Dunkirk (2017)

[starri]

Warner Bros is clearly aiming for the same audience that Saving Private Ryan found, but I have to wonder if American audiences are going to be enthusiastic about seeing a WWII movie that isn't about Americans.  Because they were the only part of WII that actually mattered.

[KatWay]

Yes, I was already saying the trailer thread that this will be a hard sell in the US. No American actors and a WW2 movie before American involvement. That doesn't make the story any less important but I don't know if audiences in the US will turn out for it.

Also while I liked the trailer more than some (Nolan never gives much away in his trailers), the prologue (which can be seen in IMAX before Rogue One showings right now) is much better in my opinion- although it left me a bit confused what kind of movie we can expect here. The trailer looks very Saving Private Ryan, the prologue is super intense, the ticking noise, the feeling of time running out. It reminded me a bit of Inception in that way.

[Notwisconsin]

It's Saving Private Ryan in reverse. Or The Empire Strikes Back. The bad guys win, but the good guys live to fight another day.

[Dejana]

7 hours ago, starri said:

Warner Bros is clearly aiming for the same audience that Saving Private Ryan found, but I have to wonder if American audiences are going to be enthusiastic about seeing a WWII movie that isn't about Americans.  Because they were the only part of WII that actually mattered.

 

That's probably why Nolan cast a member of One Direction in what seems like a fairly substantial role, judging by the multiple appearances in the trailer. I don't know if the Harry Styles fans will show up to theaters but in the meantime it's given Dunkirk priceless free publicity: I've lost count of how many entertainment outlets reported on set pics or behind-the-scenes footage of "the new Harry Styles movie" since his involvement was announced.

[MrsR]

Won't appeal to Americans?

Really?

Remember when the History Channel was the WWII Channel? Take a tour through the Youtube WWII videos and you'll see there are still tons and tons of WWII enthusiasts.

How many Americans have watched The Crown? Downton Abbey? Americans love British stuff.

I agree about the Harry Styles casting. But Tom Hardy will bring people in as well. And casting Rylance is genius. The cast is solid.

And it's so timely. This is the ultimate BREXIT film.

Edited December 18, 2016 by MrsR

[Danny Franks]

Anyone interested in war films should be queueing up to see this. It's part of British folklore, one of the key events in the early years of the war. The twists and turns of the story, with blitzkrieg leaving the British and French in shock and running for the coast, the Germans deciding to hold back their tanks and ground troops, allowing Goering's Luftwaffe to show what they could do. The hopeless, collapsed morale of the soldiers.

Then you have the evacuation itself with the small ships, the private trawlers and fishing boats and yachts coming to the rescue of the British and French troops, pulling out over 300,000 in the course of a week. All while thousands more French soldiers fought to hold off German ground forces and protect the evacuation.

British media at the time (and ever since) successfully painted it all as a valiant success, in the face of the unstoppable Germans. This movie will probably be a little more critical, but it's still a hell of a story, even without Americans.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Danny Franks

[starri]

15 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

it's still a hell of a story, even without Americans.

I know it is, but I also bet that at least half of all Americans think WWII started at Pearl Harbor.

[gator12]

3 hours ago, MrsR said:

Won't appeal to Americans?

Really?

Remember when the History Channel was the WWII Channel? Take a tour through the Youtube WWII videos and you'll see there are still tons and tons of WWII enthusiasts.

How many Americans have watched The Crown? Downton Abbey? Americans love British stuff.

I agree about the Harry Styles casting. But Tom Hardy will bring people in as well. And casting Rylance is genius. The cast is solid.

And it's so timely. This is the ultimate BREXIT film.

Do you know if YouTube have some history documentary about Dunkirk? Never heard of Dunkirk before seeing the trailer now I watch the History Channel was still the History Channel

[MrsR]

Here you go. First Part of a good 3 part documentary/re-enactment on Dunkirk. Excellent cast including Benedict Cumberbatch in a pivotal position.

 

Dunkirk was featured in Atonement. In a five minute shot (no cuts) with James McAvoy.

Mrs Miniver 1942 directed by William Wyler featured Dunkirk as a major  plot point. Mrs MIniver is regarded as one of the best dramatic propaganda films to come out of Hollywood during the war. 

[gator12]

2 minutes ago, MrsR said:

Here you go. First Part of a good 3 part documentary/re-enactment on Dunkirk. Excellent cast including Benedict Cumberbatch in a pivotal position.

 

 

Dunkirk was featured in Atonement. In a five minute shot (no cuts) with James McAvoy.

Mrs Miniver 1942 directed by William Wyler featured Dunkirk as a major  plot point. Mrs MIniver is regarded as one of the best dramatic propaganda films to come out of Hollywood during the war. 

Thank you

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, starri said:

I know it is, but I also bet that at least half of all Americans think WWII started at Pearl Harbor.

You're probably right. But I just hope there will be enough of them with open enough minds to be interested in this despite it occurring a year before the US joined the war.

And then perhaps Nolan or someone else could follow it up with a movie about the Battle of Britain. More stirring stuff.

I visited Dunkirk a few years ago, and was dismayed to find there's little trace of what happened there. A half decent museum that had seen better says, and the remains of some German coastal defence bunkers. I guess the French had no real desire to commemorate it, which is a shame because tens of thousands of French troops were involved.

[MrsR]

Well to be fair, until Pearl Harbor and the entry of Japan and the US. in the conflict, it was known as "The War in Europe." (Even though they were fighting in North Africa as well.)

 

Sad to see that there is not much mention of the event in Dunkirk itself but it's nice that the British have kept and memorialized many of the "Little Ships".

Edited December 19, 2016 by MrsR

[Pyralis]

It's also a major plot point in "Foyle's War - The White Feather"  and background in a couple of other episodes and in Paul Gallico's "the Snow Goose".

It's known up here in Canada as we had troops there too.  

[JustaPerson]

I remember seeing Dunkirk and the evacuation in Atonement, where James McAvoy's character died.

[KatWay]

I honestly hadn't heard of Dunkirk until the scene in Atonement (beautiful scene, by the way). I'm curious to see it as a full length feature.  Still a gamble on American audiences, I think. And overseas they don't care much for WW2 movies outside of Europe.

Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy are brilliant and I love Mark, but it looks like there's a lot of unknowns in major roles, which is also a gamble.

However, I have noticed a suspicious amount of girls in my friends circle suddenly claiming they've always been huge fans of war movies and/or Nolan and can't wait to see this, despite barely being able to name some films. So hopefully Harry Styles is really drawing in a crowd that wouldn't have watched it otherwise.

[NumberCruncher]

I absolutely LOVE that Dunkirk scene in Atonement--it's a cinematic masterpiece right down to the haunting soundtrack.

Honestly I don't think Americans are as ignorant regarding the European beginnings of WWII as a lot of people seem to think so I don't see this failing with American audiences purely due to subject matter.  Look at Schindler's List--that story had virtually nothing to do with U.S. involvement in the war, had no American actors to speak of, and it was a huge hit.  People in the U.S. may not know all the ins and outs of Dunkirk but I don't buy the argument that they think WWII started at Pearl Harbor either.  War buffs will love the movie if it's good.  

As for the foreign cast that's also not necessarily indicative of failure.  From a TV standpoint, look how well Band of Brothers did on HBO led by a then unknown-to-American-audiences Damian Lewis.  BoB is still regarded as one of the classic war miniseries--it also starred a very mixed, smaller-named American/British cast.  Also, despite being centered around an American G.I.'s story, Hacksaw Ridge has recently done quite well at the box office despite starring an English actor in the title role (with a fair number of British/Australian supporting players) so there's precedent for good war stories being popular with American audiences despite having international casts.

[KatWay]

I've just rewatched Atonement and I think reviewers are probably going to bring up that scene when discussing Dunkirk, one because it's a brilliant piece of cinematography as you said, and the only major film take on the battle so far, and two because it looks, at least judging by the trailers almost like the complete opposite take on Dunkirk, atmosphere wise and so on. The Atonement scene is very dirty, chaotic, looks almost surreal in a way. Nolan's version looks very clean, pristine and much wider in comparison. I recently saw someone correct the description of a "war drama" as a "war action thriller", which suggests something more similar to Nolan's films so far except for the real historical setting. I still can't get a good grasp of what I expect this film to actually look like, once it's out.

[starri]

On 12/19/2016 at 9:32 PM, NumberCruncher said:

As for the foreign cast that's also not necessarily indicative of failure.  From a TV standpoint, look how well Band of Brothers did on HBO led by a then unknown-to-American-audiences Damian Lewis.  BoB is still regarded as one of the classic war miniseries--it also starred a very mixed, smaller-named American/British cast.  Also, despite being centered around an American G.I.'s story, Hacksaw Ridge has recently done quite well at the box office despite starring an English actor in the title role (with a fair number of British/Australian supporting players) so there's precedent for good war stories being popular with American audiences despite having international casts.

The thing is, whether or not the movie/series was led by American actors, both stories are about Americans.  This isn't.

I'm not rooting against it, as I enjoy Nolan's films and hope it finds an audience, I'm just kind of skeptical for now.

[KatWay]

Quote

The thing is, whether or not the movie/series was led by American actors, both stories are about Americans.  This isn't.

I'm not rooting against it, as I enjoy Nolan's films and hope it finds an audience, I'm just kind of skeptical for now.

I've definitely seen some sentiments in other forums online that suggest this, people saying "but where are the Americans" and dismissing the idea of a WW2 film without US involvement. I think at least some people who usually go see war films are very patriotic (American Sniper did super well), and well, if they don't go see this that might hurt the film's box office. (It's not a reason I agree with, mind you, I watch war films from any perspective, but it's one that exists IMO).

[Danny Franks]

2 hours ago, KatWay said:

I've definitely seen some sentiments in other forums online that suggest this, people saying "but where are the Americans" and dismissing the idea of a WW2 film without US involvement. I think at least some people who usually go see war films are very patriotic (American Sniper did super well), and well, if they don't go see this that might hurt the film's box office. (It's not a reason I agree with, mind you, I watch war films from any perspective, but it's one that exists IMO).

I would like to think those who go to see war films are interested in history, and are therefore excited about an opportunity to learn about a subject they may not know much about. But I guess American jingoism has people so conditioned now that they simply can't comprehend that everything isnt all about them.

It would be a shame.

[BigBeagle]

This unabashed American will be seeing the movie, simply because I love the genre and I'm a history buff.

[KatWay]

I just read an interview with Chris Nolan where he cleared something up that I found confusing originally, namely that the film's timeline can't be entirely straightforward because the pilots involved in the battle for example would have had a much shorter time there (because of limited fuel) than the men on the ships and especially the men on the beach of Dunkirk, who would have been there for a couple of days I'd think.

It might not be a big deal but depending on how Nolan deals with that it could be interesting.

[Sharpie66]

I hope that the film includes the fact that the French really held out at other locations on the coast and gave the Brits the chance to get their troops (and several thousand French) out. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Sharpie66

[Jediknight]

New trailer

Man, Nolan's going to clean up the award nominations.

[Morrigan2575]

I saw the trailer today when I went to see GotG, it blew me away. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this movie.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Morrigan2575

[calliope1975]

The previous trailer didn't interest me at all, but this one got me. I may have to check this out. 

[AshleyN]

On 5/5/2017 at 8:38 PM, Jediknight said:

Man, Nolan's going to clean up the award nominations.

Heh, I think this looks great and I'm looking forward to it a lot, but I've said elsewhere that there will be something kind of sad to me if Nolan, who made his name with ambitious and successful genre films, finally manages to land that Best Director nomination with a WWII movie.

I suppose it would be kind of reminiscent of Spielberg, who actually was nominated for some of his genre work, but couldn't get a win until he made his Holocaust film.

Edited May 6, 2017 by AshleyN

[Morrigan2575]

42 minutes ago, AshleyN said:

Heh, I think this looks great and I'm looking forward to it a lot, but I've said elsewhere that there will be something kind of sad to me if Nolan, who made his name with ambitious and successful genre films, finally manages to land that Best Director nomination with a WWII movie.

I suppose it would be kind of reminiscent of Spielberg, who actually was nominated for some of his genre work, but couldn't get a win until he made his Holocaust film.

Typical of Hollywood they look down on genre films/shows.

[MrsR]

The ultimate Brexit film. 

 

Perfect timing.

[Dejana]

Impressive spectacle and not lacking in sentiment but I can't completely disagree that the script could have offered a bit more in the way of character development... Not backstories, but maybe lingering 30 seconds more here, a minute more there, but I guess Nolan was on a serious mission to lay off the exposition. I heard about the story structure months ago but wonder if I'd have had a problem with the movie, not knowing ahead of time. It added to the sense of initial confusion but that puts you in the shoes of the soldiers in a way.

Tommy (I know his name from reading about the movie, but I'm not sure it was said even once onscreen) felt like something of a cipher at times, less through the fault of Fionn Whitehead than the character being seemingly conceived as more of an avatar for the audience. A couple of more dramatic moments (IDK, maybe after the rescue or backing away slowly from Harry on the train) and he'd have seemed like less of a blank slate. It tickled me though that his face was much less obscured by oil compared to the other supporting players. Of course it was!

Hardy gliding through the air at the end, then the burning plane on the beach are the images of the movie for me.

I didn't see it in IMAX at first because the large format (or 3D) can have a way of masking other weaknesses in the script. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Dejana

[SeanC]

The Germans were lucky that Tom Hardy ran out of gas and ended up being captured, because on the evidence of this film he would have singlehandedly won the Battle of Britain in about a week.  I lost count of exactly how many planes he downed, but it seemed like he got to fighter ace status inside of one hour.

Strong film overall, but it's wholly plot-driven by design, which keeps it out of Nolan's top tier for me.

Harry Styles can act, it turns out, after the controversy in some quarters when he was cast.  He  actually has one of the more complex parts in the film.

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

The Germans were lucky that Tom Hardy ran out of gas and ended up being captured, because on the evidence of this film he would have singlehandedly won the Battle of Britain in about a week.  I lost count of exactly how many planes he downed, but it seemed like he got to fighter ace status inside of one hour.

Strong film overall, but it's wholly plot-driven by design, which keeps it out of Nolan's top tier for me.

Harry Styles can act, it turns out, after the controversy in some quarters when he was cast.  He  actually has one of the more complex parts in the film.

Yeah, he actually did a pretty good job with what he was given. I was disappointed by the general lack of character development, but Harry did get some lovely moments, particularly in the end where it dawns on him what he did to the French guy on the boat. I did think there was something interesting about the fact that even after everything went down on the boat, Tommy and Harry Styles stuck together. Like Harry just really needed a friend. I'm kind of surprised they both survived- I really thought only 1 of the trio would make it.

I was so convinced that the blond boy son of Mark Rylance was going to end up dead. Color me surprised when George died instead.

So let me see if I got this straight...the boat that Tommy and Harry tried to get on was the one that Cillian Murphy was clinging to after it got capsized by a u-Boat, right? I was super-confused by that. That was the moment when I realized this was being shown out of sequence.

Edited July 21, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Jediknight]

Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer, just make space in your trophy cases now.  You guys deserve all the awards you're going to get from this.

The acting was top notch, and I'd like to see Cillian Murphy get nominated for at least a Golden Globe.  I loved that the dad immediately corrected his son when his son that Murphy was a coward.  The dad understood the hell that man is put through in war.

[Silver Raven]

There are complaints about the sound in IMAX theaters, that it drowns out the dialogue.

The USA Today review complains about the lack of women and people of color in lead roles.

[thuganomics85]

First things first, after personally finding Interstellar to be an overlong slog, I appreciate Christopher Nolan for keeping this thing under an hour and forty-five minutes.  You see, Nolan?!  You can make a great film without pushing it to the three hour mark!

While I get the complains about the coldness and lack of backstory/character development, I thought it was great.  It was one of the most intense films I've seen in ages, with only a few scenes scattered around to give the characters (and audiences) time to breath.  For the majority of it though, was on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next bomb to drop, gun battle, or other problem to arise.  I know there were complains about the PG-13 rating and there really wasn't any blood out of poor George's head injury, but I felt like it wasn't needed, because Nolan was able to convey the horrors and brutality of the war, due to the unpredictability, intensity, and how easy it is for things to suddenly take a turn for the worse.  Great use of the soundtrack to, especially the ticking time clock throughout it all.

Pretty great ensemble, even though there wasn't really a breakout role here.  If I had to pick the best "acting" moments, it was probably the exchanges between Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy.  Murphy in particular, did a great job at showing how being shell-shocked had effected his character mentally.  Also liked the arguments between Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy (Jarvis!!!), and the realization of how many lives will be lost no matter what they did.  Fionn Whitehead (awesome name!) was solid enough as the main guy, and I guess Harry Styles did a good job, because I have no clue what he looks like (clearly not an One Direction fan), and there wasn't any performance that made me go "That guy clearly hasn't acted before.")

Enjoyed all the airplane scenes and how it captured the frustrations of these battles, due to all the maneuvering and how much bullets it can take to down a plane. Thought for sure it was going to end with Tom Hardy's character sacrificing himself, but he ends up help saving the day instead and getting captured. Totally down with the jokes that this is a set-up for Nolan's next film where it's all about Tom Hardy single-handily breaking out of a Nazi prison. And, yes, spending the majority of the film with his face covered by the pilot's mask, did make me picture Bane from The Dark Knight Rises taking on Nazis.

After all the criticism Nolan has received for how he has written women in the past, I did kind of chuckle at how his response to that for this film was apparently "Well, fine, I just won't have any significant women characters in this one!  You can't complain if I don't have any at all, right?!  Right........?"

Don't think you can slip that Michael Caine voice cameo by me, film!  I'm sure Caine is now required to be in every Nolan film for the rest of his career.

[AimingforYoko]

While this was plot-driven, my favorite little character moment was the little nod Rylance gave to his son when he lied to Murphy about George being okay. The only thing I wondered afterwards was if Murphy took himself out after finding out George had died.

[dmeets]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 1:19 PM, Silver Raven said:

There are complaints about the sound in IMAX theaters, that it drowns out the dialogue..

I didn't see it in IMAX, but I found the score distractingly loud. I had the same issue with Interstellar, so I guess that's Nolan/Zimmer's thing now. Couldn't say if it drowned out the dialogue, since there wasn't a whole lot of dialogue to begin with. Didn't help that there were a couple of guys in the seats behind me who were determined to have a conversation with each other over the sound.

[kiddo82]

7 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

While I get the complains about the coldness and lack of backstory/character development, I thought it was great.  It was one of the most intense films I've seen in ages, with only a few scenes scattered around to give the characters (and audiences) time to breath.  For the majority of it though, was on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next bomb to drop, gun battle, or other problem to arise.  I know there were complains about the PG-13 rating and there really wasn't any blood out of poor George's head injury, but I felt like it wasn't needed, because Nolan was able to convey the horrors and brutality of the war, due to the unpredictability, intensity, and how easy it is for things to suddenly take a turn for the worse.  Great use of the soundtrack to, especially the ticking time clock throughout it all.

Agree.  Mileage is going to vary about the lack of character development but I personally loved that.  I don't think it was necessary.  I loved that it was a story about the allies stranded on the beach.  No more, no less.  There's something both incredibly intricate and simplistic about just being dropped into the chaos of the story and not learning anything more than need to know.  I also don't mind the lack of gore.  I'm not squeamish but sometimes I think filmmakers use it as a crutch or for shock value.  Again, I agree the use of the ticking clock, as well as the use of sound* in general, was terribly effective in illustrating the intensity and urgency of the situation.  The roar of the planes.  The sudden jolt of the guns and bombs.  Also the feeling of claustrophobia on the boats and under the water.  Even the men shoulder to shoulder on the dock.  It was all startling, chaotic, and effective in showing the confusion and heightened emotions of the situation.  Saving Private Ryan is famous for showing us the physical brutality of war in its first fifteen minutes.  By having nearly no let up in a condensed run time, I feel like Dunkirk succeeds at underscoring the psychological brutality.

It's hard to pick one stand out of the cast but I could get behind Mark Rylance being "the guy", although his stoicism reminded me of his character from Bridge of Spies.  I don't know that he'd win anything but It would be an interesting slice of trivia for one man to win one Oscar for playing a Nazi and another playing an ally civilian.  

*I saw it in IMAX and I struggled to hear a lot of the dialogue.  

[proserpina65]

I knew going in that the action was not sequential, and that the story was not character-driven but rather event-driven.  Thus forewarned, I thought Dunkirk was pretty much fucking perfect.  I didn't need to know anything about the characters to feel their desperation, and to be moved at the deaths of those who didn't make it.  I was reminded of Black Hawk Down in some respects, where the soldiers were somewhat interchangeable, and yet I still cared what happened to them, and also in how I felt absolutely exhausted by the unrelenting tension when coming out of the theater.  It was visceral, rather than cerebral.  Honestly, I was a little afraid that certain scenes might make the drowning nightmares I used to have recur.  (Fortunately, so far that hasn't happened.)  And that a moment when Kenneth Branagh's character looked through his binoculars and saw the flotilla of little ships and boats coming to the rescue actually moved me to tears.

I absolutely agree with those who think there'd better be some major nominations come awards time, including Best Picture and Best Director.  Not sure if anyone would snag an acting nomination, given the nature of the film, but Ken Branagh and Mark Rylance would be my top picks.

This is the first film I've seen in a long time where I'm seriously considering seeing it again, and might even shell out for IMAX.

[proserpina65]

Quote

Don't think you can slip that Michael Caine voice cameo by me, film!  I'm sure Caine is now required to be in every Nolan film for the rest of his career.

 

 

I saw his name in the end credits, but don't remember hearing him.  Where was his voice?

[Dejana]

15 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

 

I saw his name in the end credits, but don't remember hearing him.  Where was his voice?

He was the voice of the third pilot.

[proserpina65]

41 minutes ago, Dejana said:

He was the voice of the third pilot.

I wondered about that right after I posted.

[ramble]

The lack of character development made this film stand out to me, which sounds odd, but it completely worked in my opinion. It was about the event itself, not one particular man, but representations of different people involved. My youngest, who is a history buff, said one thing she appreciated was that this perspective allowed people be normal. There wasn't one man who saved everyone, or sacrificed himself to save a stranger. People wanted to survive and fought to do so. It was a story about an event during the war and it didn't need to tell backstories on everyone to have impact. Men weren't portrayed as evil for wanting to live, they were just people who wanted a chance at another day.

The One Direction kid surprised me and was actually pretty good. I thought Cillian Murphy did a particularly good job. I have a soft spot for Tom Hardy and appreciated his "eye acting" as one reviewer dubbed it. My other takeaway was that the boat captain's son, Peter I think, was exceptionally pretty. Not that the fact impacted the movie one way or the other, but it was something we talked about briefly in our after movie discussion. Overall I thought this was an impressive, throughly well-made movie and I am considering a second theater viewing. 

[filmfan2480]

I thought this was very, very good. Lean, tension-filled and wonderfully crafted. 9 out of 10, or so.

I also loved the narrative structure; bouncing around from the "land" to "sea" to "air" sections pretty smoothly. I also liked seeing one event occur, and then in the next scene, you'd see the prior scene about to occur but from a different perspective -- so cool. 

Performance-wise, everybody served their purpose extremely well. I suppose you could say that Rylance was the stand-out {a lovely, warm, humane performance), but Fionn Whitehead (as our "lead"), Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Harry Styles, et al impressed me as much for giving such understated, genuine, authentic portrayals. 

Now. For the criticism that you won't get emotionally involved -- horse pucky. 

Maybe I didn't know if Fionn Whitehead had a loving father at home, or that Tom Hardy had a pregnant fiancee waiting, or that Kenneth Branagh had 3 cats and a dog looking out the window for him, or if Harry Styles like to play cricket and tell dirty jokes. Didn't matter. We followed these characters from the first moment til the end and I felt for them (and all the young men onscreen). 

The moment when Branagh's character grabs the binoculars, utters the word "home", and the music swells with the subsequent visual out in the sea ... tears were streaming down my face.

I would nom this for Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography, Sound & Score.

I don't know what'll happen with the Academy 5-6 months down the road. But I'd be surprised if they didn't respond well to it.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

I was disappointed.  The cinematography was tremendous, as I had hoped.  The story, not so much.

Under no circumstance did I see an acting Oscar performance.   Nobody was turrible, but nobody was given anything beyond understatement, aside perhaps the "shell shocked" first fella rescued by the Moonstone.  The lack of grief for George upon the return to Weymouth was a serious misstep, though.  I could not more agree with the previous poster who singled out for praise the scene when the older brother lied and the dad nodded affirmation.  Classic stiff upper lip and coming of age stuff.  Loved it.  But there was no hint whatever on the dock that the youngest boy of the family was being taken off the boat for the last time.   Bad choice, in my opinion.  

I loved the attempt to hyper-localize many of the scenes.  Each given hatch of each ship was, indeed, a big deal to the evacuees.  Really good stuff - the best of the movie.

Something that bugged almost throughout...I saw nothing close to hundreds of thousands.  Remember the long line on the mole for that first ill-fated ship?  We never saw it, or anything like it, more than once again.  Also, when the dude was ordered off and he ducked under the lattice of the mole?  How many hundreds of those left waiting would have seen it and shouted at the bugger?   Too much suspension of disbelief for me.

The music was appropriate, but I simply dislike Zimmer's electronic tonality.   His overuse of percussive elements has always grated.  None of it was out of place.  I just much prefer a full orchestra, especially in a theater with enhanced/awesome sound systems.  Think of a Zimmer Star Wars as opposed to Williams. 

The dialogue was overwhelmed much too much in the standard digital theater I was in.  The British accents were also a big problem for me to grasp.  

 

Finally, the sound FX for the planes was vastly overplayed.  I had occasion to stand directly underneath a formation of 3 fully restored Mitsubishi Zeroes as they several times crossed a swath of an airport hosting an air show.  They were likely lower than the planes we saw raking the beaches in the movie.  While the notoriously loud and menacing Zeroes certainly created noise, and caused my body to vibrate, it was significantly less than what I experienced in the theater.  I think Spinal Tap may have been the audio director.  They went to 15, not 11.

I am super excited now to see Darkest Hour, for which a preview was shown.  

[Schweedie]

3 hours ago, Lonesome Rhodes said:

The lack of grief for George upon the return to Weymouth was a serious misstep, though.  I could not more agree with the previous poster who singled out for praise the scene when the older brother lied and the dad nodded affirmation.  Classic stiff upper lip and coming of age stuff.  Loved it.  But there was no hint whatever on the dock that the youngest boy of the family was being taken off the boat for the last time.   Bad choice, in my opinion.  

I didn't like that part of the film at all, actually. To me it felt like they went, "Hey, not enough people we follow have actually died, how can we fix that?" and decided on George dying to add some extra drama. But for the bolded - he wasn't actually part of their family, he was a -- deckhand, is that the word? He just worked on the boat with them and decided to come along to show his dad at home he could do something big.

But for the rest, I really, really enjoyed the film, if you can call being incredibly stressed out and closing your eyes whenever there was a drowning scene "enjoy". Fantastically well edited, but I wish I hadn't known about the timeline thing before going in, because it made me constantly look for clues as to when as stories were taking place and intersecting. Not having any character backstories certainly didn't stop me from being emotionally invested; I was crying harder than I think I ever have during a war movie.

[tennisgurl]

That was just super, super intense. I'm a big history fan girl AND a Nolan fan, so I went in pretty sure I was going to come out satisfied, and I absolutely was. The constant push of trying to just make it to the next point, and the quiet waiting mixed with the intense action, it was just brutal, and it nailed the feeling that everything was just going wrong, and that this was an epic level clusterfuck that just seemed to be getting worse and worse. It made the scene where the civilian ships all showed up and they managed to get a bunch of the soldiers home so much better and more hopeful. Kenneth Branaghs expression when he grabbed the binoculars and saw the ships coming, and he started tearing up, it just hit me right in the chest, and I started tearing up too. I knew what was going to happen, and I was just filled with relief. That's how you know a story has sucked you in, especially a historical movie like this, where quite a bit of your audience already knows what happened. Its like in Lincoln when I was all invested in the vote on Emancipation. I knew what was going to happen, but I was so sucked into the story, they almost made me forget.

I heard some critics complaining about the lack of character development, but I didn't think it was a problem at all. Its not a bio pic, I don't need to know details about these guys lives, its just a window into the lives of these people who went through this one big event in the middle of this big war. The acting was strong enough that I felt like these were real people, who had full lives outside this movie, and we are just getting a glimpse into their lives. I thought everyone was wonderful, but I think the standouts were Cillian Murphey as the shell shocked officer, and Mark Rylan as Mr. Dawson. They had so many great moments on the boat, it almost felt like they could carry their own movie just by themselves. I was invested in the characters enough to root for their survival, and that's all I needed in a movie like this. Do we need another Peal "We could focus on this huge military strike that changed the course of the war, OR on a boring love triangle!" Harbor?

It took me a little bit to realize we weren't seeing this exactly in order, especially when we saw Cillian Murphey in the story with the young guys on the beach. Then I realized we were seeing this in slightly anachronistic order, with the three stories happening at slightly different times, and I got it. I assume Cillian Murphey was an officer, based on him leading the rowboat in the beach story, which means he probably saw all the men under his command drown after the boat was sunk. No wonder the poor guy was a mess. It also hit me at the end that, while this particular thing ended (and ended better than most people thought it would) the war is still going to be going on for YEARS. Most of the soldiers, no matter how exhausted and traumatized, will probably go right back to battle, Tom Hardy's character will probably be a POW for several years, Mr. Dawson's son might be called up in a year or two to serve when he gets older, its just exhausting to contemplate. But, they survived, and that's enough for now.

This is going to absolutely kill at the Oscars, especially for the Best Direct, Best Cinematography, and Best Picture style categories. At least, I hope it does.

[Dejana]

17 hours ago, Schweedie said:

I didn't like that part of the film at all, actually. To me it felt like they went, "Hey, not enough people we follow have actually died, how can we fix that?" and decided on George dying to add some extra drama. But for the bolded - he wasn't actually part of their family, he was a -- deckhand, is that the word? He just worked on the boat with them and decided to come along to show his dad at home he could do something big.

Towards the end, Peter did mention a brother but he was killed mere weeks into the war, IIRC, he'd been a pilot. Perhaps that was why Dawson  (the Rylance character) wasn't as broken up about George's fate?

I think George was killed off because IRL, not all of the civilian volunteers from the Little Ships survived the trek to/from Dunkirk, so some character had to symbolize that. Gibson was a soldier we followed for most of the movie who died, and Farrier (Tom Hardy) covered the POW angle.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Dejana

[Tyro49]

I remember that the NYTimes critic said that you'd leave the theater "on wobbly knees", and I certainly did. It draws you in almost without you realizing it: after thinking "I've seen this and that bit in the trailers" I just got sucked in completely, and the ticking clock had me on the edge of my seat.

I did see one or two black French soldiers.

There were nurses on the hospital ships but I didn't see any of them making it out.

Mark Rylance's character struck me as a typical Englishman, a job had to be done, so get on with it.

There were also some women on the rescue boats, which surprised me.

There was no where to turn that was safe, everywhere was being bombed, shot, blown up, etc. 

This better win some Oscars.

[johntfs]

I liked that though there are some famous or at least famousish people in the movie, they're not stars or really super-recognizable.  Tom Hardy spends most of the movie with a airman's mask over his face.  Even people like Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and Kenneth Branaugh disappear into their characters.  The shifting time of the settings was confusing, but it was kind of a good confusion.  It helped put me even more in the headspace of the characters trying to live through this nightmare.  One of the odd bits was that this movie went against one of the usual metrics I have for a good story.  Generally, if I watch something and can't tell you the names of any of the characters in it, that was a sucky something.  Not here.  I knew Peter and poor George, but I couldn't really tell you other characters' names to save my life and that was still okay.  We got glimpses into the horrible week in these peoples' lives and that was enough for me.  I don't need their names to feel for them.

Edited July 27, 2017 by johntfs