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. (07/21/2017)

Count on Dunkirk being the kind of war movie you’ve never seen. For example, out of the total 106 minutes of footage, 106 are accompanied by Hans Zimmer’s music, which not only intrigues with its melodies or strong motives, but it can also get the blood going with its incredible suspense that doesn’t stop, not when you’re watching the credits.  I have never seen the music and visuals to be this well-connected and I must say that even if it’s not Nolan’s best film, it’s still an experience I won’t forget. Also, I mustn’t forget to appreciate the fact that the director has conveyed the movie as the stories of ordinary, but also extraordinary people. Every single character has its purpose and even if Tom Hardy, for example, might not say much, the ending will convince you that his acting was unequivocal. I also liked the roles of Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and especially Harry Styles, who has stunned me with his acting performance. And I’ll admit that I was shocked when I found that he’s actually a One Direction singer. It must take some balls for a world-renowned director to cast a young boy who is known as a member of an annoying boyband and he might know how to sing but has no acting experience. But Christopher Nolan obviously has the balls to do that and I have to say that it’s a joy to live in a time of such great movies. (08/11/2017)

Christopher Nolan's back, but he didn't make me too happy this time. To pick a war movie and make it PG-13 is a big mistake for me. After the carnage of Hacksaw Ridge this is very restrained and clean, I missed the filth, the dismembered bodies, the screaming and the guts, instead we get ticking clocks, ships and fighter planes. It bothered me that there is no main character or villain, which is a crucial thing for me, something that no film should miss. Emotionally it left me absolutely cold. But I don’t want only to criticize, I must praise the great audiovisual aspect, the fighter raids had their charm, Tom Hardy was excellent, Hans Zimmer's music nicely supported the atmosphere and the shots of the open sea and sunken ships were nice. On the plus side, the pace is fast, you don't have to wait long for things to happen, but there was a notable scene missing that I would like to watch again in the future. I got it about half and half, I won't be rushing into another screening.70% (07/26/2017)

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. (07/25/2017)

A fascinating production background and a demonstration of the capabilities of a Hollywood blockbuster at its peak. However, there’s no emotion in there. It's like a war documentary but without the distinctive voiceover. I understand that this was the creative intent, but for the first time in my life I was missing Nolan and suddenly it felt like when a girl cheats on you after being in a happy relationship for years. I'll give it another chance in time, but I'm afraid that without the assistance of the IMAX format, my opinions will just be solidified. (07/22/2017)