Dunkirk [DVD] [2017]

...history will probably judge this his least worthy work yet. Sure, it is a beautifully photographed movie, but in driving towards cinematic authenticity, he has abandoned reality. Here's why:1. His cinematographic purism has gone too far. I am a fan of his other works. I also really admire his devotion to real IMAX and large-format cinematography, in preference to CGI, but this is probably the first time he has almost entirely abandoned CGI. For sure, the IMAX airborne photography of the dogfights is sumptuous and has an authenticity not seen before. But instead of many bombers and fighters, as was the case, he has to make do with two "German" planes (actually planes purchased from Germany by the Spanish, as used in the movie "Battle of Britain") and three early marque Spitfires. This theme continues on land, with a few hundred real actors meant to represent the hundreds of thousands of troops actually there: jeez, anyone who's been to a premier league game knows what 50,000 people looks like. Same with ships: a really good attempt to model destroyer D36, which actually was at Dunkirk, but no others and only one minesweeper. Certainly no attempt to accurately portray real numbers (there were 400 naval ships at Dunkirk). Along with the complete absence of materiel, the overall impression is of a severely under-budget movie. If ever there was a case for tastefully using the quality CGI we saw in "Inception" or "Interstellar", this was it. I therefore believe Nolan chose not to use it, and the movie suffers as a result. I'm also unimpressed with his avoidance of any gore, which is akin to shooting a movie about football hooligans without swearing in the script. Unauthentic. Maybe he had his reasons, but it is condescending to avoid it.2. Timeslicing for the sake of it. Nolan's use of timeslicing and flashbacks/flashforwards is legendary. His breakthrough movie "Memento" is a masterclass in timeslicing in the way that "Senna" is a masterclass in editing. But here it lacks a reason: with events in the air, sea and the beaches unfolding in one hour, one day and one week respectively, the movie comes across as confused, not least because the linkage between the three story lines is tenuous at best. Sure, we see the aerial battle from two perspectives, and eventually the aerial storyline eventually ties up with the beach, but it seems forced and without anything more than coincidence being the link.3. Stretching history. If we are to believe this representation, Dunkirk never saw a single bomb land in town, when in fact it was extensively ruined by bombing. The defensive perimeter appears to be in town a couple of hundred metres from the beach, when in fact it was two miles outside town. The inconsistencies continue in many small ways: the anachronistic yellow markings on the "Messerschmidt 109"; the 2017 bouffant haircuts and perpetually clean-shaven appearence of some of the soldiers; the endless ammo supply of the Spitfire enabling one pilot to claim four kills in one day (unheard of); the inaccurate weather portrayal (the rough weather and tides were incessantly played up in the script when neither played a part and, in reality, the sea was like a millpond); the missing troops, planes and ships; it all lends to an inauthentic historical representation. If you compare this to "Saving Private Ryan", where Omaha beach is reduced from a five hour slaughterhouse into a relatively compact 30 mins, it is interesting that whilst taking considerable artistic licence with time, "Ryan" succeeds in being faithful both in the rough sequence of events, as well as in spirit to what happened. And it used tasteful CGI to portray the ships moored off the beach in realistic numbers.4. A "tacked-on" ending. The finale of this movie is frankly laughable. We are treated to a rip-off of Elgar's "Nimrod" theme blasting over a barely credible "glider" attack by the last remaining Spitfire and less than a dozen small boats which seem to miraculous spirit away the remaining hundreds of thousands of troops, with an elongated rendition of Churchill's "fight them on the beaches" speech read flatly by one of the soldiers. It also appears to fall for the myth that small boats saved the army, when in fact only 5% of troops were evacuated that way. A kind of low-budget, artsy jingoism that sits crudely with the rest of the movie's ascetism and conveys none of the tidal waves of human emotion that must have been clashing in peoples' hearts.Sure, the acting is largely first-class and the naturalistic rendition of the story is commendable. The incidental music especially, with clever use of the "Shepard Tone", conveys the eerie sickliness of gut-wrenching fear. But ultimately this movie falls very flat, especially given what could have been achieved by this otherwise masterful director.Not least, in pure "entertainment" terms, this is an under-par and pretentious movie that comes across as arrogant, without sufficient justification. This is not a movie I would recommend. For something at least memorial of the event, I would recommend instead the classic 1958 movie of the same name starring John Mills. Sure it is a preachy, more orthodox telling of the story, but great attention was paid to history: the famous sinking of a paddle steamer is caught here, as well as the decision to send more naval ships to effect the rescue.In interview, Nolan stated that he received advice from Steven Spielberg (director of "Ryan" and, importantly, producer of the unparalled TV series "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific", which broke new ground in the accurate and profoundly moving portrayal of war). Apparently his advice amounted to this: pay close attention to the accuracy and the rest will take care of itself. It seems he did not take this advice.But the biggest irony is that if he had used more CGI, he may have come up with a movie that is more true to events. The town could have shown the actual level of damage suffered; the beach could have been more credibly congested with troops; the sea more naval ships...and so on. If this had been properly researched, the need for this would have been clearer.Of course, because it is "Nolan the Genius" and he is dealing with one of Britain's sacred moments in history, most will don their rose-tinted eye wear and swear he's a genius. By many others he will be forgiven. But I do wonder if he will look back on this in years to come and forgive himself.

The suspense is set just right for this story. Scary actually being stuck on that beach

I did enjoy watching the film. It showed from the start, the different attitudes of individual members of the armed services. It maybe isn't shown so often what it actually takes to perform in a combat role during all out conflict. Military training may mitigate to some extent, the natural human impulse to preserve life and safety, but that must be always there in the face of clear and present danger. It's interesting also that the soldiers were not expecting a warm welcome when they got back home. It's good that the civilians were able to appreciate the effort and the fact that so many were saved to fight another day.

To watch this, you need to know your history. This is an intelligent film that does not treat the viewer as an imbecile. Those that awarded this a low score simply display their ignorance. This is a series of overlapping vignettes designed to show the agony of war and the desperation of escape from an overwhelming enemy. It does not play to the set pieces, there are heroes and those that did not want to be there. It is human. The music and cinematography are simply amazing, the suspense is incredible. My only quibble is there was another half-hour in there at least. It is a superb film and I can only think that those that do not like it, did not understand how utterly desperate Dunkirk was. It was nothing short of a miracle and to see those little ships sailing in was that miracle. The cut to those little ships is one of the great scenes in war films, the civilians that believed in their country came to the rescue of their fellow man so they could fight another day. A great film and a worthy addition to the World War 2 canon.

Terrific film. The first time I watched it a few months ago I was quite confused, there were so many actors and flashbacks that I didn't have a clue what was happening in the film. This time I managed to follow the what was happening and the characters' story. The dialogue and the acting was very good. I shall enjoy watching this film many more times.

Mark Rylance was the saviour of the film by giving an outstanding performance; Kenneth Branagh too, was excellent but his role was far too small to make a big impact. Tom Hardy had the heroic RAF role and very realistic it was too, as it conveyed just how difficult it was to get an enemy plane in the sights of what was very basic equipment. I think the RAF should have been afforded a larger presence due to the fact that more British pilots were lost during the Dunkirk evacuation than in the Battle of BritainSo why only three stars? Where were the 'little ships'? Although it is difficult to ascertain actually how many civilian boats helped to evacuate Dunkirk, I'm sure it was more than the meagre amount seen in the film. I am not a lover of CGI but I'm sure Christopher Nolan's film would have benefitted from using it to put a few more vessels in the water - well, actually hundreds more.I know this film is meant to be entertainment but I don't think some more boats would have been out of place.

I played this because I was born in 1940 and we all owe such a lot to these men. We have Covid and so many people are breaking the rules so that it is continuing to thrive. Staying at home and coping and I know it is very difficult for young people but these men in 1941 had nothing. They were facing death every minute not just having to go without a pint in lockdown. God bless them all and all their relatives that gave them for our peace.