I had heard that the film had been panned by the critics, but it seemed to be making good money at the box office so was intrigued to see for myself what the film was all about.
I have read extensively about this period of the war and watched the Early B&W Dunkirk film, the Dunkirk scenes from Atonement plus the BBC docudrama made to celebrate the anniversary,
Unfortunately the film did not live up to any of my hopes. What was good was the inclusion of the RAF support, but the film seemed to give the impression that the majority of the troops were embarked by small boats, which was absolutely not true. The scenes of the town and beeches around Dunkirk suggest some sort of tidy little sea side town untouched by
German bombs, entirely the wrong impression. No mention of the enormous rear guard actions. The scenes of ships ferrying troops back were so artificial and unrealistic as to be a joke. I agree Mark Ry lance's performance was good in what was an insipid and pallid film.
What a missed opportunity, I hope some day HBO and or Spielberg take on the subject and show us what a great film about a tragedy tinged with courage could look like
I've read some very mixed reviews of this film, some thinking it was slow and boring, others criticising the lack of dialogue. If you prefer your films to be all explosive action, bombs going off everywhere, lots of blood, pyrotechnics and over the top CGI, then you'll be disappointed. If you prefer more finely crafted films, well made, good direction and fine acting, with a strong storyline and very realistically showing how life really is, then you'll appreciate a film like this for its honesty and for baring its soul! Being Deaf myself, the lack of dialogue did not affect me much, in fact it actually meant that the director, actors, scriptwriter and cinematographers etc all had to work that much harder to craft a film that worked, instead of simply being lazy and relying on excessive CGI all the time. What I was expecting was an over the top Americanised wham bam thank you mam kind of war movie, but instead was very pleasantly surprised to see a well crafted, honest film, giving the actors space to breath and actually act, giving us all round fine performances. Full of emotion, danger and realism, this is just one snapshot of how things were on the day. No tasteless and inappropriate love story weaved in, no excessive blood and gore, no over the top blowing things up, just real bare honesty, taking us back to a time when they made good war films. Something else which truly stands out in this film, is good old fashioned British patriotism at its best and it's perhaps this which some people found to their disliking in a world of insecurity and insincerity, the fact that at times like this, people can come together to help each other, to care and to want to do the right thing!
Read a less than glowing review of this film by Kevin Maher of The Times. Surprising considering almost every other critic gave glowing reports.
Well,
I got to side more with KM. The action sequences, well noisy and accompanied what I thought was a great score by Hans were good but mainly strangely uninvolving- there were even short periods when I got bored. There was a distinct lack of emotional involvement with the main characters, excepting the RAF crews who were better portrayed.
I gave it 4 stars because it had drama by the bucket load and was well filmed.
When Christopher Nolan set out to make a war film about the 1940 evacuation of Dunkirk, he approached it with bigger emphasis on the war than the characters. His camera holds firm on the urgency of events than the backstories of the fictional soldiers he inserted for this film. This could be a negative trait in that Nolan doesn’t give us much of a reason to care for these characters, but I believe this work to the film’s benefit. How many war movies have there been where a soldier talks about his girl back home, a son waiting for him, being one month away from retiring or their future plans that may not come true? Nolan would rather we focus on the war than such familiar cliches.
There are three arcs followed over different periods of time during the evacuation. On the beaches of Dunkirk, the soldier Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) tries to find a way off the beach that is already overcrowded with soldiers just trying to get home. He’s to go to great lengths to hitch a ride, from pretending to be a medic to hiding among the docks to be a stowaway. This is our central protagonist for this arc, but he’s no war hero. He just wants to live and is smart enough to figure out how to do so, but will still have to live with the guilt of leaving others behind. When he finally makes it onto one of the boats, he declines going inside to the warm mess hall and stays topside to keep a lookout for the enemy. Sure enough, a torpedo hits the boat and Tommy is one of the lucky few to make it off. Not everyone in the mess hall escapes.
With the beach constantly assaulted by German planes and bombers, a small British air force is called in to provide support. Farrier (Tom Hardy) is in a squadron of only three that must take out the Germans and it’s not easy. Those English Spitfires are not the most reliable of craft and Ferrier will have to rely on good memory to monitor his gauges that have gone dead. Unlike Tommy’s story, there is no room for needless banter here as most of Hardy’s lines are orders with his concern for his Spitfire’s failing mechanics remaining mostly silent.
The only section with the most character comes in the sea story where a civilian yacht captain (Mark Rylance) takes it upon himself to steer towards Dunkirk and rescue soldiers. Rylance’s character is heroic enough to head towards Dunkirk even when a shivering rescue (Cillian Murphy) informs him not to, but smart enough to know when to pull back when it’s too dangerous to be involved. The movie could have been entirely about his journey considering how intense, driven and strategic it comes off as.
The movie is wall-to-wall action with the character given so little time to develop that they’re rarely referred to by name. Some don’t even have names as with Cillian Murphy’s rather large performance being dubbed as the role of Shivering Soldier. But the action is clearly where Nolan shines best in his films and he’s brought his A-game for throwing us straight into the war without compromise. When the bombers begin to assault the beach, it’s incredibly loud to the point of making theater speakers quake. I have never listened to such sound mixing that ever made me as fearful of a war as this picture did.
Some might call me a hypocrite for praising Nolan’s horrifically noisy sound direction when Michael Bay will crank the volume just as high with his Transformers movie. There’s a key difference. Bay’s war scenes are meant to be fantastical and thrilling, intended for us to be more excited about charging into combat of lasers and explosions. Nolan doesn’t want us to rush into war; a bomber that is so ear-splittingly loud as it looms over with intent to obliterate is not something you want to hear. The insistence on making the war so loud helps make Tommy’s cowardice state a little more understandable.
Dunkirk is a very unconventional war film. The larger focus on the war at hand than the players involved gives the film a subtle appeal of the minds of soldiers for such an action-heavy scenario with an intense score by Hans Zimmer. The three stories at play with different duration and non-linear editing keep the film moving with energy and perspective. There are no major heroes in this picture, only survivors. When one soldier finally makes it back to England, he is greeted by a civilian that hands him a meal and thanks him for his service. The soldier rejects the thanks to argue that all he did was survive, but the civilian retorts that this is enough. Nolan’s film helps us understand that need for survival a little more than just the blind faith of those who weren’t on the battlefield. Few war films are this precise and operatic with an intent on showcasing the horrors of war.