Dunkirk (2017) User Reviews

Capturing the spirit

[tomsview · 9/10 · 7 May 2018]

For a teenager today, Dunkirk must seem even more distant than the Boer War did to my generation growing up just after WW2. For some, Christopher Nolan's film may be the most they will know about the event.

But it's enough in some ways because even if it doesn't show everything that happened, maybe it goes as close as a film could to letting you know how it felt.

"Dunkirk" focuses on a number of characters who are inside the event, living it minute by minute.

Tommy, the soldier at the centre of the story, seems at first glance to be the antithesis of the Dunkirk legend. Maybe he fits a New Millennium sensibility rather than a 1940's one, more like a contestant on "Survivor". He does show initiative, but a soldier who throws away his weapon then "helps" wounded to the rear risked a court martial in every army from the Roman Legions on. The lines of stoic soldiers waiting patiently on the beach, the enduring image of the evacuation, seem almost like a backdrop as Tommy and his mate run through them.

The man who embodies the spirit to the full is Dawson, the civilian captain of the Moonstone. He is the sort of man who wins wars; the bloke who sticks to the task when others buckle under pressure; "There's no hiding from this thing son," he says to an officer whose nerve has cracked, all the while steering his little boat towards Dunkirk.

The scenes of aerial combat look so real it makes all other depictions pale in comparison. Peter Jackson once planned to do a remake of "The Dam Busters", but possibly Christopher Nolan would add another dimension to the retelling. The brilliant special effects serve the story. Much of the panorama of Dunkirk is glimpsed almost incidentally from the cockpit of fighter planes or by men struggling in the water.

There are surprises for anyone who thinks they know the story or have seen documentaries or other recreations of the event; it's very different to the crowded Dunkirk of "Atonement".

An unsettling score helps heighten the tension in a film that has you holding your breath in scene after scene.

This is a film that demands more than one viewing.

A tough, tough film to watch...and an amazing film was well.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 30 April 2021]

Before you decide to watch "Dunkirk" I have a bit of a warning. While you would expect death and blood in a war film, some of the scenes in the film are amazingly tough to watch. There's actually very little blood, but there are some drowning scenes which are intense and awful. Now I am not saying don't watch it...just be prepared.

The story is a retelling of the escape of the British* from the beaches of Dunkirk. The German army was coming and the combined British and French forces were trapped with little apparent chance to escape. And, as an army of over 300,000 Brits dug in and waited, the Luftwaffe began chipping away at them....and ultimately would have killed and/or captured them all if it wasn't for a rag-tag flotilla of private boats which hastily arrived and spirited away about 80-90% of the men.

By the way, early in the film you hear someone speaking to the pilot (Tom Hardy) over the radio. The voice is that of Michael Caine....an odd and brief cameo.

The story is gripping, well told and brilliant. I have only one complaint, and I am surprised it made it to the film considering how amazing a director Christopher Nolan is. At one point, the scene switches between some men in a boat being attacked and a private yacht rescuing downed pilots. The scenes kept switching back and forth....but one was clearly at night and the other clearly was in daylight. This really didn't make any sense. Still, otherwise an amazing spectacle...a truly amazing war film.

A technical masterpiece that is nearly devoid of palpable emotion and compelling characters.

[criticadelcinema · 7/10 · 19 July 2017]

Might as well get right to it, then. At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, I did not love this film. Do I love elements of this? Yes. Is this a 5-star masterpiece? Unfortunately, no.

The cinematography here at least, is masterful. Director Christopher Nolan has, without a doubt, reached the pinnacle of on-screen spectacle here. The feats of practical effects in this film are breathtaking. The casting of nearly 6,000 extras, authentic WWII vehicles, and shooting on location in Dunkirk, France contribute to a great sense of scale here. There is ongoing trend of action films in recent years of relying on CGI, and thankfully Nolan bucks that trend.

Similar to War for the Planet of the Apes, much of the film plays out without much dialogue, leaning on just the score and sound design in most scenes. It almost goes without saying that Hans Zimmer delivers with another incredible score. The sound design is also extremely well crafted, which, paired with Nolan's great work behind the camera, truly transports you to the Battle of Dunkirk. The wailing of planes passing above, the drone of gunfire, and the roar of explosions all contribute to the complete immersion into the world these characters are trapped in. This results in some of the most immersive wartime action scenes since Saving Private Ryan.

This film has and will continue to be compared to World War II classic Saving Private Ryan. Both films are beautifully filmed WWII period pieces with casts that deliver great performances. The similarities end there. Whereas Saving Private Ryan was engrossing as a narrative due to it's characters with depth and arcs, Dunkirk instead leans on it's subject matter and spectacle.

And while the subject matter of Dunkirk is fascinating, as a film it lacks emotional firepower due to the absence of a strongly written protagonist. This is strangely uncharacteristic of a director of Nolan's caliber, especially when you recall the complex character work in his most acclaimed films: The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige. Instead of focusing on a single character or single group of characters, the focus is spread across three protagonists in completely different situations. Showing the Dunkirk Evacuation through the three different perspectives of those on the beach, the sea, and the air is only an interesting proposition on paper. The narrative, due to this writing choice, is spread far too thin, with few characters getting enough screen time to develop even the mildest emotional connection.

While the characters in this film aren't written to even remotely be compelling, the great work from this cast is not to be overlooked. Harry Styles, known for being a member of English boy band One Direction, is surprisingly excellent here in his acting debut. Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, and Fionn Whitehead also all give standout performances despite the limited screen time they are given.

I should love this film. Historical drama? WWII setting? My favorite director Christopher Nolan? Amazing cinematography? Superb performances from an ensemble cast? All of these elements made me sure I would love this going in. But, Dunkirk's lack of emotional connection severely detracts from the awe-inspiring scope and technical prowess displayed.

If I reviewed based on visuals alone, this is a slam-dunk, walk-off home run of a 5-star film. While a focus on grandeur and situation over character depth and emotion may work for some (it obviously worked for 98% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes), it did not work for this critic.

This is without a doubt a cinematic achievement, but without an emotional core, it's impossible for this film not to feel cold and empty. Despite being a technical masterpiece, this is Christopher Nolan's most disappointing film yet.

A short review with a longer explanation of why its OK that this movie didn't have any "characters"

[nimdude · 10/10 · 22 July 2017]

Dunkirk is, in my opinion, yet another masterpiece from mastermind Christopher Nolan. Since everything that is brilliant about the film has already been said I will briefly write what I think of the film and also touch on a topic that some people are criticizing the movie for.

The fantastically directed film is told from 3 perspectives non chronologically. It superbly tackles the narrative and the non linear story doesn't at all pull you away from the intensity of the events happening on screen that don't stop from 00:00 to the last scene. Hans Zimmer most likely gives one of the most fitting scores for a war film ever. Sometimes there is only one note playing followed by heartbeat sounds and a ticking clock while other times a massive orchestra is interpreting what is going on on screen. The movie brilliantly projects the feeling of each and every soldier on the beach to the audience. Confusion, turmoil and fear. The cinematography was breathtaking and I felt anxious throughout most of the run time. There is no lead in this film and I can't really say anyone stuck out as giving a brilliant performance because it wasn't needed and I'll explain why.

The biggest criticisms of Dunkirk that I've heard of so far are that the characters are lacking in depth and that we aren't given anything to be invested in them. I feel like Nolan was trying (successfully) to make the audience care for each and every one of the men on the beach. He needed to have some form of "main characters" to be in the story so that we can see the events unfold from the direct perspective of all of the soldiers. Usually in war films (I'll use saving private Ryan as an example) the plot revolves around certain soldiers (like Cpt. Miller and Ryan) being in a war and doing things in the war but its still about THEM not THE WAR as much. In my opinion Dunkirk is a telling the STORY OF DUNKIRK. Not of Harry Style's character or Tom Hardy's character but of Dunkirk. What any of the "main characters" felt, every other soldier felt. Nolan resorted more to film-making techniques to tell the story rather than dialogue and that is why some people might have had a problem with the lack of character depth but realistically this type of terrible event wouldn't be a place for someone to "develop" as a character but rather a event where MEN WANTED ONLY SURVIVAL, and Nolan showed that perfectly. As for what the top review of Dunkirk on IMDb says about 'lack of emotion' in the film, I believe this to be a completely incorrect statement. Maybe he was referring to the lack of 'brotherhood amongst men' or the feeling of moral or something epic like that. Again the longing for the 'Saving Private Ryan' format of war films. What the reviewer fails to see is that realistically there was NO emotion on that beach besides fear and confusion. And I can safely say that Nolan and Zimmer and the DP all successfully gave us those feelings.

9.5/10

All these bad reviews are a reflection of current media consumption trends and the attention span of the average consumer, not the movie itself

[therevolvingmonk · 10/10 · 19 September 2018]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised how many people don't like this movie in an era of CGI, reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, and generally easy to digest movies/tv shows. This is a real Christopher Nolan movie, not a Batman, but a real Christopher Nolan movie like Memento or Prestige. Watch it a few times. Pay attention to the details. Appreciate the sensory experience.

Most of these bad reviews are because the person watched it once and was upset they weren't spoon fed every aspect of the characters and story. There is a ton of characterization and a great story but you have to pay attention.

Unapologetically, I can say this is one of the best war movies ever made

[georgebwofford-44106 · 10/10 · 15 September 2018]

If you read through the swarm of negative reviews, you might notice a common theme: boring, dull, lack of characters. It's incredibly disappointing that they seemed the miss the entire point of the film.This is not a film about heroic soldiers triumphing against all odds while blowing up Nazis with transformer-esque explosions.

This is a movie about scenes, not characters. -and every scene is memorable, from the bombings to the torpedoes to the aerial dogfights. My co-worker, who is obsessed with WW2 planes, noted how incredibly perfect they got the British Supermarine Spitfire from the roar of the Rolls-Royce engine to the rattle of the components in the cabin. The accuracy and intensity of the dogfight was captured perfectly as well, mimicking the aerial maneuvers, firepower and damage in a realistic and dramatic fashion. The torpedoes noticed only moments before impact with it's slow monotonous movement sent chills of realization down my spine. Even in the beginning of the film, the way in which the Nazi leaflets were presented gave you some glimpse into the panic and anxiety felt by those soldiers.

I felt the "lack of characters" was realistic and served the film as well. War is not about larger-than-life personalities with specialized weapons being bad-asses. It's about nameless and faceless soldiers facing an existential crisis, the possibility of randomized death, and how they can either respond with despair or hope.

If you want characters you can root for and a happy ending where the bad guy in vanquished, then there are plenty of movies for you. But if you want a small glimpse into the despair, anxiety, hope, courage, and will of the British WW2 fighters then there is no better film ever made than this one.

Micro as opposed to macro version of the battle

[somf · 10/10 · 17 July 2017]

Saw an early screening tonight in Denver.

I don't know where to begin. So I will start at the weakest link. The acting. Still great, but any passable actor could have been given any of the major roles and done a great job. I know almost no more about the battle of Dunkirk after seeing the film than I did before, and I am not exactly a WWII historian. Truth be told, I learned all I know about the battle of Dunkirk from the movie poster. Does that weaken the film? Hell no, this is a film about survival. The opening scene tells it all and sets the stage as we get our first glimpse into a young soldier's need to stay alive, and his creative attempts to do so. That actor may even be considered the main character of the film. More words have been written so far in this review than he speaks. And I have no clue who the actor in that role is. It is humorous that Tom Hardy looks like Bane through most the film in the role of a pilot wearing an oxygen mask throughout. Kenneth Branagh is the only officer with any lines in the film, so that should give you an idea of the POV that we experience. We are the enlisted man trying to find a way to stay alive in a chaotic and harrowing battle. Though I believe Dunkirk will win every single technical Oscar, I would be surprised if it has any acting nominations at all.

How does Nolan elevate this above other films of a similar nature? I think he says it best himself, when he describes Dunkirk as a thriller more than a war film. He pulls that off superbly.

When a ship starts to take in water as numerous bullets penetrate its hull, I wanted to jump out of my seat and cover up the holes myself.

The film has three separate stories that are titled Mole, Sea and Air. And we all know where Moles live. The way the narratives of the three stories unfold and how they are all tied together is what makes the film a masterpiece. Much has been said about Nolan using IMAX film cameras and how the film is enriched by this. I don't know. I doubt I saw actual film being projected at my screening. Every frame looked terrific though.

So what is the most superlative aspect of the film? Gotta be the soundtrack. Hans Zimmer will win the Oscar for this without a doubt. So , so brilliant. This is not a soundtrack that I would buy at the store and play on my stereo. This is a soundtrack that weaves throughout the three narratives seamlessly and creates this phenomenal sense of tension. There are times when a two or three minute tense orchestral passage plays continuously as the story shifts from the ground to the sea then to the air and the music draws the three stories together. Zimmer's soundtrack reminds me of the way that Bernard Hermann's work was so vitally important in building suspense in most Hitchcock films. Though that description almost sells Zimmer short. His soundtrack is that good.

I don't think this is a film that will retain even half of its strength in your home theater. No folks, this is a film that you cough up for an overpriced IMAX ticket and rationalize it by knowing that experiencing Dunkirk in any other fashion will just not cut it.

A visual wonder that lacks depth

[ferped · 6/10 · 20 July 2017]

Christopher Nolan is a visual genius: this film is just stunning to look at. From the bullets flying near soldier's head to gorgeous explosions, it transports you right into the war zone within the first 10 minutes of the screening. Furthermore, it is an accurate description of the "Miracle of Dunkirk". This is where the movie nails it. However, apart from that, I've had a couple of issues with it.

The film is told from three perspectives: Air, Mole and Sea. This is where the movie falls a bit short. The editing at some points feels lazy and not very consistent: it cuts from a dramatic scene or intense action scene very quickly.

The film is told in a non-linear way: this makes us watch certain scenes twice through different perspectives. Although this could've been done in a very interesting way, it's very difficult to keep track of whose perspective we're watching at times. Even when certain semi-important (I'll get back to this later) soldiers die, it took me a while to realise this happened.

This is where my third and final problem come into question: the characters lack depth. You don't care about the main character, nor any of the other soldiers that are dying. If I'm watching a film about war, I like to bond with the characters I'm seeing on screen. If none of them show any real emotion, the viewer won't as well.

All in all, Dunkirk could've been amazing. I personally don't understand why it has such a high rating besides being directed by a very well-known director / starring famous actors (including infamous Harry Styles) / being a war biography. Disappointing.

Another hit from Nolan,very different approach to war genre..

[akshatdave · 17 July 2017]

For the majority of his career Christopher Nolan has thrived in surrealism, whether it be focusing on caped crusaders or unchartered space missions. So it's intriguing to see him return to a narrative steeped in realism, and grounded by its commitment to real life occurrences. The results are staggeringly impressive too, while the talented filmmaker maintains his creative sensibilities, crafting a war movie that feels distinctively his.When thinking about war films, it's very hard not to go straight to the classics such as Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Saving Private Ryan.You have to make something very special to be mentioned in the same sentence as films like those.

Naturally I was excited for the movie and I think most people were because we knew that it is Nolan's movie. From the opening shot of dunkirk you are in it and You are experiencing everything like you are there , there's never a dull moment or scene where characters sit around a campfire and say who you got back home no background stories. You don't get those kind of things in Dunkirk what you are used to see in war films yeah this could be a problem because you don't feel connected to specific characters and you are not connected emotionally but this movie is not like others there are many war movies and we have seen many similar things but this movie is not about individual it's completely about the event. It's about the evacuation like being in the middle of this horrific situation. According to my opinion When you are in a situation like this you don't say "hey my name is.....what's yours where are you from - oh I thought we could have a conversation between all the bombs and planes firing constantly" No this movie is in the moment and how Nolan show us the event It's what movies were invented for. everything on the screen look completely authentic there's never a moment that feels wasted. When I heard that it's only 106 minutes long I thought it should be 3 hours long movie but when I saw that it starts in battle and ends in battle I think it's perfectly made in one and half hour. And if you're expecting big arcs then sorry because sometimes in war people die alone and no one's there to comfort them or tell them it's going to be OK that's what make this movie so terrifying.

"Dunkirk" tells the story of a group of allied soldiers from Belgium, France, and the British Empire. When they find themselves surrounded by the Germany army on the beaches of Dunkirk, the film follows the story of the evacuation of 400,000 during the early stages of World War II.boasting an incredible cast, Christopher Nolan allows his players to internalize the fear and emotion, and allow them to express it in the most aromatic and penetrating demeanor's. As Tommy, Fionn Whitehead makes an astounding mark in his feature film debut. With no true lead in the movie, his point of view is often a crutch for the audience to rest upon, as his internalization of the character is one of the film's most pivotal high points.It is gripping from its very opening moments, in which we see soldiers getting picked off by invisible snipers in the middle of the titular town as propaganda flyers shower from overhead, announcing to the British, French, Canadian, Belgian and Dutch troops that they are hopelessly penned in by the Germans.We are in the early months of World War Two.Christopher Nolan makes the decision to avoid all of this explanation, and to give us a Dunkirk that focuses on the personal experiences of the war by land, sea and air

The sea battle is also done very well from a technical perspective. We get a sense of the claustrophobia of being aboard ship, the shell-shock and the terror of a watery death, especially when combined with lit gasoline. I thought the acting was by far the best in this segment. I very much liked Mark Rylance's quiet earnestness as a civilian sailor sailing to Dunkirk with his son - the quiet communication between the two of them with glances - the profound sympathy toward Cillian Murphy's traumatised rescued RAF pilot. And the scene of soldiers drowning under a fiery sea is one of the most memorable and rightly horrific in the film.

Dunkirk is edge of your seat filmmaking. Can honestly say I've never seen anything like it.A lot of people were wondering about Harry_styles & unknown cast. They're all great but Dunkirk is not about any one solider. Also 'Dunkirk' is another brilliant collaboration between Nolan & HansZimmer. The way he mixes in a ticking clock with score is nail biting.DUNKIRK relies on very little dialogue.We all know what happened on that beach, but Nolan's take is worth visiting. Yes, DUNKIRK relies heavily on sound of an increasingly fast ticking clock to build suspense.Drop everything and go watch Dunkirk. It is an experience. Not a mere film.

An absolutely outstanding depiction of a truly horrific event.

[liam_robertson · 10/10 · 20 July 2017]

I am always relatively confident that I'll enjoy the work of Christopher Nolan based off his pretty decent track record, however this gripping re-imagining of one of the darkest moments of World War II stands as not only some of Nolan's greatest work but one of the greatest war films I have ever experienced.

Dunkirk does not necessarily tell the story of any one particular character, but rather adopts the event itself as the films vehicle, resulting in an experience which uses its characters to portray the event rather than the event to portray its characters. This is presented through scenes taking place at different stages of the evacuation across the land, air and sea, creating a distinctive setting for each, but culminating in the same final conclusion. This being said despite Dunkirk's focus not necessarily being its characters, I did not find a single character performance in this film lacking or inconsistent with the tone or setting presented technically. In particular Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and debut actor Fionn Whitehead gave especially memorable performances consistent with the striking spectacle Nolan presents.

As is expected with Christopher Nolan's films the visual presentation in Dunkirk has few rivals, the set pieces are outstanding with the use of breathtaking establishing shots to highlight the true historical scale of the real life evacuation. Action is presented in a smooth focused manner utilizing a few precise shots rather than an explosion of two second jump cuts we have come to expect in modern day action movies. There are multiple sequences which portray the pure fear, claustrophobia and disorder present in those final weeks of the evacuation and it is this ever present tension that will keep you engaged for the entirety of the run-time.

However it is the sound design which truly made this production a masterpiece for me, delivering one of the most realistic representations of the terrifying sounds of War. Gunfire had a distinctly different tone to other films, being delivered with sharp crack, explosions where accompanied by a deep base and the famous 'Jericho Trumpet' made by the Stuka's presence be constantly reminded and portrayed the sense of helplessness present at Dunkirk perfectly.

This is only enhanced by Hans Zimmer's excellent soundtrack embedded across the entirety of the film. Alongside Inception, Dunkirk showcases the exceptional talent Nolan & Zimmer have for combining meaningful score with striking imagery to create a distinctive emotional response from their audience. Through the skillful incorporation of an ever presenting droning base, screeching guitar strings and ticking timepiece the continual sense of urgency and dread felt by those both on land and sea is enforced across the entire film by this excellent soundscape. As a result I highly recommend that should you be given the chance you experience Dunkirk for the first time on the big screen, as the combination of a cinema screen and encapsulating surround sound will leave you with a truly memorable experience.

Even though this is a film a majority will go into undoubtedly knowing the final conclusion, Dunkirk is an experience I highly recommend everyone consider, presenting a defining moment of modern history in one of the most technically accomplished and memorably striking ways, Dunkirk will undoubtedly go down as a hallmark in film-making for many years to come.

Hipsterish affectation of an "artistic" war movie.

[mraos · 6/10 · 22 July 2017]

This movie is so paper thin I really can't write much about it. So many missed opportunities in a film about one of the most spectacular and complex battles of WWII. I can see what Nolan tried to do here, a kind of British "Thin Red Line" (there's even wind in the grass, lol, i kid you not), but he failed spectacularly. There are no memorable characters to be found here, and one wonders even if there are any actual characters at all. Not one, not one of them has any semblance of a character arc. Not one. Again, I see how Nolan tried to convey the impersonality of war and insignificance of the individual but he did it with such a heavy, clumsy hand, providing us with no counterpoint with which to drive the point home. It's basic screen writing stuff really. I'd expect such ineptitude from a first year film student but not from a supposed "master of the craft".

But anyways, this could have been forgivable if the film was more about the event itself, but it fails at that too. After watching the film, you'd be given to believe that the Battle of Dunkirk was fought by three Spitfires (100 were lost over the beeches alone), 1 German heinkel, a couple of stukas, 2 destroyers or a dozen or so boats... Oh yes and maybe a few hundred men standing quietly on a beach, doing nothing except desperately trying to look morose and dejected in a faintly passive-aggressive way. It's ridiculous. We are talking about total and absolute chaos happening there, hundreds of thousands of rifles alone discarded on the beach, not to mention guns, artillery, trucks... Burning and sinking ships of all sizes all across the horizon, parts of beaches inaccessible from rotting corpses washing up with tides. This was actually way bigger than D-Day landings in terms of men and equipment stuffed in a very small patch of land. Half a million desperate men stuffed in a small town, bombarded incessantly and under constant attack from bombers. Where did all those people defecate, what did they eat ffs? I wanted to know that, really. That at least would have given some much needed humanity to the so-called-characters Nolan keeps yanking around like so much puppets. So many missed opportunities there...

If Nolan wanted to do a tight little film about isolation and desperation of being on the loosing side of the war, he had plenty of other places and battles to choose from. Just ask around. Or if he simply had to insist on Dunkirk, then we should have seen this total chaos all around our protagonists, in the background at least - that would have served as a really powerful, so desperately needed counterpoint to the individual suffering and heroism.

And this brings me to the final point. The movie is one tone only. A monotone repetition of sights and emotions we've seen and experienced before. No one cracks a joke. No one really breaks down. No one has an embarrassing moment. There are no ups and downs, it's just some morose faceless robots performing obvious actions leading towards a bleedingly obvious goal. One single emotional and narrative tone from the beginning to the end. The entire emotional and narrative content of the movie would have fit snugly into a 20 minute short, and that is pretty much how long it takes before you start yawning. The best thing that can be said about the movie is that individual scenes are well directed and worth experiencing. But that is the real problem here - the film is constructed as a series of impressive "experiences" rather than cohesive piece of drama (And this particular historical event is almost uniquely stuffed with dramatic opportunities. It's almost as if golden-age Hollywood writers wrote the script for the actual event.) In other words, it's a Dunkirk theme park rather than a movie. You take rides. And that's it. And even those become repetitive after a while.

A Must See.

[robynsongss · 10/10 · 16 July 2017]

What a Brilliant movie. We saw this on the night of the World Premiere, intense and packed full of fabulous acting... The camera shots were absolutely spot on, and you couldn't look away for a second without missing a perfect scene. The entire score, coupled with the dialogue and videography made this film and I cannot wait to see it again.

Just Never Grabbed Me

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 25 February 2018]

I would concur with many that the film was overhyped. Nevertheless, to give something as breathtaking in its cinematic efforts a one or two is ridiculous. I guess people who are into war film are not unlike the fanboys in the Marvel world. This is an intense film. I'll admit that if I had to depend on it to explain the actual events of the Dunkirk rescue, I would say it was lacking. It's no "Tora Tora Tora" or "The Longest Day" which depict the breadth of the subject of war. It focuses more on fragile individuals who are more realistic. One reviewer referred to two of the men as cowards, doing whatever they could to stay alive. As if those who were trapped by the Germans wouldn't do whatever they could to stay alive. Yes, there is a bit of tackiness. These are fictional characters. There's lots of heroism to go around. There is cowardice. This is war and war is not desirable. Still, with a big picture attempt it would have been much better.

Did I see a different movie than everyone else that has raved about how good it is?

[PanheadAndy · 5/10 · 26 July 2017]

I was very disappointed with this movie. I have liked previous Nolan movies but this one left me feeling cheated that I had spent that much money to see it. It was boring and unrealistic.One scene had a ship getting hit with a bomb and immediately rolling on it's side then remaining afloat.At the end a plane runs out of fuel and seemingly defies the laws of physics by gliding forever and ever shooting down a plane before landing on the beach. They kept showing shots of the beach with lines of soldiers that nowhere approximated over 400,000 soldiers. Same with the amount of ships and boats and planes. The hype of this being one of the best war movies ever had me expecting something special. Instead it had me sitting there wondering when the fantastic movie was going to start. I waited in vain. Instead I left the show with a headache from the noise bombardment from the soundtrack.My biggest sense of wonder was that they had spent that much money making it. I wanted to like this movie but it never happened for me.

Christopher Nolan created an impressive blockbuster on World War 2, with the focus on survival.

[Danielpotato · 8/10 · 22 July 2017]

The most important lesson in the history of our humanity, surpassed in genre, religion among other moral aspects, is simply the survival of the species or a human being in question. Our most basic instinct is survival and when we unite, forgetting our differences (as a group of Individuals, not nations), for the sake of our survival and our well-being, the human race shines in the most intense sense possible. The cooperation between several elements, to come out alive from a complicated situation.

One scene, caught my attention when a group of Allied soldiers were surrounded in a ship and this same ship was being attacked on all sides by the German troops. One of the characters was being forced out of the ship to see if the tide sea was rising or not. Out of fear, this character did not want to leave the ship, it was when an English soldier replied: for the others to survive, one person has to die.

The theme of this film is survival, especially surviving in a difficult situation, is in itself a great victory

Nothing is better expressed in this film and executed in a way with as much talent as Nolan achieved in making with this film. Not only by itself, the message is passed to the audience in a clear and perfect way as is demonstrated in small scenes that help convey this message and build a fitting end to the film itself.

The film goes straight to the narrative and action of the movie without losing in passing with interesting monologues, unlike Inception, a film in which Nolan himself created a character with the sole purpose of explaining the rules of this universe for the audience, this is the apex of Nolan as a Film director and he performs his work in a simple and exemplary way. So Dunkirk is his smaller commercial movie, but with the bonus without unnecessary scenes that could crumble the experience of the film.

The performances are excellent and accompany the director's talents (the direction of the film itself) and the script in a cohesive, simple and direct way, highlighting Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance and of course the very competent Kenneth Branagh. These excellent actors help immerse the audience in the cinematographic aspect of the movie itself to make the experience as real and emotional as possible.

Again, congratulations to Nolan for choosing actors relatively unknown to the general public, but outstanding in their work of acting. Instead of trying to choose famous actors (whose private lives are always in the mouths of the people and the magazines), these people are celebrities and not actors. For this reason I never managed to pass the first act of Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg made a mistake filling his film with the most popular Hollywood All Star cast of famous actors at that time (their lives were so exposed that it was hard to see those people as soldiers or survivors of WWII). At this point, Nolan fared better than Spielberg.

By completing this great experience, special and sound effects are applied in an exemplary way and these same technologies make almost perfect use of the IMAX screen. The technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget (105 millions). The cinematography is very good (almost perfect, like in most of Nolan movies) and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful.

See the aerial combat of the characters of Tom Hardy (Farrier) and Jack Lowden (Collins) in aerial planes that looked with great and amazing beauty in fighting against the planes of the Germans. A technical amazing work of Nolan and his production team. Amazing, no doubt. Especially on the IMAX screen, where the film shows all its beauty, and if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in IMAX, it is one, this new work of Christopher Nolan, no doubt. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works. Making the storytelling move to viewers in three different locations (The Mole, The Sea and The Air). In a cohesive, precise and confusing way. This film shows a great talent of Nolan, and it reaches his talent to create sequences in parallel assembly the characters of the film in a brilliant way. The soundtrack composed by the veteran Hans Zimmer is amazing, Hans in turn creates a memorable theme for the theme of World War II. Fantastic and great.

The great and only problem I see that disturbs the experience of the film is limited by the PG-13 and thus limit the blood and violence, for God's sake, it is a film about a war blood and violence are common. At times it seemed like I was looking at some scenes and these same scenes seemed so artificial and displaced from the film itself, like the scene of the soldiers corpses coming to the beach, or the English troops being smashed by the sinking ship (two clear examples that PG-13 influenced negatively the movie).

One problem that some people go through seeing this movie is the lack of depth in some characters, however there are characters with depth, but not the kind of depth shown through dialogues or exposition. Nolan wanted to show something bigger. And I think Nolan did it. Nolan created in this movie to show the question of survival and its consequences in the lives of the people close to war and the soldiers who were fighting in that war. He wanted to show us how and survival define us, and I think he got the message very well across this movie. Even for this, he sacrificed some dramatic depth. Depth for certain characters, however Nolan passed a larger message, which surpasses any dramatically deep element. Nolan wanted to get something bigger. And in my opinion he did it.

This movie was so rich, so detailed and so profoundly moving that it's hard to put it into words. Christopher Nolan is back and he's here to show us what a master can create.

[uhsheen · 10/10 · 17 July 2017]

This review will be mostly spoiler free but I don't want to be banned so I clicked it just to be safe..

The basic plot revolves around the 450,000 odd British soldiers trapped in Dunkirk, France as the German troops close in. They don't close in on foot though, instead opting to pick the trapped soldiers off from the air and sea.

This movie isn't a propaganda piece touting the glory of British resilience; most of the movie is just young men trying to survive, petrified for their own lives. The threat is ever present, there was a wonderful sense of tension throughout the entire movie. You really felt the cinema shake as the German planes closed in on the soldiers and let loose their bombs and you can feel the thick fog of fear.

The enemy in this movie is very interesting because you never actually see a German face. The enemy is just a looming threat and comes in the shape of torpedo attacks and bombs from planes. I read that Nolan spent a lot of time studying silent films and how they built tension which is pulled off masterfully in this movie. Like the movie Gravity once this movie begins there is no down time, they are constantly being attacked in one way or another.

The casting for this movie was absolutely superb. Our very own Barry Keoghan had a short role that I would liked to have seen fleshed out more but he pulled it off very well. Cillian Murphy was wonderful as always and played the role of a shell shocked soldier. Mark Rylance stole the show for me and put on a stellar performance as the father who is doing his duty to his country. His bravery never fades. Fionn Whitehead and Aneurin Barnard were excellent choices and I liked how Nolan chose largely unknown and inexperienced actors to mimic how young and inexperienced the soldiers really were during the war.

When I heard that Harry Styles was in this movie I figured that it was just a clever ploy to pull in more ticket sales but I absolutely stand corrected. He put on an authentic, honest performance that was very impressive. There's a great scene in a boat where you see how he is affected by desperation and sheer terror that really sold it for me, his performance was extremely consistent.

Tom Hardy is a chameleon... Any role he plays he is completely dedicated and immersed and you can't peel your eyes away from him. He has some of the most nail biting scenes and his scenes toward the end of the movie were very emotional and moving.

Strangely enough some parts of the movie felt like watching old WW2 footage; it was grainy and real. This movie didn't rely on CGI, it was gritty and honest and beautifully shot.

You really can't talk about a Christopher Nolan without talking about Hans Zimmer and the soundtrack. There were some scenes that were reminiscent of the docking scene in Interstellar because the music flowed so well with each scene that it evoked a sense of urgency and intensity. This is a phenomenal soundtrack. The movie starts to a ticking clock and it's only a matter of time until time runs out.

There is very little dialogue in this movie but it isn't missed at all. This movie is an emotional power horse. I was genuinely moved a couple of times throughout it and it's one that will stay in my head for a long time.

THE GOOD:

Casting was perfect, the lesser known actors held their own weight against some of the veterans. The cinematography was fantastic, you really felt completely immersed in the movie. Hans Zimmer's score was Oscar-worthy. The movie will leave you on the edge of your seat throughout.

THE BAD:

The story line is not always linear which was confusing. Dialogue was sometimes hard to hear (but not necessary)

_______

Dunkirk is a fantastic movie, it's as simple as that. This should be the standard of movie that other directors should attain to achieve and here Nolan proves that he is one of the greatest directors of all time. The acting is superb and the entire movie is a treat for the eyes and ears. Don't miss out on seeing this in a cinema.

Nolan may have earned himself some high accolades come Oscar season

[Brandon_Walker_Robinson · 9/10 · 17 July 2017]

No reviewer was lying when they said see this in 70mm IMAX (full disclosure, I saw this on a regular screen). In my opinion, it necessitates it. I can just "tell" from what I saw. The aerial shots alone would provide good reasoning for it, but the sound that those theaters provide with the big picture in front of you will captivate you exactly the right way.

This isn't a social kind of film, and it certainly isn't popcorn entertainment. Not a summer blockbuster at all. This film's scope feels very small, even though it carries epic tones within. Nolan really broke a lot of traditional film conventions with this, and I think that exact kind of ambition is what makes this movie work for a more general audience. I somewhat think audience members need to know what they're getting into beforehand to be accepting of that fact, but once they are I think they will be just fine.

On a technical level, I think this is Nolan's best yet. The Prestige still might get higher honors simply because of the more demanding writing that is involved, but given what Nolan intended to do, this nearly screams "perfection." Did he try and go for an R-rating? No. Did that matter? Not even close. Did he try and provide massive amounts of character development? No. Did that matter? Depends on who you talk to. I could honestly say that if there were two cuts of this film—an extended cut that develops the characters and this one—you could give us the option and we would find the one we enjoy more depending on what we're looking for. Did he look to vilify the Germans to the point of controversy? No. Did that matter? It didn't, but only one part does stick out for me (the "one flaw" that Nolan often has trouble with in his writing) and I'll get back to that in a moment.

"Harrowing" is easily my favorite word to describe Dunkirk. This is a survival film, and that's all it is. He put us on the beach, on the sea, and in the air. He gave the characters a want and will to live with an impending threat for which we understand its consequence, without need of showing thousands of deaths or lots of blood. When one moment of attempted survival ends, another one begins without warning. That doesn't mean the film is relentless action, but it certainly is relentless tension, if for no other reason than Hans Zimmer's score. I'm telling you right now, his score is my favorite part of the film. It's actually mostly a quiet kind of score, but it is frightening and works with the film so very well.

Nolan has had a lot of trouble doing "show, not tell" in his past films. This time he has learned a lot, not letting the actors expose everything (acting was fine all around, by the way... not much to say about it honestly, as it's not the film's high point). I did not feel the presence of the surrounding enemies, though. If the film didn't tell us about it, I probably wouldn't have felt the pressure of getting off that beach sooner than later. Hearing the planes incoming was always scary of course, but as we only had the British perspective and a week-long time line at most, there simply wasn't a chance of feeling time cave in on them. This to me is this film's only real flaw.

That being said, the only real limitation that holds this film back is that it's based in reality, which means that we are already aware of the outcome. I think for this particular story it's fine, because it's not one specific moment that lets us breathe again... so letting it play out the way that it did is okay with me. I do not think this will go over with people who come in completely uneducated about Dunkirk. I made a mistake in stating that I wanted this film to educate me on the evacuation story. I think I'd rather have learned about it first and then seen the film, kind of like seeing United 93 after having lived 9/11 (not totally, but I was at least cognizant of all that transpired). That doesn't mean to research the film itself, but rather just the historical event.

I do hope that Nolan goes back to fictional work after this. Here was an awesome deviation from the norm that he chose to do, and he went out in grand style. I could have used a longer film with fleshed out character development, but this film also works as well especially in the month of July. I see this receiving many Oscar nominations such as score, editing, cinematography, visual effects, etc... I do not see any acting or writing awards... and yes, I see a director nomination as well. If the academy believes some of those earn him victories, then god damn it give him his Best Picture Oscar as well.

I can't really yet rank this film with his other films, because it's just so different. I don't see too many of the Inception parallels here. Every film of his outside of Insomnia either does nonlinear or intertwining storytelling, but this one is without the cleverness involved in the script. It's just playing things out as they do. Survive. So to revisit, I believe this may be his best work yet, even if I don't know if it's my favorite of his. I really just want to put this in another category from other films entirely, in which case it's my favorite of "that kind of film."

My heart is still pounding from this film. I simply cannot wait to see this in 70mm IMAX on Thursday.

Nolan's Perilous Masterpiece That Never Lets Up!

[CalRhys · 21 July 2017]

Christopher Nolan. That name alone has the star-power of an acting giant. A name that once heard, turns the heads of an audience, whether it be a superhero movie, a science fiction epic... or a war drama, a typical moviegoer (even those less cinema-savvy or those who lack the traits of a "cinephile") will instantly be attracted to his movie at hand. We saw this with 'Inception', we saw this with 'Interstellar', and now we're seeing this with 'Dunkirk'. And my God, what a film it is. No film is truly flawless, but if a war film comes close to it, it's Nolan's new epic that does so.

We've seen the tale of Dunkirk undertaken several times on screen before, whether back in the 1950's or during that stunning and sweeping shot in 'Atonement', but none have come close to the realism, the grittiness and the intensity that 'Dunkirk' bestows upon the audience. The tale of a retreat that was seen as heroism, wait what? Yes, you read that right, the retreat at Dunkirk became one of World War II's greatest tales of heroism in the face of adversity. How Churchill had asked to ensure that at least 30,000 troops made it home... that number instead came in at a steady 300,000, and not just British soldiers. French, Belgians and some Dutch, it was a tale of spectacle that truly required an honest account from an auteur capable of bravura direction... well that auteur is Nolan.

We're all now used to Nolan's use of non-linear storytelling, and once again he utilises his famed formula to stunning effect, with three stories, each from the land, sea and air, all focusing on a different time frame, but effectively intersecting throughout. Our three heroes are newcomer Fionn Whitehead (land), Mark Rylance (sea) and Tom Hardy (air), each providing near-flawless performances. Lacking of actual dialogue, the sequences instead thrust the audience into a world of visual splendour and build the narrative through the use of sound and peril, the haunting and deafening sounds of diving Stukas, the ripping roar of the Spitfire's engine and the sudden silence, building to impending doom. The sound is this film's highlight, with Hans Zimmer returning once more to unleash yet another stunning score. Now, the cinematography, well what can I say? Hoyte Van Hoytema, take a bow, the imagery is both stark yet beautiful, its gritty yet serene, its claustrophobic yet sweeping... it's utterly encapsulating, from the opening shot, it draws you in, it takes you to that beach, it places you in the thick of it, and all the while avoiding the sight of the actual enemy in person, they're just lingering, unseen to the naked eye.

One side note that I'd love to delve into is Harry Styles, wow what a shocking achievement. Alike Heath Ledger as The Joker, Nolan has turned an unlikely cast member into someone of true talent.

In the 17 years of cinema-going during my life, I have seen some truly amazing movies, some that completely stunned me, many of which have been by the director at hand, including a fantastic IMAX experience of 'Interstellar', but never before have I left the cinema so awestruck, so silenced by the intensity of a movie. 'Dunkirk' isn't a typical movie, it isn't your typical war movie, this is more, much more. This is a film about the prevalence of heroism, the prevalence of Britishness, and how fear can strike drive and willpower into a human entity. This is a visual masterpiece, it is more than a movie, it's an experience, and one that should be witnessed by all!

An exquisite film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 10/10 · 23 July 2017]

Awards will follow.

How often can any of us say that a film lives with us for days, I've not been able to add that tag to anything I've seen in years. Within the first few moments of this film I knew this was going to be such a film. Most of us will know the incredible Dunkirk story, the fear many would have had I think would have been that the story was sensationalised, or lacking the real essence. All you can say is Christopher Nolan has once again shown his genius, this film is a masterpiece. You have no choice but to feel raw emotion as you watch, feelings of despair, hope, anger, fear, terror, you will feel exhausted having watched this film.

The acting is impeccable, every single member of the cast performs to an incredible standard (maybe Harry Styles's character will irritate one or two,) Mark Rylance is utterly sensational, as is Kenneth Branagh, the scene where his character looks up and sees the fishing boats arrive is one of the most moving in the film

The camera-work is astonishing, as is the music, which for me was one of the most powerful elements of the film, it built tension to enormous degrees.

There is a realism in this film which I find quite incredible, at times it's so difficult to watch, it brought elements to life I hadn't even thought of. I can see this being used in history lessons of the future.

The only real question is how many awards will this win. See this film, it's utterly incredible.

Straightforward And Gritty, But To Me It Missed The Mark Just A Bit

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 2 November 2019]

Director Christopher Nolan offers the viewer a pretty straightforward re-telling of the evacuation of British soldiers from the French port of Dunkirk in May of 1940, as the Germans encircled the town. The story is told from a strictly British perspective. Although we see some German planes involved in battles with RAF fighters as far as I can recall there isn't a single glimpse of a German soldier anywhere. Nolan then tells the story from three perspectives within that British perspective: on the land, on the sea and in the air. The land focuses on the solders awaiting rescue, the sea focuses mostly on the small private boats that made such a huge contribution to the effort (focusing on one boat in particular) and the air focuses on the battle by a small number of RAF pilots to protect their compatriots beneath against German planes. That structure was a bit confusing at first (especially as it was captioned on screen) but the story makes sense and that odd narrative structure is only a brief distraction.

There's not really a main character involved in this. The point seems to have been to portray the breadth of the Dunkirk evacuation at the expense of character depth. There's also no one moment that seems truly central, which means that the movie strikes you in the end of not really having built up to anything (aside from the actual evacuation, which admittedly is the most important thing.) But in some respects that made this movie seem at times less of a drama and more of a docu-drama if that makes any sense. The story-telling was a little bit lacking. I did appreciate that while the heroism of the British soldiers was front and centre, there was no shying away from a few more negative portrayals - shell-shocked soldiers, soldiers who just didn't want to fight anymore, soldiers who wouldn't even help their French allies. In that sense, this had a somewhat gritty feel, as befits a war movie.

It's not a bad movie. To me, it just missed the mark a little bit in terms of what I was expecting. (6/10)

An emotional trip back in time.

[ElementoSocial · 8/10 · 30 July 2017]

Ever since I was a child, I always felt attracted to history and specially to World War II, which is why I was on he first line to see this movie once it opened on my local cinema.

After seen the movie, I have to tell that somehow Dunkirk felt different from all the other movies I have seen related to WWII. It might be the non linear narrative, or the fact that the movie depicts the struggle of more than 300k young soldiers trying to save their lives and by doing so becoming seating ducks to the German army.

Even if this event can not be consider a battle victory, because they were fleeing away from he front. It is one of the most inspiring moments of WWII for the English people, were they realized that the impossible can be done and from that moment on, things started to change at least on the psyche of the common people and specially the soldiers.

War movies based on real events, are always brutal and they usually leave you with harsh feelings and empathy thoughts about how it really was to be in the character shoes. A must see movie, Mr. Nolan did it again.

Maybe 7,5/10 but not more

[kdimitrisfe · 7/10 · 31 August 2017]

I love Christofer Nolan. Great director. Great movies. No doubt about that. But unfortunately I think the movie was boring. It had awesome fight scenes, with different camera angles, music, costumes but it did not keep you at the edge of your seat like his other movies.

Almost no dialogue. You can say that it is realistic, because it is a war scene but the viewer needs to know something about the characters in order to identify with them. I felt like I was watching on youtube different war scenes in a 2 hours movie. It did not create the suspense I was hoping.

Virtual Experience of war, chaos, horror and hope

[reisen55 · 10/10 · 22 July 2017]

From a different viewpoint as this author walked down 101 floors of the South Tower on September 11. Worked for Aon and came away with not PTSD or dust-health problems (I was far uptown when the towers came down). So as I sat watching Dunkirk, the cummulative effect was to virtually relive aspects of THAT day for me. It's impossible to describe horror, fear and what it was like to BE there, or BE at Dunkirk. Many films and books (fondly MRS. MINIVER was the first). Or the heroic dogfights of BATTLE OF Britain. This one - far different. I came out of the theater feeling that I had just been through not only Dunkirk but 9-11 as well. It is THAT effective. The lack of dialogue for a good part of the film draws the viewer INTO the story as a real participant. YOU'RE THERE. Spielberg did it a few times such as the 20 minute Omaha Beach segment of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN but even that film became just a more intense version of the standard war film.

Be prepared to have your life changed by this one. It's that damn good.

Dunkirk: The Disney version.

[zeki-4 · 7/10 · 19 July 2017]

"The best world war 2 movie to date"? Really? As a guy who have been brought up on ww2 movies, I had to attend the first showing. Especially since there were so many "best ever" headlines. So there I went.

This movie is one long action sequence that stretches 106 minutes. But if you deduct the number of times that the exact same situation is shown, but from a different camera angle at another time in the movie, it barely passes the 60 minute mark. And after Hardy shoots down his fourth German plane, a stuka divebombs for the fifth time towards the beach, or Branagh looks up in the sky for the 7th time, it gets repetitive.

This actually felt like one long teaser prologue to 'Battle of Britain'. (If the rumors are true that Ridley Scott is doing his take on Battle of Britain, all I can say is: get busy!)

In 'Dunkirk' there's almost no dialogue, no conflict between any of the characters, no character development at all and the enemy is completely faceless. So this makes it a rather forgettable movie for me, unlike 'Hacksaw Ridge', 'Saving Private Ryan' and many of the other great world war 2 movies, that show war like it is: bloody. 'Dunkirk' is rated PG-13, which will sure please all the young Harry Styles fans.

In retrospective: The 5-minute Dunkirk segment (all shot in one take, an available on You Tube) from the movie 'Atonement' still makes a much larger impression to me, than I think Nolan's first (and hopefully not last) world war 2 movie forever will be doing.

But besides that - what Nolan (and collaborator Hans Zimmer) always do really well however is to create suspense, and there are some real nailbiting scenes in there, which make the ticket almost worth it.

I left the theater disappointed, though. Expected it to leave a larger impression. It didn't.

If you would have preferred 'Titanic' to be a movie that started right when the ship began sinking, 'Saving Private Ryan' to be all about the Omaha beach landing, and 'Braveheart' to be all about the battle of Sterling and Fallkirk, you don't mind cardboard characters, and you often find yourself muttering "when do they get to the action-part?", then 'Dunkirk' is definitely for you. For people who enjoy movies for emotional context, also: be advised that you won't find it here.

Put Down the Kool-Aid

[Better_Sith_Than_Sorry · 5/10 · 21 July 2017]

Given the outright gushing of critics in praising this film, I was quite surprised to discover Dunkirk to be not only not deserving of such praise, but even worse, to be a cacophony of minimalist nonsense, topped off by one of the most ridiculous film climaxes in recent memory (more on that later). "Possibly the best war film of all time?" Not quite, I could name dozens better. In fact I struggle to think of many that are worse than this. My goodness, where to begin...

First I do not understand where the $150 million budget was spent. The actual story of the Dunkirk evacuation involved - literally - hundreds of thousands of men, and hundreds of boats and planes. In this film, we see....a few hundred men? 30 boats? Something like six planes? Where is the grand scale that a story like Dunkirk deserves, or really, demands? There was no grand scale. That is a heinous omission and oversight and ultimately fails to tell the story of Dunkirk as it should be told. And if you don't want to use CGI to achieve that scale, that's fine, but then either expand the real numbers of extras and props so it replicates what Dunkirk was actually like, or, don't do the film. A few soldiers standing around on the beach looks incredibly silly when the characters say on more than one occasion that there are over 300,000 men there. Where are they? We never saw them. Ludicrous.

Similarly, we see a few boats here and there, and a few planes. This does not come close to approximating the flotilla of ships, boats and other watercraft used - in reality over 800. It's hard to appreciate what a tremendous achievement the Dunkirk evacuation was - ultimately, the aim of this film I suspect - when we never actually see that achievement occur. We see a few boats and few planes. Literally a drop in the bucket of what Dunkirk was. Yet at the conclusion, as the men are disembarking, back safe in England, we are supposed to be swept up in a swelling feeling of appreciation for something that we never actually witness. Very bizarre.

The soundtrack, if you can call it that, was an escalating collection of random and intrusive blaring instruments that can be best described as 'noise.' I have no idea what the goal was there. Perhaps it was an attempt to convey what one might feel, the intense experience one might have, if he or she was in a war-time situation like this. Perhaps. A professional critic called it 'bombastic' and that's probably being generous. I am not lying when I tell you I had to take an Advil when I got back from the theater, thanks to the crazily escalating noise that overwhelms the latter part of the film. Yikes.

As for the climax, the scene of a Spitfire seemingly free of the laws of physics and gravity is bereft of all logic, and was such an eye-rolling piece of nonsense, no amount of criticism on my part can do it justice. Let's just say planes cannot keep flying indefinitely, much less maneuver and successfully engage other aircraft, when that plane has run out of fuel. The film deserves to be panned for this ridiculous scene alone.

This is not a great war film, it's not even a good war film. It is not typical or traditional story-telling, I will give it that. There are stretches of this film that lack dialogue and there is zero character development. While different, that's hardly unique (it's been done before). Perhaps some critics haven't understood that 'different' does not automatically translate to 'good' or 'great' - sometimes, it does not.

Put down the Kool-Aid. As my brother said to me when we walked out of the theater last night, "Assuming I would like this, I thought I would go see this again over the weekend. Not only am I not doing that now, I won't even bother watching this once it's on cable or Netflix." True that, bro. 5/10.