“Dunkirk” Movie Review

Christopher Nolan is a remarkable filmmaker. As a writer and director, he is able to come up with bold, fresh and out-of-the-box concepts and give them a grand, larger than life treatment to execute a movie that is both refreshing in its subject matter and appealing for the sheer scale and spectacle of it all. With “Dunkirk”, he continues this trend and delivers a movie that feels new in more ways than one. Indeed, even as a Nolan movie, this one is different. “Dunkirk” doesn’t have an amazing twist or a challenging intellectual premise that would have you debating and analysing the movie for days, weeks or months on end. This is a straight forward story inspired by real events that took place in the initial years of World War II. But, consistent with other Nolan movies, the way these events have been brought to screen set it apart from other movies dealing with similar subjects, and the result is another cinematic experience which further cements Nolan’s mastery of his craft.

“Dunkirk” throws you right in the middle of the war with nothing more than three lines of text to set up the premise. The movie details the events that took place at the titular location, where more than four hundred thousand British soldiers along with French soldiers were essentially sitting ducks for the enemy. The story is told in three parts – the land, which focuses on the events that take place at the beach; the water, which follows the efforts of civilian boats and the navy to come to the aid of the soldiers; and the air, which looks at the events through the eyes of air force pilots who are taking on the destroyer planes attacking the Allied soldiers and ships.

To call “Dunkirk” a war movie would be inaccurate in a sense – it defies pretty much all of the conventions of the genre. There is no backstory to any of the characters and very little dialogue, which is typically used to make us care for the characters and root for them (this feels true to life – you don’t expect people in such situations to take time out to narrate their life story). There is no villainizing of the opposing side, and literally no face given to the enemy – I’m pretty sure there was not a single shot of the face of a German soldier. There are no flying limbs or gory scenes which are a staple of most war movies – in fact, come to think of it, there is hardly any blood in the movie. Despite all this, or maybe because of it, the movie captures the feel of war in a way not many war movies have – the dread, the fear, the helplessness, the unfair nature of it all; and at the same time the heroism, the will to survive and humanity in the face of adversity. One of the few criticisms I have heard on the movie is that viewers may not be able to emotionally invest in the proceedings, but I don’t share that opinion. I was completely immersed in the proceedings, and the brutal relentlessness of what the characters endure had me tense and at the edge of my seat throughout. This is more a story of survival, which is what I would imagine being on the front is for a soldier.

The screenplay is non-linear along with being told from three different points of view over different timelines, and it can throw you as you try to tie the proceedings. It works to create the confusion and sense of disorientation adding to the experience, though I’m not sure everyone would appreciate it. The sense of urgency, the constant dread and the rising tension as the storylines clash together in a climax that is so rewarding – the writing effectively captures all of this. And full marks to Hans Zimmer, who once again collaborates to take Nolan’s work to another level – the crescendo of the soundtrack is just perfect for this movie.

The acting from the younger, inexperienced actors wasn’t bad, but I felt it could have been better in the hands of more seasoned performers. It’s the big names in the smaller roles who create the lasting impact. Since the air force pilot is mostly in a mask, the obvious choice is Tom Hardy – and as he proved before, being covered by a mask for all but one scene doesn’t get in the way of a brilliant performance. Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and Cillian Murphy are also perfect, and add so much to the movie despite limited screen time.

But of course, the crowd-puller is Christopher Nolan. He is one of the few film makers whose works are a cinematic event that demands big screen viewing. If you haven’t seen even one of his movies post “Batman Begins” in the theatre, you have missed something. “Dunkirk” feels like what all his previous movies have been leading up to cinematically. From a technical standpoint, the movie is a masterpiece. The visuals, the sound, the practical effects with almost no CG (which in itself is an achievement), all of it create an experience which unsettles the viewer and makes the tension palpable. I could literally feel the claustrophobia in most of the scenes. With most of the movie being shot in IMAX, the movie offers up a visual treat – if you can watch it in an IMAX screen, I would highly recommend it. Even if you aren’t really particular, the bigger screen will add to the experience. I have to give special mention the dogfight scenes, which are easily the best I’ve seen put to film – it makes Top Gun look like a cartoon.

In case you haven’t figured it out already, I highly recommend the movie. While it may not necessarily tick all the boxes for everyone, it is a movie which showcases the talents of a master craftsman who is at the top of his game. “Dunkirk” is a worthy addition to his already impressive filmography, and for that alone, it deserves a watch.