Dunkirk Movie Review
Christopher Nolan is no doubt a great director. He's made some truly incredibly mind boggling films from Memento to The Prestige to Inception to Interstellar. He has a certain "piece-it-together" style of talent that causes you to think while you watch the film. It's a brilliant approach, but even brilliance has its limits. Dunkirk is a survival film that takes place during World War II and it tells three different stories. One takes place during the span of a week, one during the span of a day, and one during the span of an hour. Each story had emotional punches and were filled with spectacular acting from everyone. The problem with the film lies with the directing. Yes, I said it: Christopher Nolan made an average film.
The first story follows Tommy, a young man trying to escape Dunkirk and get home. The second story follows boatman Mr. Dawson and young Peter who are heading to Dunkirk to try to aid the soldiers. A young boy named George goes with them, promising to be useful. The third story follows Farrier and Collins, two fighter pilots trying to take down the enemy. Each story could have honestly been broken up into their own films but Nolan does a good job of telling all three in such a short time. The annoying part is that the stories are not told in order. While that would be fine for something like Inception, it is highly unnecessary for a historical war film. When I go into a war film, I want to see facts and historical accuracy. I don't want to have to figure out which order the scenes are in the timeline.
In conclusion, Dunkirk had the potential to be a great film, even a fantastic film. But the convoluted style took away from the emotional impact the film should have had. It's worth seeing, but a history book would give you a better vision of what happened at Dunkirk. I give the film a 3 out of 4.
© 2017 Alec Zander