Dunkirk

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% (2017-08-09)

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. (2017-07-25)

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. (2017-08-11)

Yeah, it's awesome. It took me a while to figure out why, how and what for, but I'm excited. Initially, what bothered me about Dunkirk was a certain impersonality and the fact that we don't really know anything about the characters, but Christopher Nolan clearly didn't want that and pushes everything through extremely intense scenes that can be both action-packed and atmospherically depressing. The director's staging games keep you entertained for a full hour and three quarters, and the aerial battles and the destruction of giant ships look absolutely breathtaking in IMAX. And even though it's not Saving Private Ryan (and it doesn't want to be anything like it), the feeling of every one of the three hundred thousand soldiers fighting for their lives is awfully strong. An absolutely breathtaking experience on the big screen, and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year. (2017-08-16)

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% (2017-07-26)