DUNKIRK(PG-13)
**1/2 (out of 5)
July 21, 2017
STARRING
Fionn Whitehead as TOMMY
Tom Glynn-Carney as PETER
Jack Lowden as COLLINS
Harry Styles as ALEX
Aneurin Barnard as GIBSON
James D’Arcy as COLONEL WINNANT
Barry Keoghan as GEORGE
Kenneth Branagh as COMMANDER BOLTON
Cillian Murphy as SHIVERING SOLDIER
Mark Rylance as MR. DAWSON
Tom Hardy as FARRIER
Studio: Warner Bros.
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
BY KEVIN CARR
I am not a big fan of directors responding to – or even acknowledging – their critics. After all, they have a job to do, and they should just do it. We critics have a job to do, so we should just do ours as well. Indeed, a director’s job is to make movies. Responding to your critics rarely leads to a mature and reasonable outcome.
For the most part, Christopher Nolan has avoided this trap that the best and worst directors (from Steven Spielberg to Michael Bay) have fallen into. Yet, I couldn’t help but feel that Nolan’s new film “Dunkirk” was a response to many of the criticisms that have shown up in the otherwise overwhelmingly great reviews of his work.
He has been accused of dealing too much in the fantastic. So he made a true-story war film. He has been accused of muddying up his dialogue with sound effects and music. So he made a movie with minimal dialogue, most of which is technical jargon. He has been accused of having extensive running times. So he made a movie under two hours. He has been accused of having no emotional core to his characters. So he made a movie with zero character development and almost non-existent character arcs.
In some ways, “Dunkirk” certainly is a masterpiece. If you’re a cinephile who adores features borne on actual celluloid, patronize your nearest 70mm exhibitor and is enamored with the technology behind practical filmmaking, there’s a lot to love about “Dunkirk.” While my press screening was on DCP, the imagery is striking and brilliantly composed. The use of practical effects are staggeringly, even to the point that the necessary digital optical effects are glaring and sometimes problematic.
In this sense, “Dunkirk” is a postcard that captures all of the power that the visual image has to offer. It looks great. It sounds great. It is often a wonder to behold.
However, all of this is executed at a price. And that price is a complete film.
Like many of Nolan’s films, there is no emotional core. More over, with this film specifically, there’s very little emotion at all. He requires the viewer to bring his or her own emotion and stubbornly refuses to offer any in return. The result is that if you’re not already drinking the Christopher Nolan Kool-Aid when you walk in, you’re left with a film populated by cardboard theater standees that blow in the wind.
In some ways, it feels like “Dunkirk” is a petulant push-back after “Interstellar.” Nolan’s previous film was drenched in forced emotion and Matthew McConaughey cry-face. Now, “Dunkirk” has turned off that emotional spigot to choke the humanity from this story. Additionally, by structuring the film in intermittent out-of-sequence action set-pieces, it leaves the nonexistent plot confusing and frustrating.
“Dunkirk” is a great last half of a movie, but alone is an emotionless vacuum. Had there been an actual cohesive film, offering context, character, story and history, it could have been one of the most powerful movie’s I’ve ever seen. However, Nolan is such a vacuum of emotional storytelling that he doesn’t even try. There is a single story arc that has any sense of humanity to it – most of which is due to a fantastic understated performance by Mark Rylance – but even then, it squanders any sort of compassion or ethos.
Imagine if James Cameron had started “Titanic” at the moment the ship hit the ice berg. Sure, the spectacle would still be there, but the ninety minutes of character development and audience investment would have been gone. In 1997, it was cool and devastating to watch the Titanic sink on the big screen, but the real heart of that ocean was the story behind it, including the minor snippets of stories as you watched the other figures in the movie deal with the disaster.
In the end, Nolan has made a film that feels like a bizarre mixture of Terrence Malick and Michael Bay. It’s all imagery and style, with plenty of flash. However, there’s nothing that breaks the fourth wall and engages the audience. Indeed, “Transformers: The Last Knight” had more emotional impact than this film does… and that movie was wretched.
I understand why Nolan made all of the choices he did – from capturing the confusion of war from the point of view of the soldier to the different perspectives of the approaches to the beach at Dunkirk. However, these were not good choices for anything more than a $100 million experimental film.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
What qualifies some as a “legitimate” film critic? A computer?
Fat and dumb is no way to go through life
lolololololololololol Nice!
It’s demonstrably false that anyone not drinking the Nolan Kool-Aid is left with a film populated by cardboard standees, etc. There are already way more glowing reviews than there are Nolan Kool-Aid drinkers.
And critique the film; don’t try to pick apart the director’s psyche and accuse him of “petulant push-back.” After all, you started your review by demanding that directors stick to their job. Stick to yours.
“I am not a big fan of directors responding to – or even acknowledging – their critics. After all, they have a job to do, and they should just do it.”
What makes your dumbass think he’s responding to critics? Nolan doesn’t need to respond to anyone, we’ve yet to see a bad film from him. What a garbage review, find a new job you half-wit.
“Emotionless vacuum”?
You’re projecting.
Edgelord reviewer gets more clicks for being edgy! I get all my film opinions from Fat Guys At The Movies dot com!
Vapid and worthless review. Go back to watching Transformers, where you belong.
I can not agree with your review.
Can’t help but bit feel like that this review was done to get traffic from RottenTomatoes.
lmfao. I am really curious what it takes to become a noteworthy movie reviewer nowadays.
Please don’t lump those comments as representing Nolan fans. We fans are way more sensible and accepting of other opinions. These comments are from trolls, not fans.
“Imagine if James Cameron had started “Titanic” at the moment the ship hit the ice berg.”
This is the perfect analogy. Or Pearl Harbour, starting with the first torpedo bomber run and just featuring a literal depiction of the attack. Or The Guns of Navarone, beginning with the attack on the gun implacement and following a group of no name commandos as they battle to disable the weapons. Dunkirk is not a movie … it’s a fictionalized news real.
Thanks for the great review. You made some excellent observations. What is baffling to me is the casting of Harry Stiles. I can just imagine his acting ability is non existent. Maybe justin Bierber will land the lead in Nolans next movie!!!
Having the running time under two hours is a response to the critique? How do you know that? Maybe he made the decision to have the running time fit the actual story he is trying to tell. Dragging it out would give it less of an impact. You are making a lot of stupid assumptions. I find it hard to believe that you are this dumb, so I think this is all about getting lovely clicks….
i must say this review is spot on.
And here I thought I was the only one who thought this movie was very disappointing. I completely agree with you on all points!
Good luck braving the verbal abuse you will no doubt receive!
If Cameron had started Titanic at the moment it hit the iceberg, I might have been able to watch it. The deluge of pap that preceded that moment is like cinematic ipecac to me.
Find another hobby.
Great review. One of the few I actually like. You’ve an integrity, unlike people above… They can’t make a difference between a movie and a holy picture depicting their idol.
I’m a little curious as to how many of the critics above have actually seen the movie. Because I don’t see anyone explaining, with supporting arguments, why the writers are wrong. Resorting to what amount to ad hominem attacks accomplishes nothing.
What I mean by “critics” and “writers” is the writers of the review and the critics of said review.
The problem is its not even trying to be a story. Nothing before, nothing after, nothing much in between, no one has any past, the event itself doesn’t have an explanation, it doesn’t have consequences, there is no interesting characters, there is no dialogues and, to top it all, no Germans! A WWII story without nothing, not even Germans, hard to beat!
Wait until his next experiment: an hour and a half staring at a black screen. The spectator will have to create a movie in his mind just by earing different sounds. Something rattling in the sand, a machine gun at a distance, a splash in the water… We will come out of the theater everyone with a different story to tell, isn’t that brilliant!
Not there yet but close enough if you ask me.
KEVIN, whats your pix for the greatest war-films?
To throw my towel in, mine are> (*-denotes *Oscar winner)
“Apocalypse Now”-(l979)-(Premiere magazine once voted it as #1)
“Saving Pvt. Ryan” (l998)
*”The Deer Hunter” (l978)
*”Platoon” (l986)
*”From Here to Eternity” (l953) (Columbia)
“The Great Escape” (l963)-(though kinda’ more of an Adventure at times)-(McQueen was my very 1st Hero as a kid)
“Paths of Glory” (l957)
“The Longest Day” (l962)
“Battleground” (l949-MGM)-(*Wild Bill Wellman ranked his 1945 “Story of G.I. Joe” as his best though)
*”Bridge on the River Kwai” (l957) (Col.)
(Also-Rans):
“Ran” (l985-Japanese)
“12 0’Clock High” (l949-Fox)
& about *Gibson’s 2017 “Hacksaw Ridge” ($65m.) (***1/2)
Kevin, accidentally listed “HR” at bottom, not among the greatest, but wanted your view of it please
& *Kubrick’s 1987 masterpiece & 2 films in one “Full Metal Jacket” ($46m.) seems to be growing in status
Ever see the 1st BP *Academy award winner *”Wings” (l927-28-Paramount) I rate Hughes 1930 “Hell’s Angels” over it myself & 1929/30’s sweeper *”All Quiet on Western Front”
Rumor has it that L.B. Mayer fixed the first *Oscars-(not called that until around ’35)
Seeing “Dunkirk” in only a few hrs but to me & most the “Kane” of sub films is 1982’s “Das Boot”
“K-l9: The Widowmaker” unfortunately failed with audiences at just $36m.
Very insightful review, Don’t listen to the haters. Every point you made hit home with me and others. Really loved the “Christopher Nolan Kool-Aid” remark, lol