Dunkirk review

[JasonEvans]

So, I saw the film tonight...

It did not come close to living up to my expectations. I am probably one of the few (amateur) critics who will have the guts to say so, but I think Nolan really messed up story-wise with this film.

The flick is gorgeous and the technical mastery on screen is truly impressive. I was awed by some of the scenes, especially some of the stuff in the water and on the boats. It was breathtaking and the staging is incredibly impressive. As you would expect from Christopher Nolan, there is great attention to detail and the cinematic scope of the film is gorgeous. I would not be at all surprised to see it get some technical Oscars.

But the story... oh, he really has done something strange with the story. The movie is told in a few different timelines, which can make it a bit confusing. There isn't all that much dialog and almost no exposition at all. Many will praise that, but if you are not really familiar with what is going on, you will be confused.

There are something like 6 or 7 major characters, most of whom are rarely on camera at the same time. I think I recall the name of one character, maybe 2, but that is it. I recall faces, but not names, and it made it a bit tougher for me to connect with them. Also, several of the major characters are sorta despicable cowards. I know Nolan wanted to show the desperation of the folks on the Dunkirk beaches, I get that, but I had a hard time rooting for these people who did things that were waaay less than honorable.

I had trouble at times understanding the dialogue. Maybe it was my theater, but there were more than a few moments where things just sounded muffled. Tom Hardy plays a British fighter pilot (I can't recall his character's name) and he is wearing a pilot's headgear with a mike over his mouth the entire movie. As a result everything he says seems mumbled. It is like listening to Bane all over again. Why does Chris Nolan hate Tom Hardy's face/voice?


Cillian Murphy plays a character that we see both on the beach and at sea. He is very different when we see him at sea and I really thought the movie would show us the horror he went through to become a changed man. Nope, we have to just guess at it. I was shocked at this decision by Nolan and it kept me from connecting with Murphy at all. Mark Rylance, as the captain of one of the merchant ships going to rescue the soldiers, almost saves the movie. He's fabulous in this film. The acting is uniformly really great and many characters convey with their face and their eyes rather than with words, which makes their plight believable. I was moved and misty eyed a couple times, and that is a real credit to the actors.

From a historical standpoint, I think the film did a poor job of explaining everything that was going on. We never see the Germans to understand why they chose not to close in on Dunkirk. We only see a couple seconds of the French, so there is no sense of what they are doing. The whole film is spent with the Brits, which is fine, but we don't even really see what the British politicians or military leaders are doing (aside from a little bit with the military leaders on the beach). To a large extent the historical importance and gravity of the story are lost because of the lack of broad storytelling. All we get is the guys on the beach, a couple fighter planes, and one of the boats coming across the Channel... and none of them give us much exposition.

I just didn't love it. Frankly, I only barely liked it. I appreciated it, in a major way, but I didn't have fun watching. I wanted something a bit more all-encompassing. I'm not saying it is a bad movie, not by a long stretch, but I was often frustrated. To me, it is clearly the worst film in Nolan's impressive catalog. Also, my wife hated it... like a lot. She was mad at me for praising the technical stuff she hated it so much.

Look, I am sure I will be in the minority. I am certain many of you will come here and scream at me for not adoring this work of art. Folks who already know the history will probably go gaga for the fact that Nolan tries to tell smaller stories as a way of telling us the bigger picture... but I think folks who do not have a lot of background about the history will be confused and won't like it that much.

And, I'm telling you, this is going to be one of those films like Boyhood where the critics are just going to fall all over themselves adoring it... while audiences (if they are being honest and not afraid to speak the truth) will be less than enamored.

-Jason "sorry... I really wanted it to be better. I think it is really going to struggle to connect with folks under 30" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

So it is no Operation Pacific?

[Indoor66]

I haven't seen it yet but intend do. That said, Jason, from your review I would ask: isn't this a chronicling of a moment in history with a huge event? Thus, to me, individual story lines are merely threads to move from one portion of the event to the next - they are not the meat of the story. I look forward to my viewing of the film.

[BD80]

So, I saw the film tonight...

It did not come close to living up to my expectations. ... I had a hard time rooting for these people who did things that were waaay less than honorable. ...

This was my concern. It is tough to watch "a loss," let alone choose to watch it for entertainment.

Even in "300," the loss was noble and was a critical part of an overall victory.

[dudog84]

So, I saw the film tonight...

It did not come close to living up to my expectations. I am probably one of the few (amateur) critics who will have the guts to say so, but I think Nolan really messed up story-wise with this film.

...

Look, I am sure I will be in the minority. I am certain many of you will come here and scream at me for not adoring this work of art. Folks who already know the history will probably go gaga for the fact that Nolan tries to tell smaller stories as a way of telling us the bigger picture... but I think folks who do not have a lot of background about the history will be confused and won't like it that much.

And, I'm telling you, this is going to be one of those films like Boyhood where the critics are just going to fall all over themselves adoring it... while audiences (if they are being honest and not afraid to speak the truth) will be less than enamored.

-Jason "sorry... I really wanted it to be better. I think it is really going to struggle to connect with folks under 30" Evans

You sure know your movie audiences/critics. Dunkirk currently is scoring 9.6 on imdb. Will be interesting to see what happens to the score as more people see the movie.

[Wander]

From a historical standpoint, I think the film did a poor job of explaining everything that was going on. We never see the Germans to understand why they chose not to close in on Dunkirk.

Even in "300," the loss was noble and was a critical part of an overall victory.

I am not a history buff so I'm sure Olympic Fan or several other posters here can answer this question better... but don't these two statements accurately describe what happened? My overall understanding is that it was definitely a loss, but in some way a "good" (probably not the right word) loss in the sense that the evacuation prevented it from being a far bigger disaster than it was, and that lots of historians DO consider it a mysterious mistake by the Germans to not close in on Dunkirk.

[PackMan97]

I am not a history buff so I'm sure Olympic Fan or several other posters here can answer this question better... but don't these two statements accurately describe what happened? My overall understanding is that it was definitely a loss, but in some way a "good" (probably not the right word) loss in the sense that the evacuation prevented it from being a far bigger disaster than it was, and that lots of historians DO consider it a mysterious mistake by the Germans to not close in on Dunkirk.

From what I recall in history class, my professor considered the Dunkirk evacuation to be one of the keys to winning WWII. The Brits sent most of their active duty fighters to France to help them, and that's who was rescued. The ones that would later storm the beaches of Normandy. Without those 400,000 saved troops, who knows if/when the Allies would have attempted to take back Europe. In that sense I do think it was a "victory".

The Germans paused because their supply lines were stretched and they didn't want to risk losses from a counter attack. I also think their navy oversold their ability to shut down the English Channel.

[gus]

From a historical standpoint, I think the film did a poor job of explaining everything that was going on. We never see the Germans to understand why they chose not to close in on Dunkirk. We only see a couple seconds of the French, so there is no sense of what they are doing. The whole film is spent with the Brits, which is fine, but we don't even really see what the British politicians or military leaders are doing (aside from a little bit with the military leaders on the beach).

As Wander already suggested, there is a lot of questions around why the Germans delayed in attacking Dunkirk. I think presenting a theory as part of the story would have invited criticism.

However, ignoring the role of the French, who represented ~100k of the 400k and held the line long enough for the British to evacuate... well, my English friends often complain about how Hollywood ignores the British role in WWII (for example, on D-Day). I guess the British are no less guilty of that.

[JasonEvans]

My overall understanding is that it was definitely a loss, but in some way a "good" (probably not the right word) loss in the sense that the evacuation prevented it from being a far bigger disaster than it was, and that lots of historians DO consider it a mysterious mistake by the Germans to not close in on Dunkirk.

This is something the film never even begins to explore. There are a couple times where folks make mention of wanting to be able to fight again, some other time, but it is never even mentioned that this is the final retreat that hands France to the Nazis (I'm not sure the word Nazi is ever spoken in the film). There is certainly no talk of what the Germans are doing or an examination of their decision not to push the Brits into the sea.

As others have noted above, part of my dislike for the story was that it was pretty depressing and bleak but we don't really know why it is that way. At one point (this is in the trailers) a British soldiers takes off his gear and just walks into the ocean to swim out to sea to certain death. But, other than seeing a lot of guys on a beach waiting for rescue, we never see nearly enough suffering to understand what has driven that man to suicide. We see desperation, but do not have enough backstory or connection to the characters to understand what is happening in their heads. Frankly, it is never clear why the Brits don't just continue to fight the Germans. There's no talk of insurmountable odds or supplies running low (we see some scrambling for water in the first 5 minutes of the film, but then the issue of lack of supplies never comes up again). The film begins with guys on a beach waiting to get off and never goes into what brought them there or the impact of them being on that beach.

Nolan is not attempting to tell the full story of Dunkirk. He's only telling the story of some of the men involved in the escape and even then he is only telling what happened to them over the course of a couple days (again, there is a multiple timeline aspect of the story too, which could have been really cool and interesting but also complicates things). He is not concerned with what happened to get them to where they are nor with what happens to them after they leave. I get that every movie needs to have a starting and ending point; I get that historical dramas often require us to bring our own understanding of events to understand what is happening in the film; but Nolan's story is so devoid of depth that I could not connect with it.

-Jason "if depressing and bleak at your cup of tea, you'll probably really like this flick" Evans

[PackMan97]

Nolan is not attempting to tell the full story of Dunkirk. He's only telling the story of some of the men involved in the escape and even then he is only telling what happened to them over the course of a couple days (again, there is a multiple timeline aspect of the story too, which could have been really cool and interesting but also complicates things). He is not concerned with what happened to get them to where they are nor with what happens to them after they leave. I get that every movie needs to have a starting and ending point; I get that historical dramas often require us to bring our own understanding of events to understand what is happening in the film; but Nolan's story is so devoid of depth that I could not connect with it.

That would like like Hacksaw ridge without knowing why Dos refuses to pick up a gun, why he still wants to serve and what he went through to stay in the military...or knowing what happened after his night spent up on the ridge.

[JasonEvans]

That would like like Hacksaw ridge without knowing why Dos refuses to pick up a gun, why he still wants to serve and what he went through to stay in the military...or knowing what happened after his night spent up on the ridge.

[JasonEvans]

I want to be clear -- this is not a bad movie, not by a long stretch. If I had to go the Rotten Tomatoes route and give it a pure thumbs up or down, it would (barely) get a thumbs up from me. Still, I would not go so far as to give it an 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale. I would say the cinematography, and filmmaking craft are both 10s and the acting is an 8 or so... but the story is like a 4 or a 5. I'd give it a 6 or maybe a 6.5 overall.

But I would give everything else Nolan has done at least an 8.

-Jason "I'll also admit that I am certainly in the minority here. Most folks seem to love it. If 19 out of 20 people really like it, then my wife and I just happen to be in the tiny 5% who do not" Evans

[chriso]

I want to be clear -- this is not a bad movie, not by a long stretch. If I had to go the Rotten Tomatoes route and give it a pure thumbs up or down, it would (barely) get a thumbs up from me. Still, I would not go so far as to give it an 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale. I would say the cinematography, and filmmaking craft are both 10s and the acting is an 8 or so... but the story is like a 4 or a 5. I'd give it a 6 or maybe a 6.5 overall.

But I would give everything else Nolan has done at least an 8.

-Jason "I'll also admit that I am certainly in the minority here. Most folks seem to love it. If 19 out of 20 people really like it, then my wife and I just happen to be in the tiny 5% who do not" Evans

It looks like a good movie but it also looks like a tough watch. Thank you for being honest in your review and going against the grain.

[Olympic Fan]

From what I recall in history class, my professor considered the Dunkirk evacuation to be one of the keys to winning WWII. The Brits sent most of their active duty fighters to France to help them, and that's who was rescued. The ones that would later storm the beaches of Normandy. Without those 400,000 saved troops, who knows if/when the Allies would have attempted to take back Europe. In that sense I do think it was a "victory".

The Germans paused because their supply lines were stretched and they didn't want to risk losses from a counter attack. I also think their navy oversold their ability to shut down the English Channel.

Dunkirk was -- as Churchill noted -- a defeat.

But it was also a turning point in the war -- the comparison with the 300 (Thermopylae) or the Alamo is very apt.

Look, here's what happened. The British and French anticipated a replay of the Schieffen Plan (which almost won WWI in the opening weeks) -- that the Germans would swing the mass of their army through Belgium and outflank the Allied defense. To prevent that, they placed a large force -- including the whole BEF and a large French force -- on their left wing and rushed into Belgium as soon as the German attack began.

That would have worked against the original German plan -- but when bad weather forced the Germans to delay their assault from fall 1939 to May 1940, a general named Eric von Manstein got to Hitler and convinced him to overrule the General Staff and order a new plan -- an attack through the Ardennes Forest at about the point where France, Belgium and Luxemberg were connected. The French, thinking the Ardennes impassable to armor, had assigned some of its worst troops to that sector.

The German armor broke through quite easily and drove to the northwest -- reaching the English Channel. The attack cut off about a third of the Allied Army -- including the best British and French troops, which retreated to Dunkirk -- the last port open. The British began evacuating, hoping to get 60-70,000 men off.

Why did the Germans pause? Certainly supply lines had a lot to do with it. Even the ultra-modern Panzer divisions were supplied by horse-drawn transport, which couldn't keep up with the tanks. Hitler was afraid of the mud in the area (which he experienced in WWI). Goering promised that the Luftwaffe could prevent evacuation.

But there is another reason that I never see mentioned, which I think is paramount -- the memory of what happened in September of 1914.

In the first weeks of that war, the Germans broke the French line and swept across France. Their victory seemed assured, but somehow, the French and the small BEF rallied and pulled out a miraculous victory -- the Miracle of the Marne. That battle set the stage for four years of bloody trench warfare and the eventual German defeat.

As May of 1940 ended, Hitler was in a similar situation -- he had achieved a smashing victory on the frontier. But two-thirds of the French Army remained intact and had to be conquered before the victory was complete. Which was more of a threat -- the one third of the Allied Army trying to flee Dunkirk (without its equipment)? Or the two thirds of the French Army that was south of the breakthrough and still had its weapons and its supply lines?

I contend that Hitler grew up in a world shaped by the miraculous French recovery at the Marne. Preventing something similar was his chief concern. Hence, he stopped his armor, pulled his tanks back and had them refit and repair for the subsequent attack on the remainder of the French Army (which succeeded spectacularly).

Only in hindsight could anybody guess the British would evacuate more than a third of a million men (and about a third of those were French troops). The British certainly didn't expect it.

But something else happened at Dunkirk -- the fleet of small, private ships that sailed across the Channel and played a huge role in the evacuation. It's impossible to underestimate the change in British morale that occurred with the rescue of the BEF. It was as if the soul of the British nation rose up and saved its army. From that point on, the British -- led by new Prime Minister Winston Churchill -- were invincible.

I wonder, does Nolan capture that "victory" in the midst of defeat? If not, then I have no idea why he's making the movie. I'll see Friday -- I still have high hopes, but Jason's review gives me pause.

[JasonEvans]

None of what Oly just wrote is in the movie... not even a hint of it.

Well... there is some cheering by some crowds at the end when some of the soldiers get home (spoiler, some of the Brits survive!!), but there is no indication that the national consciousness was impacted by this. One character reads a newspaper article that talks about British defiance (I think he was reading a transcript of a famous Churchill speech, but the movie does not make this clear). That's about it.

The movie is one tiny portion of a history lesson about Dunkirk: Dudes are on a beach, things seem hopeless and desperate, some ships come and rescue them... that's it. No other perspective is given.

-Jason "I'm disgusted that the gorgeous scope and craft of filmmaking here is causing all the other critics to ignore a very flawed story" Evans

[Bluegrassdevil1]

I am going to profoundly disagree with Mr. Jacks and Kings in the hole here. I too have seen Dunkirk, and I found the film to be quite good.

The film is essentially one long battle, or three clashes, depending on one’s cataloguing of acts,rising action, etc. There are moments of stasis, but it is well paced enough to maintain a steady momentum. As much as a film that is less than 120 minutes in length (I believe it is a bit over 90 minutes), can simulate war, it captures in a purely unrelenting form, especially in IMAX, as cities are towering and the ocean is enormous.

I found the film to do a wonderful job of depicting human nature, and that war, and I suppose life in general, contains many things that can kill you. The film is a bit less about weapons, and more about the ocean’s power, drifting/sinking boats, and petro igniting.

The section of the film that is likely easiest to relate to is the "central" boat, because there resides a central character, and key supporting performers. The boat narrative follows an infantryman as he tries a myriad of desperate means of finding salvation on a rescue ship. Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies) is a boat owner, with nothing more than an argyle sweater vest (British stiff upper lip metaphor), who takes his sons and heads for France, along the way picking up Cillian Murphy, whose PTSD complicates the journey.

A British fighter pilot deals with aircraft bombing and a dual focus on the survivors and rescuers (yes, the word “Nazi” never comes up, but no one watching the film could possibly be confused about the identities of the rivals).

One character commits a selfish act, simply to save himself, and the same character acts bravely to save others. Nolan splinters the narrative so that it spins back on itself — the events move from the POV of different characters and from different chronological points, though the story coheres by movie’s end.

Dunkirk is not a war film in the truest sense, as it is only concerned with Operation Dynamo: from land, sea and air, and creates considerable suspense by cross-cutting between the British forces. The movie does away with the narrative tissue that holds together most war pictures: intro, boot camp and/or battle, previewing collectively united comrades, debating strategy over maps, etc. In the inverse, the movie goes full-on in medias res.

The film depicts a blended military-humanitarian operation more than working towards a study of individuals in an ensemble. It is not big on characterization or dialogue, which, and purely to me (and the 95% approval rating), makes the film a good time at the movies.

[JasonEvans]

I am going to profoundly disagree with Mr. Jacks and Kings in the hole here. I too have seen Dunkirk, and I found the film to be quite good.

I'm glad you liked it, Bluegrass. I am a huge fan of the movie industry and want folks to have a good time every time they enter a theater (except if they are seeing Transformers films). Quick question for you... without looking it up, how many character names do you recall from the film? George is the only one I could recall when the movie was over... and he was like the 8th or 10th most important character in the picture.

After a couple days of reading reviews and talking to reviewer friends of mine, I have come to the conclusion that Nolan has crafted something unconventional. It is a film with a more loose narrative structure than we typically see in Hollywood. His focus is on what is happening in the moment, not what it means in a larger context. He crafted a quiet study of how men react at a given point in time, not a complete retelling of an important historical event. He intentionally left holes in the story or only gave vague explanations for events because those explanations and perspective are not what mattered to him.

The result is a film that may turn some folks off (as it did my wife) or lessen the moviegoing experience for others (that's me). But, for folks who can adjust to what they are watching and just roll with the unconventionality, it is a wonder to behold. Clearly, the negative or lessened experience is one that only a minority of folks will experience, so there is no faulting Nolan for this choice of how to make his film. I'm a little sad that it happened to me though as I wish I had loved this cinematic work of art a bit more. As I said in my very first comments, only an hour or so after seeing the film, I am sure I will be among the minority in not loving this picture. Still, I wanted folks to know what I saw as some flaws in the way the story was told.

-Jason "Sigh... I am sure there are people who look at the Mona Lisa or Birth of Venus and think, 'What's the big deal? I'm just bummed to be one of them in this case" Evans

[cato]

I appreciate the dialogue here. I am looking forward to Dunkirk (to the extent that one can look forward to a war movie) and will inevitably compare it to Saving Private Ryan. I recall thinking that Spielberg's movie would have been much more powerful if he had left out the narrative frame, opening with the landing craft moving toward the beaches, and ending with the death of Captain Miller. Perhaps the anology is not all that strong, since it sounds like even within the frame, Spielberg focused much more on the characters and their stories. Yet it seems Nolan has decided to do what I wish Spielberg had done: focus specifically on the events as they were lived by the men in real time, leaving the audience to fill in the rest of the picture.

[Mal]

Thermopylae wasn't really a turning point in repelling the second Persian incursion into Greece, and it didn't lead very directly to future military success the same way the successful evacuation of Dunkirk did (as Oly nicely sums up above), although I know it's been mythologized as 300 people singlehandedly saving the future of Western civilization. It did have superficial similarities with Dunkirk, in that Leonidas's stand allowed the retreat of the remainder of the Greek army stationed there, which was great. But Xerxes and the Persian land forces went on to march through Boeotia and easily captured Athens, so it's not like that retreat was all that helpful, militarily.

The Greek navy won that war, at Salamis. It left Xerxes feeling like he might be trapped in Europe, so he pulled back to Asia and lost almost his entire army along the way. Some of the troops that retreated from Thermopylae may have been active at Plataea a year or two later or whenever it was that Mardonius was defeated, but the time lag is enough that there's not a whole lot of direct correlation. And it's likely a lot of them perished in the intervening time trying unsuccessfully to defend Thessaly and Attica and wherever else the Persians were cakewalking before Salamis. Regardless, Xerxes pulling out was the beginning of the end.

//end ancient history pedant, who is intrigued by Dunkirk apparently not following the conventions of the "war movie" genre, but nonetheless skeptical having read JE's review. Over his years of posting reviews here, I've come to see his balance of "movies should be fun and entertaining" vs. "but I want to be challenged, too" as a little more weighted toward the former than my own, but close enough, and consistent, so if he says something's gravely lacking in a film, he's usually right. And something as historically important as this particular event may not be the place for just ditching broader narrative structure and historical context. Maybe save that experimentation for a movie about a fictionalized, generic battlefield. Consider one of my favorite war movies growing up, Midway. Pretty crummy dialogue, they cut a lot of corners with stock footage and stuff, but it worked for me because it focuses on the backstory, the strategies, the decisionmaking, and then pushes the narrative of a well-known historical event as its centerpiece. That sounds nothing like what Nolan's done here.

[Olympic Fan]

Thermopylae wasn't really a turning point in repelling the second Persian incursion into Greece, and it didn't lead very directly to future military success the same way the successful evacuation of Dunkirk did (as Oly nicely sums up above), although I know it's been mythologized as 300 people singlehandedly saving the future of Western civilization. It did have superficial similarities with Dunkirk, in that Leonidas's stand allowed the retreat of the remainder of the Greek army stationed there, which was great. But Xerxes and the Persian land forces went on to march through Boeotia and easily captured Athens, so it's not like that retreat was all that helpful, militarily.

The Greek navy won that war, at Salamis. It left Xerxes feeling like he might be trapped in Europe, so he pulled back to Asia and lost almost his entire army along the way. Some of the troops that retreated from Thermopylae may have been active at Plataea a year or two later or whenever it was that Mardonius was defeated, but the time lag is enough that there's not a whole lot of direct correlation. And it's likely a lot of them perished in the intervening time trying unsuccessfully to defend Thessaly and Attica and wherever else the Persians were cakewalking before Salamis.

//end ancient history pedant, who is intrigued by Dunkirk apparently not following the conventions of the "war movie" genre, but nonetheless skeptical having read JE's review. Over his years of posting reviews here, I've come to see his balance of "movies should be fun and entertaining" vs. "but I want to be challenged, too" as a little more weighted toward the former than my own, but close enough, and consistent, so if he says something's gravely lacking in a film, he's usually right. And something as historically important as this particular event may not be the place for just ditching broader narrative structure and historical context. Maybe save that experimentation for a movie about a fictionalized, generic battlefield. Consider one of my favorite war movies growing up, Midway. Pretty crummy dialogue, they cut a lot of corners with stock footage and stuff, but it worked for me because it focuses on the backstory, the strategies, the decisionmaking, and then pushes the narrative of a well-known historical event as its centerpiece. That sounds nothing like what Nolan's done here.

I think you underestimate Thermopylae, You are right that militarily the battle and the stand of the 300 was not significant -- other than the fact that the sacrifice of the Spartans allowed the rest of he Allied Greek Armies to retreat safety.

But you overlook the moral impact of that sacrifice. The Greek civilization at the time were a collection of independent and often hostile city-states. It was almost inconceivable that they could come together to fight the invaders. Indeed, Xerxes counted on the dissention -- he had prominent Greek leaders in his camp and expected to collect allies as he marched south.

The sacrifice of the 300 changed that. The fact that a Spartan contingent -- led by one of the two Spartan kings -- would fight and die so far from home -- in extreme Northern Greece, protecting all Greece and not just Sparta, rallied the Greeks to fight together. Yes, Salamis was the military turning point, but Thermopylae was the turning point of the war.

Don't forget Napoleon's Maxim: The moral is to the physical as three to one.

Thermopylae, Dunkirk, the Alamo were all defeats that changed the course of the war. On the other side, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam was a smashing American victory that turned the war in the North Vietnam's favor.

PS I also love the movie Midway, but I'd love it a lot more without the ridiculous Charlton Heston subplot.