Warner Bros. | Release Date: July 21, 2017
8.4
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 2538 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,150
Mixed:
221
Negative:
167
Watch Now
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
TheDirtyGermanAug 4, 2017
Underwhelming. For me that's the only word can describe this movie. I saw this movie with my 73 year old father in law and we both had the same reaction to this movie. We really wanted to like it. We both love great war movies. This movieUnderwhelming. For me that's the only word can describe this movie. I saw this movie with my 73 year old father in law and we both had the same reaction to this movie. We really wanted to like it. We both love great war movies. This movie was beautiful to watch, especially in IMAX. The first 10 minutes or so was pretty good. After that, no real substance. No character development. Virtually no dialogue. It was so difficult to really care about any of the characters. Tom Hardy's character was pretty good, but still no depth. The timeline is a bit odd, but I didn't feel that it added anything to the movie. Nothing like Memento, my favorite Nolan movie. The movie seemed so much longer than than the 107 minutes that it was. Pacing was awful. I have no idea how it gets so many 100 scores. Expand
18 of 25 users found this helpful187
All this user's reviews
3
mbmartinsJul 30, 2017
booooring movie... I really don't understand what people see so good. Confusing and simplistic plot. Shallow characters. Want a good war movie goes see until the last man, because this is a noolan hype and nothing anymore
36 of 52 users found this helpful3616
All this user's reviews
3
AlprJul 30, 2017
Found the movie quite boring, and it was hard to follow sometimes, specifically with the pilots. Dunno how this movie is rating so well honestly. Been awhile since I found a movie so dull, I'd rather watch Wonder Woman again and that movie was meh.
30 of 45 users found this helpful3015
All this user's reviews
2
TantricSkyJul 30, 2017
Obviously I missed something here, a lot in fact. I found this film to be boring, annoying (the highly intrusive score didn't help on that account) and, considering the potential of the material, strangely limp and lifeless.
21 of 34 users found this helpful2113
All this user's reviews
1
kingdodeeJul 25, 2017
If you want a 2-hour long extended version of its trailers, go see Dunkirk. If you have seen even one of them, you have already seen this movie. It is so dull and uninteresting that the best thing about this one is that it is not 2,5 hoursIf you want a 2-hour long extended version of its trailers, go see Dunkirk. If you have seen even one of them, you have already seen this movie. It is so dull and uninteresting that the best thing about this one is that it is not 2,5 hours like Nolan's other movies. It really fails on every level: it does not entertain (even the intended 'suspense' scenes are so cliché that they are a pain to sit through), it does not appeal to your senses (even Hans Zimmer's score is bad), it does not give you any sense of relief or achievement, nor does it paint a cruel and realistic picture about the horrors of war. If you want the story of Dunkirk, go with any of the documentaries, and forget about The Overrated Movie of the Century. Expand
26 of 43 users found this helpful2617
All this user's reviews
3
OfficeNinjaJul 23, 2017
While visually impressive, I found Dunkirk to be a mix of boredom and confusion. There is three different timelines that converge which only makes it confusing, and does not add weight to any of the scenes. It's difficult to tell any of theWhile visually impressive, I found Dunkirk to be a mix of boredom and confusion. There is three different timelines that converge which only makes it confusing, and does not add weight to any of the scenes. It's difficult to tell any of the characters apart, especially with very limited dialog. I'm not sure people love this movie so much, it's a pretty forgettable war movie. Expand
39 of 65 users found this helpful3926
All this user's reviews
2
AreYouSeriousJul 22, 2017
How? How is this getting the 10/10's? Four of us saw this together - age ranging from 21 to 47, and all disliked it. The first few minutes are good, but after that - what a complete bore-fest. No characters that you care about, or gravitateHow? How is this getting the 10/10's? Four of us saw this together - age ranging from 21 to 47, and all disliked it. The first few minutes are good, but after that - what a complete bore-fest. No characters that you care about, or gravitate to. No real story; 3 separate stories that are disjointedly strung together, but are worse for wear by the added time-jumps. The relentless score that literally wears you down. No blood (I'm not one for the gratuitous slo-mo violence of Hacksaw Ridge - far preferred the documentary feel of Saving Private Ryan), but no blood, when they have just been blown up by a bomb, pulled me straight out of the film.

We all felt like it was 4 hours long, as the shots seemed to all look the same, repeating, over and over again. This is the first time in my life where I TRULY feel like the reviews have been bought. I reckon the studio executives watched it and thought "How the hell is this going to appeal to a wide audience? We better buy some amazing reviews, or we'll never get our money back."
Expand
49 of 82 users found this helpful4933
All this user's reviews
0
IHateEveryMovieJul 23, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. One of the things you don't want to make your audience say when a movie is done is "That's it?!". Dunkirk is very underwhelming.

First of all, there isn't a good explanation of what is going on or why. At the beginning of the movie there are little papers landing in the streets with a map that says "We have you surrounded" and that's basically it. The rest of the movie is a revolving door of slow moving scenes of a plane fight, a civilian boat making its way to Dunkirk, and Harry Styles and co. trying to survive on the beach and water.

And how about that fake ending right? You know the one I'm talking about. The one where the military higher-up on the dock looks through his binoculars and says "Home." The music and everything indicates that the movie is over but...WRONG! There's one final skirmish to go through. It's like Nolan, master of the plot twist, realized he couldn't do a plot twist in a movie based on real life but decided to fool the audience somehow anyway.
Expand
31 of 52 users found this helpful3121
All this user's reviews
1
jhepJul 29, 2017
Do war movies need to have a script ?.......YES. Do war movies have to have characters ?......Yes again....."Dunkirk" has neither script nor characters and as a result you rapidly lose interest in what becomes of any of the individuals weDo war movies need to have a script ?.......YES. Do war movies have to have characters ?......Yes again....."Dunkirk" has neither script nor characters and as a result you rapidly lose interest in what becomes of any of the individuals we encounter because you never bond with them. In fact after a while they just seem very unlucky in their various attempts to get away!) This is a very cold film about an amazing event. Nolan seems far more interested in showing what bungled mess the Dunkirk experience was. He depicts the whole thing as futile, messy and basically more ANNOYING than anything else i.e., what a bunch of Losers! The result is a sort of yuppie take on WW2. And a rather desperate tossing in of Churchill's "We shall never surrender" speech in the final moments of the film doesn't make up for this film's fatal wrongheaded approach to its subject. Expand
21 of 36 users found this helpful2115
All this user's reviews
2
jonytepJul 21, 2017
Probably one of the worst movies I've seen. The only thing stopping me from walking out was hope that it would get better - it didn't.

I am dumbfounded how this even gets remotely close to an 9.0/10 average here and imdb. (Botted votes?
Probably one of the worst movies I've seen. The only thing stopping me from walking out was hope that it would get better - it didn't.

I am dumbfounded how this even gets remotely close to an 9.0/10 average here and imdb. (Botted votes? Bribery?) Firstly the plot is empty, bland, boring, uneventful - I could go on all day...

The character development is abysmal - non-existent. You feel detached the whole film except for the first minute (which are excellent bar the annoying background title text) and then it goes straight off the cliff into the dump. I was excited and enthralled expecting an amazingly engaging film - boy was I WRONG.

Even watching Tom hardy blast away with his 10% accuracy is uninspiringly dull.


The only good points are 'decent' cinematography(the best of which being the colours and contrasts which i actually enjoyed in some brief scenes), good sound effects, soundtrack is nice but overused and repetitive.

In essence the film over-utilises cinematography and sound to form it's basis while leaving the lacklustre story and characters to support it instead of the opposite i.e developing a strong plot line and delving into the depth and breadth of characters while letting the cinematography and sound support them.

Don't waste your time or money on this cash grab. 2/10 AT BEST!
Expand
36 of 72 users found this helpful3636
All this user's reviews
3
SergeantSozJul 22, 2017
I've never given a movie such a low score but I have to this time to help lower the ridiculous overall score. While I appreciate this movie not going over the top, it just doesn't suck me into the story like other war movies. There is zeroI've never given a movie such a low score but I have to this time to help lower the ridiculous overall score. While I appreciate this movie not going over the top, it just doesn't suck me into the story like other war movies. There is zero blood. It shows a guy getting bombed and he remains in one piece. The score was good but all it did was make everyone anxious. I know Zimmer wanted to create a sense of urgency since the film is about an evacuation but even the most simple, boring things, the music is going off the rails trying to rise up some suspense. It WILL drive you nuts. Take the music out of this movie and there's probably 20 minutes or less of dialogue and you're left with the most boring movie ever. I could give it a 5 but honestly I would never watch this twice. I don't know a single name of any of the characters. There's zero development once so ever so why give a crap about any of them. You can barely understand them also. Hacksaw Ridge was too Hollywood and too over the top but at least it was entertaining. This movie's only positive notes is the bone-chilling sound of German fighters about to dive bomb the soldiers. Nolan isn't a bad director but he's a terrible story teller. All of his movies are vague and confusing. Expand
22 of 44 users found this helpful2222
All this user's reviews
0
iter27Jul 23, 2017
Nothing of substance. A tremendous waste of time and money. I am beyond flabbergasted on how the "Nolan" fanboys can defend such a mess of a movie. Pretentious af.
16 of 32 users found this helpful1616
All this user's reviews
3
ohsiyoJul 21, 2017
Are there 2 different versions of this movie? The movie that all the "experts" are raving about is not the one I saw. Have they all lost a bet to Christopher Nolan or is there blackmail involved? What showed at my theater was not much moreAre there 2 different versions of this movie? The movie that all the "experts" are raving about is not the one I saw. Have they all lost a bet to Christopher Nolan or is there blackmail involved? What showed at my theater was not much more than a glorified movie of the week. There is almost no dialogue, and what little there is is drowned out by the soundtrack which tells us it's not important in the first place. There is no plot, no character development, no acting, confusing characters, and time jerks from dead of night to simultaneous broad daylight. There is no audience connection or identification with the characters or situation. Granted, this is a critical episode in a World War, but the movie is filmed as "a day in the life." The "experts" claim the acting is fabulous, but there is no acting. Tom Hardy sits in the cramped cockpit of a plane with his face covered by a mask the entire time. 400,000 soldiers are stranded on the beach, and we see maybe 500. There is supposed to be a massive rescue flotilla and we see maybe 12 boats. The "experts" describe the movie as "avant garde" and a "masterpiece". What I saw was "meh". Although I found it difficult at times to watch, "Saving Private Ryan" was a war movie with intensity, plot, and characters. "Dunkirk" doesn't come close. And what is "The Mole?" Expand
26 of 55 users found this helpful2629
All this user's reviews
2
FerdifiableJul 22, 2017
The IMAX version, at least, is fully endorsed by the International Earplug Association. If you don't have tinnitus before you see this overrated disaster movie, you will when you walk out. Abusively, gratuitously loud, with a soundtrackThe IMAX version, at least, is fully endorsed by the International Earplug Association. If you don't have tinnitus before you see this overrated disaster movie, you will when you walk out. Abusively, gratuitously loud, with a soundtrack designed to loosen your internal organs from your skeletal frame. I might have liked this movie but I couldn't tell; it's impossible to appreciate anything else about Dunkirk when your fillings are being vibrated out of your teeth. I suppose the point was to bludgeon me into knowing that war is hell, but somehow Spielberg managed to convey this with considerably more weight without causing me actual physical pain. Overwhelming the senses is apparently the film industry's way of creating a unique theatrical experience. If so, it's inducing me to the opposite: perhaps if I'd waited to watch at home with some control over my viewing experience I'd have appreciated it more. Expand
15 of 33 users found this helpful1518
All this user's reviews
2
Captain_MisfireJul 22, 2017
After many reviews I was looking forward to seeing the film but came out feeling rather dissapointed. It was dull, uninspiring and had no tension that really grabs and pulls you towards the film with further interest. I felt so detached fromAfter many reviews I was looking forward to seeing the film but came out feeling rather dissapointed. It was dull, uninspiring and had no tension that really grabs and pulls you towards the film with further interest. I felt so detached from the film, I don't know where the good reviews are coming from, are we talking about the same movie here?
The big actors in this film dissapoint because there is hardly any acting. Tom Hardy sits in a cockpit for the entire film (everyone could do that) and can't hit a barndoor with a machine gun, I can only see 2 eyes and a forehead.. At the end his plane runs out of fuel, hovers in the air but he seems to fly on forever. Cillian Murphy mumbles and walks around on a tugboat from time to time. There is no character development or interesting dialogue that makes you feel involved/connected and caring about the troops and their misery. Hardly any signs of fatigue, broken nerves/ shattered spirits and wounded men (except for a few men on stretchers). These scenes do not make me think that I wouldn't like to be in someone's shoes being stuck on a beach, not knowing what's coming next. The possibility of death/ becoming a prisoner or saved by a rescue operation, seeing so many struggles on a beach you can't imagine how you will get picked up..

The beach in the film is very(!) clean (with some dead soldiers that's really impressive) and there seems to be no sign of chaos, fatigue, fear or despair. There is absolutely no equipment scattered over the beach that looks close to a scrapyard, no trash, discarded gear and no abandoned vehicles etc. About 3 to 400.000 soldiers were saved but I saw 500-750 in the film (they all looked the same btw, hair and face), also I saw 10 to 15 boats TOPS. More than 900 boats took part in this operation over the course of 9 days and that's a fact. The smaller boats were used to carry men off the beach and put them on bigger steamers/boats, didn't see that. This film could have improved significantly with an extra 30 minutes at the beginning of the film. Brief fighting/retreating around Dunkirk showing the peril, discussions in Churchill's HQ about the situation in France and trying to save the troops against staggering odds. Such dialogue could have made it gripping, showing wht was at stake in that part of the war. Show me how everyone in England came together with everything they had that could float, trying to save the troops. Tom Hardy would be better placed trying to hold off the Germans and surrender at the end when he knows many troops are saved. In real life many thousands and injured who could not be saved were sacrificed and stayed behind In to keep the Germans away. A dejected Murphy waits on a beach to be rescued, that role could have suited him. The dogfights were rather dull.
I was confused because of the jarring cuts in time and the shift (too fast) between the 3 characters. I can't believe some positive reviews here "intense", "great acting", "best war film" Someone even commented they couldn't find flaws, in the first 5 minutes by looking at the housing in the background and the tiling, didn't look like 1940. Look at the background when they filmed the beach from the sea, modern housing and lights, streetlamps, shipping containers and crains.
Can't understand why Christopher Nolan couldn't just make a straightforward, linnear warfilm that tells a gripping (true)story without all this fancy colouring and artistic filming. I went to see this film for it's story and not for the way it was filmed, coloured or making many switches from one time to another. It doesn't focus on anything in particular except for rescue.

I wish these (expert) reviewers watched some documentary's like the world at war that really grips you and then watch the film again. Heck, even look on google for Dunkirk equipment and such. Steven Spielberg should have made this as Nolan would film Saving private Ryan with no casualties and no dialogue. Wouldn't want to see the film again.
Expand
38 of 84 users found this helpful3846
All this user's reviews
0
marco34laJul 22, 2017
I'm sorry, this movie was a piece of crap. There's no story, barely any dialogue, no character development, but it does have big AUDIO SCORE THAT BLASTS SO LOUD YOUR WANT TO SCREAM. There were apprx 25 people at the showing I just saw here inI'm sorry, this movie was a piece of crap. There's no story, barely any dialogue, no character development, but it does have big AUDIO SCORE THAT BLASTS SO LOUD YOUR WANT TO SCREAM. There were apprx 25 people at the showing I just saw here in Los Angeles and over the course of the 90 mins... 4 people WALKED OUT. Expand
32 of 72 users found this helpful3240
All this user's reviews
1
TalvarJul 21, 2017
The film is nothing more than a DVD release story line. Very poor showing for something that was hyped by "professional" reviews. If you are expecting an epic war movie (which i believe the true story line could show) then you will beThe film is nothing more than a DVD release story line. Very poor showing for something that was hyped by "professional" reviews. If you are expecting an epic war movie (which i believe the true story line could show) then you will be disappointed. Some big name actors do not perform, largely down to the poor directing. Save yourself the cinema ticket. Expand
21 of 50 users found this helpful2129
All this user's reviews
0
moviestalkerJul 23, 2017
Here's a short guide how to win an academy award: Step 1) Make a movie about the second World War (because nobody ever had *that* idea) Step 2) ???, Step 3: Profit.
21 of 51 users found this helpful2130
All this user's reviews
0
Vl_czJul 21, 2017
This is a film about Nolan, but not about war. Operator work and sound are very good, but the story is very boring, and the characters are not interesting.
Dunkirk is the worst film of Nolan. Better once again review the "Saving Private Ryan"
28 of 78 users found this helpful2850
All this user's reviews
2
zachlenDec 26, 2017
How is it possible for critics to sit through a film and not question what they are seeing that makes zero sense. Wearing a life jacket in water will keep one from sinking. Not according to Christopher Nolan . We see ,as did critics ,hundredsHow is it possible for critics to sit through a film and not question what they are seeing that makes zero sense. Wearing a life jacket in water will keep one from sinking. Not according to Christopher Nolan . We see ,as did critics ,hundreds of soldiers under water wearing life vests. That in of its self is an impossibility. There were also scenes that went fron day to night,back to day. This happened more times to count.Why do people feel the need to agree with todays critics instead of THINKING for themselves. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
2
s053714Jan 27, 2018
I can't understand why so many people liked this movie. While the production values were good, they seemed to have forgotten things like a plot and character development, and maybe a little enlightening dialog. It was very uninvolving andI can't understand why so many people liked this movie. While the production values were good, they seemed to have forgotten things like a plot and character development, and maybe a little enlightening dialog. It was very uninvolving and ultimately quite dull. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
MaxPayneIsGodFeb 25, 2018
I understand the historical significance of this event, but as a movie? What a snore fest, this is a war movie not an after school special, not a single drop of blood spilled and the disjointed timeline is an overt way of admitting that thereI understand the historical significance of this event, but as a movie? What a snore fest, this is a war movie not an after school special, not a single drop of blood spilled and the disjointed timeline is an overt way of admitting that there is absolutely zero story. Give me Saving Private Ryan any day. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
lucasquaresmaJan 6, 2018
Eutinha achado o filme bom quando terminei de assistir, apesar de arrastado no meio. Porém, depois percebi que não gostei: Achei um filme de guerra avulso, pretensioso (escorado total em fotografia e som), emocionalmente vazio (não senti nadaEutinha achado o filme bom quando terminei de assistir, apesar de arrastado no meio. Porém, depois percebi que não gostei: Achei um filme de guerra avulso, pretensioso (escorado total em fotografia e som), emocionalmente vazio (não senti nada pelo soldados). Sinceramente um filme esquecível. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
AidinKianyMar 11, 2018
so boring.no story. no character. if it was for another director i vote 6 but for nolan it was awful. mr nolan, i suggest you to watch your previous movies again so you understand why this one disappoints us.
differences always cant be good.
so boring.no story. no character. if it was for another director i vote 6 but for nolan it was awful. mr nolan, i suggest you to watch your previous movies again so you understand why this one disappoints us.
differences always cant be good.
at least not in this one.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
rlw1955May 15, 2018
Soldiers lined up on a pier waiting to board a ship that’s taking wounded only. Officer states we are like fish in a barrel as you look back down the pier towards the beach as hundreds of non wounded are standing in line. A look on the beachSoldiers lined up on a pier waiting to board a ship that’s taking wounded only. Officer states we are like fish in a barrel as you look back down the pier towards the beach as hundreds of non wounded are standing in line. A look on the beach shows dozens of lines of men standing out in the open all in neat rows waiting on ships that aren’t there. German planes strafing and bombing the beach all the while you have a town right behind with all types of empty buildings where you could be taking shelter and be out of sight. Men taking fire in a beached ship and out of 300,000 men not one group got together to recon for the firing Germans. Not sure if this movie was actually trying to convey how terrible this situation was for the stranded at Dunkirk or to make the British military leadership look like buffoons. This movie was way overhyped. Not the worst movie I have ever watched but it could have been much more than what it was. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
tosideDec 5, 2017
minute 1 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
minute 45 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
minute 90 hey this music so deep, absolutely something will happen.
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
2
jordynSep 6, 2017
I'll be totally honest. I don't understand any of the hype for this movie. Is it just because it's Christopher Nolan? Because that's the only reason I went and saw it, and I was unimpressed. The plot was simultaneously boring and confusingI'll be totally honest. I don't understand any of the hype for this movie. Is it just because it's Christopher Nolan? Because that's the only reason I went and saw it, and I was unimpressed. The plot was simultaneously boring and confusing and none of the characters had any depth. Most of them didn't even have names. I honestly don't know why I was supposed to care about anything that was happening onscreen. Like, I didn't enjoy watching people die - I'm not a monster. But it's hard to understand why this story was told. It was just a story of how sad war is, and even then, it didn't even do a great job of telling that. There's a million war movies more compelling and meaningful than this "artsy" **** Just cause it's sad doesn't make it a good story. Expand
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
1
thovarainDec 19, 2017
If you didn't know the story of Dunkirk and missed the few explanatory lines at the beginning, you wouldn't know any more after watching this mess. Weak script, flat characters, too much filler (overlong dogfight, umpteen shots of sailorsIf you didn't know the story of Dunkirk and missed the few explanatory lines at the beginning, you wouldn't know any more after watching this mess. Weak script, flat characters, too much filler (overlong dogfight, umpteen shots of sailors abandoning ship). Nearly 40,000 soldiers died there but the 2 deaths of any import in the film are completely pointless. I'm sure it had a huge budget but you'd never know it. Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
0
eeyoreDec 6, 2017
BORING. AS. HELL. The most overrated war movie of all time. I wouldn't be able to sit thru it once again even in five years from now. I don't get the insane hype.
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
0
BrickNGamesDec 1, 2017
Is. This. Movie. A. Goddamn. Joke. I can say nothing good about this movie. Wtf was that, no happy ending? Like what was the point of this movie xD, if you're gonna watch a war movie and its not saving private Ryan, why don't you save theIs. This. Movie. A. Goddamn. Joke. I can say nothing good about this movie. Wtf was that, no happy ending? Like what was the point of this movie xD, if you're gonna watch a war movie and its not saving private Ryan, why don't you save the earth a favor and kys Expand
7 of 10 users found this helpful73
All this user's reviews
3
sandbornAug 15, 2017
This is a masterpiece? Although the movie looks great, everything else just falls apart. I found the subplot with Rylance and Murphy to be bizarre, and does nothing for the movie. The soldiers are mostly faceless and devoid of any characterThis is a masterpiece? Although the movie looks great, everything else just falls apart. I found the subplot with Rylance and Murphy to be bizarre, and does nothing for the movie. The soldiers are mostly faceless and devoid of any character or humanity. I would like to compare this movie with 'Saving Private Ryan', but there is no comparison. 'SPR' is engaging from start to finish but this movie doesn't grab the audience at all! Expand
7 of 10 users found this helpful73
All this user's reviews
0
xlt3000Dec 6, 2017
Fails utterly as a war and history film. Decent as thriller.
Very surprising how metacritic users give this film such high praise.
Dunkirk is essentially Nolan's excuse to make another one of his thriller, the WW2 setting is just accessory.
Fails utterly as a war and history film. Decent as thriller.
Very surprising how metacritic users give this film such high praise.

Dunkirk is essentially Nolan's excuse to make another one of his thriller, the WW2 setting is just accessory. As a thriller, it delivers. Coupled with the stressful (but repetitive, one of his weakest) score from Hans Zimmer, the film always keeps the viewer under suspense.

However, in all other regards, the film is an abject failure. As a historical WW2 film, it fails because it is not realistic. Every shot is obviously filmed in stylistic ways to deliver suspense, but not realism. It is opera, almost. You do not see the Germans (even less than in a Spielberg film), you do not see real combat. You see bullets coming from nowhere and killing people. You see and hear bombs falling. But you dont see the enemy.

On a historical realism level, it is also completely out of place. Dunkirk is a ghost city, not a city full of scared French civilians. Again, the German Army (at least Recon troops) is nowhere to be seen. I did not even feel the scale of such a magnificient evacuation. I did not feel like 300,000+ people were just evacuated from that city. I felt like a couple line of people on board some destroyers, were saved. Not to mention the film itself is chock full of historical myths and inaccuracies, which I would have expected such a great director as Nolan to not make. The biggest myth being that the 300,000+ people were saved by the "small boats", when in fact most of them (at least 1/3rd French, which you also do not see in the film) were evacuated on board large ships (as historical footage on youtube shows). To summarize, the entire film takes the script from the most ridiculous British ego-stoking mythical writing of this battle. "300,000 men on that beach, thousands of little boats, in an élan of British National pride, came to save the soldiers, etc". Instead of what should have been a gritty battle in the streets, mass of people on destroyers, etc.

Finally, my biggest gripe, above and beyond the repetitiveness of the film and historical inaccuracy, is the laughable PG rating. The rating turns whats supposed to be a gut-wrenching war film, where I expect flak-decapitated soldiers, Stuka bombs disembowelling people, dead bodies rotting on the beach, etc...Into a completely colourless film. The entire film is strangely grey and dark, and when a bomb falls or shot is fired, bodies fly in the air (completely intact) without even a drop of blood on their face.

All in all, this film is a pretty thriller, not the realistic war film I expected Master Nolan to produce. And its a shame because the Battle of France (and generally the Western Front before the Americans came into the war late in 1944), is a very unexplored setting that merits much better.

Nolan, you disappoint me.
Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
3
PhrogressDec 12, 2017
Completamente una película ridícula, esperaba muchísimo del tan estimado Nolan, la historia es demasiado confusa y no deja muy en claro de que se trata todo ese cuento de más de 2 horas. Una completa decepción.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
ARBonaventuraJul 28, 2017
I pride myself on my judgement of movies and Metacritic nearly never fails me, yet it did this time. I am blown away by the "professional" critic reviews. It just does not make sense and I find myself sitting here wondering what is wrong withI pride myself on my judgement of movies and Metacritic nearly never fails me, yet it did this time. I am blown away by the "professional" critic reviews. It just does not make sense and I find myself sitting here wondering what is wrong with everyone. The other reviews below consistent question of "was this the same movie I watched?" ring so true. It was plain bad, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the "critics" thought it good. Were they paid off? Were they caught up in the Nolan hype? There were so many fallacies and inconsistencies in this movie that I do not want to cover them all, but I really felt the need to say... Please do not waste your money if you are an intelligent, analytical, deep, perceptive adult... This movie is not for you. If you are a teenage boy or someone who just needs to turn their brain off for two hours and watch stuff happen in front of them, this movie may be for you. It is not a logically executed, well written, or intellectually / emotionally stimulating movie. It is shallow, dry, and poor from start to finish. War is hell, and this movie did not have the emotional capacity or grit to show that reality. Expand
14 of 22 users found this helpful148
All this user's reviews
2
AxeTJul 31, 2017
Even worse than expected. There was no doubt the jackass critics herd perennially on auto pilot would laud praise upon a noble little known true war story put on screen by a massively over-rated pompous director because they all sensed itEven worse than expected. There was no doubt the jackass critics herd perennially on auto pilot would laud praise upon a noble little known true war story put on screen by a massively over-rated pompous director because they all sensed it must be important purely based on the subject and pedigree. They in their utter dishonesty and phony pretentious lack of any shred of integrity assume in order to be perceived as serious and smart must heap praise on something like this. Venture to say, no matter what Christopher Nolan came out with the praise would be the same near unanimous nonsense it is. They didn't see the actual movie. They only saw the pretense. For the last time: subject matter is not primarily what you are reviewing idiots, the way it is executed is.

Here's why it's not only not the great movie they exclaim, but a pretty bad movie! There is no plot nor any character development, and there is no true suspense precisely because of this! You can't be on the edge of your seat no matter what the action on screen if you are not invested in the characters. This is an uninspired, stodgy, overly reverent trudge through a historic event with no invention working to transform such into a movie. Hollywood movies are supposed to entertain. Hey, that goes for whatever the content and no matter the tone. If you want a dry history lesson on the event, go read a text book or watch a documentary (and nearly any fathomable documentary on this battle would be more interesting).
Just imagine had James Cameron's "Titanic" not invented the fictional core love story and characters both modern day and past for that story in favor of pure, straight documented, totally accurate depiction of the historic event? It would not resonate as the epic Hollywood classic it became in short time. And it's not as though they blew off the historical accuracy which was painstakingly recreated in nearly every detail. It's that Cameron understands what movies should be for the audience, not just himself. The characters here are puppets whether real or imagined. The spare acting caught on screen is devoid of performance which while realistic is dull and it's not the cast's fault. There's no script! Kenneth Branagh tries, but sorry a watery eye in one close up and looking up for a few seconds in alarm of coming doom is not all there is to acting. If it is, then anyone can do the job on cue and to effect as professional actors must do. Worse still, like his last lame pretentious effort "Interstellar", the sound mix is AWFUL again! The freaking dialogue is mixed too low to the sound effects and even more so to the music! It's bad enough these actors have mumbled hard to understand heavily accented deliveries, but to then self indulgently attempt to be more "real" by making the decision to compromise intelligibility is just plain asinine. It's unprofessional. It's downright incompetent! Music is artificial to begin with, so his illogical argument last time about being more real to life experience is again just a fallacy here!

The staged big screen aerial dog fight footage is how this movie initially seemed to showcase itself in advertising and is about the only worthy of attention aspect of the entire production. So a few real flying shots of vintage WWII fighter planes from some unique angles with unnoticeable not overdone CGI is worth sitting bored out of your mind for two hours? Ah, no.

A-lister Nolan is a moviemaker who cares about the audience and the entertainment value he is delivering, but he is gravely mistaken in his efforts. No question he is highly intelligent, creative in general, a scholar of cinema history, and understands all the technical mechanics of filmmaking as well or better than anyone. What he is not is an artist who delivers genuine emotion. That's what great movies and great art in general is truly about. Nolan is a very cerebral writer/director not unlike say Kubrick who also fell short on emotion in all his work. However, Kubrick was such a genius and brilliant designer of mind bending psychological exploration that the lack of emotion in his art is acceptable as the canvases are overflowing with inspiration as it is just on an intellectual and aesthetic level. Nolan is only a pale imitation of that (though granted a better poser than say PT Anderson, another retro junkie also falling for old gimmicks of the medium over good storytelling). The truth is he hasn't made any great films, only a few good ones, and the rest are all pretentious mediocre bores. The only good thing about this thing is that surprisingly it is not overlong as is the stupid trend. That's because the story is thin to begin with and padded out for running time. If you must still go see it, go digital. The film prints are literally half the resolution and quickly damaged by today's uncaring theaters! Mr. Nolan the luddite is delusional in his denial of reality. Passé tech 70mm is a hoax now!
Expand
14 of 23 users found this helpful149
All this user's reviews
2
GarrAug 3, 2017
Dunkirk, more like Dung-Crap! This movie looked and sounded great in I-Max. That's the end of the good. Now to the bad. This movie had no characters. I felt zero emotional connection to anyone in this movie. I didn't care if anyone lived orDunkirk, more like Dung-Crap! This movie looked and sounded great in I-Max. That's the end of the good. Now to the bad. This movie had no characters. I felt zero emotional connection to anyone in this movie. I didn't care if anyone lived or died. Mark Rylance's character was the only one who was halfway interesting. He was the only character who had a decent amount of dialogue in the film, who had a clear goal, and who made decisions. The other character that had more than 5 lines in the picture was Kenneth Branagh's. He was utterly pointless. It seemed like he was watching the movie, and his purpose was just to say a cheesy lines about "Home" every once in a while. Tom Hardy's character was boring, repetitive, and predictable. This movie is so messed up, it is really hard to decide who the main character is, but if I had to decide, it'd be the guy we see 1st. He is very forgettable. He looks and acts almost identical to almost everyone in the whole movie. He meets a friend while he is taking a dump. No joke. He stops and helps his new friend bury a body. And he doesn't poop the whole movie. Him and his new friend just try to escape the whole movie. That leads me to my second point: there is no plot. It's just a bunch of explosions. There's more plot in a Transformers movie. 'Poop guy' and 'bury dead body guy' just go from ship to ship trying to live. By the way, the movie is almost over before 'bury dead body guy' says anything. So these guys try to live, Kenneth Branagh stands on a dock and says things that don't matter, Mark Rylance picks up survivors in his boat, and Tom Hardy shoots other planes, while in his plane, over and over and over again, while not being seen or heard. And that's your movie. I kept waiting for the opening action sequence to be over. I kept waiting for it to slow down a little and have some exposition, but it never did. It was like I missed the beginning and just tuned into the climax of a long, humorless, silent picture. That's not to say that a movie can't be action packed and be great. U-571 is an example of a nearly non-stop, action packed, WWII movie, thrill ride. U-571 managed to have memorable and distinct characters with different purposes. U-571 had a plot with a clear goal and twists and turns. If Dunkirk could've just cut out some of the unnecessary bits, like Kenneth Branagh, and had the 1st half hour be set up and character development, then it could've been really good. But as it was, I didn't care about any of it. I kept watching English soldiers die and thinking, "I don't care. This movie didn't make me care." As simple as the plot for Dunkirk was, the movie was really confusing. You'd think if you're going for an exciting, action thriller, that a simple linear plot would suffice. This movie jumps all over the timeline without giving any hint that it just made a jump in time. Christopher Nolan does a great job of jumping all over the timeline in his movie Memento. In Memento, he manages to keep things coherent and engaging. Not so here. This is just disappointing. The time jumping is completely unnecessary here. What little dialogue there is in this film is really hard to hear because of thick accents, loud explosions, masks over faces, and the music being really loud in the mix. With a really simple plot that is really hard to follow and characters with zero development or even distinguishing traits, I found myself in a really big struggle to care about what I was watching, even with incredible imagery and sound design. Yet, the whole time, the movie was telling me what I was watching was really exciting with it's music score. And that leads me to my last point: I hated the music. It pains me to say that because I usually love Hans Zimmer, especially under the direction of Christopher Nolan. There is virtually no melody in this score. It's relentless and annoying. I guess I can't blame Zimmer, considering he was just scoring to picture. Imagine watching The Dark Knight, but during the entire movie all you heard was The Joker's theme, non-stop. That's what it's like. The whole soundtrack may as well just be an air raid siren. And it's not just the music. The sound effects, as incredible as they were, were also loud, annoying, and relentless. At times, I found myself covering my ears. I thought, "Why am I paying money to cover my ears? What I'm covering my ears to is what I paid for." You know what movie is better than this: all the movies I have seen this year. Valerian and The Mummy were even better. They were at least fun. The best movie I've seen this Summer is War for the Planet of the Apes, but you really need to see all the Apes pictures to get the full enjoyment out of that one. The next best is Spider-Man: Homecoming, but maybe you're not up to date with the Marvel movies. In that case, see Wonder Woman. You don't need to see the other DC movies to enjoy that one. But what ever you do, don't see Dunkirk. I beg of you not to give that garbage your support. Expand
12 of 21 users found this helpful129
All this user's reviews
0
AesopfussygitJul 31, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Millions of dollars spent on a movie that can't even get the train right ... They were carriages that never saw service until at least 40 years after the event. A spitfire with endless bullets and able to cruise without an engine for mile after mile after mile, then turn around and come back again only to land on an empty beach ... with that amount of glide available, he could have turned left and gone home for tea. And where were all the thousands of troops, four hundred thousand was mentioned in the movie, about the only part in the entire thing that they got right! So where were they? What was all the money spent on? The container depot behind the beach maybe? Where was the dialogue? A boy, someones son, his other sons brother get killed by a British soldier, trying to get away from Dunkirk ... The brother says 'Oh, ok."
The sound left a lot to be desired as well. But the thing that really bugged me, was that the buildings behind the beach were all modern! A lot of money wasted as far as I can see.
Expand
12 of 21 users found this helpful129
All this user's reviews
1
GleefulnessJul 30, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Terrible script, unsympathetic characters, confusing plot sequences and corny story lines. Silliest bit is when soldiers try to stop their boat sinking by covering up the bullet holes with their hands; they only abandon ship when the hull is completely inundated with water. This is just completely ridiculous. Everything gets blown up around the central characters, who get out of a lot of narrow scrapes in a series of sinking ships (I lost count in the end). They survive intact and unscathed, barring their blackened faces - a bit like Wile E Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons. The flotilla coming to the rescue looked like it was a handful of boats, so one of the most remarkable incidents of the war, the rescue of the British Expeditionary Force from the Nazis, comes across as an anti-climax. Trawler segment with Mark Rylance could have come straight out of the send-up in the recent comedy Their Finest (a much better film). I can only assume that the director has spent so much time making dumb action movies based on comic books he's completely lost his touch when it comes to creating engaging characters and plausible stories. There wasn't much of a script and the little dialogue was hard to make out. No wonder (spoiler alert) nobody spotted the French soldier earlier - as hardly anyone was saying anything! I'm not a scholar but the film seemed to overdo conflict between Brits and French, overlooking the fact that (according to Wikipedia), 139,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. I'd be interested in reading a historian's perspective. Expand
13 of 23 users found this helpful1310
All this user's reviews
1
subseqAug 1, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. There is a phenomenon in filmmaking these days I like to call the "Gravity" effect, named after the ridiculous Sandra Bullock film in which a truckload of spiffy CGI and cinematography was wrapped around a nifty space premise producing a preposterous and scientifically implausible bore. It seems to have taken over Hollywood, and "Dunkirk" is its latest manifestation. As a history teacher very familiar with the Dunkirk story, I was eager to see the intense drama exhibited on the big screen, and superlative reviews from everyone assured me it had to be good. Nope - it was just like "Gravity". There was no story, it was merely one perilous situation after the other. Over and over and over again, people I could not care less about were in danger. In "Gravity" it was Sandra Bullock in space, here it was British troops in the waters off the coast of France. Over and over and over - interminable anguish splashed in our faces. While Christopher Nolan's technical work with the CGI and film editing was terrific, I can't believe he didn't just sit back and say, "With all this filmmaking technology at our fingertips why have a engaging story with flowing plot lines and defined characters? Let's just pound them with the horrors of war and make it so the viewer can FEEL IT." (Needless to say do not see this film if you are aquaphobic.) There were also the extraordinarily annoying scenes like those when the car doesn't start and you need to drive off to avoid something very bad - in this movie it was the gun that malfunctions or the hatch on the plane won't open as it sinks into the sea. Please. Then there is the completely unnecessary tussle on a small pleasure yacht that results in the death of a sympathetic character - oh my. Sorry but I'm sick of directors taking my feelings and ruthlessly yanking them for the purpose of trying to tell us what a grand filmmaker they are. At least Nolan didn't move the camera all around making the scenes artificially jagged and distorted - thank you! Still, after the 57th time we had to tortuously endure wondering whether or not people were going to die horrific deaths - this one having to do with men in the water trying not to let the surface flames reach their oil-soaked bodies - I was done. I left. So yeah, count this one among "My Blue Heaven" and "Grease" as one of those terrible films that I actually walked out on. Expand
10 of 18 users found this helpful108
All this user's reviews
3
RipandreadJul 26, 2017
My suggestion is wait until this movie is on cable TV next year instead of spending good money seeing this movie at the theatre. Trailers always show the best scenes of a movie, and in the case of Dunkirk, the trailer was the best part.
11 of 21 users found this helpful1110
All this user's reviews
3
GinaKJul 27, 2017
I am trying to figure out why this movie got such good reviews. It was unrelentingly loud (perhaps partly a problem with the theater we attended) and boring – unless you’ve never seen a war movie before. What annoyed me the most was how allI am trying to figure out why this movie got such good reviews. It was unrelentingly loud (perhaps partly a problem with the theater we attended) and boring – unless you’ve never seen a war movie before. What annoyed me the most was how all the soldiers looked alike, except for the principal “star” cast (Rylance, Branaugh, Hardy, Murphy). I realize this is what happens with CGI – but really did all 300,000 of the British “common” soldiers need to be the same age, have the same hair (longish, black, wavy), the same height, weight, build, etc.)? I have been aware of CGI somewhat in crowd scenes (for example, in Gladiator), but this film was full of unrelenting close-ups of clones. Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance were excellent, but Branaugh and his “stiff upper lip” was one of the most clichéd performances I have ever seen him give. Thank God, Nolan didn’t drag Churchill in. Expand
10 of 20 users found this helpful1010
All this user's reviews
2
JeanJeanJeanJul 27, 2017
Boring. People boarding boats and drowning for 106 min. On top of that the sound is awful and irritating. I dont know what Nolan did but the movie is too loud and the effects sound totally fake.
9 of 18 users found this helpful99
All this user's reviews
0
MovieGuru69Oct 1, 2017
The most over hyped and dumbest movie of the year. If you want to see the same boring story told 3 different ways then this will be the perfect movie for you to see.
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
1
pdw123Aug 22, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well, you just know when you see only about 10% negative reviews, but then go to the actual reviews and see thoughtful people who have studied the history--but then it amounts to many more at 50% neg and mixed, that the studios are padding this with fake bots or something. Detroit was a great film that had the exact opposite issues than this--e.g., high percentage of neg ratings with only one or two actual thoughtful reviews in that direction. Certainly a teachable moment about what films are actually better ones and how to follow user reviews here on metacritic.

Where to even start with this? It is not and never will be the fine films Private Ryan or may favorite WWII film of all time, "The Thin Red Line". While I appreciate the newfangled stylized aspects with the noisy din of diving and strafing planes that makes you feel like you're actually there--the first scene where the aircraft bombs the soldiers on the beach, and then the beach is totally clean with no bodies must be one of the most ludicrous of all time. In subsequent scenes, yes, there are men's poignant screams where needed---esp. where a hull is being fired upon by who knows? also confusing, as we don't know if aircraft are strafing the hull or someone is outside--which would seem totally implausible if it were floating. When men are strafed on the bridge you would definitely expect to see a hella lot more carnage than what looks like men just blown off the thing antiseptically. Is this a new style of war filmmaking is the reason the critics were rating it so high--if the case, I'm not impressed nor with Nolan, whom I haven't thought much of in the past--another mainstream studio film affluent director.

I'm American, not British, so the dialog and story was truly a mess for me to decipher, so I just concentrated on the action, whatever. Actors should at least not mumble their lines and enunciate--if not, then we still need subtitles, Nolan.
Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
2
fmulhareAug 6, 2017
I guess I am an outlier here but I was very disappointed in this film.The narrative jumps around like a drunk kangaroo.Subplots are started and then abandoned about 20% of the way in to jump to another subplot only to abandon it 30% of theI guess I am an outlier here but I was very disappointed in this film.The narrative jumps around like a drunk kangaroo.Subplots are started and then abandoned about 20% of the way in to jump to another subplot only to abandon it 30% of the way in . Ever hear of ADD..well this director has it in spades!! Not only are we jumping from subplot to subplot but we are also jumping forwards and backwards in time within these various subplots.Basically this movie is a disjointed mess!!. Other than that it is perfectly fine!! Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
1
andreadavidedAug 18, 2017
That movie was boring and slow and every single character was instantly forgettable. Yawn. If you need a long piece of footage to help you fall asleep turn the volume down a bit and prepare for sweet dreams. SOPORIFIC.
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
3
arcubalAug 24, 2017
The least inspiring and dramatic of films by Nolan. The characters never developed and were cardboard and the entire exposition of the plot took place over such a short amount of time you left the theater wondering "Why did I waste my timeThe least inspiring and dramatic of films by Nolan. The characters never developed and were cardboard and the entire exposition of the plot took place over such a short amount of time you left the theater wondering "Why did I waste my time with a snapshot of these men trying to get off a beach?" Don't waste your time and rewatch 'Inception' instead. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
0
mrdollarMar 10, 2018
Reminds me of "Fury" movie failure of absolute nonsense with anti-gravity plane, even manage to destroy enemy fighter without fuel. Same as terminator tank in "Fury". Boring, 2 hour long over hyped and clearly bribed "professional" reviews.Reminds me of "Fury" movie failure of absolute nonsense with anti-gravity plane, even manage to destroy enemy fighter without fuel. Same as terminator tank in "Fury". Boring, 2 hour long over hyped and clearly bribed "professional" reviews. This movie was a lie and everyone should ask for a refund. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
0
xrararaMay 5, 2018
Movie was horrible. Obnoxiously loud and incredibly boring. The worst movie I have ever seen, even more disappointing because I love the Dark Knight.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
hiravJul 23, 2017
The movie is so slow. Watching the trailer you would expect action scenes in the movie but there is almost none. Its all one side is attaching and the other is defending. You almost feel in the beginning the director is setting up the movieThe movie is so slow. Watching the trailer you would expect action scenes in the movie but there is almost none. Its all one side is attaching and the other is defending. You almost feel in the beginning the director is setting up the movie nice for some nice action to follow but midway through the movie you realize that nothing has happened and apparently nothing is going to happen. The movie never picks up. It just fails. Expand
14 of 29 users found this helpful1415
All this user's reviews
3
rodreelJul 24, 2017
Many mistakes in the film; Fighter looses power with hundreds of men on the beach and by the time he lands dead stick there is no one. A fighter goes after a bomber and the scene shows a fighter. Many more errors.
Scenes switch in time and
Many mistakes in the film; Fighter looses power with hundreds of men on the beach and by the time he lands dead stick there is no one. A fighter goes after a bomber and the scene shows a fighter. Many more errors.
Scenes switch in time and place with no logic. Forward and backward in time is confusing.
Very disappointing. Came out of the theater shaking my head.
Expand
13 of 27 users found this helpful1314
All this user's reviews
0
corwin84Jul 31, 2017
Very boring and monotonous movie. Lack of good plot and strong idea (unlike great Interstellar and Inception). No sense of admiration afterwards. Utter disappointment from Nolan.
9 of 19 users found this helpful910
All this user's reviews
2
teamchaosJul 24, 2017
A movie that can only be endured. No plot. The same ship getting blown up (what? 4 times?). Almost left 1/2 way through but thought it had to get better. It didn't.
13 of 28 users found this helpful1315
All this user's reviews
1
dunkirkisbadJul 26, 2017
2 hours of annoying suspense music played over an incoherent shamble of scenes cello taped together in the wrong order. Recommend for children of all ages.
12 of 26 users found this helpful1214
All this user's reviews
1
Victor11Jul 25, 2017
Nolan you bore me tediously to death! I wasNolan you bore me tediously to death! I was zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzStay with Batman. Expand
11 of 24 users found this helpful1113
All this user's reviews
3
n8cv1996Jul 25, 2017
Dunkirk was absent of intellectual stimulation and was only visually impressive. The soundtrack was entertaining 1/3rd the way in but became very repetitive as the movie progressed. They relied so heavily on the soundtrack because of theDunkirk was absent of intellectual stimulation and was only visually impressive. The soundtrack was entertaining 1/3rd the way in but became very repetitive as the movie progressed. They relied so heavily on the soundtrack because of the complete lack of dialog and character development. Overall, this movie is ridiculously overrated and came up very short plot-wise with seriously underwhelming story-telling. Do NOT spend money for this movie, find a stream. But even as a stream, I wouldn't blame you if you just quit the stream and just moved on to the endless amount of better entertainment on the internet. Expand
10 of 22 users found this helpful1012
All this user's reviews
2
Corwin_of_AmberJul 24, 2017
Worst Nolan film to date. Critics are ridiculous, this film is really poor. No story, no action, nothing. I wish I had known that the ratings are purchased, sure I would not spend my money on this garbage.
14 of 31 users found this helpful1417
All this user's reviews
0
GenuineOpinionAug 12, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I went into this movie knowing absolutely nothing about it. I was very disappointed. I wasn't invested in any of the characters, seriously couldn't give a crap about anyone, especially the silent protagonist or boy who dies slowly from a whack on the head. The movie had every cliche and war trope. There is literally nothing that made this movie stand out. The ending was okay. Hammy, but a jolly, cheerful 'yay-we're-gonna-be-okay~~' type of ending. Too cheerful to be realistic. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
0
christiandfJul 26, 2017
Don't get all the good reviews. This is a bad movie. The first 20 minutes are really good, perhaps even the best of Nolan works. After it becomes a mess. Repetitions, bad character developments, excessive use of music (really annoying music),Don't get all the good reviews. This is a bad movie. The first 20 minutes are really good, perhaps even the best of Nolan works. After it becomes a mess. Repetitions, bad character developments, excessive use of music (really annoying music), bad storytelling, repetitions... We just don't care about the fate of the characters, I wanted them to all die because they were annoying. I Expand
11 of 25 users found this helpful1114
All this user's reviews
1
DrVarsimsJul 24, 2017
Not worth your time, let alone your money. You are better off reading the Wikipedia page, which has more information and is at least equally as entertaining if not more so. This movie lacks character development and characters for thatNot worth your time, let alone your money. You are better off reading the Wikipedia page, which has more information and is at least equally as entertaining if not more so. This movie lacks character development and characters for that matter. All of the scenes are very redundant showing: ships moving, ships sinking, people swimming, pilots flying, pilots crashing, people standing, people standing on boats, people running, people running off boats, people looking at each other and not saying anything, etc.. Just watch the last half hour of the movie if you think you really must see this. Expand
10 of 23 users found this helpful1013
All this user's reviews
0
FranKenweenieDec 5, 2017
im gonna be honest this one is nolan's worst movie between his famous movies such disappointing film the only reason this movie got high rate is nolan and harry style
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
0
sassyJul 25, 2017
Obviously no one connected with this movie knows history! Dunkirk ia famous not for ships being blown up but by the thousands of ordinary British citizens who at great peril took their small craft to rescue the stranded army, What a greatObviously no one connected with this movie knows history! Dunkirk ia famous not for ships being blown up but by the thousands of ordinary British citizens who at great peril took their small craft to rescue the stranded army, What a great movie this would have been had they concentrated on several of those stories!!!! Expand
11 of 27 users found this helpful1116
All this user's reviews
2
EludiumQ36Dec 23, 2017
I couldn't watch anymore than about half this boring a$$ film before I called time of death. However, I get that it was attempting to tell the "untold" stories and drama of that war or for any war for that matter. But that's for people thatI couldn't watch anymore than about half this boring a$$ film before I called time of death. However, I get that it was attempting to tell the "untold" stories and drama of that war or for any war for that matter. But that's for people that revel in the minutiae of life. Studio shills is my only explanation for all the 9s and 10s for this bore-fest. Save yourself the feeling of growing old while you attempt to watch this mess. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
3
TankironJul 22, 2017
Un largo y aburrido documental de la 2 que nos cuenta la historia de mucha gente esperando muy deprisa a que les saquen de una playa y de un niño que sufre un accidente, muere y le ponen como un héroe en el periódico de su pueblo....... porUn largo y aburrido documental de la 2 que nos cuenta la historia de mucha gente esperando muy deprisa a que les saquen de una playa y de un niño que sufre un accidente, muere y le ponen como un héroe en el periódico de su pueblo....... por cierto la banda sonora esta hecha con un reloj y una bocina Expand
9 of 23 users found this helpful914
All this user's reviews
0
TheVietnamAug 9, 2017
Christopher Nolan never disappoints. Dunkirk's incredible soundtrack and sound effects create the most realistic feel I have felt in a movie for a very long time and the lack of dialogue and character development may seem like a bad thing butChristopher Nolan never disappoints. Dunkirk's incredible soundtrack and sound effects create the most realistic feel I have felt in a movie for a very long time and the lack of dialogue and character development may seem like a bad thing but it actually adds to the gritty feel of the movie. There is absolutely nothing I can fault this movie on. Expand
5 of 13 users found this helpful58
All this user's reviews
2
Nobilis1984Aug 6, 2017
Can one say me what in him film should be so brilliant? I find him terribly dull. Nolan has delivered here right dung. besides, I have in for Batman: The dark Knight thus famed. Rather looks to you old anti-war films in.
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
0
NazguleroAug 21, 2017
I always found any Nolan movie nauseatingly unwatchable. It took me a while to figure out why: it is the lack of human emotion, the lack of emotional investment. It is almost like when you talk to a robot, there is no connection. This movieI always found any Nolan movie nauseatingly unwatchable. It took me a while to figure out why: it is the lack of human emotion, the lack of emotional investment. It is almost like when you talk to a robot, there is no connection. This movie is no different. You do not give a camel's behind about one of the actors. It is all very static, acted out. lifeless. Expand
5 of 14 users found this helpful59
All this user's reviews
0
deadDaddyAug 5, 2017
this movie is shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
5 of 14 users found this helpful59
All this user's reviews
0
mnementhJul 24, 2017
The biggest spoiler to the film is that it sucks. This is without any doubt the worst movie ever made because it tricks you so wonderfully and that's an amazing acehivement in and of itself. The trailer looked cool, right? Nolan is a reallyThe biggest spoiler to the film is that it sucks. This is without any doubt the worst movie ever made because it tricks you so wonderfully and that's an amazing acehivement in and of itself. The trailer looked cool, right? Nolan is a really cool director, right? Zimmer? Wow wow what a soundtrack we're gonna get...

Prepare to be disappointed. I can understand people's cognitive dissonance trying to come up with creative ideas why the movie didn't suck, but there's no question about it, no going around it, the film objectively unquestionably undeniably is a piece of junk. No story, awful directing, horrible editing, terrible trumpet deafening soundtrack... boring as hell - i'm sure all the good reviews are from people who feel asleep and dreamed about a good movie instead. This is the bottom worst of it all. There's rock bottom, 50 miles of **** then this.
Expand
10 of 29 users found this helpful1019
All this user's reviews
0
ST73Aug 5, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Where do we start with this lver rated "disaster" of a war movie....
Ok the royal navy had 41 or more ships in the area at the time... pretty sure no hospital ships where sunk...spitfires are not russian yak training aircraft with 75seconds of ammunition ...they carrried enough for 13seconds only! ...the german "messershmitt bf109e" are not these where spanish built bouchon fighters ...completly wrong profile.... a container port can be clearly seen ...too much emphasis on small boats which only accounted for 5% of the troops rescued..on the subject of small boats a few wearing modern clothes.. retreatkng from an invisable enemy....musical score was out of place and unjustified ....oh and spitfires could not have landed on a wet sandy beach the undercarraige is too narrow and the plane would've dug in....so much is wrkng with this movie ...where the critics getting nice bonuses?
Expand
6 of 18 users found this helpful612
All this user's reviews
2
GinevraOct 20, 2017
For the whole movie I felt like I was waiting for something to happen and then the movie ended and I was left with nothing. This movie gave me nothing, it doesn't have a point and it doesn't have a purpose. The only remarkable thing about itFor the whole movie I felt like I was waiting for something to happen and then the movie ended and I was left with nothing. This movie gave me nothing, it doesn't have a point and it doesn't have a purpose. The only remarkable thing about it was tom hardy's performance. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
1
andresfperezzOct 31, 2017
I totally hated it, it is disgusting and i think it should cancelled and i hope i never see it again because my eyes would bleed and i could die from a heart attack.
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
0
infinite_Jan 27, 2018
This is not the worst movie of Nolan, this is one of the 10 worst movies ever made in cinema history...
the real rate of this s*it is like 10/100 or 1/10 but i give it ""0"" because of millions of millions of fools around the world that rated
This is not the worst movie of Nolan, this is one of the 10 worst movies ever made in cinema history...
the real rate of this s*it is like 10/100 or 1/10 but i give it ""0"" because of millions of millions of fools around the world that rated this absolute s*it 10/10 !!!!!!
Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
0
LevelheadSep 15, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't know what movie the good reviews saw but it wasn't Dunkirk. The weaving timeline was unnecessary and confusing but the director had to put his stamp on the movie. Very little character development, my wife also said she could not identify with any of the characters. If you like action and no story (which is hard to do with this story) this is right up your alley. Fighter pilot scenes that drag on and on...only one captain's point of view...Really? I found the vision of this movie to be myopic and trite. A great story that was not flushed out, instead special effects and a director more interested in telling the story his way instead of telling a great story. The story needs no great direction just someone capable of telling a great story well. Expand
5 of 23 users found this helpful518
All this user's reviews
0
SRNathanfan279Jul 24, 2017
Figuring they're all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie),Figuring they're all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.SUICIDE SQUAD IS A LIVELY COMIC BOOK MOVIE – ALBEIT ONE THAT IS UNDERMINED BY PLOT HOLES AND UNEVEN EXECUTION OF ACTION, CHARACTER, AND COMEDY.If Marvel has the best superheroes, so the prevailing geek-logic goes, then DC has the coolest villains. So it’s only sensible they’re finally placed front, centre and in the firing line. Filling its entire super-team with previously unseen antagonists, Suicide Squad represents a Flash-speed sprint of a catch-up for the rapidly forming DC Cinematic Universe. And, on that front at least, it’s a real hoot. Expand
8 of 50 users found this helpful842
All this user's reviews
0
erikmc12Jun 7, 2018
A theosophical war movie: Nature is a clock... Nolan is god, and the soldiers... his puppets; 'igne natura renovatur integra'... sacrifice is necessary, but peace will come with the new world order...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
3ebfan511Jul 23, 2017
Over-rated, and disappointing. The first 15 minutes were decent, and then I was almost falling asleep for the rest of the movie. (I think I did in fact fall asleep it was so boring.) This was advertised as some kind of super exciting warOver-rated, and disappointing. The first 15 minutes were decent, and then I was almost falling asleep for the rest of the movie. (I think I did in fact fall asleep it was so boring.) This was advertised as some kind of super exciting war movie, and saving private ryan is one of my favorite movies ever, and I go and instead I get one of the most boring war movies ever. I don't even mind if there isn't much action, but then at least give me interesting characters and story (like the Thin Red Line, also one of my favorite movies where the characters daydream in the middle of battles for minutes and minutes but you get to actually know the characters and their lives etc....great film.) This film had a lack of compelling action, guys are pretty much just retreating and you see the same few types of shots over and over again for an hour. I saw about 3 planes the entire movie, (the same 3 planes) and the same 100 guys, and thats about it. I did not see a single enemy soldier in the ENTIRE FILM. Almost NO CHARACTER even has DIALOGUE. Almost every character is nameless and faceless, which is fine for the first 15 minutes when they are under direct diress, but at some point people will like, open their mouths and want to know things about each other and character should be revealed. Film had weak action, with guys on boats doing nothing, and then not even any dialogue. and the music itself should have been good if it actually matched the action on screen. It was like hearing the great music from the Dark Knight during a foreboding moment of action when you are expecting a climax....only to see no climax, ever, throughout the entire film, repeat process for 1 hour, and that is "Dunkirk". Horribly over-rated and not a very good war film being over-rated based on the directors past work. I would rate is as one of Nolan's worst films, and the only one that...made me actually fall asleep. Terrible writing, and the music did not match the (lack of) action. Sub-par and a disappointment overall compared to these mindless "great" reviews. It was OK, but that was about it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
raporgiJul 16, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. its like phuuking a hot chick only to find out its a frickin blow-up doll. Nice visuals but its too immaculate and sterile. you arent invested in the characters and by the movie's end you just dont give phuuck.Zimmer scores this like something was gonna happen but no. The Blitzkrieg was not shown so people with no familiarity with history have zero context to what was happening. Tom Hardy wears a Bane mask and has a weird accent again. This is the cinematic equivalent of constipation with no relief in sight. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Astor_May 25, 2018
I have never been a fan of war films. If the plot is good enough, I would still give it a go. This film took itself too seriously. It feels like a historical book. No notable interesting characters. I could not get into this. Sorry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews