ThemeCrafter264 wrote:Dunkirk - 7.5/10
I was slightly underwhelmed with the film but it was still quite a good film. I've seen better films but certainly not the worst. Harry Styles felt like he was placed there because he was Harry Styles, thus making him feel a bit of a distraction. The CGI was once again like Wonder Woman a bit poor and at times felt really obvious. Historically, it was fairly accurate but it would have been nicer to have a stronger story displayed in the film, with a bigger focus on individual characters.
I know its a topic for reviews but after seeing it I'll just give my opinion and comments about it and the above quote.
So the film was according to Nolan never going to be a story driven epic war film like Saving Private Ryan. It is perhaps one of his shortest movies to date and it is intended to solely focus on the allied forces stranded on the beach and ships coming to their aid. It lacks characters & dialogue on the whole but I think that's fine. It's a suspenseful film showing the horror and uncertainty the brave soldiers faced. I personally loved that you hardly saw the Germans but knew they were an ever present threat slowly surrounding them.
Harry Styles was actually far less annoying as I'd imagined, if it was a cheesy cameo like Rihanna then I'd be a bit annoyed but it wasn't.
I disagree with the comment about the CGI being as obvious as Wonder Woman, Nolan prefers to use practical effects and he said this movie is one in which he can't even remember which scenes made use of CGI because of the lack of them. They replicated Spitfires, used real pyro explosions, had 6,000 extras rather than a mass farm of clones & authentic military vehicles as well as filming at Dunkirk itself. Wonder Woman was just a CGI cheese fest of bad.
It was a good movie technically which brought history to life.