Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 5:11pm

Dunkirk: A Review

 

 

My son and I saw Dunkirk (2017) yesterday.  I was looking forward to seeing it, but I am afraid I found it disappointing overall.   My review is below the fold, and the usual caveat as to spoilers is in full effect.

 

 

 

Let us start on a positive note:  the special effects, both CGI and non CGI. were spectacular.  The aerial and sea action scenes were especially well done, capturing well the chaos of war and the beauty of the ocean and the sky.

Like ancient Gaul, the film is divided into three parts.  On land we follow two soldiers and their harrowing experiences attempting to be among those evacuated from Dunkirk.  In the sky we join a flight of Spitfires flying to Dunkirk to give air support.  On sea we observe a civilian craft sailing to Dunkirk to aid  in the evacuation.

The land portion is the weakest.  We have no scenes that tell us much about the soldiers, or events that make us care about their plight.  They are indistinguishable from the other soldiers, all of whom wish to get out of Dunkirk and back to Britain.

In the sky there is exciting air combat, but we know nothing about the RAF pilots and they are not individuals to us.

The sea portion is the best, since we are able to observe at length the civilian crew:  a father, his teenage son, and the teenage friend of the son who volunteers to come on their rescue mission, and they become individuals to us, at least compared to the other portrayals in the film.

The acting is weak.  The best of a bad lot is Mark Rylance who portrays Mr. Dawson, the skipper of the civilian craft.  Kenneth Branagh is the actor in the film most likely to be known to American audiences.  However, his role is one step up from a cameo role and his screen time is very brief.  Dialogue throughout the film is sparse, and due to background war noises it is sometimes difficult to hear what is being said.  For American ears, the English accents sometime get in the way of being understood.

For a film about Dunkirk it really doesn’t tell us much about the event.  As we were leaving the theater, an elderly woman asked me if the movie was based on history, and I assured her it was.  I don’t expect a history lesson from a film, but the background information given by the film is truly minimal for a historical epic.

The film doesn’t have much period feel.  I never thought to myself that I was watching events that accurately depicted this crucial event from 1940.  Instead, it always seemed like  a none too skillfully done twenty-first century look back in time, with explosions taking the place of insight.

One of the cardinal sins for me in regard to any film is if it bores me.  To my dismay I did experience boredom several times in the film, something I have rarely experienced during a war picture.

The film does end on a high note  with one of the soldiers reading the ringing words of Churchill:

Sadly, the above video clip has more entertainment value for me than the entire Dunkirk film.  Save your money on this one.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Culbertson
Charles Culbertson
Sunday, July 30, AD 2017 4:21am

This review is spot-on. My wife and I saw “Dunkirk” last night and were terribly disappointed, for all of the reasons cited in this excellent review. One other thing about the movie got my attention: never is the word “Germans” used, nor is Hitler ever referenced. Even, when a British flyer is captured, the “enemy” is blurred out so that you cannot see their uniforms. This was a waste of my time and money. Please don’t waste yours, as well.

Nicholas Jagneaux
Sunday, July 30, AD 2017 8:14am

Excellent review. I was disappointed as well. Due to the hype – and Nolan at the helm – I was expecting something much, much better. The sound mixing was atrocious. The tri-part chronology was a mistake. The lack of “characters” was problematic. Despite that I did like it, but I think that it was just above average. I saw it in the recommended IMAX format, but I can say that there is no need for it. In fact, I think this movie would be fine to watch at home. (On a side note: I didn’t like War for the Planet of the Apes too much, either. CGI in that one was *great*.)

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Sunday, July 30, AD 2017 2:10pm

Another movie I will not watch.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Sunday, July 30, AD 2017 5:45pm

I told my friends afterward that I appreciated the moral character evidenced in the old skipper and his teen aged son, and the wonderful spitfire pilot
I was pleased to see the show. Probably my take was positively influenced by the 30 minutes of terrible previews just before the show, which were all about fantasy heroes, so I was glad to see the story of moral men who honorably and honestly dealt with this very real massive rescue call..
The self control shown by the soldier in queue and their willingness most of the time to follow regular order is something that is so refreshing now.
While this show required that you already know quite a bit about Dunkirk to get the most out of this abstraction. it still showcased good values and heroism. Though the period “feel” may not have been right for someone who has deeply studied both history and war, I think It can make a positive impact on many of today’s moviegoers.
Just a drop of good in seas of bad from Hollywood, but I still encourage it because a drop of good is a drop of good. Young people who don’t know history but are fed on the typical violence and fantasy can be blessed by the knowledge that this strange, unselfish behavior was real.

.

Nate Winchester
Monday, July 31, AD 2017 7:02am

First of all, apparently Christopher Nolan had an actual ancestor involved in Dunkirk and had the dream of this movie for over 20 years.

Second – screw it, I’ll buck the board and defend it. I’ve been curious what Don’s review would be since this is very much NOT a traditional war film. (I see he agreed with the reviewer Jeremy Jahns) I like how one reviewer put it: “One of the biggest moments in the war portrayed in the smallest way possible.” It’s very minimalist. To the point that if I was a teacher, I could probably make a fun class project with this film leading students to learn about the incident before showing them the movie.

Now while I don’t know for sure and could be corrected, I think what Nolan is going for is a very immersive experience (he frequently does this on other films). It seems that he is not showing a traditional war film because he wants the audience to feel like they are at Dunkirk themselves. The sound design certainly does it (at times I could almost swear actual bullets were flying by) but I’d need to see it again to confirm it based upon his camera work and cinematography but off the top of my head I think a lot of shots in the film are from “witness angles” to make it really feel like you are there. It definitely seems like that’s his aim from the story structure given that he often tells the audience no more than any soldier might know. The old man in the boat doesn’t know how many others are going or how many can be saved, he just goes out across the channel to get everybody he can. The pilot doesn’t know how many are out there or if he can retreat, instead he has to make the choice to sacrifice himself in order to protect his countrymen (in my favorite moment of the movie).

The movie definitely makes one feel like what the soldiers must have with the steady vice grip of the approaching Germans. Indeed I think Nolan keeps them off screen most of the time to give them a sense of a force of nature as dangerous and crushing as the ocean that claims so many.

Like I said before, I wanted to see it just as a metaphorical middle finger to the haters of history out there and I don’t regret it. But it is a very different war movie and you should keep that in mind if you want to decide whether to go or not. I generally agree with Chris Stuckman here:

Steve Phoenix
Steve Phoenix
Monday, July 31, AD 2017 8:05pm

Thank you for the immensely helpful “heads up” on this film.

Steve Phoenix
Steve Phoenix
Monday, July 31, AD 2017 8:08pm

@ Charles Culbertson. I had heard the same thing, that the insignia showing the Nazi military had been blurred out.

So, we can suppose this means the ideology of the directors is that there is no good nor evil. Everything is a mixture.

Nate Winchester
Tuesday, August 1, AD 2017 2:28pm

So, we can suppose this means the ideology of the directors is that there is no good nor evil. Everything is a mixture.

. . . Yeah, if you’ve never SEEN the movie.

Kind of like how someone can say that obviously since Sauron is never seen in the book that the ideology of Tolkien is that there is no good nor evil.

Just… way to prove you’ve never examined the source and are pulling stupidity out of your hindquarter.

Alphatron Shinyskullus
Alphatron Shinyskullus
Wednesday, August 2, AD 2017 1:13am

I enjoyed the movie, but recognized its flaws. It was not a grand, large scope war movie. It portrayed soldiers who were in fear of being overrun and were desperate to get out. The heroism was in those who ensured their escape. When I was in the military, I sometimes imagined myself in their shoes. They are scared, hungry, thirsty, and things weren’t going their way. They wanted desperately to escape their situation. I believe this is what the movie represents. In winter, 1988 when participating in war games IN Korea, my platoon was cut off by the opfor. I spent Easter that year in a fox hole hungry, alone, and worried. Had it been an actual war, I think it may have rivaled the experience of the soldiers at Dunkirk.
Trying to find water in a garden hose. Trying to find any escape from the beach away from the Germans.
Again, it was a flawed movie, but it has its value. Look not at the big picture, but at the individual, almost anonymous soldiers who were in fear of capture or death. Then look at the sacrifices of those who tried to rescue those fearful individuals from their fate. 10% of a fighting force are warriors, and the remaining 90% are not so much. The movie was about those 90%, not the ten percent.

Elostirion
Elostirion
Thursday, August 3, AD 2017 2:48pm

I enjoyed the film immensely. However, I agree that there is hardly anything “Dunkirk” about it. It was almost generic, could have been about anything. Part of the reason I liked it though: the soldiers are everyman rather than some man.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top