User Reviews

Absolutely disappointing and a pure waste of time. It feels like Nolan has totally lost his Mojo. A few nice looking scenes, but 90% is crap from acting, over all story elements. The film has nothing to say and big parts feel like somebody gave 100 million euros to an amateur filmer group that is missing both: talent and interest in the movie. Sometimes it felt more like a parody... If you make a movie about the evacuation of 350.000 soldiers, it is absolutely ridiculous to show over and over again 5 or 6 rows of about 80 soldiers waiting at the beach for their ship, while from time to time a single German plan attacks them. I am not a fan of Computer FX, but THAT really was the right scene for using it. Can't believe how bad it was and I really don't dare to watch Odyssee...fearing for the worst.

A solid film with little dialogue that really needs to be seen at the cinema! Acting is mostly ok thought though nothing special. The scene setting, the flying dogfights, the ships sinking, the hopelessness of it all are all great though! Not sure why Styles got a speaking part! Well worth a viewing. I'd watch it again!

I really enjoyed Dunkirk. I can understand why some didn't like the PG-13 rating and found it to be a bit too tame, but I loved how human it was. This film did such a wonderful job at humanizing every part of it and making it feel like a disaster film more than a war film. It was more so about the escape from war, than the fighting of the war.

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."

Dunkirk strips war of heroics and leaves only survival. Christopher Nolan turns time itself into a weapon, while the near absence of dialogue somehow makes every heartbeat louder. It’s spectacular without glorifying combat, showing that courage often looks less like charging forward than simply enduring one more minute.

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.

This movie came out way better than I expected, as a Nolan fan I don't usually have much faith in his history/war films. However, this movie is superb and became one of my most favourite war movies.

It was good, but I think this got a bit of undeserved praise simply because it was directed by Christopher Nolan.

Greetings from Lithuania. First of all - "Dunkirk" (2017) is not the best war film ever made in my opinion. By far. I don't think that there ever will be a better war movies then "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or even "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), "Platoon" (1986) or "The Thin Red Line" (1998). It is not even the best Christopher Nolan movie at the moment (the crown goes to "Interstellar (2014)). That said, "Dunkirk" is something absolutely unique, stunning, kinda mesmerizing movie going experience. It is not perfect, sometimes even a bit confusing (because of the time lines, but its not "overdone") movie, but the one which absolutely has to be seen in a movie theater. The best thing about "Dunkirk" is the craftsmanship and the biggest star of "Dunkirk" is without a doubt Christopher Nolan. The script in here is not a great one, and like i said i was a bit confused at some moments, but the storytelling here is so powerful itself that it tells everything. Music is simply astonishing. Hans Zimmer (again) does something absolutely unique with Nolan movie - it transcendence the whole experience. Cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema is a masterpiece. Sound design and sound mixing are so good, so sharp that it adds more to this movie then just a sound - it makes you kinda grab your seat. So here are the 4 Oscar nominations for sure - best director, music, cinematography (probably a winner) and sounds (sure winners). Acting was good given the roles, but nothing very memorable except for a great Mark Rylance and Fionn Whitehead which i really liked in this role. Overall, "Dunkirk" is not a bloody or gore war movie. Its "horror" is terror. The situation itself and how it is presented in this movie made me think couple of times about the war that this is a true terror. This is not an "easy" movie going experience because you have to pay attention during a whole movie and it doesn't have sharp characters to which you can relate - its about a situation at the moment - right here right now. There are "time line" sections / intersections that makes you think about what you are seeing. And it is done so unique, so ambitious that i probably haven't witnessed this kinda movie before. "Dunkirk" is not a mainstream "war movie", basically it is a thriller set in a WW2. But its crafted so uniquely that it can not be missed. A sure classic, if not for everyone.

A legendary spectacle in the making, this is quite possibly the most daringly innovative and unconventional war film made about a pivotal historic moment by quite possibly the most impactful director of the 21st century. Stunningly edited, decently acted with some of the production design work I've ever seen. And the way the plot unfolds... it stole my breath away.

Right next to "Saving James" in the Hall of Fame of the best anti war movies of the last 50 years, i would mean. Whether 100% authentic or not. Doesn´t matter here, cause drama and emotion beats it. I especially like the kind of quick and straight progress which generates and undertow and atmosphere till the last credit of the film is running over the screen. 10/10

One of the better war time films made in recent years, which looks and sounds incredible. The only thing I could do without is the constant jump between scenes Nolan seems obsessed with here. But other than that, a really good film!

Perfectly depicts the horrors of war and the atmosphere of World War II. One of the most realistic war films I've ever watched. I couldn't even tell if I was watching a movie or a real footage. Another piece of art by the goat - Christopher Nolan. Although I wish there was more to the storyline but its worth watching nonetheless.

Appreciable plot of a well-made historical themed film, but it is a fairly classic film for its genre without any great highlights

Not terrible but not good enough to be worth watching. Impressive budget and effects, but beyond that not much new or interesting.

The terror of a quiet solitude, exposed on an endangered French beach and desperately awaiting evacuation at the height of World War II. Abandoning the more experimental themes he toyed with in Inception and Interstellar, Christopher Nolan has set out to make a mostly-straight war picture, shining his spotlight on a major test (and ultimate turning point) for the British armed forces. Told from three entangled perspectives - one each from land, sea and air - we see heroes, victims, cowards and lunatics emerge from what might have otherwise seemed a nondescript group of frightened young men. Dunkirk is far less bombastic than the standard combat film, with a soft, observant character and distinct lack of extraneous dialogue. That reticence, paired with an emphasis on beautifully-composed photography, reminded me more of an art film than an action epic. The battlefield's thick tension is inescapable, though, always drawing us back to the moment, with the wary skyward eyes and skittish, shell-shocked nature of nearby soldiers proving a constant reminder that arbitrary death could be mere moments away. It’s also the rare positive example of a recent tendency toward uneven sound mixes: a barrage of gunfire or sudden, screaming airborne bombing run can pack a mighty punch.

Nolan is overrated, the movie has good production value but is filmed in modern Europe. That would be like filming a movie that takes place in the Roman empire in a modern Italian square, pretty silly. The story is quite forgettable and like other Nolan films it relies too heavily on special effects and explosions to gain your attention.

It shows the true face of war through honest speaking style................

Cinematograficamente es una obra de arte y las actuaciones no se quedan atrás. VEANLA POR FAVOR.

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

Blown away completely by this on the rewatch, best war movie, best production design, possible best Nolan.

Dunkirk! Where to begin? Whereas audiences were entering theaters expecting to be greeted with the next Saving Private Ryan or Platoon, they were exposed to an onslaught of the senses; overwhelming human conviction, the pressure of time, Nolan writing it as its own character, and the realistic deption between navy and civilian. And boy oh boy was I happy to be surprised! Nolan crafted not a tale, story, or insight into a tiny aspect of the war. But successfully detected a literal experience, not telling, showing, and dramatizing what happened but simply depicting the events that unfolded while emphasizing the already very enticing literal events that unfolded at Dunkirk. By using simple yet effective plot devices and strong characters Christopher Nolan did not craft a film but an experience of what was. Dunkirk should be seen at least once by... well... simply anyone.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I like Movies where next to the entertainment I can also learn something about history.

"Dunkirk" (2017) is an awe-inspiring masterpiece directed by the brilliant Christopher Nolan. Set against the backdrop of World War II, the film is a triumph of storytelling and cinematography. Nolan's ingenious narrative technique intertwines land, sea, and air perspectives seamlessly, immersing the audience in the heart of the evacuation. The absence of a singular protagonist is a stroke of genius, allowing us to appreciate the collective courage. Hans Zimmer's evocative score amplifies the tension to a crescendo. With breathtaking visuals and meticulous attention to historical detail, "Dunkirk" stands as a heartfelt tribute to the resilience and valor of those who were ****/

Really good movie. An adventure of a film, so much ebbing and flowing, and the intertwining of narratives was beautiful. It was frustrating seeing the complete and abject failure of the troops to protect their withdrawal, though it's difficult to decipher whether that was a poor decision on the part of the movie makers or if it was somewhat historically accurate. Either way, doesn't really take away too much. Incredible movie.

Great movie. The story is decent. The scoring is great, visual is really amazing, the voice & sound is also amazing

Dope movie that presses a lot of the right buttons very well. Just didn't do it for me. Well done, but not "Nolan" special. Nothing innovative. Certainly worth a watch, but I think it's laughable that this is considered a Metacritic "must-see."

extremely boring ...................................................................................

Realistically the film was giggle worthy. By far not the best war movie ever made. Half the viewers of this movie only watched it for Harry. His acting was so funny, and somehow has gotten worse. Honestly at some point I wish HE had jumped off the boat, but I guess I am glad he survived. If he died, we wouldn't hear his outstanding British voice talking so seriously. Imagine the spit coming out of his mouth. He was scathing. Poor Gibson. The movie was a colossal waste of time, only worth it to laugh. In all honesty, I've forgotten any other scene of this film, it's just Harry. And not even because he's good, because he's bad. Should stick to singing.

Really amazing WW2 movie, I would recommend it to everyone, even if you don't like "war movies".

WORST movie Nolan has made wtf happened. Repeating the same event from different angles over and over. Annoying. Bad.

The message I got is war really **** and retreating in war really **** even more, but this is basically a intense slow burner rescue/survival movie. It gave me the really big sad watching all this. What a waste of human life this thing we call war. Movies like bring home the real horror and the ultimate sacrifice in times of war. It adds levels and layers to the saying "Thank you for your service". Massive respect to vets in times of conflict.

a completely flawed film. I personally can only check it off as propaganda. a completely flawed film. I personally can only check it off as propaganda

Great Movie all around. Worth your time. Inspiring story about war and humanity

This is the best war movie I have watched so far. The visuals are amazing and every scene looks incredible, alongside with a strong soundtrack, the best I have ever seen in a movie. Dunkirk highlights Christopher Nolan’s genius and shows just how heroic and good that people can be. It also brings in strong performances by Fiona Whitehead, Harry Styles, Mark Rylancer, Tom Hardy, Lee Armstrong and the rest of this amazing cast. Dunkirk is a must watch for all cinephiles!

çok az diyalog ile geniş açılı sahneler çekerek çaresizlik korku endişe gibi duyguları muhteşem harmanlayan başyapıttır.

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

----------------------------------7.3/10-----------------------------------

This gotta be one of my favorite movies of all time. Intense is the only word that could describe the movie.

One word to describe this film: Intense. The whole way through I was on the edge of my seat, thinking, "What's going to happen next?" The sound effects are brilliant, the visuals are magnificent and the music is intense, just like the movie. The decision to follow the stories of the land, air and sea was a great decision. T. This movie's dialogue is scarce, with Nolan choosing to convey the horrors of war through excellent cinematography and music. The only problem is, apart from Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy's characters, none of them are really interesting, and along with the virtually non-existent Character development, there is little to no depth to the characters, making you wonder why you should feel for them. The movie also feels very slow, much longer than the 107 minutes it actually runs for. Other than that, this is a great War flick, and another great movie from Nolan.

In general a good story but the beaches are so empty in real life there were soldiers and burning equipment everywhere but thankfully no cgi and can sympathise with characters

Strong film. A film that shows the war scenario around the evacuation success of over 300,000 mainly British and French soldiers on the last line of defense around Dunkirk. Basically the many soldiers were waiting there to be taken over to the island by ship. You had the advancing armed forces of the **** behind you and the Luftwaffe above your heads. The film mainly stages the psychologically stressful accessories of a war or a single war scenario. The constant fear of every single soldier has been conveyed (mostly) well and you have had one or two goose bumps here. So it is not shown in the very classic sense of "war", but much more the surrounding area. Various impressions underline the sheer fear in the soldiers' thoughts. For me, the very impressive presentation resulted mainly from the parallelism of the scenes, which are then put together from different perspectives, underlaid with suitable sound and good music. The sound design in particular was very haunting and threatening, especially due to the dive fighter planes, and it conveyed the situation very well. Dunkirk is a film about survival. The evacuation process is focused on the air, sea and beach sections in the film. These subdivisions of the film are represented by different actors (e.g. Tom Hardy in a Spitfire). But especially with the soldiers, I would have liked to have had more time in Dunkirk to portray the psychological stress even more drastically on film. Unfortunately, this part was dealt with very quickly and right at the beginning. A total of 4/5 evacuation boats.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

It's a good drama, but a movie that overwhelms the audience. It could be worked more fluently, I don't know. One of Nolan's most distinctive movies.

Le film est angoissant ce qui vous immerge parfaitement dans ces tragiques événements. La Photographie est juste incroyable.

Sound and image powerful anti-war drama about the tragic fates of wartime..

Soooo goood. I really enjoyed how Nolan divides it in three story lines: ground, sea and air. I still think that there is something lacking.

One of 2017's best movies. A movie that's constructed like an action/thriller with it's cutting between stories but done in a way that doesn't glorify war at all. Hard to do, brilliantly executed.