Rating: 4/5
Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors (if not my absolute favorite). I love how over and over again he is able to make great movies- including what is still my favorite film of all time, "The Dark Knight". Even some of my least favorites by him still have a lot of great material to digest. "Dunkirk" takes place in World War II, when allied soldiers from Belgium, the United Kingdom, and France are all surrounded by the powerful German soldiers. Because the war has become extremely dangerous, Winston Churchill orders that many of the soldiers be evacuated, but this rescue mission won't be easy. German bombers are still a present threat and there are a lack of military ships to help, so instead the soldiers will have to rely on the help of common people. While I wouldn't call this movie one of Nolan's best, it is still a unique movie in the war genre. It's an absolute visual spectacle with some great understated performances, and it effectively shows the horror of one contained moment.
It's no surprise in this movie that Nolan constantly shifts between different points in this movie as well as show how the different plots collide. There are three main moments the viewer is focused on: The Mole (which takes place over 1 week), the sea (which takes place over a day), and the air (which takes place over 1 hour). It took some getting used to at first to consider that all these events were actually taking place over different stretches of time. But, once I got used to it, the way Nolan utilizes these three places is creatively executed. At different points in the movie, one of these elements can collide with the other (for example, a character we see getting rescued at the Sea actually interacts with the main character who is on The Mole), and it's cleverly done. Nolan knows how to manipulate complicated timelines- although this timeline is much more straightforward than some of his other films). What really had me enjoying this movie, though, was the sheer spectacle of it all. Right from the very beginning shot of this movie, I was hooked. I don't remember the last movie that drew me in that quickly. But it felt like most every shot in this movie had some memorable image that will be burned in my memory for a while, such as the shot with hundreds and hundreds of soldiers all ducking down as a German plane comes towards them. It's one of the most chilling shots I've ever seen in any film. The plane sequences in this movie are some of the best parts. I felt the visceral intensity of being in the plane, because Nolan took the time to make his audience feel like the planes were real. He did a lot of practical interior/exterior shots of the plane, as if we were the ones on the plane. I'd never seen plane battles done the way he did them. That aspect, along with the intense gun shot sound design, always made me feel on edge whenever those scenes were happening. There were a lot of moments with the camera just sweeping over the beach or the sea that were gorgeous to look at. The usage of darker blues and greys in the film helped add to the grim feel of this movie. Although there are some other problems I have with this film, I can't deny that "Dunkirk" is Nolan's greatest technical achievement to date in every way. It takes risks that many films won't. If this movie does not win an Oscar for special effects or something along those lines I will consider it a huge disservice to all the hard work that Nolan and his team clearly put in.
As far as the performances go, I felt like they were all respectively great. Fionn Whitehead as Tommy is the main character, although he's one of the people in the movie with the least amount of dialogue- but that's not saying much because there wasn't a whole lot of dialogue in this film in general. This choice by Nolan works well for the situation these characters are in. It's a frightening one where people would definitely be stuck in their heads trying to survive, not trying to talk to one another constantly. Nolan has some great dialogue in his other movies that make powerful thematic statements. In this film by not having minimal dialogue, he's making a totally different statement, and it's powerful in its own way. But back to the performances now that I've gotten that point out of the way. Whitehead is superb as Tommy; I really did like following him and seeing things through his eyes. The way his character reacted felt very accurate to the situation he was in: while Tommy didn't want to sacrifice himself and die in this rescue situation, he also didn't want anybody else to have to die either. I was a little concerned about Harry Styles being a part of this movie, as I'm pretty sure he hasn't acted in the past, and I thought Nolan only cast him because he's well-known in the music scene. But, Styles honestly surprised me and put in a balanced performance; he never went over the top or showed up anybody. In fact, he has one of the most memorable scenes in the whole film. My favorite performance was Barry Keoghan as George. I felt George actually had the most character development out of everyone in this movie, and he wasn't even a soldier. But that powerfully showed Nolan's theme of how ordinary people in extraordinary situations could still be heroes. Keoghan makes George out to be a funny and compassionate character. I felt the weight in him saying that he'd like to actually do something for a change. Tom Hardy has yet another excellent performance under his belt as the main pilot Farrier. He shows once again that he can emote so much in his eyes without having to say a word- that's what makes him one of the most underrated modern actors. Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance both (of course) gave superb work. They really disappeared into their roles. I never saw either of them. Instead I saw their characters, and that really goes for every performance in this movie. I didn't feel there was a weak link in the cast.
There are just a few problems I have with this movie. One is sort of a minor nitpick- there was hardly any blood in the film. Now, I understand that "Dunkirk" is PG-13, and maybe Nolan just wanted to make it more accessible rather than super gory like "Saving Private Ryan". I think that maybe just putting in a little blood could've increased the realism of what was already an intense feeling movie. But my bigger problem is the lack of character development. Now, I understand that having one central character in this movie was not the film's purpose. Nolan wanted to focus instead on what was a frightening event for everyone. But the only characters that I really cared about were George, Mr. Dawson, and Peter. They weren't really the ones whose lives were in peril, at least not to the extent of the soldiers. I'm not proposing that the characters should've had deep,long conversations with one another (like the stupid padding time that occurs in "Pearl Harbor"), but I think at least a few conversations between characters like Tommy and Alex could've helped. I repeat, I understand not having any one person developed was Nolan's intent. I still think at least a few of the soldiers could've had their personality revealed in subtle ways a bit more so we could care for them.
The slight problem of character development aside, I still can comfortably say that "Dunkirk" is really good. I've never seen a war movie like this. Although it's not quite the masterpiece that some of Nolan's other movies are in certain aspects, it is still easily his best movie on the technical side. All the visual moments in this movie just stick. Of course, movies are supposed to have great visuals, but this movie really felt like a visual experience, which can't be said about every movie out there. That alone makes this film sure to be in my top 10 at the end of the year. I definitely recommend watching it just to see a great director hitting gold once again. Be on the lookout for my ranking of all of Nolan's movies!
No comments:
Post a Comment