Dunkirk

Dunkirk
2 (40%) 1 vote

“There’s a good movie in there, somewhere”

Dunkirk

Written and Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, Mark Rylance 

Swift shot: This was supposed to be a film about the suffering and enduring spirit of the incredible evacuation at Dunkirk, but instead all of the emotion was sapped out of it and lost in a ridiculous attempt to make a slick non-linear film that was poorly edited, albeit incredibly shot. There is so much left to wonder about Dunkirk, after viewing it, that it becomes annoying and perturbing when you consider this is supposed to be a film about the heroes of Dunkirk. To be quite brutal, this movie ran-aground in the editing.

At the onset, we understand the fate of the some 400,000 British troops surrounded by the enemy and forced to withdraw to the beach at Dunkirk, France. The Germans have used flyers from the sky in a PSYOPS campaign to compel the British to surrender. And we see one group of soldiers who are making an exodus to the beach to form up for evacuation.

What you witness over the next couple of hours is different perspectives of this large-scale evacuation that quite possibly allowed the British to survive the war in entirety. The directors of The Longest Day knew how to handle this, but Nolan put too much of his flair into his movie and ruined it, because there was no concept of character except for Rylance’s stoic seaman.

Now, to fully comprehend this film, you need to understand what the chryons all mean as they briefly appear. You will see “The Mole: One Week”; “Sea: One Day”; “Air: One Hour” – this is Nolan’s only moment to try to explain that there are actually three movies in one as you endure Dunkirk.  

One is a story about The Mole, which is just the pier that can handle larger ships, and that story lasts a week, as you watch it play out. One story is about the civilian ship “Moonstone” and her crew’s one day adventure to retrieve survivors of Dunkirk. And finally, another story is about two spitfire pilots who fly into Dunkirk in the span of an hour. Nolan tries to tie them in masterfully, but what he ends up with is a friggin’ mess that essentially looks like shitty editing instead of some kind of savant trick where the audience immediately grasps the concept he’s shooting for.

After you are done watching the film, I counted at least four times that we see the same ship sink, and that turned out to be the only solid point of reference I could use to piece together which story was which. There were moments when you’d see the film jump from night to day, back to night, then a different point of view, a different sequence would be joined, and you didn’t have time to figure out what the hell was happening. By the time you had it figured out, you were now on another scene with characters that are never named and barely, if ever, speak. The dialog was almost non-existent!

There’s this one moment in the film that is supposed to be filled with emotion, as BAFTA Award winner Kenneth Branagh has a great scene, but it is so diluted by the jumping around nonsense that it ends up like a watered down turd, floating adrift in apathy.

People were only emotional at these scenes, because they were essentially told to be, like when you go to a show’s taping and they hold up Applause signs. It was like, hey, here’s master thespian Branagh acting his ass off, this scene is supposed to be powerful, but you have no idea what is happening anyway, so, yea, just get choked up.

For the record, I didn’t get choked up once watching Dunkirk. That’s a bad sign, because I have a serious soft spot for World War II movies and the men and women who fought in the war. The only people I felt bad for after screening Dunkirk were the people being lied to that this was an exceptional film. It was mediocre story-telling.

The film is almost void of emotion and exposition, I mean, what’s that? Cillian Murphy joins the film at one point, and you are left so confused as to where he was on the beach, you just don’t even care anymore. And, that’s supposed to be the point of the film, I thought, anyway, caring about the plight of these poor souls whose only victory was survival! 

I am hoping there are other films about Dunkirk out there. When I first heard Nolan was making a World-War II film, I was excited. I had no idea he was going to so completely shit the bed though. All he would have needed to do is give a little more exposition and have more solid points of reference and he could have had an actual brilliant non-linear, layered masterpiece. Instead, in the end, all Dunkirk did, was survive. And don’t get me started on the music, another complete miss. At one point I turned to my friend and said, “Well, that’s annoying as hell.”

It wasn’t a god-awful film, though. There were moments I liked.

The spitfire sequences were incredible, hearing the rattling, the attention to detail was amazing throughout the film, the fighters and bombers and ships and uniforms. The sinking sequences and the gun-shots were all technically remarkable, but when you have no idea who these people are, or what ship they are on, or well, anything, you end up losing a lot of the emotion! Like with Cillian Murphy, as I said at the beginning, the cinematography was impeccable, without equal, maybe, but much like a science fiction film with great effects, if the story is bad, the film will be bad overall.

I am sure you will find Nolan worshipers who think that I am just too dumb to comprehend his greatness. Bullshit, I was able to piece everything together, and it still sucked. As my buddy said, there was a good movie in there, somewhere – but, it’s a shame we didn’t see one, and we had three opportunities, by land, by sea, and by air.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditShare on Google+Email this to someone

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to Dunkirk

  1. RoRo July 21, 2017 at 10:45 am #

    Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a 90% rating on this movie and I wonder if they saw a different cut than I did. I’d give this movie a 5/10.

    I agree with much of what Rick says above. I didn’t see 400,000 soldiers in danger.

    Pros:
    -Absolutely stunning camera work. The shots are breathtakingly beautiful. You can see all the details. The way things are laid out. Stunning.

    -Great action sequences that don’t appear to rely on CGI. It appeared to me that there were indeed real planes and real boats and real people used in most of the shots. This really helps sell what I’m seeing.

    -Suspense and a lot of it. You don’t know if the people you are watching will survive. It looks bleak.

    -Mark Rylance as the captain of the Moonstone was the only memorable character in the movie.

    Cons:
    -All of the soldiers look very similar. I really couldn’t tell them apart for much of the movie without really concentrating. Why did he cast actors that have similar hair color and facial features?
    -I only recall two names during the film: George and Mr. Dawson That’s it! This goes with my point above of not knowing who was who.
    -There were supposedly 400,000 soldiers in that small town. Where were they? I’m not an expert in judging crowd sizes, but I’ve attended high school football games where there were more people in the stands than what I saw in the movie, perhaps 2,000 soldiers. Where were all of these soldiers? Where were they hiding? Were they on the beach? Where they sheltered in the buildings along the coast? The movie says that there are 400k there but never bothers to show you where.
    -Where was all of their equipment? I read up on Dunkirk as supposedly the allies had lost/left over 60,000 vehicles on the beach. I saw perhaps 2 dozen vehicles.
    -Where were all the boats? There was maybe 2 dozen boats shown in the movie. That is hardly enough to move all those men. There was a literal armada of small craft. Not shown.
    -The editing was atrocious. I recall seeing the same ship sunk from 5 different view points. I had to pay special attention to figure out that it was in fact, the same exact boat. I sort of get what Nolan was going for, but this was a movie based on history. Show what happen and make it interesting, don’t try to confuse me.

    • Rick Swift July 21, 2017 at 11:02 am #

      This is why I am not a fan of rotten tomatoes.

    • Jay July 21, 2017 at 1:32 pm #

      I couldn’t keep the soldiers straight either!

      • Rick Swift July 21, 2017 at 1:59 pm #

        It was confusing, probably by design, I think he was going for that whole, I won’t give this character a name so you can better identify with the character as yourself thing? I don’t know.

        And when they revealed why the one character never spoke, I was underwhelmed. Was that supposed to be a big twist? Yawn.

        One thing I thought was comical was how he had that run aground ship be helmed by a DUTCH Captain, then they all had to plug holes . . . like the little Dutch boy, ha ha!

Leave a Reply

Powered by Wordpress. Designed by Amadarwin with Woo Canvas