Christopher Nolan's newest film "Dunkirk" tells the true story of the evacuation at the titular location where allied forces were miraculously shipped across the British channel by civilian boats. Christopher Nolan does what he does best and puts the viewer right in the dead center of this significant battle of WWII. The result is an immersive, realistic, and intense experience that better give Christopher Nolan his first Oscar nomination for Best Director. However, the film did not meet the hype (at least my own personal hype being my most anticipated film of the year) with its unnecessary non-linear storytelling, emotional detachment, and pretentious cumpulsion for uniqueness.
"Dunkirk" started out with a very jumpy bang. Christopher Nolan throws the audience right into the action and never lets up with the thought of an imminent attack lurking at any moment. The opening scenes are cinema at its most grandeur. The usage of practical effects for the ships, planes, buildings, soldiers, and locations are outstanding and say a lot about Christopher Nolan's dedication for telling realistic stories. The strafing runs and dog fighting scenes are directed to perfection and for a split second make you forget you are watching a movie. "Dunkirk" is undeniably gorgeous that'll definitively win Oscars for its craft.
"Dunkirk" may be a winner on a technical scale but a movie needs a little more to be a truly remarkable film. A common complaint about the film is a lack of character development. Going in, I knew this would be a more visceral film with little dialogue where the emotional core banks on common human empathy. Christopher Nolan wanted to focus on the event of Dunkirk, not the characters, but it is hard to feel for these people especially when you don't even know their names. Frequent Nolan collaborator, Hans Zimmer, provided the score, and he delivers with pieces ranging from gut-wrenchingly intense (Supermarine) to searingly hopeful (Variation 15). A misstep the film took was overplaying Zimmer's score which ended up toning down the actual sounds of bombardment. I even had trouble hearing some of the dialogue (upon first viewing) resulting in a lot of confusion on what was happening when there were dialogue driven scenes. I couldn't even judge the acting because half the things people said didn't register, but at least everyone looked the part.
Christopher Nolan structured the film with three different perspectives -- land, air, and sea -- all interweaving at a critical point. Some perspectives last longer than others (an hour, a day, a week) and Nolan jumps around between perspectives without any indication where the viewer is at in time. Some may think this is a clever and unique way to tell the story but it just killed some of the tension when you see the same scene for a third time, or when something is about to climax and it cuts away. Nolan overcomplicates a quite simple story. He tries too hard to be unique when certain conventionalities would have been more effective like making his film R-rated for maximum realism and intensity.
Given the potential, mastery, and high expectations, "Dunkirk" is a bit disappointing. It's a sensation for the eyes and ears but it leaves your brain in a knot further causing a blockade to the heart. It's a film that in order to fully appreciate, must be viewed on the big screen. For all of "Dunkirk's" flaws, it's still one of the best theatrical movies ever made, and can't be missed in theaters. 7.5/10
