Dunkirk

Nolan cannot be denied that he did not just shoot another war film according to a proven scheme. In many ways, it is in line with old-school war films, which are no longer made today, just in the form in which they were never made. Following the example of Greengrass's United 93, in view of The Dunkirk evacuation, he got rid of all political background, expressed no opinion, did not mirror anything. He was not interested in other parties of the conflict, sidelined characters, dialogs and story, and focused on a single aspect; the feelings of those thousands people who were evacuated, those soldiers who where cut off from their homeland. The movie strictly follows (except for the elaborate structure of the narrative and the form, which can be fully enjoyed only during the subsequent screening) the concept of "beach/week-water/day-air/hour" with an unseen enemy and thus fully mediates the feelings of pilots enclosed in a cramped, deafening cockpit, while German fighters circling around, panicked drowning boys in the billowing night waves and soldiers on land who don't know if they'll get their turn during the evacuation or will be left at the mercy of the advancing German army. This is by far the greatest strength of the film. The cast couldn't have been better, because even if Branagh doesn't move from the pier, Hardy from the cockpit or Rylance from the helm, they are so convincing and charismatic that simply could not be any better. At the same time, they play everything purely with their eyes or imperceptible gestures (and in the case of Caine, using purely intonation). Thanks to the symbiosis of Nolan/Zimmer/Smith, the result is undeniably captivating, chilling, nerve-wracking as well as intense and earthy production (the difference from the best CGI is simply tangible, that´s for sure) and a technically refined masterpiece like no other far and wide. But… But at the same time, Zimmer's phenomenal addition of sound (not really a music background) is overused so that the whole footage rumbles and ticks. It´s non-stop. I repeat, non-stop. Do you get that? Non-stop! Neither a second of silence, nor a second without the highest possible intensity of pumping creaking, while the "calm" sequences on the ship would obviously call for quiet moments. However, it is still a "Dunkirk miracle", because everyone in the seventy-millimeter Imax took the bait and myself breathed exclusively in the rhythm given by Nolan. (21/07/2017)

As expected, escalated with drama and focus, with a lifespan of a personal experience on the edge of perfection and with a cutting musical accompaniment that is physically exhausting. Christopher Nolan has been in top form for more than a decade, a form that everyone else can only envy, and perhaps solely due to the tightness of the war genre, which does not allow any deviations in the script, Dunkirk will be one step behind his previous masterpieces in my eyes. (25/07/2017)

Emotionally, it flew over my head. Like, really, zero experience. Dunkirk looks nice, but that’s all there is to it. What fascinates me somehow is that Nolan, who’s always been a better storyteller than a director of action scenes, chose for his latest film a plot-lacking reconstruction of one action scene. He only gave the shape of a film to a historical event, which, given his cold approach, wasn’t enough for me. He made an unconventional war movie, yes – without Germans, almost without dialogue, alternating three storylines of different lengths … but to me the result is nothing. I never got the impression that the intertwining storylines supported each other in any way. If only their overlaps had some kind of reinvigorating effect (which was 100% de case in the escalating climax of Inception). Here, there’s nothing but chaos, which, IMHO, is also strangely missing some rather important parts of the story (the pier line: the conversation between the commanders, while two boys are hidden under the pier, that no other ship can sink by he pier … and voilà, in the next chronologically linked scene there’s another ship sinking? How did it get there? Did the boys try to get on it? How much time passed? Or was it the ship that sailed in the previous scene?). And though it all somehow fits together temporarily (although, at least for me, nothing comes out it, no catharsis, no satisfaction), in terms of spacial orientation, a couple of the scenes are a real mess. The pathos in the end unpleasantly surprised me, given the course so far. The concept is great, but the execution lacks any subjective effect. (25/07/2017)

This badly edited depiction of the hellishness of war is packed with great shots and a retro atmosphere that is nicely enhanced by celluloid impurities in the picture and the absence of ostentatiously digital elements. The tension in the film (even in scenes that don’t need it) is created only by its soundtrack. But after the end of the movie, I was glad to enjoy some precious silence. (19/07/2017)

Though Nolan’s previous films were more refined in terms of narrative and intellectually more ambitious, their ostentatious structure often overshadowed emotion. Dunkirk, which stays more grounded in a number of respects, is his most functional prototype of the epic movie that Hollywood currently needs, a major film that you will want to see not only in a technically well-equipped cinema (preferably IMAX), but also repeatedly. Thanks to Nolan’s focused direction, everything in the film is subordinated to the maximum sensory experience, the intensity of which rises with each viewing, as you become better oriented in the temporal relationships between the individual storylines and can experience more while working less on solving the narratological puzzle. Dunkirk is intoxicating, dizzying and unrelenting in its intensity from start to finish. (Viewed three times in the cinema, of which IMAX twice.) 90% (09/08/2017)