Originally Posted by Decker

Somebody help me : I'm going to see Dunkirk this afternoon. I have to choose between 70 mm or Imax (but not 70 mm Imax) showings

Which should I pick?

Originally Posted by Draven

My wife went to the bathroom during this part so I couldn't confirm with her - was that Cillian Murphy in the boat that wouldn't pick up the two soldiers from the water? I thought it was but I could not work out the timeline of how he ended up the only survivor of a sunken ship way out away from shore.

Only lingering question I had after the movie.

Originally Posted by Orbi-Wan Techno

From my review page, Orbi-Wan Goes To The Movies:

Dunkirk (PG-13) - Confusing editing, lack of any character development, and a nearly incomprehensible timeline structure hobble an otherwise good war movie.

Christopher Nolan, acclaimed director of the Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar, Memento and The Prestige, performs a rather unique trick with his latest outing, Dunkirk. He has managed to take an important event in World War II, and turn it into an Inception-like puzzle that is likely to confuse many in the audience, even as it attempts to inform them of what happened in the English Channel and on the beaches of France in 1940.

The story of the evacuation of nearly 400,000 allied forces from Dunkirk is told from three different perspectives and, confusingly, three completely different timelines that eventually intersect - multiple times. There is the predicament of the troops like British soldier Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) on the beach, waiting for any sort of vessel to get them out of France, told over a 24-hour period, give or take. Then we have the English boat owner (Mark Rylance) who is contracted to head to Dunkirk to assist with the evacuation, told over a parallel (but not quite) 24-hour time frame. Finally, we spend time with a Spitfire pilot (Tom Hardy), fighting off German planes over the period on an hour, though his story stretched over the length of the movie.

Familiar faces pop up in the different timelines, as well, including Kenneth Branagh as a British naval commander, James D’arcy as an Army colonel, and Cillian Murphy as a soldier rescued after a ship is sunk. But we know nothing and learn nothing about any of the characters outside of their immediate service to the plot, so there is little emotional investment. However, there is tension aplenty in each of the stories/timelines and the pilot’s story is especially compelling. But….

The way Dunkirk jumps from one story to another, to different points in the timeline, eventually intersecting, splitting off, then intersecting again, is almost headache-inducing. There are a couple of incidents we see from three different perspectives, but at different times in the film. The structure becomes extremely non-linear, and because of this, Dunkirk feels disjointed at times.

That’s not to say that Dunkirk isn't a good movie. When we are keeping up with what’s happening, it is a perfectly serviceable WW II movie. It’s actually pretty straightforward, but kind of tame compared to other war movies like “Saving Private Ryan” or “Hacksaw Ridge”.

Maybe it's because I expect more from a Christopher Nolan film, but overall I don’t think this stands with his best work. I am only giving “Dunkirk” 3 out of 5 lightsabers.

NOTES FOR PARENTS: Dunkirk is rated PG-13 for war action and related violence, plus brief language. We see soldiers killed by bombs, bullets, drowning and fire, though it’s a lot less graphic than other war movies. The f-bomb is used twice, but there is little profanity otherwise.

SHARE this review with friends and family, and LIKE Orbi-Wan Goes To The Movies!

Orbi-Wan Goes To The Movies is protected under Creative Commons.

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Nolan is so brilliant that even gets to change the English language. What a genius, if only Kubrick, Scorsese and Spielberg had thought of bad grammar first.

Originally Posted by Boba Fett

Originally Posted by TomOpus

Looks like stvn1974's deleted his post.

Originally Posted by OldBoy

Dunkirk...No character development. Just scenes strung together. You didn't care about anyone except Hardy the fighter pilot. His expressions and you saw it in his eyes. There was just no story, no nothing. I cared nothing for boy who died. Much better WWII movies out there. This is 1 and done. Hacksaw Ridge was last great WWII. This was not it. Nice to look at and Zimmer's score was pretty good. Too bad.

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Yeah, I got it from another site and wasn't sure if that person would appreciate me posting it here.

Originally Posted by OldBoy

anyone know what nationality Kenneth Branagh was playing in this? he didn't sound like he had any accent (British, French, Irish or other). sounded regular American to me, but they weren't even in war when Dunkirk happened. thanks.

Originally Posted by OldBoy

Much better WWII movies out there. This is 1 and done. Hacksaw Ridge was last great WWII. This was not it.

Originally Posted by faust69

I didn't hate Hacksaw Ridge, but it plays like a TV movie with added gore. Mostly obvious and boring until it gets to the war scenes. Probably Gibson's most overrated movie.

Originally Posted by inri222

I even found the war scenes to be so ridiculous that it reminded me of the propaganda film in Inglourious Basterds.

Originally Posted by Supermallet

IB is the best WWII film. Then the Guns of Navarone.

Originally Posted by Supermallet

IB is the best WWII film.

Originally Posted by inri222

If you believe that about Hacksaw Ridge then Dunkirk must be a masterpiece. While watching HR, I almost gave up twice on it. It was so bad that when it was over I hated myself.