Dunkirk
The events of the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 are told through three narrative strands, the air (covering an hour), the sea (covering a day) and the land (covering a week).
This film exhausted me. I saw it in IMAX at the Cineworld in Leicester Square. I thought IMAX was basically a gimmick. Here it completely immersed me in the film and sharpened its remarkable soundscape, as the loudest of gunfire seems to rain down from all sides. I heard someone say "You feel like you're in the cockpit with Tom Hardy" and that's not too far from the truth.
I thought Mark Rylance was particularly terrific as the epitome of stoic British heroism, manning a pleasure boat commissioned by the Navy to help with the evacuation. One Direction's Harry Styles puts in a solid performance in in his acting debut, although something tells me that playing a young man bewildered by pressure and scrutiny might not have been an enormous leap for him. At the end, there's no moment of triumph for the protagonists. It's a snapshot of one particular moment of the war, with a refreshing conclusion.
Christopher Nolan's last film "Interstellar" had an intriguing premise but collapsed into an illogical mess in the final act of its bloated two and a half hour running time. This film is a stark contrast. It's tight, tense, gripping, moving and utterly compelling. My boss (having not seen the film) said its 1 hour, 40 minute run time was too short for a war movie. But a film being long is not the same as it being good. As anyone who sat through any of the three Lord of the Rings pictures would attest. I'm not sure I want to see Dunkirk again, at least in the short term, because of the draining effect it had on me. But it's an outstanding work and I suspect the film of the year.
This film exhausted me. I saw it in IMAX at the Cineworld in Leicester Square. I thought IMAX was basically a gimmick. Here it completely immersed me in the film and sharpened its remarkable soundscape, as the loudest of gunfire seems to rain down from all sides. I heard someone say "You feel like you're in the cockpit with Tom Hardy" and that's not too far from the truth.
I thought Mark Rylance was particularly terrific as the epitome of stoic British heroism, manning a pleasure boat commissioned by the Navy to help with the evacuation. One Direction's Harry Styles puts in a solid performance in in his acting debut, although something tells me that playing a young man bewildered by pressure and scrutiny might not have been an enormous leap for him. At the end, there's no moment of triumph for the protagonists. It's a snapshot of one particular moment of the war, with a refreshing conclusion.
Christopher Nolan's last film "Interstellar" had an intriguing premise but collapsed into an illogical mess in the final act of its bloated two and a half hour running time. This film is a stark contrast. It's tight, tense, gripping, moving and utterly compelling. My boss (having not seen the film) said its 1 hour, 40 minute run time was too short for a war movie. But a film being long is not the same as it being good. As anyone who sat through any of the three Lord of the Rings pictures would attest. I'm not sure I want to see Dunkirk again, at least in the short term, because of the draining effect it had on me. But it's an outstanding work and I suspect the film of the year.
Comments
Post a Comment