Thursday, 20 July 2017

DUNKIRK (2017) - Review

A movie about survival, a story based on the evacuation and not on the ‘Battle of Dunkirk’. Chris Nolan took a piece of a historical event happened during WWII and converted into a brilliant movie.

Highlights: Wonderful editing and Innovative Screenplay - what Nolan films are constantly best at.

Supporting actors are sprinkled all over. The characters are not developed well; therefore I couldn’t care much about any of them except Tom Hardy.

Hans Zimmer’s soundtracks are pure bliss to hearing organs as it has always been.

A movie must balance the two key factors, style and substance. Even if one goes out of proportion, then it may lead to the downfall of entire work. I think Dunkirk balances both style and substance at the same level. A bit more of style than substance to be precise, kudos to the cinematography genius Hoyte van Hoytema and those high resolution IMAX film cameras.

Overall, a spectacular job from the crew. Many accolades await them.

Reducing the dialogues and focusing more on the conflict was a smart move, which was previously done by Kubrick and Spielberg in their works. It’s good to see Nolan following their footsteps. I wouldn't even mind if the dialogues were completely reduced. This has so much potential to be a great silent film.

Apart from a single quote in the 3rd act, the film casually ignores the French involvement in the evacuation. Well... this is an English movie at a Hollywood budget and does the job as so. It’s such a shame on how the movie shows the whole incident just from the British perspective. If another 20 minutes was dedicated to the French’s contribution, the movie would have been monumental. That being said, this is nothing new, usual Hollywood recipe.

2hrs and 30 minutes is the average runtime of a typical Nolan film. To compare it with this 1hr 50 minutes war drama, along with these undeveloped characters struggling for their survival  -VOID - The miracle in the climax was supposed to give us goosebumps or at least something to cheer but in end, I couldn’t feel anything other than emptiness. There is no doubt that the film was crafted well (both visually and the way story was told) but what use does it have when it lacks emotions? This is a war film. Give us some gore, bloodshed, real struggle, pain to witness Mr. Nolan. Make us uncomfortable, feel pity. We don’t want extras lying around pretending dead. These are the areas where Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan really shine.

Did Nolan reach the heights of S Kubrick? Definitely not, there is not even a comparison, not yet. I would still pick Dr. Strangelove over Dunkirk any day. There are many positives to be noted from this 110 minute lesson for the aspiring writers and filmmakers. But also few negatives Nolan must make a note for himself.

Dunkirk is a classic and will remain so, for the years to come, at least from the Hollywood and British point of view.

This is one of the good movies of this year, if not the best and that’s my opinion.

A solid ⭐⭐⭐⭐⛥.
Nothing more, nothing less.

No comments:

Post a Comment