Review of Dunkirk (2017) by Axet — 30 Jul 2017

Even worse than expected. There was no doubt the jackass critics herd perennially on auto pilot would laud praise upon a noble little known true war story put on screen by a massively over-rated pompous director because they all sensed it must be important purely based on the subject and pedigree. They in their utter dishonesty and phony pretentious lack of any shred of integrity assume in order to be perceived as serious and smart must heap praise on something like this. Venture to say, no matter what Christopher Nolan came out with the praise would be the same near unanimous nonsense it is. They didn't see the actual movie. They only saw the pretense. For the last time: subject matter is not primarily what you are reviewing idiots, the way it is executed is.

Here's why it's not only not the great movie they exclaim, but a pretty bad movie! There is no plot nor any character development, and there is no true suspense precisely because of this! You can't be on the edge of your seat no matter what the action on screen if you are not invested in the characters. This is an uninspired, stodgy, overly reverent trudge through a historic event with no invention working to transform such into a movie. Hollywood movies are supposed to entertain. Hey, that goes for whatever the content and no matter the tone. If you want a dry history lesson on the event, go read a text book or watch a documentary (and nearly any fathomable documentary on this battle would be more interesting).

Just imagine had James Cameron's "Titanic" not invented the fictional core love story and characters both modern day and past for that story in favor of pure, straight documented, totally accurate depiction of the historic event? It would not resonate as the epic Hollywood classic it became in short time. And it's not as though they blew off the historical accuracy which was painstakingly recreated in nearly every detail. It's that Cameron understands what movies should be for the audience, not just himself. The characters here are puppets whether real or imagined. The spare acting caught on screen is devoid of performance which while realistic is dull and it's not the cast's fault. There's no script! Kenneth Branagh tries, but sorry a watery eye in one close up and looking up for a few seconds in alarm of coming doom is not all there is to acting. If it is, then anyone can do the job on cue and to effect as professional actors must do. Worse still, like his last lame pretentious effort "Interstellar", the sound mix is AWFUL again! The freaking dialogue is mixed too low to the sound effects and even more so to the music! It's bad enough these actors have mumbled hard to understand heavily accented deliveries, but to then self indulgently attempt to be more "real" by making the decision to compromise intelligibility is just plain asinine. It's unprofessional. It's downright incompetent! Music is artificial to begin with, so his illogical argument last time about being more real to life experience is again just a fallacy here!

The staged big screen aerial dog fight footage is how this movie initially seemed to showcase itself in advertising and is about the only worthy of attention aspect of the entire production. So a few real flying shots of vintage WWII fighter planes from some unique angles with unnoticeable not overdone CGI is worth sitting bored out of your mind for two hours? Ah, no.

A-lister Nolan is a moviemaker who cares about the audience and the entertainment value he is delivering, but he is gravely mistaken in his efforts. No question he is highly intelligent, creative in general, a scholar of cinema history, and understands all the technical mechanics of filmmaking as well or better than anyone. What he is not is an artist who delivers genuine emotion. That's what great movies and great art in general is truly about. Nolan is a very cerebral writer/director not unlike say Kubrick who also fell short on emotion in all his work. However, Kubrick was such a genius and brilliant designer of mind bending psychological exploration that the lack of emotion in his art is acceptable as the canvases are overflowing with inspiration as it is just on an intellectual and aesthetic level. Nolan is only a pale imitation of that (though granted a better poser than say PT Anderson, another retro junkie also falling for old gimmicks of the medium over good storytelling). The truth is he hasn't made any great films, only a few good ones, and the rest are all pretentious mediocre bores. The only good thing about this thing is that surprisingly it is not overlong as is the stupid trend. That's because the story is thin to begin with and padded out for running time. If you must still go see it, go digital. The film prints are literally half the resolution and quickly damaged by today's uncaring theaters! Mr. Nolan the luddite is delusional in his denial of reality.