"Dunkirk" Reviews

Variety

Christopher Nolan's best so far

Oscar race over?

Nice. I thought "Interstellar" was god awful so happy to hear this is a major improvement for Nolan.

Aw, I liked Interstellar. Once he got off Earth it was really interesting.

The person from CompuServe is preventing it from being 100%.

In related news, CompuServe still exists.

Nolan Gould has amassed an amazing supporting cast around Harry Styles.

Do we really need another war movie?"

Nope r5, Interstellar was easily Nolan's worst movie and I like him, I was afraid he had completely lost his touch.

[quote]Do we really need another war movie?"

War movies are fine, but why do so many of them have to be about the western front of World War II.

Damn, it is indeed getting raves

[quote]But don't be mistaken: Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" is a stone cold masterpiece.

[quote]Christopher Nolan’s Monumental War Epic Is The Best Film He’s Ever Made

I thought The Dark Knight Rises was infinitely worse than Interstellar, which at least had the benefit of a spectacular Zimmer score and some wonderful visuals. The rest, however, is a mess. I did like McKenzie Foy as young Murph though. She was the heart and soul of the picture.

I'm excited for Dunkirk. I want to see a more minimal Christopher Nolan. Apparently the runtime's only an hour and 47 minutes or something. I plan on getting baked and watching it in IMAX 70MM on Friday. Is Zimmer's score out yet?! I should check on that.

There are those who debunk the Dunkirk story....they say the timeline shows the little boats that supposedly came to the rescue were about a week late.

R14 - you have an opinion on whether or not the Holocaust happened?

I wonder what would have happened with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is US civilians had to make 1/10th the sacrifice civilians had to make during those wars.

What a stupid post, r15.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

And yet to the British, and to people like my parents, there was something more to this "Dunkirk spirit" and the romantic notion of lonely defiance that Churchill promoted. He, like others in the government, was actually afraid that Dunkirk would lead to pessimism and defeatism in the public and set up public-survey schemes to test the popular mood. In fact, they found that most British people, although sobered by events, remained convinced that we would win the war eventually, only that it might be a long haul before we did so.

Was this grimness, the silence that several noted on the beaches of Dunkirk and the undemonstrativeness of the people at home, the result of simple shell shock? Churchill thought so, opining that there was only so much the human mind could take on board and that people shut out big events.

I don't think that was the case, certainly not with my parents. If there was a Dunkirk spirit, it was because people understood perfectly well the full significance of the defeat but, in a rather British way, saw no point in dwelling on it. We were now alone. We'd pull through in the end. But it might be a long, grim wait...

For those who went through the year and a half of island isolation, and particularly the young forged by that first taste of war, there could never be quite the same sense of trust in America that came once they joined, and the tide of war was changed. Seventy years later, I don't really see how we can understand what Dunkirk and its aftermath really meant to them. The glory of war was certainly not part of it.

R18, obviously the Brits remained convinced they'd win WW2 - winning WW1 just twenty years previously against the Germans was pretty fresh in their minds. And indeed the Brits protected their tiny country from land invasion, unlike the rest of Europe.

Harry Styles was superb in the film and has been nominated for an Oscar.

The best war movie I've ever seen is the Israeli film "Lebanon." Korean war movies are also first rate. I know that there is a market for big sentimental war movies in the US but the rest of the world makes much better movies about war than Hollywood.

I'm only going to see it for Harry.

Me too, R22

Jesus christ, can white men squeeze another drop out of that damned war for entertainment?

I guess Nolan has finally found a subject that rises to his incredible sense of self-importance

[quote] R10: War movies are fine, but why do so many of them have to be about the western front of World War II

R10, I seek to inform you that wartime rationing of question marks ended in 1956. You are free to use them where appropriate! This is your only warning.

I had to describe the historical event to a 33 year old with whom I am friendly. I almost wept as I described the events of that moment. How can this not be taught in school? Or in life, for that matter?

[quote]Jesus christ, can white men squeeze another drop out of that damned war for entertainment?

We're actively trying.

It now has 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and Harry Styles is the toast of Hollywood.

What is with these Harry Styles trolls? It is good that Nolan made him work and he doesn't ruin the movie.

It ain't his movie, he just plays a supporting role.

I swear, this speech brings me to tears.

Nolan may finally be getting that Oscar he's been begging for the past two decades.

this is really Nolan's first Oscar-baity movie.

Comic books and sci-fi films traditionally don't win Oscars.

Is it really surprising R30 that there are a bunch of gay men who will only see this as "the Harry Styles movie" and discuss it in terms of Styles "hotness"

Some people are complaining of not being able to understand the dialogue. Which is, apparently, unimportant.

Cuntkirk!

Is Harry Styles' role big or small? I don't want to see too much of him.

Force young men from common families away from home to defend the interests of the elite. How glorious. Now let's pretend our veterans were great heroes and did amazing things and none of them did anything gay ever. What a load of crap.

Harry has a decent haircut with a fringe in the film and is SUPER HOT. He has the second biggest role next to Fionn Whitehead and plays an arrogant selfish type very unlike his own cup-cake character.

I've seen in on IMAX and on a regular screen and the dialogue is easier to hear on the regular screen.

The Nazis were bad, R38.

Innershtellar.

[quote]I've seen in on IMAX and on a regular screen and the dialogue is easier to hear on the regular screen.

I've heard that the sound's a fucking mess, just like Interstellar. I'm excited for the film, but not this aspect of it. Nolan has a penchant for drowning out his dialogue, and I'm not sure what he gets out of it as a filmmaker. Why spend all that time writing words just to muffle them in post?

Charles Lightoller, who had survived the sinking (having been 2nd Officer) of the Titanic, was one of those who was a part of the "little boats" evacuation that crossed the channel to rescue the troops. His boat, "The Sundowner", is now a museum ship at Ramsgate Maritime Museum.

Saw it tonight, it's one of the masterpieces of filmmaking. Was happy I drove a bit farther to see it at the largest IMAX in my area. Will take Best Picture and Director, Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, Visual Effects, and the two Sounds. Rylance will get a Supporting Nod.

Oh, and there are A LOT of good looking men in this film.

Rylance is the most likely nominee because he's already an Oscar winner, but I thought Cillian Murphy had the showiest role. Had they given him a bit more screen time, he'd probably be the one to get the nomination instead.

Ironically, Dunkirk was a humongous defeat for the British. Churchill was pretty accurate when he warned the country that "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."

Ummm... the movie makes no attempt to disguise the fact that it was a defeat, you fucking dumbass.

r40 yes. They were the enemy once before, when they let the toffs fight. Then they decided that was a mistake.

The crazy right is piling on the USA Today critic for a throw-away remark about the lack of "women and people of color" in Dunkirk. Yes, it's an inane comment to make by the critic about this specific film, considering that of the 1 million + soldiers at Dunkirk, there were a little over 1,000 Indian soldiers as part of the BEF and as many Moroccan and Senegalese soldiers in the French forces, and they are not the focus of the story Nolan wanted to tell. But the over the top response by the right has an element of racism to it.

Has anyone else seen it? I was very impressed, some truly astonishing cinematic images, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. Yes, it's not very deep and the sound/music is a bit overwhelming - the cast doesn't have much to say (what they do say is often incomprehensible) and are there merely to register fear, rage and desperation. But it's a must-see on the big screen.

Oh, and forget the singer: the cutest twink in the cast is Aneurin Barnard.

R43

[quote] Charles Lightoller, who had survived the sinking (having been 2nd Officer) of the Titanic, was one of those who was a part of the "little boats" evacuation that crossed the channel to rescue the troops. His boat, "The Sundowner", is now a museum ship at Ramsgate Maritime Museum.

Did the film show the boat "Sundowner"? Was Lightoller identified in the film? His name is not listed in the character names in imdb.com. Did they use the boat's name but not the real name of the owner?

No, r53. There are no real people as characters in the film; the closest is Kenneth Branagh playing a composite of two real admirals. The little boats used are identified in the end credits and I didn't see the Sundowner listed.

I will watch it at home, for closed captioning.

Thanks, R54.

The theater I saw it at had it on 3 screens: IMAX (my selection), 70mm and closed-captioned!

r51 so in other words a typical Nolan film: script is shit, no character development, dodgy acting, bombastic sound track, great images and generally soulless.

Pass.

Pretty much, r58. I enjoyed it for the visual spectacle and the large scale recreation of the past. But it's not a movie that gets you thinking about big issues or themes. Of all Nolan's films, I'd rank it 2nd, below Inception and barely above Memento.

R57

[quote] The theater I saw it at had it on 3 screens: IMAX (my selection), 70mm and closed-captioned!

Closed captions!?!?!? For real??

I've read that the sound is really, really bad and the dialogue is hard to hear, but have they been reduced to close captioning big budget films these days?

The sound is actually terrific, but it does drown out the dialogue. Doesn't matter though--you really don't need much of the dialogue anyway.

I saw it last night and I'm still digesting the film. Overall I liked it, but it definitely has a lot of Nolanisms, which my friend and I laughed about afterward. One thing to know going in--if you're not familiar with what happened at Dunkirk or the significance of it, this movie does not explain much at all. No mention is made of the huge tactical blunder the Nazis made by not wiping out those 400,000 with an all out assault (and they absolutely had the capacity to do it) and that the British really owed those lives to that screwup as much as to the civilian fleet.

I did like though that it is relentless--you absolutely feel the prolonged panic that sets in when you're a sitting duck like that, and the terror that the bombings instill. You're on edge for nearly the entire film.

Odds of any Oscars are slim due to the fact that many of the new voters are people of color. Can't imagine many voting for a film with an all white cast.

I saw it today. Talk about overrated. Loud, noisy, non-stop action, none of the actors' performances register (except maybe Mark Rylance). At least it's thankfully short.

My introduction to Dunkirk came via The Snow Goose

Walter Lord, of A Night to Remember fame, also wrote a fine book about Dunkirk - that was my introduction.

[quote]Odds of any Oscars are slim due to the fact that many of the new voters are people of color. Can't imagine many voting for a film with an all white cast.

I don't know if it will win over the veteran voting contingent, either. One of a group of elderly people on the way out of the showing I went to yesterday said very loudly "I thought there would be a story." Her friends agreed and all agreed they could hardly understand a word of dialogue.

I thought it was a definite triumph of style over substance, but it was pretty great style.

I wonder whether the "can't understand the dialogue" thing is a technical issue with today's audio equipment. I saw Billy Elliot in a movie theatre two weeks ago, and I could make out maybe 1/3 of what was said. And it wasn't a movie with lots of explosions or lots of Foley noise. If I hadn't seen it before, I don't know if I'd known what was going on.

I saw Dunkirk on Friday and didn't think it's as great as everybody is saying. It's technically impressive as one would expect from Nolan, and I agree with the poster upthread who says that there is a certain relentless to the proceedings (the various sequences of people being stuck and drowning in sinking ships are intense and well-executed), but it is otherwise fairly typical WW2 stuff. The story line is a bit confusing because half-way through the movie, it becomes clear that some of the scenes aren't told chronologically, for no apparent reason whatsoever. This seemed like an unnecessary directorial decision to me as it didn't really add much drama to an already overwrought situation, and only made the overall time line hard to follow. Speaking of altered time line, I felt that the last bit with Tom Hardy's plane running out of fuel went on for too long, to the point of absurdity.

There is a general lack of cohesion between the many threads of the story, as the action moves from one group of people to the next, with some actors doing very little throughout the movie (poor Kenneth Branagh spends the entire film on that damn pier, while Tom Hardy is stuck in the cockpit of his plane the whole time), while others get the lion's share of the action. This is not a real problem per se, but I have to say that I was less than engaged in about half of those characters' actions and fates. I would have rather focused on Fionn Whitehead's journey rather than spend time with pilots Hardy and Jack Lowden, or Cillian Murphy's tiresome shellshocked soldier.

Most of the performances are adequate but not particularly memorable (for those who want to know how the stunt casting of Harry Styles turns out, he's ok but I feel that any young Brit could have played that part equally well). I don't quite get the love for Rylance, he's rather monotonous in this film. Same can be said for Branagh, and Tom Hardy is pretty wasted given that he spends most of his scenes wearing a full-on pilot mask. Fionn Whitehead is the only one who makes a bit of an impression, mainly because he goes through the most ordeals. As some posters have remarked, it is true that the dialogues are hard to understand at times, but I didn't find that it was that much of an issue.

Bottom line is, if you like war movies, you will probably love Dunkirk, but if you don't really care for this genre, chances are that you will find it rather dull and emotionally hollow. In the end you never really get to know any of those characters, you only witness what they go through but their personalities and backgrounds are never explored. I am honestly surprised this film is getting so much critical acclaim.

Thank you, R68. I chose not to join two Dunkirk-bound friends last night, and your review makes me glad that's what I did. That's all the review I'll need, TYVM.

R68 for the win.

R68, R69, R70 = the reason they released Girls' Trip the same weekend

Right, R71.

Any ass or peen?

R38, what the hell are you talking about? Hitler didn't just want to defeat the island, he would've annexed it.

Best movie I've seen in a long time. It had me at the edge of my seat, nearly nauseous with tension...and there was barely any blood. This is NOT just another war movie. Go see it. Go now.

R68, this intentionally isn't a character driven film because in war it's not about the individual - it's about the collective unit. Not that it should matter, but it's for this reason that no individual actor will be nominated (nearly everyone gets equal screen time). I hope it wins best picture and director, but oscars are meaningless these days anyway.

It's a bold move in Hollywood to not have any love interest or bullshit backstory (when you're in war, by the way, the only goal is survival; the only goal is home) This film drops you into Dunkirk like you're really there. If you want cheeseball, irrelevant backstory, there are hundreds of other war movies for you to savor.

r74 = r75 = r76

R77, yes and?

The film was about the operation not the characters so I really didn't need any backstory R68 and the limited exposition needed was provided by a title card (ugh) and Branagh's character. Sure I wanted to know more about some of the people, but that wasn't the narrative. The split story lines played well giving some visual background and foreground to character's plights, but this is not a typically lazy American movie, where everything needs to be explained. It requires "active" watching. The "acting" was minimal and primarily served the plot; not a narcissistic showcase film.

Good film, correct length, minimalist and haunting.

R38 = Holden Caulfield

I think Rylance will definitely get a Supporting nod R76

I didn't want anyone to think three discrete people were recommending it, R78.

[quote]Hitler didn't just want to defeat the island, he would've annexed it.

Actually no, at first he saw England as another aryan nation and wanted no part of war with the U.K. It was the British who sought at war with him. And it didn't have anything to do with fascism. It was the age old British desire not to see any one nation dominate Europe. Best for Britian was a disunited Europe of rivals.

at = out

R68 needs to reconsider her career as a reviewing auteristique. All those words to say, "I don't like the genre, I don't get the directorial choices in form, and if you do you'll like the movie."

Go back to PEARL HARBOR, dear, where you're comfortable.

R74/R75/R76 knows nothing of Hitler's deep-seated thoughts on the UK and that he would never have "annexed" it and shows herself to be a teenaged ass with "oscars are meaningless these days anyway." (Capitalize, Missy.) But her sense of the film sounds about right.

You either get it or you don't. And accepting a well-crafted film on its own terms rather than demanding (the reason that the millennial life span will be 45 years) things arrange according to one's narrow expectations is a good sign for eventual aesthetic maturation.

Hitler was actually a bit of a sentimental old Anglophile.

His generals became very impatient with him in his reluctance to bomb targets in what AH considered to be essentially another Germanic nation.

I don't see any of the actors getting Oscar noms, Rylance's role is too small, so is Cillian Murphy's. The other soldiers with Harry Styles looked just like Harry Styles so I could never tell which was which. All you could see of Tom Hardy was - sort of - his eyes. The dogfights were interminable and not very interesting.. Too many soldiers stuck in sinking destroyers (or whatever the big ships were).

The interesting thing about Dunkirk was the little boats arriving to pick up the soldiers off the beach and there weren't enough little boats, not sinking ships. Nolan fucked up the money shot.

It is suspected Hitler did not eliminate the army at Dunkirk because he was hoping for an eventual alliance with the British against the Soviet Union.

I also liked it a lot and I have never been a fan of Nolan. Rylance might get a nomination, and maybe, another win. I still do not think he was that great in the Spielberg movie and I have loved him on stage: "Jerusalem," "Twelfth Night" and many others.

Dunkirk got rave reviews and Interstellar got mixed ones, but Interstellar's a much better film. You can watch it repeatedly and it resonates more each time you see it unlike most of Nolan's work.The cinematography and the score alone are gorgeous. Did Dunkirk have a score? Didn't notice it was so damn noisy. Once you've seen Memento or Inception, you never watch them again. Same with the Batman films. Only Nolan film as good as Interstellar (though not nearly as ambitious) is The Prestige.

I can't imagine ever wanting to watch Dunkirk again. AND I'm pissed off he cast a little boy bander to lure in obnoxious 12 year old girls. Guess he'll cast Bieber in his next film.

'It is suspected Hitler did not eliminate the army at Dunkirk because he was hoping for an eventual alliance with the British against the Soviet Union. '

No, the Brits already loathed the Germans because of WW1.

The FRENCH army held back the German army so the British could evacuate, and the Germans were also hampered by the fact that Dunkirk was surrounded by marshland, which the big German tanks couldn't traverse. If the German army had got through, far more British lives would have been lost. If the English Channel hadn't been unusually calm on the days of the evacuation, far more lives would have been lost as the Little Ships would have been shipwrecked or had to turn back.

Could only endure about 3/4 an hour. I found it deeply boring. When Tom Hardy appeared as the noble spitfire pilot, and Kenneth Branagh as a captain doing an impersonation of Noel Coward from In Which We Service, I just wanted to laugh. All that was missing with Kenneth More! I grew up with all those Brit war movies on TV, and this was just regurgitated more of the same tripe, but prettier visuals. But time wasting tripe nonetheless. The best thing in the movie is the pretty blond who plays the Rylance's son. Nicer to look at than anything else. Otherwise a huge snooze. Oh, and I also saw the equally praised Norwegian movie The Kings Choice. If you like spending 90 minutes watching people get in and out of cars in the snow, and endless closeups of a grizzled old man looking pensive, it's the movie for you. You can sum it up in a sentence: "Old monarch refuses to sign nazi surrender document." There. I've saved you 20 bucks.

Oh, and I thought Rylance's performance one note and hammy. But half of the awfulness is the script.

[quote]I don't quite get the love for Rylance, he's rather monotonous in this film.

He always is. He is a good, but not great, film actor.

Even with the good reviews I have zero desire to watch this just like I have zero desire to watch The Wire no matter how many raves it gets.

People keep saying there's no story or character development and the dialogue is unimportant. So you're basically watching a Charlie Chapman silent movie? When I go to the movies I would want plot and character development and most importantly, smart, sharp dialogue. If not, I'm basically watching a music video.

[quote]There's no talk of Hitler, or Germans or battlefields or trauma or mothers. In fact, there's hardly any talk at all, or, for that matter, even any characters in the traditional sense.

OK, so a movie with no talking or characters.

[quote] When Tom Hardy appeared as the noble spitfire pilot, and Kenneth Branagh as a captain doing an impersonation of Noel Coward from In Which We Service, I just wanted to laugh. All that was missing with Kenneth More! I grew up with all those Brit war movies on TV, and this was just regurgitated more of the same tripe, but prettier visuals.

This is very true: Nolan's film is essentially just another variation on movies like Sink the Bismarck! (1960), The Longest Day (1962), Is Paris Burning? (1966) and Tora! Tora! Tora! He tries to make it seem more than it is by adopting a non-linear narrative.

I enjoyed and was impressed by the film, which I think should absolutely be seen on the big screen to fully appreciate, but I'm under no delusions that it is some kind of masterpiece or turning point in film.

Somewhere inside the mess that is Dunkirk is a terrific linear movie. -- David Edelstein, Vulture

Full review:

I considered Hitler re Dunkirk in the same way as Hitler re Battle of Britain -- turning away at just the wrong moment

David Edelstein is a cunt.

R95, it's definitely not silent. This might be the loudest movie I've ever seen.

R90, yes there was a score. I thought it was used very well with the sound effects, they complimented each other. The sound editors and mixers absolutely deserve the Oscar for this.

The only part I didn't like was the cheesy score accompanying the arrival of the civilian fleet. Totally unnecessary--the moment was powerful in and of itself. A simple score or even the sound of the waves combined with the soldiers cheering would have been perfect.

Re Hitler's failure to wipe out the British army at Dunkirk, historians have a few theories. But frankly it might boil down to Hitler not being the brilliant military strategist he's assumed to be. Nazi Germany's early victories were largely due to surprise and unpreparedness by the Allies. When Hitler needed to be more strategic, he often failed. Summer pause resulting in a land war in the Soviet Union during the winter, anyone?

R102 Nolan showed.. what? Maybe 30 little boats? There should have been an armada. That should have been the money shot, but no he preferred to show frigates and destroyers sinking with soldiers inside. Titanic 2.

I agree it was odd how little attention was actually paid to the civilian boats. You get the gist of it, but it's not even clear just how many there were. There were something like 700 total but he only shows the initial arrivals.

There has been some recent discussion that the efforts of the little boats was a bit overstated in the fervor of patriotism. Maybe the lack of focus on them in the film is some sort of nod towards that discussion...

The weather was the deciding factor in the Dunkirk evacuation. The English Channel is basically part of the Atlantic and can be very rough. The little ships would have been sunk or had to turn back if there hadn't been two unusually calm days.

Not only were there not enough little boats, there weren't enough soldiers on the beach. There were a few straggling lines of men in the movie, in reality there were over 400,000.

What is this movie about?

R106 they got 360K soldiers off the beach. They would have needed a helluva lot of little boats for that.

r100 that doesn't make him wrong. I could only take 3 Nolan films before I gave up; I won't see this one, either. They're frustrating exactly because they have enough undeveloped brilliance that it takes you out of the movies (the cheesy score example from above, and the script/casting in The Dark Knight, for starters.)

It's interesting, though, that the same thing was said of Malick's Thin Red Line. People who worked on the movie said that, and some even hoped another version would eventually surface. I wonder if that's a hazard of the genre.

There was a bit about the Dunkirk evacuation in "Mrs Miniver."

While her husband has taken his boat over to pick up soldiers, Mrs. Miniver finds a downed German flyer in her garden and has to deal with him.

The flyer was played by Helmut Dantine, an Austrian anti-Nazi who had spent time in a concentration camp.

That's a hazard of Malick films, not war movies, R111. The guy will shoot enough film of his actors to make an entire movie, then have his stars appear for five minutes among two hours of flickering grass.

Whatever the flaws of Nolan's films, he's about as different from Malick as you can get.

> What is this movie about?

It's about an interstellar CGI superhero called Dunkirk, darling. Robert Downey Jr, who was paid $2,000 million for his contribution, plays the coked up offsider who wants to suck him off, but instead feigns stalwart indifference. It's currently the No1 film in Guangdong after Death Ninja XVI . So you'll definitely want to see it. You'll just need to remove your headphones for 2 hours. Yes, I know: scary!

R79 nailed it.

I saw it yesterday in 70MM and loved it (though to nitpick a little: to me it looked like it was shot digitally and then transferred to 70MM afterwards).

I thought the aerial battles were incredible - nothing like the Star Wars/Battle Of Britain flocks of fighters screaming through the frame (even though I enjoyed those scenes in those films). This film showed the relentless single-minded hunting of your quarry, and counter attacks coming out of nowhere. Nolan also managed to capture the humdrum nature of war for the ordinary soldier even as catastrophic events unfolded all around them.

Rylance was absolutely brilliant, showing an ordinary man accomplishing extraordinary feats without any hint of grandeur.

I generally loathe Nolan films but this one is a masterpiece. I was in tears at the end, and not out of "hooray for our side" fervour. The horrific violence and waste of war was depicted so forcefully it was emotionally devastating.

It appears I was wrong in my "nitpicking" about the film format. I apologise to Mr. Nolan and his film crew.

R62 Just because that's what you'd do, doesn't mean the rest of us are like that.

Believe it or not, most of us are fair and do not need to see a pop of color in every movie. And if what you're saying was true then so called POC movie goers would stay at home but they make up majority of the movie going audience, so obviously they have no problem with seeing all white casts. But it is curious that as soon as the academy announced they would diversify their voters, people (white) were so worried about unfairness and how "they" would only vote for their own kind, because of course.

Very telling indeed.

I'm not a Nolan fan at all, but he's 1000 times the director Malick could ever hope to be.

The film sucked. What a jumbled mess of a story. Very poor storytelling by Nolan. It should be called Dungkirk from now on.

R117 There were non whites likes blacks and East Indians that served in The British Army during the war. Britain had an empire where the sun never set. BTW the diversity in this film was showing The French, The Dutch and a Scottish pilot as bit of diversity!

No, the shot of two or three blacks standing on the pier amidst the British troops was wildly historically inaccurate, and a wrongful sop to 'diversity'. Quite simply, what it amounts to is racism distorting historical truth. There *were* blacks in Britain at the period, but so statistically minute, they may as well have been not merely needles in a haystack, but needles in a hayfield! There were a few indians, but again, needle in the hayfield. The gurkhas only came in after Dunkirk. The way this nonsense is going, it won't belong before every historical european picture has to feature blacks in it. They already are pushed into such roles as footmen etc in eighteenth century stories, when the reality was the number so imported at the time you could practically count on two hands.

R121 is a Nazi boy. I can smell you motherfuckers from miles away and through the internet! click on the link @ R120 THEN talk. I'm surpised you haven't mentioned The Jews and how the Germans lied about them not giving money during World War I. One of the biggest lies coming from The Gerrys.

It's not realistic at all

Thanks for the laugh R122. Nothing like an hysteric. An hysteric shouting "nazi boy" etc. makes it even funnier. Do you know when Dunkirk happened, darling? May 1940. Do you know when the British forces entered France? In September 1939. Do you know when colonial troops actually began participating? Not until after Normandy. Wot that? You'll need to wait till Mr Nolan makes that film for you. There will be lots of diversity then. Now you can take your pills.

The only thing R122 "can smell" is his own bullshit.

[quote]This film showed the relentless single-minded hunting of your quarry, and counter attacks coming out of nowhere. Nolan also managed to capture the humdrum nature of war for the ordinary soldier even as catastrophic events unfolded all around them.

Yes, it may be shot well but why would we want to put ourselves through this torture of the horrors of war? Not my kind of entertainment just like watching torture porn like Saw is not my kind of entertainment.

[quote]The film sucked. What a jumbled mess of a story. Very poor storytelling by Nolan. It should be called Dungkirk from now on.

Didn't you hear? The plot, story, characters and dialogue are of no importance in this movie. You're going for the spectacle.

It's worth going for the scene where Styles and Whitehead strip off their wet clothes to get warm once they're aboard Rylance's boat. How they managed to cover Styles' gross tattoos I don't know, but he looks good. At one point they hug to get body heat and it is so hot.

Finally saw it. Many other DLers have summed it up well. It is a technical spectacle, very atmospheric, keeps you on the edge of your seat and really let you "experience" the war.

Yes. It is not a character driven movie, if you go in expecting something like that you will be disappointed. The acting served the story but they aren't showy award baits roles here, no one really had a lot to do because it just isn't that type of movie.

The person that critiqued the non-linear flow of parts of the story is right on the money, by far the most distracting thing of the movie. Everyone I saw it with agreed, that was completely unnecessary.

That said I liked it and I was entertained the whole time. Glad I saw it in a cinema, I don't think it would be nearly as effective if I just watched it at home. I do think it is over-hyped though, surprised by how many critics gave it rave reviews.

[quote]No, the shot of two or three blacks standing on the pier amidst the British troops was wildly historically inaccurate, and a wrongful sop to 'diversity'.

Christ in your racist rant you can't even get the country right. The shot of a couple black troops was in the FRENCH forces, not the British. Those troops weren't being let on the British votes, "English only!" as they kept telling the French soldiers.

boats*

And I would add, there were absolutely non-white people living in France at the time of WW2.

During the 1930s France experienced immigration from Africa and Asia. Even without counting the colonial troops that would come to their aid, yes it is historically accurate for their to be a small number (which is what it was) of non-white troops among their forces. I don't know why that upset you so much, but it is true.

To add to R132's point, the Nazis massacred a disproportionate number of the French troops from Africa after France fell in June 1940. Dunkirk happened in the middle of the Battle of France, end of May to early June 1940.

"In 1940, the French army included more than 100,000 black French soldiers from France’s African colonies, mainly Senegal, Mauritania,and Niger. More than 75,000 of them served in France before and during the German invasion; the rest of them served guard duty in the various colonies. As the Wehrmacht panzer divisions swept across France in May-June 1940, some of those black French soldiers (about 40,000 of them), mainly organized in black regiments or mixed units, were engaged in fierce combat against German soldiers. About 10,000 black soldiers were killed, some wounded, and others taken prisoner during the French debacle. Scheck states that between 1,500 to 3,000 black French prisoners of war were massacred throughout the campaign, either during or after combat. Generally speaking, Tirailleurs Sénégalais were treated differently from other war prisoners by the victorious army. The existence of a well-implanted anti-black racism and stereotypes among the German soldiers frequently resulted in the black French troops being separated from other prisoners of war. Fear of coupes-coupes (a hand-to-hand weapon used by the Tirailleurs Sénégalais that German soldiers considered a treacherous weapon), latent desire for revenge because of German losses, or simple racism, resulted in random massacres of black French war prisoners by members of the Wehrmacht."

[quote]In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000.

Totally agree, r44.

It will have heavy competition with Planet of the Apes for Visual Effects. What I preferred about Dunkirk is how naturalistic everything looked, when a bomb fell on a ship it felt like you were observing the thing really happening with the naked eye. That IMO takes more hard work than talking apes.

It definitely deserves the award for visual effects.

At the end of day that is what this primarily was as other DLers have said, a technical achievement that was impressive to take in.

Are the theaters filling to capacity?

I've got a date for Saturday, and I'm wondering if I need to buy a ticket in advance. Fanks.

R124 You just confirmed that The British army did in fact have black and brown people in it during the war. OK you're not a Nazi you are a collaborationist then!

R125 You are a goddamn damn fucking Gerry AND a Nazi. Stormfront is elsewhere sweetie. I know you are in the closet and I won't tell them you suck cock as long as you leave this site. Otherwise you will be know as The Nazi Glory Hole Loving Closet Queen.

R139 I think the British army was more diversified later in the war, but I doubt if there were any black or brown troops in the expeditionary force early on at the time of Dunkirk. R124 is probably right.

R138 I saw it opening weekend in IMAX and the theater then was about 3/4 full. Honestly, I would never watch it again - totally underwhelmed by it.

[quote]and I'm wondering if I need to buy a ticket in advance. Fanks.

No.

[quote][R124] is probably right.

Except as already pointed out the African soldiers shown in Dunkirk were part of the French forces, not the British, so that rant is misplaced. There were many black soldiers in the French forces.

Which reminds me, they really sold the French short in this movie. They were fighting with the enemy holding them off allowing the Brits to retreat which this movie largely ignores, but then it is a very British POV movie. That is pissing some people off.

R141 yeah, it was surprisingly anti-French. Odd.

Yes, and the fate of the only lead-character French soldier is like adding insult to injury. I wonder why Nolan did that.

You wonder why a Brit created a movie that glorifies Britain while ignoring the French...?

The Nazis spazzed the French and there is no getting round that.

Loved the scene where Alex and Tommy hug shirtless on Rylance's boat!

[quote]The Nazis spazzed the French and there is no getting round that.

Obviously the French did not win, I mean the whole point is this was the allied forces running away from a power they could not beat.

But tens of thousands of French died fighting the Germans which helped the Brits escape. Their efforts were ignored in this film.

But the French fighting the Germans is not what this film is about.

I can understand why that might be frustrating or insulting to have the efforts of the French and others be ignored. But Nolan really zeroes in on the beach and the Channel and there is very little historical context for any of it. Unless you know a lot about WWII, you come out of this film without any real understanding of the significance of Dunkirk, other than how nice it was for civilians to pitch in.

I loved it. It's a spectacle of disorientation and the physics of battle.

And the desire for a protagonist or a character-driven storyline is exactly what Nolan is trying to flout. These are soldiers who are utterly lost within the maw of dire circumstances. No one is a hero. It's all about raw survival.

That said - Fionn Whitehead is such a haunting presence. Innocence muted, thrown off balance and overwhelmed. I hope we see quite a bit more of him.

I think Whitehead is gay. There were rumours about him having a fling with Styles on set.

I love the way everyone is calling the film TWINKS IN DISTRESS.

This was an awful movie that was made more awful because there was so much possible to have done with it.

I would have liked to have seen and heard Churchill and his ministers talking about the history unfurling at the moment. The French army was Britain's great hope just weeks before, the complete mindfuck must have been devastating and incomprehensible. Also, apparently most of the French that were saved were returned to France to a location where they were soon after overrun and killed or captured. Also, what about the Canadians? And I think there was even an Aussie company at Dunkirk. And I agree, the size of the debacle is lost in the movie by not depicting anything near the proper numbers. I bet there were about 20,000 in the film, not 400,000. Further, I've seen photos of the motorcycles, jeeps, trucks, artilery guns, horses, mules, carts, etc., all which had to be destroyed before being left. That would have added better understanding to the utter catastrophe. So much potential. Hollywood, call me next time!

A snippet of Fionn's monologue from BBC Four's "Queers".

Just saw the movie. A friend that is very well versed in film criticism said she had enjoyed the movie. I was uncertain, not the kind of film I attend. It was a story I had only vague familiarity with. According to the film there were very limited attacks on the troops - history records that Hitler basically gave the military the day off. That worked with the film since it presented the war was a matter of a couple days.

This article lays it out for you. I think you can open this via Chrome.

*the evacuation was a matter of a couple days

No, the evacuation took about a week.

R154/155 Yes, I am aware. I was stating that the FILM implies the evacuation took a couple days. Then I included the article which clarifies the event was much longer. You should read before you critique someone else.

But the film only took a couple hours?

There were also many women and girls and they were some of the very last to be evacuated.

[quote]Yes, I am aware. I was stating that the FILM implies the evacuation took a couple days.

The title card at the beginning of the film says these events shown are one week of time on the beach, one day of time for the boat party, and one hour of time for the planes. (Though in full disclosure it didn't become clear to me til halfway through the movie that is what it was saying)

Right. If the film had been shown in chronological order, Tom Hardy in the airplane would not have shown up until the last ten minutes.

I also wish the Little Boats arrival had shown more boats. There were something like 500 boats taking part including boats from Belgium and Holland, like the beached one.

The soldiers queued up on the beach scene was an interesting contrast to the chaos scene in Atonement.

I thought Harry Styles gave a performer of a lifetime.

Wut? Someone above said he did what any other actor could have done and that is completely correct.

Though that is a compliment for a newbie to acting like Styles, he was able to fit in and not stand as a weak distraction.

I think what r162 was trying to say was that Harry Styles gave a performer the blowjob of a lifetime.

You're just jealous of Harry Styles, r164.

How can you guys talk about catfished mouthed Harry Styles when Fionn was infinitely more handsome.

I think Harry is so dreamy!

Both Harry and Fionn are fug. The hottest guy was Aneurin Barnard.

R157, LOL you should learn to red a movie captions before you talk about a film's implications. Right at the beginning the film makes clear we're seeing about a week on land, a day on sea and an hour in the air.

[quote]I love the way everyone is calling the film TWINKS IN DISTRESS.

By "everyone," do you mean YOU? The general public doesn't even use the word "twinks."

Of course, it is impossible for the film to cover every aspect of Dunkirk. It' good that people bring up other aspects that were important too, that we remember.

However, I bear no ill will to Nolan for focusing on a British soldier point of view. Other points of view could be covered in other movies.

Lets not "beguiled" him like what was done to Coppola. Let's just judge the film for what it achieves.

Now, I thought the film was very well made and thrilling, but after rearing so many critics, I expected it to be more traumatic than it was. Stressful, yes, but these are things we saw in other films.

Nolan has such a type when it comes to casting. All his favs have dark hair and big, light eyes, like Cillian, Hardy, Fionn and Styles.

Styles and Whitehead are secretly dating.

Liked it, including the separate story lines and time shifts. Correct about it missing the scale of the event. Is it because Nolan is anti CGI and pro practical effects? I read he incorporated mannequins to beef up the beach scenes. The rescue scenes struck me more as opening day of boating versus a mass evacuation.

All the 3 young soldiers looked exactly alike and NONE of them are particularly good looking, especially not ugly Harry Styles. They all had the same hair,same hair color. You couldn't tell them apart.

Styles is beautiful, R174.

You are gross, old, and fug.

I did not find the movie thrilling, stressful, suspenseful, or interesting. It was loud, in parts, and that's not hard to do.

Two thumbs down.

Like R174, I had trouble telling the lead actors apart. Bad casting.

I think the similarities of Whitehead, Barnard & Styles was intentional: to enhance the confusion and chaos of the event.

Styles has bright green eyes and his lips were much fuller than Fionn's.

Some of you old queens are practically blind. It'd be easy enough for a twink to fool you.

I agree, whitehead is fug and what a fucking horrible name! must have been bullied as a kid.

Couldn't really tell them apart either.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS

I'm a bit ashamed to ask it, but what happened to the French guy? I get that at one point, he died. But when exactly ? And how?

Thanks.

I saw this today. The best part was when the French soldiers weren't allowed to queue for the British evacuation boats and were sent back to fight for their own country. The second best part was when Harry Styles realized the silent soldier was a Frenchman trying to evade defending France. Overall, the movie had a great message of the U.K. never surrendering to Germany's never-ending quest to control all of Europe. The separate time lines were a little confusing though. With Barry Keoghan, I kept thinking of him as the murderous psychopath in the movie Traders, so it was hard to sympathize with his character. Also, Tom Glynn-Carney as bright blond Peter was a little off-putting with the hair color.

R181, he drowned in tugboat, couldn't make it to the ladder.

The best part was when Styles stripped on the boat to get warm. How they covered his gross tattoos I do not know.

Ah, thanks R183. I thought it was either that or he had been sont though the boat.

Are the Harry Styles fans actually gay men or women? Just curious. I have never been in the one direction threads here so don't know that little subculture, I know many fan threads here are dominated by women.

But please, let's keep discussion on the movie and don't just squeal about how obsessed you are with this guy.

Nolan movies never stand the test of time, they always are overly bombastic and sterile.

.... and I agree with R8. Why do we need another war movie?

Is Nolan a right winger?

We will always have war movies. Stories are about conflict and war is the ultimate conflict.

I just wish filmmakers would explore some other wars. If it has to be from an American focus, how about the Revolutionary War or the War with Mexico or the Spanish-American War or the Philippine War....

A movie about the Battle of Tours would be interesting and very fitting.

I find it quite amusing that R152's pompous attempt at back-seat screenwriting misspelled Gene Shalit's name.

We get it, hon. You could have made such a better film out of "Dunkirk". So why didn't you?

[quote]how about the Revolutionary War or the War with Mexico or the Spanish-American War or the Philippine War

In the current politically correct climate, there could never be a Mexican War movie, unless it's a fictional work with the Americans as the bad guys. Ditto for any victory against Spain or victory in battles in Latin America. The Revolutionary War can be done, but only if tells a tale of how women and minorities won the war by themselves despite the Founding Fathers subjugating them.

R192 You forget trans men and women who were instrumental in the fight against The British empire. Without drag queens The US would still be part of Britain with Elizardbeth as head of state. The Reptilian Queen would love Florida with her croc cousins being so prevalent there!

[quote]Nolan movies never stand the test of time, they always are overly bombastic and sterile.

"Memento" usually ranks as one of the greatest movies released since 2000. And the critical reception to "The Dark Knight" hasn't really changed since 2008.

[quote]"Memento" usually ranks as one of the greatest movies released since 2000.

Memento is overrated pseudo intellectual drivel in scene jumbling.

You just didn't get it, r195. Memento is one of the best films ever made.

R189, Nolan is BRITISH. No-one in the UK has heard of those spazzy little wars you mention.

R197, did you miss the part where I said "if it has to be from an American focus"? I was talking generically, since most WWII films are from an American perspective. I'm well aware that Nolan is British.

Fuck you, ugly spaz @ R198.

[quote]You just didn't get it

There is nothing ingenuine about a movie where the director decides to tell two story lines separately. One backwards and in color, the other one chronologically and in b/w.

It's a desperate attempt to be edgy at best.

George getting mentioned in the newspaper was a tearjerker. I was disappointed the Mr. Dawson and Peter didn't find a way to kill "Shivering Soldier" (Cillian Murphy). That should have been able to put a harpoon through him and toss him over.

I was really upset that fuggy Styles survived.

Lots of gifs of Styles in Dunkirk. So fucking hot.

[quote]I was really upset that fuggy Styles survived.

You're just JEALOUS.

Styles has about 20 lines in the whole movie, hard to screw up.

All the actors playing soldiers in the movie are forced to emote more with their expressions than their words. Fionn Whitehead, the lead, also speaks very little. Styles surprisingly holds his own with the professional actors.

[quote]All the actors playing soldiers in the movie are forced to emote more with their expressions than their words.

No surprise here, either Nolan himself or his brother write the scripts and they are usually some constipated pseudo intellectual drivel.

[quote] R182: The second best part was when Harry Styles realized the silent soldier was a Frenchman trying to evade defending France.

I think the French soldier was trying to evade certain death or capture. A lot of Frenchmen were evacuated in real life, as the military battle was lost. You make him sound like a coward, which I think isn't fair.

[quote] R181: I'm a bit ashamed to ask it, but what happened to the French guy? I get that at one point, he died. But when exactly ? And how?

I also missed the Frenchie's death. I thought I saw it, but wasn't sure.

I thought at first that Cillian Murphy may have been a German flyer. Would that have been trite?

As to why we "need more war movies": I don't recall another movie about Dunkirk. Not a good one, made with modern technology and technique. Also, and this horrified me, my friend who's 33 with a masters degree had no idea of it, and it's a truly moving story, I don't know how that's even possible. It was the precursor to the fall of France, and might easily have been the end of The UK, under a different leader.

And of course, if you aren't interested, you skip it and go to Comic Book Movie, part VIII.

They showed the death of Frenchie, he drowned at the foot of the ladder. You just saw his hand disappearing. He might have been tangled up in some chains. The British kid looked back to see if he made it out.

Harry is one of the best looking guys I have ever seen.

Gibson's death was symbolic of France being a lost cause and the British, though trying to help, could not. An article in Slate states, "The vast majority of the French who’d been evacuated returned to France after it came to terms with Germany. This isn’t because most were particularly fond of their conquerors or Nazism but because their country was no longer at war and their officers and government told them to come home." Once France surrendered several weeks later, the majority of French evacuees, who the British lost lives rescuing, gave up and returned home in order to leave the fighting of the rest of the war to the British.

R213 needs to get out more.

R211, what does your friend have a Masters in? Not that it makes much of a difference: I have a degree in history and was shocked when, in a class on the history of the Soviet Union, myself and the teacher were the only ones who knew about Doctor Zhivago (the book) and what it represented in the Cold War.

[quote]All the actors playing soldiers in the movie are forced to emote more with their expressions than their words.

A basic requirement for good actors in any event.

R216, his masters is in science. Possibly biology. But still, I'm in Engineering, not history, and I know of Dunkirk. It was an important battle in an important war. I think people today are not well educated.

American education focuses on America. Since Dunkirk was before the United States got involved in WW2 I'm not surprised many Americans wouldn't have learned about it.

I've said this before on this board, but honestly the important part of World War 2 was the Eastern front, not the Western front, but in America that is hardly touched on. I don't know if the British curriculum is any better.

And higher education specializes you, I'm technically "highly educated" but in a scientific field, I learned history on my own time, no history courses were required of me in college or grad school.

Why Dunkirk's white male Brit-centric view of this event is total garbage. 2.5 million Indian soldiers fought the war and many of them were present and evacuated for Dunkirk, along with many other southeast Asians that had been conscripted because they were part of the fast fading Empire. Thousands of women and girls were present as well, being some of the very last to be evacuated by the so called heroic men. To be clear, England was part of the winning side because their reach at the time (though quickly shrinking) was still quite broad, and allowed them access to people and materiel they otherwise wouldn't have had on their tiny island.

Nolan, of course, couldn't spend five seconds outside of his straight white male privilege looking at other aspects of this rescue. Why would he? He and his type still own the world and need to tell fables and tall tales to themselves to make them feel better about their failing position in the world. They can have it, for now.

It's amazes me that gay men (a historically reviled minority at the very bottom of the pile) can't see this, but I'd expect nothing less from Stormfront DL. Oh, and I'm about as far away from an SJW as one can get, so can it, queens.

Those complaining about the lack of non-British soldiers must be really dull-witted. The theme of the movie was the soldiers wanting to go home and home coming to get them. It explicitly states that in the movie trailer. If Dunkirk had been a few miles off the coast of Mumbai and "home" was India, then it could have made sense to include Indian soldiers. The movie theme is why the movie contains almost exclusively the soldiers, sailors and civilians whose home was Britain.

Yep, it was set in northern France, not the Maldives. There were no Asian soldiers in the war at the time.

R220 will be asking where the trans people were next. Gross, typical SJW.

Yes R221, we get that dear.

r222, it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that there were, in fact, several thousand Indian soldiers at Dunkirk, as well as several thousand Moroccan and Senegalese soldiers in the French army. Your initial point is correct, in alignment with r221's cogent argument, so don't muddy it with incorrect information.

Christopher Nolan wanted to film Dunkirk without a script

No there were not THOUSANDS of Indians at Dunkirk. Not more than 650. They were animal support units, 4 of them and they controlled the mules that were being used to transport supplies.

Yes they were using mules as transport support at the beginning of the war, that's how unprepared the British were for this war. One company of Muslim Indians (all of them were Muslims) was captured by the Germans inland.

The mules never made it out!!

I have zero problem with them not being included because the theme of this film was home, how close it was, how difficult it was to get there and eventually how home came to them.

After this, all the Indians were transferred back to India and served out the war on that front.

R225 that would have been a blessing considering how badly Nolan writes dialogue...

Not in Nolan's mind he doesn't r227

[quote]“I felt like I’d kind of mastered that form,” Nolan says in regard to films driven emotionally by dialogue.

Which is the most laughably clueless thing I've heard from someone not named Donald Trump...

R228 true. If he hired somebody (NOT his bro Jonathan) to write decent dialogue for his films, he'd be Scorsese...

I knew the coloreds were going to get mad.

Nolan is hopeless at dialogue and characterisation. He is a good director in the sense he can make a film look amazing and often execute a great concept, but his characters are always hollow and their lines fall flat. This film was aided by the fact it almost seemed on purpose.

Finally saw it.

It was very good, not great.

Brilliantly executed from a technical standpoint, but something ultimately soulless about it.

As others have noted, it took me a bit to be able to tell the difference between Hardy and the other pilot and the three young soldiers.

Wasn't clear what having Murphy accidentally kill the young kid added to the plot.

Thought there should have been way more soldiers on the beach--that looked like 300 soldiers, not 300,000. Mostly because the chaos of 300K on that beach would have been incredible.

Best war movie I've ever seen is an Israeli film by Amos Gitai called "Kippur" about the 1973 war that perfectly illustrates the utter chaos of war, of soldiers fighting but having no idea what is going on or why or even what day it is.

Technically, it was brilliant, but I don't think Dunkirk was better than Saving Private Ryan. I do think that Harry Styles was impressive in his acting debut. Yes, it was hard to tell who the pilot was running the show...sometimes, I kept thinking Ewan McGregor was one of the pilots, instead of Tom Hardy.

I caught one of the soldier extras looking at the camera. Naughty boy.

There weren't enough little boats coming to the rescue. There should have been thousands. That should have been the money shot.

No, the money shot would been the dark haired kid cumming on the blond kid’s face.

I like Peter.

r236 the dark haird kid... which one?

Fionn needs to get his teeth fixed and his spots removed. I like his serious personality.

I watched it last night and was shocked at how bad it was.

It had no perspective.

You never got an idea why they were on the beach. Why it was such a big deal. Why the Nazis didn't just blow them all up. How big the civilian armada was -- or why it happened.

[quote]Christopher Nolan wanted to film Dunkirk without a script

Congratulations on achieving your goal.

Why Dunkirk got such rave reviews and critics bitched about Interstellar, I'll never know. You can watch Interstellar several times and it holds together and affects you just as much. Saw Dunkirk once and have zero desire to see it again.

I've watched Dunkirk several times, at the Imax and at home. It's even better the second time, because then you know what all to look for and to recognize when the scenes and timelines intersect from the different points of view. The acting performances are fantastic.

R243 what acting performances? Branagh did his standard Branagh. Rylance gave the same performance he gives in everything - grumpy and solemn. Murphy didn't get a chance to do anything nor did Hardy who was hidden behind his face mask 99.9% of the time.

Or are you talking about little boybanders (who all looked alike and were impossible to tell apart) who displayed zero acting ability?

Hugely overpraised. Despite being only an hour and forty, it seriously lagged at the beginning, and could have used even more trimming. It did have some moments of well directed tension, although the timeline play was annoying and unneeded. The boybander needs to stick to his day job.

This movie is not going to win Nolan either BP or BD. It’s largely forgotten by now.

Nolan is the favorite to win best director r245.

No, he’s not R246, Greta Gerwig is. Favorites are Lady Bird, CMBYN, and even Three Billboards is getting more attention and buzz. Like I said, largely forgotten.

Why won't these bastards make a movie about Dresden?

TO HELL WITH MOVIES ROMANTICIZING WAR !!!

IF U BEEN THERE, THEY AINT FUN !!!

R248 they did Slaughterhouse Five.