Dunkirk

Dunkirk (2017)

93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 315 reviews)

Runtime: 106 minutes

Directed by: A director who even after this movie I still don't care for

Starring: Actors who I wish would have been given actual characters to play

From: Warner Brothers

Yep, this is yet another Chris Nolan joint I did not love like most other people do. I explain why this is the case below: 

I realize it may appear as if I have quite the set of cojones for me to see this movie on the big screen after writing a scathing review of Inception last week; against my better judgment, I was intrigued by all the rave reviews I heard about the picture and sound & how it was based on a famous moment in World War II, which I had heard of but did not know all the details about. Well, I wish the movie would have given me more details so I did not have to resort to reading the Wikipedia article to get much more information, but alas... I also say alas to the idea of me liking a Christopher Nolan movie in general, or having to state that I have reservations and caveats with it. This guy just isn't for me, that has become crystal clear by now.

As it's a big deal, I'll mention which format I saw this in. 70mm IMAX was out of the question as the nearest location is like a 16 hour roundtrip away from me via automobile; an IMAX with Laser projector is a few hours away from me, but that'd take up an entire day and I rarely make trips that long when I am behind the wheel. Thus, I went with what is commonly known as a “LieMAX” screen as I figured I should go there rather than another Premium Large Format screen which probably would have a bigger screen, as the majority of it was filmed with IMAX cameras so it just seemed logical. Yes, it did look and sound great at least.

As to why I am not giving this a great score like most have, it is for reasons that many other people mentioned in their reviews but those reasons they enjoyed while they did not work for me. I can't say this with 100% certainty but even if I did not know beforehand that this movie would both deliberately not have characterization and be told in a non-linear matter, my opinion would not be different. Personally, I wish that there would have been more characterization instead of showing various random people doing random things. I know, they are parts of the cog of the machine that is war, I understand that. I personally would have preferred given more of a reason to care about this hodgepodge of people. I wasn't completely apathetic to them or their plight... I would have preferred knowing more about those poor young soldiers.

To me, the bigger sin was the non-linear storytelling. Just why was it done this way? I don't have a problem with it in principle; I'll give the obvious example of Pulp Fiction. When it was done there or in other films, it was for the sake of rhythm or to tell things in a more poetic manner. Here... did Nolan do this to try and “be cute”? I dunno but it ruined any momentum and pace, serving to annoy more than anything else; I had a major problem with that. Sure, I am glad there was enough suspenseful/intense moments (and other things) to where I can give it an average rating-some mutuals thought of this even less than I did-and considering how Nolan will always be bad at natural, realistic dialogue, this not having a lot of that is for the best... although this is definitely a vintage Chris Nolan joint in that too much of the dialogue is unintelligible due to piss-poor sound mixing; “great director” my ass! Too many have noted it in their reviews of Dunkirk for it to be a problem at the auditorium I saw this in. I am not sure if it needed a constant Hans Zimmer score either-getting to listen to the sounds of war on its own would have been preferable, me thinks-even if the score itself was alright, albeit only in context with the visuals.

By now it's become abundantly clear I'll never understand the popular of Nolan among film fans, the critics, and the general public. Personally, I'll get more out of reading about the battle or trying to find various documentaries about it. The cast did its best with the material given to them... yes, even Harry Styles; I thought Mark Rylance delivered the best performance, although Tom Hardy had to do most of his acting with his eyes and that must not have been easy. It's just that when you wonder what the point of it is... war is hell, most people realize that by now. I say that there are plenty of war movies which demonstrate this in a better way; even 1930's All Quiet on the Western Front does it very well, which is an example I use to convey how I did not need something brutally graphic like Saving Private Ryan to present such a message. No offense to the vast majority of people that find this to be a masterpiece... I'll always think of it as a missed opportunity to make a worthy picture about an interesting moment during World War II.