleep during the movie it can't be a good one

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

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

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

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 26 users found this helpful1115

All this user's reviews

6

Beowulf4862Aug 1, 2017

Well, once again my friends and I have been duped into seeing a film based on its very positive reviews only to discover that the emperor has no clothes. Too loud, too fractured, too cold. Not a rewarding experience. Oh, and forget about theWell, once again my friends and I have been duped into seeing a film based on its very positive reviews only to discover that the emperor has no clothes. Too loud, too fractured, too cold. Not a rewarding experience. Oh, and forget about the heroics of the French, holding off the Germans for days.… Expand

5 of 12 users found this helpful57

All this user's reviews

6

Douglas56Jul 22, 2017

As a war reenactment film, Dunkirk is a cut above the average but, despite some rather obvious attempts to 'dramify' the storyline, Nolan ultimately fails to transcend the limitations imposed by a reenactment. And for all its grittyAs a war reenactment film, Dunkirk is a cut above the average but, despite some rather obvious attempts to 'dramify' the storyline, Nolan ultimately fails to transcend the limitations imposed by a reenactment. And for all its gritty authenticity, the film is weirdly unrealistic in its portrayal of the battlefield, especially in the almost total absence of blood and gore. While it is hard for the film-goer not to be moved by the individual acts of heroism that marked the Dunkirk operation, and impressed by Nolan's visual innovations, this viewer was left feeling manipulated, unconnected with the characters and underwhelmed by the dramatic content.… Expand

6 of 15 users found this helpful69

All this user's reviews

5

XitArSAug 13, 2017

I'm sorry! I really looked forward to this but this was the let down of the year! To begin with, you have no character development at all, all characters are just like ants, meaningless. The scope of the movie is supposed to be about an armyI'm sorry! I really looked forward to this but this was the let down of the year! To begin with, you have no character development at all, all characters are just like ants, meaningless. The scope of the movie is supposed to be about an army of 400 000 men, stranded in a city and how they were rescued. The highest number of men you ever see in one scene is perhaps one thousand, and that's a view of the entire beach. And what are they doing? Just standing in line waiting for boats to arrive. So instead of an epic saga, what you'll get is basically an old fisherman and his kid sailing on the English channel, two fighter pilots flying around in the air and a dozen random soldiers doing nothing. You see three-four airplanes in the air (in total, throughout the entire movie) and you get to see perhaps two destroyers. Other than that there's about one hundred fishing ships. This movie might be worth the watch if you have nothing else to do, but it definitely does not hold up to the hype. It's a mediocre movie at best!… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

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 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

6

EpigenAug 4, 2017

I don't know what to say. Awe-inspiring cinematography and sound effects. That's basically it. No real plot. I get it, it's about survival and coming together. But that's not enough to engage a viewer. I don't think it's a bad movie, but I'mI don't know what to say. Awe-inspiring cinematography and sound effects. That's basically it. No real plot. I get it, it's about survival and coming together. But that's not enough to engage a viewer. I don't think it's a bad movie, but I'm not sure how this movie is so celebrated. It has amazing, amazing cinematography. But a movie is not only made of cinematography. Highly overrated.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

wollam11Aug 19, 2017

Vastly overrated film with dialogue that almost incomprehensible, most being mumbled, and little to no story beyond the basic plot: private yachts and fishing boats save the English infantry. Tye Sheridan is in this but I'm not sure he wasVastly overrated film with dialogue that almost incomprehensible, most being mumbled, and little to no story beyond the basic plot: private yachts and fishing boats save the English infantry. Tye Sheridan is in this but I'm not sure he was playing any character other than 'adventuring boy who tags along'- I knew nothing about him and frankly didn't care what happened to him. Just an incredibly boring movie.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

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 5 users found this helpful23

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 5 users found this helpful23

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 5 users found this helpful23

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 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

6

FilmaticJul 21, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I can't honestly say i see what everyone here is raving about. It's a masterfully shot film, with a story, and progression about as interesting as watching paint dry. the entire movie was a repetitive arc of events. The acting is almost null as there hardly any lines of dialogue. The story telling.... there was honestly no story, it was rather a collage of sequences without beginning or end. A sort of mishmash of unfortunate events that the characters trudge through at brisk pace. No actor stood out, no life stories told, nothing and nobody to care about. The horrors of war weren't even demonstrably shown as it was in PG13 meaning nothing of too much intensity was allowed. I think it rather disappointing that everyone (critics and users alike) reviewing this is putting this film in the same league as higher acclaimed war movies. Somehow nolan even managed to make the dog fights seem rather unimpressive and tepid. I can't say that i felt throughoughly immersed, entertained, or in love with any of the characters enough to give this movie anything close to a solid rating. i rather think it unfortunate that Nolan failed to create some kind of story arc with natural movie mechanics and rather decided to go with this bland hobglob mish-mash of repetitive tepid sequences that one somehow can manage to call a film. One can only dream.
Edit: upon second viewing in imax rather than regular, I can see why people were praising the cinematography and sound so much more than i thought was necessary. both image quality, shots, and sound were top notch. But the sound still managed to deafen and hurt my ears during certain scenes, and take away from the visual side quite a bit. Nonetheless Every scene has a powerful sense of immersion, sincerity in reasoning. This movie is more 'in the action' rather than telling a story, but in that style it quite succeeded. I recommend people who saw it in a regular theater to go see it in 70mm or imax definitely a different experience altogether. I boost my original somewhat reactionary score from 3/10 to 6/10.... I think i overreacted merely because of the pacing, and how little i cared about the cinematography on the regular theater screen.… Expand

13 of 33 users found this helpful1320

All this user's reviews

4

RatedRexJul 24, 2017

"Dunkirk" was a major disappointment, and a monumental missed opportunity. Christopher Nolan cannot seem to make a linear movie. Damned near everything he make switches from one time to another. Why not just make a friggin, straight-forward,"Dunkirk" was a major disappointment, and a monumental missed opportunity. Christopher Nolan cannot seem to make a linear movie. Damned near everything he make switches from one time to another. Why not just make a friggin, straight-forward, movie that tells the true story of Dunkirk. Show me the Germans closing in. Show me the panic and chaos. Show me the death and destruction. Then show me how the RAF and the English people on tugboats traveled to Dunkirk, against all odds, to save their brother, fathers, sons and neighbors from pending doom. Leave out all of the artistic BS, please. And furthermore, I only understood about 30% of the dialog. I can't believe that the critics and many of the Nolan's fanboys raved so uncontrollably about this movie. There were better war scenes in 'Wonder Woman", a comic book movie.… Expand

7 of 18 users found this helpful711

All this user's reviews

6

ilumenJul 25, 2017

It was ok. All the most interesting and powerful scenes of the movie were in the Trailer, along with the great soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.

It's very slow paced, and the characters are pretty bland. As an audience, there's no emotionalIt was ok. All the most interesting and powerful scenes of the movie were in the Trailer, along with the great soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.

It's very slow paced, and the characters are pretty bland. As an audience, there's no emotional investment in any of the events that unfold or the development of the characters.

I don't mind slow paced, but the characters need to be interesting, or the story payoff has to be worth it.

It was nowhere near as good as I was expecting, and is probably the weakest Nolan movie I've seen so far.… Expand

5 of 14 users found this helpful59

All this user's reviews

6

MadMaxFuryRoadJul 21, 2017

Visually, Dunkirk is a masterpiece. Really, Dunkirk is a work of art. It's beautifully directed, insanely loud, and visually stunning. The first five minutes of the opening was one of the best this year. There were a ton of memorable scenes,Visually, Dunkirk is a masterpiece. Really, Dunkirk is a work of art. It's beautifully directed, insanely loud, and visually stunning. The first five minutes of the opening was one of the best this year. There were a ton of memorable scenes, including a beach bombing sequence. However, storywise, the film contains flaws. The plot was pretty thinly written and at times, I felt as if I was just watching battle sequence without much substance (in other words, "a good plot"). Nevertheless, Dunkirk is one of those rare movies that is beautiful to look at and an overall good film to watch, even if the narrative isn't so intriguing.… Expand

7 of 20 users found this helpful713

All this user's reviews

5

jondavisJul 22, 2017

This is war porn. No time is spent on developing the characters. You'd be hard pressed to identify who the main character even is and to name the characters at the end of the movie. Yes, the film is visually stunning. But so is a lot of porn.This is war porn. No time is spent on developing the characters. You'd be hard pressed to identify who the main character even is and to name the characters at the end of the movie. Yes, the film is visually stunning. But so is a lot of porn. Very poor storytelling. All plot, no narrative, arc, or emotion. The soundtrack is also poor. It's more noise than music.… Expand

8 of 23 users found this helpful815

All this user's reviews

5

BaffledrealityJul 24, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Im sorry but i just don't understand why anyone won't point out, that Dunkirk in the movie, looks nothing like Dunkirk during WW2??? Where is the known ferris wheel? Where are all the countless stranded ships? (1 is shown during the movie) where are all the trucks and burning wrecks? (some trucks are shown during the movie, where they try to make a pier) where are all the destroyed buildings? (modern buildings can be spotted during the movie) Where are all the machinegun emplacements? (countless lewis machineguns were set up around the beach in real life) I cant be the only who noticed this? I'm not saying the movie is bad, im just baffled by the amount of positive critique it gets for being historical accurate, when its nowhere near historical accurate. 338.000 allied troops were evacuated at Dunkirk. roughly 15.000 are shown in the movie. 700 private boats sailed to Dunkirk to aid the evacuation. 15-20 boats are shown in the movie. Eyewitness reports from the real evacuation tells stories of drunk soldiers, singing soldiers, etc. Im sorry but the movie itself just left me with an emotion of feeling underwhelmed. This is NOLAN we are talking about. The man has a budget called "just make the movie, money isnt an issue" Where is the great story? Where is the great characters you really root for, and love? Where is the major part in the movie where we find out (you were my ghost all along = Interstellar reference) Im sorry but this is an average movie for me. The soundtrack is SUBERB! And the whole sound editing is amazing. But the editing of the scenes is just confusing? And the whole Nolan reference to TIME is just too much in this movie. 5 out of 10 for brilliant effects, and sound editing. -5 for bad film editing. Various historical inaccuracies. No story that really captures the audience.… Expand

4 of 12 users found this helpful48

All this user's reviews

4

RighterAug 6, 2017

When compared to some great classic war movies, Dunkirk is both mediocre and unnecessary. Nolan, it seems, can't forget that Memento is what initially made him, and uses a time-shifting device that is both unnecessary to the drama andWhen compared to some great classic war movies, Dunkirk is both mediocre and unnecessary. Nolan, it seems, can't forget that Memento is what initially made him, and uses a time-shifting device that is both unnecessary to the drama and gimmicky to the point of tediousness. To make matters worse he deliberately dispenses with one word ("ago") that would have made viewers enjoy the time-shift instead of spending some time confused by it and trying to work out how it works. Add to that the ridiculous liberties he takes with history and it's clear he's pandering to British Jingoism and little else. Dunkirk ignores a few key historical facts; that the French kept the British soldiers alive, that the British, in return, didn't help the French evacuate their own soldiers, and that the only reason the evacuation of Dunkirk could take place was because Hitler (for his own reasons) specifically gave an order that stopped the Germans from attacking the allies in Dunkirk when he could quite easily have wiped out the soldiers stuck there. Even apart from all those issues, the movie is simply overhyped and lacks the scope that the buzz and the trailer would have you believe it has. To see the movie, you'd think the soldiers amounted to no more than a few thousand (and in most scenes, barely a few hundred). The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer (who is, by now, infamous for his music plagiarism) is also incredibly overrated and relies mostly on the 'Shepard Tone' audio illusion to create a false sense of tension and drama. Dunkirk is white, British, and pretentious and to top it all off, ends with Churchill's famous "We will never surrender" speech, which, by now, we're all tiresomely familiar with - once again glorifying a man who referred to Palestinians as 'dogs', and who allowed the bombing of Coventry, and who also had no issues bombing and destroying the civilian city of Dresden.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

PaperThingAug 8, 2017

**** the zeitgeist propelling this movie.

Baffled by how Michael Bay or Terrance Malick are liable for being criticised for the exact things for which this movie is being praised for. Namely a beautifully shot, but completely asinine and**** the zeitgeist propelling this movie.

Baffled by how Michael Bay or Terrance Malick are liable for being criticised for the exact things for which this movie is being praised for. Namely a beautifully shot, but completely asinine and poorly constructed cure for insomnia.

There is no plot, there is little character and no development, the action scenes are poorly edited and paced, and the sound design for much of the film leaves the audio difficult to understand or become invested in. These are all criticism that could be levelled at the aforementioned filmmakers - that the framing and audio are unintelligible - but here it is scene as "daring" or "minimalistic".

Ultimately, it's worst crime is being too boring, for me at least, to suspend my disbelief. Save your money.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

6

ohnomrbillAug 9, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i liked some of this film and did not like some of it. some of the scenes were fantastic to see then a few scenes made no sense. i hated the scene where they were in the hull of a boat waiting for the tide to come in while it was getting shot with holes to sink it. that made no sense to me. and the film was brittish and i am not so some of the language was hard to understand. at home i would have stopped it and rewound and played a few times to try and understand what they are saying. and i did not like the close ups of the guy with no lips, that was also hard to watch. i liked the many stories it was showing yet at the end, why did that plane take so long to land and were those people around him after he burnt the plane enemies? i was so glad when the film ended and i could leave the theater!… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

6

diomedesbcApr 21, 2018

I was surprised, the movie had such great reviews, but was pretty disappointing for me. Maybe I'm too critical because I know more than the average about the history. Still the story was kind of a let down.