Dunkirk

Although Dunkirk is not as labyrinthine as Nolan’s “Memento” (2000) or “Inception” (2010), its strike rate upon our senses is rarely in doubt, and there is a beautiful justice in watching it end, as it has to, in flames. Land, sea, air, and, finally, fire: the elements are complete, honor is salvaged, and the men who were lost scrape home.

It’s one of the best war films ever made, distinct in its look, in its approach and in the effect it has on viewers. There are movies — they are rare — that lift you out of your present circumstances and immerse you so fully in another experience that you watch in a state of jaw-dropped awe. Dunkirk is that kind of movie.

There may be money on the screen, but cash alone can’t guarantee this kind of pulsating, cinematic magic, delivered by a director at the height of his powers, mustering the very best at their craft.

This is a powerful, superbly crafted film with a story to tell, avoiding war porn in favour of something desolate and apocalyptic, a beachscape of shame, littered with soldiers zombified with defeat, a grimly male world with hardly any women on screen. It is Nolan’s best film so far.

Dunkirk wants us to sense what made this moment so pivotal without reducing it to an individual tale. And at that, it succeeds richly.

The action is the attraction. If that means some of the film feels a little distant and chilly, it’s in the admirable service of avoiding simplistic drama or easy sentiment.

In devoting so much time to the dull, counterproductive mechanics of the action assembly, Dunkirk dispenses with nearly all other elements of drama.

A woeful war story. For the first time, I saw Christopher Nolan making a positive story, Christopher Nolan having a warm heart when lost soldiers were found by home. Some of the cinematography is intresting: one scene has a 16:9 ratio whilst another scene had a widecreen ratio, that would be to show what was more dramatic. Usually, that was never seen before in a movie. Scenes had a right to be dramatic: the twin brother could have almost been dying on that boat whilst taking war. One highlight is those dynamics close things like brotherhood have. Did you know that Harry Styles was in that movie? On his acting, he is good with the trope that is show it, don't tell it - I saw him but he was hard to recognize & just like one of them, it could have been scary of what he was going through. I think it was right to love those many biopic movies & learn about war stories & technically nothing serious at the end. I am just an amateur at putting in words for a review.

Ce film est long pour pas grand chose : il raconte l'histoire d'un retrait des troupe anglaises des plages de dunkirk (2 heures trop longue pour moi ) Néanmoins la réalisation est exeptionnel

you losers only watched it because harry styles is in it but the movie itself wasnt 10/10 worthy maybe like 7/10 at most

I think *Dunkirk* is a film where Nolan's ambitions finally work against him. Nolan wants to break stereotypes and do something new - which is great. But unfortunately, he didn't ask himself beforehand: doesn't this subversion of stereotypes violate the basic laws of cinema and storytelling? Or rather: is this cinema at all? The lack of characterization in the film is clearly a deliberate choice on Nolan's part. But can cinema really exist without characterization? In this film, Nolan is essentially saying: "I don't want to create a hero; I want to make a hero out of an entire army. I don't want to create individual characters; I want to make a single, unified character out of the entire army." This is precisely Nolan's biggest mistake. In cinema, we go from the "individual to the collective", not the other way around. That is, if the "individual" is not created first, the "collective" will not be created. This is exactly what Nolan does not understand. Breaking this rule is not breaking a stereotype, it is breaking a vital rule in cinematic storytelling. The result of this lack of characterization is a film in which we see action, we see exciting events, but because we do not know any of the people in the film and none of them have become characters, we do not give them any importance. And it turns this film into a 106-minute torture. Now, let's hope that Nolan, with all this confusion, narrates the film non-linearly!! The result is a crowded, baseless and boring film that will leave nothing in your mind when it ends. When the characters shout victory and rejoice at the end of the film, but their joy seems ridiculous and ridiculous to us, it means that the film has not achieved its goal of "turning a defeat into a victory."

A film that has nothing to say about the events of Dunkirk, war in general, or the people affected by it. The time-shifting device is needlessly confusing, and serves no narrative purpose but to give you something to think about, since the story and characters won't.