Dunkirk Review

I saw Dunkirk in IMAX on saturday, and after collecting my thoughts, I’m ready to share them with whoever actually reads my ramblings. I earlier stated that I hoped that this film would be a return to form for Christopher Nolan, since I didn’t like Intersetellar that much. I definitely can’t say Interstellar is a bad film, I just didn’t like it as much as his previous works. After seeing Dunkirk, Inception remains my favourite Christopher Nolan film. The Prestige and The Dark Knight might also edge out Dunkirk but it is nevertheless an engaging and brilliantly executed film.

Dunkirk is Nolan’s dramatization of the Dunkirk evacuation, where Allied Forces were trapped in northern France. Military and civilian boats were then enlisted or requisitioned to evacuate the Allied Forces to England. Dunkirk focuses on three different narratives: land, sea and air. Fionn Whitehead stars as Tommy, an army private. Tom Hardy stars as Farrier, a British pilot and Mark Rylance stars as Mr. Dawson, a civilian heading to Dunkirk. The movie cuts between the three different stories, and the stories intersect more as the film progresses. None of the characters are directly based on historical figures, but some are meant to be composites.

I hate to focus on a film’s visuals, but it must be said that Dunkirk is a beautiful film. I saw the film in IMAX on 70mm, so that probably gave an enhanced experience. Aside from the film’s clarity, it must also be praised for its cinematography and minimal use of CGI. Everything from the planes, ships, explosions etc. are all practical, or at least look like they are all practical effects. There is nothing wrong with CGI in itself, but a film like this benefits from minimal use since you want to be immersed in the history that is being depicted. Nolan succeeds in building and maintaining tension, making you as anxious as the characters as they try to survive one attack after another. Perhaps IMAX made me notice more as well, but I also have to add that the sound effects and sound mixing were masterfully done, recreating everything from the infamous sirens of the German stuka planes to the explosions that are replete throughout the film.

One criticism that has popped up when discussing the film online or with friends, is that the characters were not well-developed. Mark Rylance’s character probably gets the most back story and dialogue, but Whitehead and Hardy both have relatively sparse offerings. However, I didn’t realize this until other people pointed it out. Dunkirk was able to make me invested in characters that were not that fleshed out. The story was enough to keep me interested, and I saw each character as representative of millions of other soldiers’s fear and hopes during Dunkirk. Dunkirk is Whitehead’s debut role, and he does well with his limited time. I was pleasantly surprised by Harry Styles, who arguably steals the spotlight from Whitehead during some scenes. Christopher Nolan says he wasn’t aware of Styles’s fame before casting him and I am willing to say that all of my worries about Styles’s involvement proved to be unwarranted. Fortunately, I also didn’t have to deal with any screaming One Direction fans in the theatre. Kenneth Branagh is somewhat infamous for chewing scenery at times, but he is a stand out here in a more understated performance as Navy Commander Bolton. Cillian Murphy also deserves honourable mention as a shellshocked soldier eager to get back home. There are several other characters introduced throughout and they all form a necessary part of the film’s fabric.

A less capable director could have made Dunkirk dull and repetitive. When you really think about it, the film just depicts one attack after another, with relatively little dialogue between. However, Nolan is able to craft a story of survival that is visceral, entertaining and memorable.

Dunkirk and Harry Styles

Batman Begins was my first Christopher Nolan film, a film that I later discovered marked his transition into high-budget blockbusters. The Dark Knight became one of my favourite films, thanks in large part to Heath Ledger’s performance as my favourite fictional character. Afterwards, I went back to Memento and then added Inception to my favourites list. The Dark Knight Returns and Interstellar were both disappointments, but only disappointing when compared to Nolan’s previous work.

When I heard Christopher Nolan was doing a World War II film it became one of my most anticipated films of 2017. The teaser and the subsequent trailer still managed to exceed my expectations and affirm my belief that this would be a triumphant return to form. However, I couldn’t help but detect one drop of poison in the cauldron. The YouTube comments on the trailers were hijacked by One Directioners, proclaiming their love for Harry Styles and saying that their baby better not die in the film. A co-worker mentioned that Harry Styles was in the film, but I hoped that his role was a small one that would not overshadow Dunkirk. I still don’t know how big Styles’s role as “Alex” is, but the billing online makes it seem like it is pretty significant.

Although I personally loathe (trying to cut down on the use of the word ‘hate’) One Direction I didn’t want to let that hamper my perception of Styles. I have seen actors come from unlikely backgrounds and nail major performances. At one point, people probably thought it was ridiculous that The Fresh Prince would have Oscar-nominated roles. However, the horde of One Directioners that this film is apparently attracting does bring up some concerns.

Firstly, I bet most of the One Directioners barely know anything about World War II, or even care about the story itself. They just want to see their hubby on screen. I like to think of Daisy Ridley as my wife-to-be but there is no way I would watch two hours of a story I have no interest in just to see her on screen. I have never understood this level of fan worship, and I honestly think it represents the worst of fandom. As a matter of fact, the only time I would watch a film just for an actor is if I appreciate their acting talent. I saw Shame simply because Michael Fassbender was in it, but I also had some interest in the story. As much as I love Fassbender, I still avoided Asssasin’s Creed like the plague.

An even bigger issue with Styles is that his addition in this film seems so, for lack of a better word, random. Was his audition truly so spellbinding that it beat all of the competition? There wasn’t a single other talented actor with the right age and look? A co-worker argued that must be the case if he got selected, and part of me hopes that logic holds true. Nolan isn’t Michael Bay, he doesn’t hire actors just because they’re hot or marketable. Yet why was Style’s, an unproven acting commodity, casted before actors like Cillian Murphy? I’m seeing Dunkirk on saturday and if Styles’s performance is anything short of spectacular then I will continue to wonder why I had to see him on screen, while surrounded by screaming Directioners.

Inglorious Bastards Review

Originally Posted on July 15, 2009

Critical Value: 8.5/10 Entertainment Value: 9/10

Set in an alternate reality of World War II, Inglorious Basterds tells the story of a group of Jewish American soldiers known as “The Basterds” who are on a mission to kill Nazis in France, as well as a Jewish runaway who survived the massacre of her family.

The word is normally spelled Bastard, but Tarantino told David Letterman, that Basterds, “is the Tarantino way of spelling it.”

Tarantino’s newest film shows why Quentin Tarantino is as popular as he is today. Not popular in a Michael Bay way, for giving cheap thrills, but by also causing his audience to think while also entertaining them with violent and thrilling action sequences.

The acting is excellent for the most part. Those who judged the movie from the trailer may have been repulsed by Brad Pitt’s southern accent. It does sound unusual at first but by his second scene you become accustomed to it since Pitt does a great job of portraying the character. Christoph Waltz, who received praise at the Cannes Film Festival for his role of Hans Landa, is definitely worthy of such praise. His character is nicknamed “the Jew Hunter” in the movie, and is able to come off as sinister, intelligent and charming all at once. Although he was an enemy character he may become many people’s favourite.

One complaint is that “The Basterds” could have been developed more. It was not a personal complaint, but some may not be able to get attached to the characters with the lack of back story for many of them. However, each Basterd brings charisma and presence to the screen for the few minutes when they are on.

Some complain that Inglorious Basterds is a German bashing film, however, one of the main Allied companions is a German. Also, the film tends to bash Hitler the most, anyone offended by that should not be allowed out of their home. As stated before, many of the Bastards also speak German, so the language itself is not mocked. Tarantino’s script also much more credibility due to the use of foreign languages to portray foreign characters. Many parts of the film are subtitled, when characters speak either German or French.

Some may have a problem with this but it is tiresome to see foreign characters portrayed by American or even British ones who do not speak the local language. The subtitles also do not distract from the film’s action since they are never used in the midst of an action sequence. Some may also have a problem with the formatting of the movie, similar to Pulp fiction the story is divided into different sections. The different sections or “chapters” are all related but unlike Pulp Fiction, they are told in chronological order. Bastards, in my opinion, is better than Kill Bill and even Pulp Fiction. Although I liked Kill Bill, I don’t believe it compares to this film.

Even those who do not typically like Tarantino’s work may be impressed with it. The film does have a lot of dialogue, so those expecting constant cheap thrills will probably be disappointed. Also, those who can not stand changes to historical facts, even when such changes are intentional, may be bothered by the film. However, those who want great action as well as great acting and writing, Inglorious Basterds is a must see.