Support NeoGAF

[DrBo42]

I watched it a few hours ago.

Spoiler

I feel like this movie is very well made. It's shot wonderfully, the sound design is incredible, and the editing and pacing are all great. But for me there was no real message and maybe it doesn't need one but for me there were no real themes to tie it altogether.

Maybe Nolan just wanted to tell the story of Dunkirk but I would have preferred it if it was a little more than, these are the things that happened.

That's what it was for me. There was lots of external conflict but no real internal conflict. The characters didn't really change so even though it's put together wonderfully I left feeling a bit meh on the whole thing.

What I will say was that I loved the sound design. The ticking clock being present throughout the whole movie building a sense of dread and tension was great. And then when they took it away at the end when they boarded the train highlighted that they had finally made it through the whole ordeal.
I also enjoyed the last few seconds where it cuts back from black to show the kid's face for a few seconds before ending.

Overall a well put together movie but lacking the character journey that would have elevated it for me.

Spoiler

There's internal conflict for characters in terms of what needs to be done, and the instinct to survive vs morality. No grand Hollywood journey for these characters was necessary, just getting home or the attempt is enough. The strength is the simplicity and lack of agenda of the director or writer(s).

Lots of people are having the same reaction though. I feel like it's a shame and mostly just conditioning from what has come before.

 

[JB1981]

Yea there are several easily identifiable internal conflicts happening across the narrative threads.

Spoiler

Rylance: turn back home to get his son medical attention or keep on to Dunkirk.

Rylance's son: tell Cillian Murphy the truth about his bothers condition or lie to him to spare him even more misery.

Hardy: turn back to refuel or put his own life at risk by continuing to fly and aid the evacuation effort.

The boy on the ground (sorry don't know his name LOL) - the scene in the boat where he argues the wrong of sacrificing the French guy that they first think is a Jerry but turns out to be French. "Survival isn't fair."

 

[Fury451]

^just a small correction, but

Spoiler

George isn't Peter's brother or Rylance's son, he is a boy from town that works for Rylance.

 

[bionic77]

Really liked it.

The sound and tension were amazing.

I liked how

Spoiler

how there was not some Hollywood happy ending, they 'won' by surviving.

He does a brilliant job of showing just how desperate the situation was.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Whole movie changed for me (in a good way)

Spoiler

when Hardy turned his plane around when it was low on fuel

to take care of a bomber. Not knowing much about the historical event, this was when I knew what Nolan was going for.

 

[Corpsepyre]

Just got back. Easily the loudest film I've ever sat through. Fuck. My ears are obliterated. But IMAX and the best seat in the house. Fuck yeah. Enjoyed it a lot. But definitely not for home viewing.

 

[aravuus]

Just saw it. Great movie, I'd say I probably enjoyed it more than Interstellar. Not Nolan's best imo, but definitely worth a watch.

Not sure if I'll ever rewatch it, though. Sort of feels like a one-and-done movie in a way, and it's not like my TV and speakers could do the movie justice.

 

[nhlducks35]

Upon rewatch, there's a couple of things I caught that I didn't the 1st time:

Spoiler

Michael Caine was Fortis Leader (one of the spitfires) that is the 1st one to get shot down

When your watching the ship at night, I didn't understand what the men in the boats were saying, but they were saying "torpedo", right before it was about to hit

Now you know Rylance's dead son was in the RAF, so his decision to save the pilot makes more sense

The french guy playing Gibson died because his foot gets caught in a chain in the ship

The asshole dude in the boat with the gun dies in the fire

Nolan's family plays one of the nurses and the old guy at the end giving blankets

 

[nhlducks35]

Some shots on how they filmed it in IMAX

 

[JustHadToJoin]

I can't wait to watch behind the scenes.

This movie is better on repeat viewings when you understand what they are doing with the timeline. First time I watched I was trying to figure out if the time meant how long it took to get back home.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Some shots on how they filmed it in IMAX

Those water shots are so cool. Nolan's commitment to getting real shots is something I really admire about him.

 

[Guzim]

Wetsuit Nolan.

 

[Kaswa101]

The Prestige is Nolan's only great film. Inception is vapid trash.

Much like your opinions.

OT, great film imo. Not something I'd watch over and over (and not really my type of movie overall), but I think it accomplished what it set out to do. Really well-made and the timeline splices was an incredible idea and perfectly-executed.

I hope Nolan sweeps the Oscars.

 

[DMczaf]

Wetsuit Nolan.

Gotta do your own stunts

 

[slider]

Some shots on how they filmed it in IMAX.

Not knowing much of anything about film making, I love these. Thanks!

 

[Corpsepyre]

Can someone please explain the timeline?

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Some shots on how they filmed it in IMAX

Thanks for this.

 

[Tuck]

Just saw it. I liked it a lot, but I wouldn't say it blew me aaway. I'd liken it to Mad Max: Fury Road. Its incredibly well crafted, and fun to watch for the visual splendour but the actual narrative was merely serviceable. I did like the fact that there wasn't much dialogue, kind of neat, but that came at a bit of a cost.

One minor complaint story wise,

Spoiler

I found it got a bit repetitive - they get people on a boat, germans come, dog fight, germans bomb the boat, boat sinks, mayhem, next boat comes, repeat

.

So yeah, good movie. Nolan did an excellent job on the actual direction.

 

[ashecitism]

Can someone please explain the timeline?

Spoiler

1. Mole - covers a week
2. Sea - covers a day
3. Air - covers an hour

Film starts with Tommy arriving on the mole (day 1). The boat and spitfires start on the last day. Or if we count the soldiers being greeted on the trainstation as day 7, then day 6. Regarding movie scenes both start while Tommy and co are in the stranded ship with the dutch captain and are waiting for the high tide.

 

[Kin5290]

Spoiler

There's internal conflict for characters in terms of what needs to be done, and the instinct to survive vs morality. No grand Hollywood journey for these characters was necessary, just getting home or the attempt is enough. The strength is the simplicity and lack of agenda of the director or writer(s).

Lots of people are having the same reaction though. I feel like it's a shame and mostly just conditioning from what has come before.

None of this really plays into a conflict, however. Characters are venal or selfish, but no character has to deal with the conflict of moral courage vs the selfish need for personal survival within themself.

I thought that this film was technically brilliant, but Moviebob's criticism of Nolan as a technical master who is incapable of telling a really humanistic, emotional story definitely rings true. The subject matter, the typical British stoicism, and Mark Rylance make up for a lot, however.

A big problem I had was that I could not tell the difference between any of the young, white, dark haired soldiers to save my life.

 

[True Savior]

There was a thread a few weeks ago about vfx shots, all Dunkirk ones were done at 6k

”There are not many visual effects because [Nolan] likes to do almost everything practically, but any type of visual effect in the movie — even removal of wires and things like that — were all done at 6K."

https://ascmag.com/articles/dunkirk-wrangling-two-large-formats

Some shots on how they filmed it in IMAX

They are being called to lunch and that guy is clearly enthusiastic. Nolan and Hoyte want another round and the guy behind the plane can't believe they will have to redo everything.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Vox: The sound illusion that makes Dunkirk so intense

Built around a score by composer Hans Zimmer, Dunkirk hardly ever slows down from start to finish. And a lot of that has to do with how Zimmer uses an auditory illusion caused by Shepard tones.

 

[dmshaposv]

Man, opinions are subjective and all that, but I really really can't understand folks that felt this way.

This was one of the most intense theatrical experiences I've ever had. I was anxious as hell through the whole film.

The film is like a VR experience. Its feels like a very believable depictation of something yet it never feels REAL.

I can imagine it not being a very rewatchable film. It doesnt have the humanity needed for a war film. And that isnt just the girl waiting back home trope. Just something as simple as soldiers exhausted, bloodied or even severly injured.

I think if nolan was going for a VR style experience, he shouldve added a little bit more graphic violence or blood. Nothing as gratuitous as SPR or hacksaw ridge. Just something that made the soldiers feel like real flesh and blood than virtual actors in a headset.

 

[FutureLarking]

The film is like a VR experience. Its feels like a very believable depictation of something yet it never feels REAL.

I can imagine it not being a very rewatchable film. It doesnt have the humanity needed for a war film. And that isnt just the girl waiting back home trope. Just something as simple as soldiers exhausted, bloodied or even severly injured.

I think if nolan was going for a VR style experience, he shouldve added a little bit more graphic violence or blood. Nothing as gratuitous as SPR or hacksaw ridge. Just something that made the soldiers feel like real flesh and blood than virtual actors in a headset.

I kind of liken it to one of those gormet chefs who like de-constructing everything for reasons. If I ordered a burger andand they've distilled the essence of the burger into a few select individual ingredients, and well prepared them and presented them nicely and separately on the plate. It's well made food but... at the end of the day no matter how good the ingredients were, I didn't get my burger experience. Was still missing that zing.

Kind of what I feel Nolan did - he tried to distil Dunkirk into a few small slices and play them alongside each other but... he distilled everything far too much to do the actual Dunkirk evacuation justice in terms of scale and chaos, and as a movie it tells small stories that still happen to feel impersonal.

 

[dmshaposv]

Yeah i know this is pretentious ground but...

I like what dunkirk is trying to do. Its a very experiemental, unique survival film based in WWII. Its unlike what we have seen.

Its unfamiliar. And sometimes unfamiliar can be a good thing and sometimes not.

In this case, it needed to have that little fix - the human connection - that everyone associates with a war/survival film. By trying to distance from the typical war film or the tropes associated, he has ended up with an experience that has also stripped the survival story of one of the things that make us invested in a survival story: the characters.

 

[DrBo42]

None of this really plays into a conflict, however. Characters are venal or selfish, but no character has to deal with the conflict of moral courage vs the selfish need for personal survival within themself.

I thought that this film was technically brilliant, but Moviebob's criticism of Nolan as a technical master who is incapable of telling a really humanistic, emotional story definitely rings true. The subject matter, the typical British stoicism, and Mark Rylance make up for a lot, however.

A big problem I had was that I could not tell the difference between any of the young, white, dark haired soldiers to save my life.

Spoiler

Huh? Isn't this exactly the final bit of Hardy's performance? Go back for the bomber to save lives, knowing he's going to run out of fuel if he does. Take out that last dive plane while in a glide and end up landing on the German side of the beach. I think there's plenty of emotion and conflict in this story, you just wanted something more exaggerated IMO.

Yeah i know this is pretentious ground but...

I like what dunkirk is trying to do. Its a very experiemental, unique survival film based in WWII. Its unlike what we have seen.

Its unfamiliar. And sometimes unfamiliar can be a good thing and sometimes not.

In this case, it needed to have that little fix - the human connection - that everyone associates with a war/survival film. By trying to distance from the typical war film or the tropes associated, he has ended up with an experience that has also stripped the survival story of one of the things that make us invested in a survival story: the characters.

Spoiler

"Well done!"
"All we did was survive..."
"That's enough."

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Spoiler

Huh? Isn't this exactly the final bit of Hardy's performance? Go back for the bomber to save lives, knowing he's going to run out of fuel if he does. Take out that last dive plane while in a glide and end up landing on the German side of the beach. I think there's plenty of emotion and conflict in this story, you just wanted something more exaggerated IMO.

Spoiler

"Well done!"
"All we did was survive..."
"That's enough."

I agree with what you said. As a matter of fact, the whole movie is about tiny heroic choices individuals made that added up to something huge and grand. Without those choices (multiplied over and over) then there'd be no story.

 

[Corpsepyre]

I think this will be one hell of a test for your home theater, especially the subwoofer. Other than that, I don't think I'll be watching it again. It's made for IMAX, and I saw it there, and I'm happy that I did.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I think this will be one hell of a test for your home theater, especially the subwoofer. Other than that, I don't think I'll be watching it again. It's made for IMAX, and I saw it there, and I'm happy that I did.

I can't wait to watch it at home on Atmos, personally.

 

[Amneziak]

Saw it last night in IMAX. Holy shit this movie was great.

I started feeling like I had to pee like 15 min in but I held out until it was over. I couldn't bear to miss a single second of it.

I loved how little dialogue there was. The actors did so much with their eyes and expressions. So well done. The pacing, music, sound design were perfect. The sound of the planes filled me with so much dread just like you see on the soldiers' faces. Can't wait to see it again.

 

[Sunster]

Why did

Spoiler

the French guy lock the people in the lower deck on the boat?

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Why did

Spoiler

the French guy lock the people in the lower deck on the boat?

He didn't. He let them out.

 

[golem]

I agree with what you said. As a matter of fact, the whole movie is about tiny heroic choices individuals made that added up to something huge and grand. Without those choices (multiplied over and over) then there'd be no story.

One issue I have with that is I never doubted that any of those characters would make anything but the heroic choice. The main characters all

Spoiler

survived

, there was no

Spoiler

Modern Warfare

moment. For all the talk of

Spoiler

the randomness of

death in the movie, the story was pretty straightforward. It's more a fairy tale than a war movie imo.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

It's more a fairy tale than a war movie imo

Yeesh, you know what they say about opinions the Internet. You really can find anything.

 

[golem]

Yeesh, you know what they say about opinions the Internet. You really can find anything.

Thanks for the thorough discussion of the points I raised, the internet is truly wonderful.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Thanks for the thorough discussion of the points I raised, the internet is truly wonderful.

You want me to engage in a serious discussion about whether or not Dunkirk is more of a fairy tale movie than a war movie?

 

[restraining order]

Why did

Spoiler

the French guy lock the people in the lower deck on the boat?

He didn't.

Spoiler

The British did. He went back to save the protagonist and Harry Styles along with the rest of the British below deck. He was waiting above deck so it would be easier to abandon ship lest any issue arise.

And, while I'm on the topic of the French.

Spoiler

I'm genuinely quite upset with what went down in this film. Ignoring the wider controversy over French efforts being downplayed by this film, what happened below deck in the third act left me livid. The jingoism was fine and more than appropriate for the setting, I would imagine. What really upset me was the lack of consequence for the jingoism and tribalism. There was no comeuppance for Harry Styles. The protagonist never asked any questions about what happened to his French friend. And 'Gibson', himself, was delivered a watery grave for his previous heroics.

As a British man having watched this in Paris in the midst of a French audience, I felt mortified from this point onward in the movie. I kept holding on to hope that there would be some form of catharsis, but it never came. Instead, the movie ends with a throwaway comment by Kenneth Branagh and riffs of Churchill rallying Britain and 'her' empire. The same empire that allowed millions to starve in India during this war. Harry Styles even gets a fresh beer and a hero's welcome, the wanker.

The greatest shame is that I was captivated by this film for most of its duration until I became thoroughly unsettled by its politics. What happened to the Dutch man for that matter?

In short - Christopher Nolan is Satan and probably voted for Brexit.

 

[golem]

You want me to engage in a serious discussion about whether or not Dunkirk is more of a fairy tale movie than a war movie?

Lol ok, I must be talking to Subpar's alt account. Nevermind.

 

[DrBo42]

One issue I have with that is I never doubted that any of those characters would make anything but the heroic choice. The main characters all

Spoiler

survived

, there was no

Spoiler

Modern Warfare

moment. For all the talk of

Spoiler

the randomness of

death in the movie, the story was pretty straightforward. It's more a fairy tale than a war movie imo.

Spoiler

Well it's a movie designed to show the evacuation of the armed forces via multiple viewpoints. Viewpoints being characters themselves. With that said not *all* of them make it as George I believe is the first character we follow in The Sea. As for being straightforward the timeline construction helps break that up a bit. But in the end the evacuation really ends 1 of 3 ways:

- Die on the beach
- Die in the water
- Make it home

And that's absolutely fine for a story of stranded soldiers just trying to get back across the channel alive. Not sure what your reason for calling it a fairy tale is.

 

[HariKari]

And, while I'm on the topic of the French.

Agree and personally thought it wasn't a very good movie about the actual Dunkirk battle/evacuation, but was a good movie about desperation and despair. It didn't have a massive budget so of course the scale needs to be limited, but it still felt like more could have been shown of the key contributions the French made.

 

[golem]

Spoiler

And that's absolutely fine for a story of stranded soldiers just trying to get back across the channel alive. Not sure what your reason for calling it a fairy tale is.

Spoiler

To me the movie is espousing a specific viewpoint or moral much like a fairy tale. The story follows those that are lucky enough to make it out from the beach alive. It does not choose any POVs that suffer failure and seeks to explain their survival. The survivors make the right choices and are generally upstanding people. The Great General, the Helpful soldier, the Upstanding Citizen Captain, the Noble Fighter pilot. Only those that make the wrong choices, or are too weak physically or mentally, die. For example they get rewarded with drowning because they let their guard down, or being burned alive because they were cruel. The movie tells us that surviving is enough but also that those that did not deserved it somehow. Also the lack of gore and visceral violence helps add to the whole otherworldly feeling of it.

 

[Limit]

Saw it yesterday. Amazing cinematography and sound design. I have never bought into critique of Nolan's movies lacking heart. But here it was blatant. The movie was thoughtful, for sure. And you can even make the claim that the movie lacking characters was partially the point, which I can buy. But at the end of the day good storytelling needs good characters; not just good sound design and visuals. This very much felt like an experimental season opener wherein in the next few episodes we will get actual character development.

Overall I appreciate the movie for what it is. Will be there day 1 for Nolan's next project.

 

[Steejee]

Got back from seeing it today in 70mm. Was planning to treck about 60miles to see it in IMAX 70mm, but normal 70mm was a 15 minute walk away, so figured I'd do that first and consider reseeing it later.

My take on it was that it was quite an experience, like the best reenactment ever of Dunkirk. That lack of major character storylines was fine, there didn't need to be in this movie. The movie sucked me in bit by bit, and by the end I was pretty engrossed.

Buuuuut....probably won't be double dipping.

I didn't like that the roles and sacrifices of the French and Dutch were kinda glossed over. Sound design was a mixed bag - I loved the intensity of the actual combat, especially the strafing runs, but it could run a bit excessively loud to the point where it felt like I had been at a concert. Dialogue was incomprehensible in far too many scenes, which seems to be a common Nolan problem... I suppose in a movie like this that's less of a problem in narrative heavy ones, but it did mean the handful of actual conversations were difficult to follow. I could understand the people fine when it was loud enough to actually hear.

My biggest problem with the movie was really the physical film print/projection itself. While the 70mm did have some clear benefits to the look of the film, the upsides weren't always worth it. Maybe it's just because I haven't seen a true film movie in a fair bit of time, but the flickering was unbearable at times, especially early on when you had the whitest skies with the beaches. It could be down to bad projection, but this particular theater does a lot of specialty events and usually does a great job with real projection, so I'm not so sure. Could also just be my eyes - I've long been bothered by CRTs that couldn't keep up a great refresh rate, so this could be a similar issue.

So overall, good flick, some issues but definitely worth the experience, even with the flickering issues I had. I definitely look forward to Nolan's next film, but since Dark Knight Rises/Interstellar were let downs for me, and Dunkirk marks as a cool experience, but not necessarily a great film, I'm a little more reserved in my excitement for his films.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I just drove 218 miles round trip solo to see the film in 15-perf 70MM IMAX.

Absolutely stunning. The visuals are indelible. This can't be the same film cut down to scope ratio, the full height of the IMAX frame are used for the vast majority of the film and this provides a sense of scale that is unparalleled.

I've always opposed to the usage of IMAX for narrative film but it works in this case because the film is more about event than about dialog or character. I'm OK with that.

 

[DrBo42]

Spoiler

To me the movie is espousing a specific viewpoint or moral much like a fairy tale. The story follows those that are lucky enough to make it out from the beach alive. It does not choose any POVs that suffer failure and seeks to explain their survival. The survivors make the right choices and are generally upstanding people. The Great General, the Helpful soldier, the Upstanding Citizen Captain, the Noble Fighter pilot. Only those that make the wrong choices, or are too weak physically or mentally, die. For example they get rewarded with drowning because they let their guard down, or being burned alive because they were cruel. The movie tells us that surviving is enough but also that those that did not deserved it somehow. Also the lack of gore and visceral violence helps add to the whole otherworldly feeling of it.

I don't agree with that at all. Some of that is catharsis for the viewer, until they realize these are people just trying to survive and fear does insane things to the brain. Think you're forgetting

Spoiler

literally everyone else that dies in this film from the street chase at the beginning to the countless that drown or are crushed/pulled under by sinking ships, strafed or simply bombed. You have problems with the film and that's okay but you're contorting what you actually saw to fit your complaints. Even when it comes to the characters you're oversimplifying them. Like the civilian captain, he lets George come with them and ultimately gets him killed by his decision to see it out and not bring Murphy back to port. And again, George is the starting POV for The Sea and dies. Navy officer watches the docked ship take a bomb and his ultimate reaction is "Push it off, it can't sink here." so future ships could dock for loading. He didn't throw his cap off and dive into the water to save the people on stretchers on the deck.

 

[firehawk12]

Is there a technical reason why the film switches from IMAX to a normal aspect ratio for some scenes? That was probably the most distracting element of the film.

Well, other than how they decided to edit the three stories together. lol

Also, I guess the technical WW2 question I have is that isn't it a war crime to shoot at the red cross?

 

[DrBo42]

Is there a technical reason why the film switches from IMAX to a normal aspect ratio for some scenes? That was probably the most distracting element of the film.

Well, other than how they decided to edit the three stories together. lol

Also, I guess the technical WW2 question I have is that isn't it a war crime to shoot at the red cross?

Those scenes were shot in an IMAX camera. Same thing happens in his other films. They don't shoot the entire movie in that IMAX aspect. They're huge with some serious requirements for moving around.

 

[firehawk12]

Those scenes were shot in an IMAX camera. Same thing happens in his other films. They don't shoot the entire movie in that IMAX aspect. They're huge with some serious requirements for moving around.

I noticed it was mostly with the scenes on the boat, but if it was a technical issue I wish they tried to solve it somehow. It was just weird to have the screen essentially shrink for no good reason. Although I guess it wasn't as distracting as what I heard Transformers 5 was like.

 

[DecoReturns]

I noticed it was mostly with the scenes on the boat, but if it was a technical issue I wish they tried to solve it somehow. It was just weird to have the screen essentially shrink for no good reason. Although I guess it wasn't as distracting as what I heard Transformers 5 was like.

You can't really film dialogue scenes with IMAX cameras becuase there too loud according to Nolan.

 

[-griffy-]

I noticed it was mostly with the scenes on the boat, but if it was a technical issue I wish they tried to solve it somehow. It was just weird to have the screen essentially shrink for no good reason. Although I guess it wasn't as distracting as what I heard Transformers 5 was like.

Only about 85% of the movie was shot with actual IMAX film. The remainder was shot with 65mm film, which has a different aspect ratio than the IMAX film. Nolan is such a purist that he would want to retain the maximum amount of detail by preserving the native aspect ratio rather than cropping and zooming to fit it to the same ratio.