An Honest Review of Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk'
Saw Christopher Nolan's World War II film Dunkirk Saturday and it is the lamest of all of his films, surprisingly. Very safe. More of a fall or winter movie. Great cinematography. Heavy British accents alienated me. Should have included subtitles. 90% of my collection of almost 2500 movies are subtitled so I don't have a problem with foreign films whatsoever. Dunkirk seemed very dull and kept me waiting for "the moment" up until the anticlimactic ending. Very little action. Actually, what you see in the movie's trailer concentrates all of the action in the entire film. Like I said, the acting was very good, the cinematography as well, just don't go in with any expectations along the magnitude of Saving Private Ryan as far as characters that are memorable and an engaging plot which I found as flat as a warm beer that's been left out overnight.
Now, I know there are those who are going to have a bias for anything with Nolan's name on it, and believe me, I wanted to leave the theater as giddy as I was going in; actually, I went because Nolan directed it and I respected his talent way before most of his current fans, all the way back to 'Following', his 1st film which came out in '98 (I saw the film in '00) and have been among his most devoted fans since. But Dunkirk is a dud and this will bear itself out in the next 2 weeks as you will see my claim reflected in its free fall in the box office. The film is better suited for fall or winter than it is for the summer because of its pace. It is definitely not a war movie in the sense of what I am accustomed to seeing in a war movie, particularly because there is very little war rather than suspense. I didn't want to go into the plot here as there are places you can go such as Wikipedia or Rotten Tomatoes to get this info plus I wanted to enjoy the film without my pen and notepad. As it turned out for Dunkirk, neither were needed. Look forward to his next film.
