Review of Dunkirk (2017) by Captain_Misfire — 21 Jul 2017

After many reviews I was looking forward to seeing the film but came out feeling rather dissapointed. It was dull, uninspiring and had no tension that really grabs and pulls you towards the film with further interest. I felt so detached from the film, I don't know where the good reviews are coming from, are we talking about the same movie here?

The big actors in this film dissapoint because there is hardly any acting. Tom Hardy sits in a cockpit for the entire film (everyone could do that) and can't hit a barndoor with a machine gun, I can only see 2 eyes and a forehead.. At the end his plane runs out of fuel, hovers in the air but he seems to fly on forever. Cillian Murphy mumbles and walks around on a tugboat from time to time. There is no character development or interesting dialogue that makes you feel involved/connected and caring about the troops and their misery. Hardly any signs of fatigue, broken nerves/ shattered spirits and wounded men (except for a few men on stretchers). These scenes do not make me think that I wouldn't like to be in someone's shoes being stuck on a beach, not knowing what's coming next. The possibility of death/ becoming a prisoner or saved by a rescue operation, seeing so many struggles on a beach you can't imagine how you will get picked up..

The beach in the film is very(!) clean (with some dead soldiers that's really impressive) and there seems to be no sign of chaos, fatigue, fear or despair. There is absolutely no equipment scattered over the beach that looks close to a scrapyard, no trash, discarded gear and no abandoned vehicles etc. About 3 to 400.000 soldiers were saved but I saw 500-750 in the film (they all looked the same btw, hair and face), also I saw 10 to 15 boats TOPS. More than 900 boats took part in this operation over the course of 9 days and that's a fact. The smaller boats were used to carry men off the beach and put them on bigger steamers/boats, didn't see that. This film could have improved significantly with an extra 30 minutes at the beginning of the film. Brief fighting/retreating around Dunkirk showing the peril, discussions in Churchill's HQ about the situation in France and trying to save the troops against staggering odds. Such dialogue could have made it gripping, showing wht was at stake in that part of the war. Show me how everyone in England came together with everything they had that could float, trying to save the troops. Tom Hardy would be better placed trying to hold off the Germans and surrender at the end when he knows many troops are saved. In real life many thousands and injured who could not be saved were sacrificed and stayed behind In to keep the Germans away. A dejected Murphy waits on a beach to be rescued, that role could have suited him. The dogfights were rather dull.

I was confused because of the jarring cuts in time and the shift (too fast) between the 3 characters. I can't believe some positive reviews here "intense", "great acting", "best war film" Someone even commented they couldn't find flaws, in the first 5 minutes by looking at the housing in the background and the tiling, didn't look like 1940. Look at the background when they filmed the beach from the sea, modern housing and lights, streetlamps, shipping containers and crains.

Can't understand why Christopher Nolan couldn't just make a straightforward, linnear warfilm that tells a gripping (true)story without all this fancy colouring and artistic filming. I went to see this film for it's story and not for the way it was filmed, coloured or making many switches from one time to another. It doesn't focus on anything in particular except for rescue.

I wish these (expert) reviewers watched some documentary's like the world at war that really grips you and then watch the film again. Heck, even look on google for Dunkirk equipment and such. Steven Spielberg should have made this as Nolan would film Saving private Ryan with no casualties and no dialogue. Wouldn't want to see the film again.