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% (10/08/2017)

The architecture of time and space prevents Dunkirk from looking like a malnourished drama with fleeting characters that again perform more assigned narrative functions (such as Branagh's sculptural explanation), rather than embody some deeper thoughts. In the end, Dunkirk, with all its efforts to achieve objectivity, cannot avoid pathetic words and premature dramatic abbreviations. It’s been a long time since the war has had such a booming and creaking physical element. Unfortunately, the demolished drums are the only thing I carry with me the day after. For me, it’s more of a noble imitation that has to fire on all cylinders to cover the inner emptiness and lack of nuances. The greater the ambition Nolan has in working with a storytelling perspective, the more doubtful the results. The modest, but psychologically and narratively incredibly functional and agile film The Prestige remains an unattainable goal. Dunkirk is a flashy creative maneuver that creates a big wave around itself. However, it does not reach the depths. (26/07/2017)

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. (25/07/2017)

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. (16/08/2017)

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% (26/07/2017)