He gave Interstellar "good time, no alcohol required" and that, if I'm not mistaken is a positive review. If he gave this movie that rating, it would be alright if that's what he honestly thought.
I honestly felt connected to all the characters even though we don't know their names. They were just kids trying to survive, that was enough to have me hooked.
The whole point of this film was to show the event not the characters. It was realistic because the characters wouldn't have been talking about their lives at home because they were to busy trying to survive. Also the editing wasn't bad it was the whole point of the films timeline, because it was told in 3 different perspectives which take place in different periods of time which overlap at the ending
David I was just stating what the narrative structure of the film was. At no point did I say that this means you have to think it’s a good film. It’s a matter of preference.
Alen S a documentary would probably contain a lot of factual information about Dunkirk, which is good, however a lot less people would watch it compared to an actual film, having it a film means that the film has a wider audience and more budget to make it so it’s probably best they made it a film, and the narrative structure is unique and something that wouldn’t make sense to do in a documentary
Have to disagree with some of this review. I'm actually glad there's no cliche campfire scene where everyone is talking about back home and how hot their girlfriends or wives are. I feel like that would be too out of place for the film. As Chris said in his review, it's about the event, not the people. Everybody is a nameless soldier just trying to survive. No heroics or anything. That being said, I still think Tom Hardy did an amazing performance considering he was wearing a mask for a full 3/4th of the movie. You could see the desperation in his eyes and I really rooted for him.
harry styles wasnt that bad either, my only issue was the kid you get to see in the beginning, his facial expressions always weirded me out and felt unfitting
I wonder it being a British ww2 story that maybe some Americans just might not be connecting to it cos they are used to their type of ww2 stories where it's more about the characters with their campfire stories rather than the intensity of being put into this war and just wanting to go home
I can see where he's coming from but I think Jeremy's missing the point. It wasn't supposed to be some overly emotional war story with great heroes and explosive last stands. It was to show you the evacuation of Dunkirk in the most realistic way possible. Christopher noland was right to have very little dialogue, it made you focus on what was happening instead of the characters and their little back stories and personalities that in the end don't matter. It forces you to focus on the sights and sounds you see before you, the dogfights, the stuck dive bombers and their terrifying screeches, the near drownings, the gunshots, and the feeling amongst the soldiers of utter defeat and hopelessness as the enemy closes in and watching as your means of escape are sunk before your eyes all while home is right their, a few miles across the English Channel.
I completely understand his point, if you don't get on board, you do lose out in a movie like this. I was close to at times. Particularly the ending when it tends to wrap up pretty quickly. Definitely Not nolans best movie and this from a big fan of his work and Hans Zimmer too. But it wasn't a bad film at all. I just think it could have used a more accurate portrayal of Dunkirk. For one, there wasn't enough men on the beach. (At first I was okay, because I thought this was meant to represent a small section of the beach) but now looking at it, it does seem a bit odd. And secondly, the beach was too clean. And so was the city. Could have maybe added to it more if there craters and destroyed ships everywhere, destroyed city. Could have added to the tension Nolan was going for. Because it was apparent to me, that Nolan was trying to give the illusion of an impending force. You never see the German soldiers till the end, they're allusive for the whole movie yet ominous. (Kind of like the jaws method of never actually seeing the monster, makes you fear it more) So seeing the devastation, it might have added to the chaos But perhaps Nolan wanted to lower the scale of the film to make it digestible. I'm not sure.
Hmm realistic? Nothing about the French that fought till the end suffering a lot of casualties to save the rossbifs.The city of Dunkirk doesn't look really bad in fact it doesn't seem that It has been bombarded heavily.The little boats only evacuated 6000people out of 400000 while in the movie it seems like the turning point of the evacuation.If you knew history it would be better so don't say that Nolan was ment to show an historically accurate representation of the real story
I feel you. I like films with stories and characters with arcs. Empathy isn't enough, I want to sympathize with them, that I might shed a tear. Even recent visceral/participatory films like Gravity and The Revenant had an actual story and some character development. Sounds like this movie could have been stronger with such.
I felt emotions due to scenes in this movie, like when the flotilla of small boats showed up, and the soldiers cheered them on, or when Tom Hardy shot down the Ju-87 that was going to kill everyone on the bridge which caused the soldiers on the beach to cheer again as they saw their Spitfire fly past. It doesn't have to be characters deaths that get me to cry. I thought it was a breath of fresh air to deviate from the "Character is a personal hero" story and focus more on the characters don't matter, the event does.
You're comment would be more forceful if you understood the meaning of both empathy and sympathy. As you have got them completely mixed. For example, I can sympathize with people who need to be spoon fed a weepy narrative to underatand a movie but I can't really empathize with it because i just can't imagine being that stupid
+First Galactic Empire I too felt a sense of triumph and salvation during that same scene, but alas, it was the only time in the film and at the end. I had the same feels during the end sequence on Call of Duty 1. And yet, I still didn't care or know the characters or nameless soldiers. And at no time did anyone's actions move me in any way. As short as the film was, it could have had a bit of room for characterization and internal conflict. It didn't need a 'hero' story either. It could have been one of redemption. I think this may take the reigns as my least favorite Nolan film, as I pretty much stopped even thinking about it after I walked out of the theater. Search: *Call of duty 1 ending HD*
Dick Nasty Agreed. It seems like people are rooting for the lowest form of story telling just because Nolan's name attached to it. Cinerama had some story less films decades ago just to sell an event or spectacle and look what happened to them. This whole viewer experienced cinema could very well just be another trend just like 3D has come and gone before. We might just be seeing a resurgence. But even Cinerama's biggest hits had some story elements. How the West was Won and 2001: A Space Odyssey for example.
TLDR: The movie was meant to show the peril and types of situation the people faced in Dunkirk I believe the lack of dialogue was intentional. The movie focuses on three different plots that may have actually occured on Dunkirk. We weren't meant to see these characters as unique individuals because they were meant to resemble the idea that they could have been anyone. And I think the situations being hard to follow didnt matter because what matters is that these people were in a dangerous situation of great intensity. But this is all just my opinion.
Arcadio Castellanoz that must be a first, I don't recall another movie review without a score, here I was kinda expecting a no alcohol required and then.....punched screen and I'm like ....ok..........weird.
Arcadio Castellanoz Jeremy's never been a fan of giving scores. He said that in the video breaking down what his scores were. This is a case of that, I guess.
Rahul Varma it is what he used to do. Jeremy had said several times that he hates rating movies because that makes people ignore everything else he said in the review and judge it solely by the rating. Personally i don't mind him not giving ratings but a lot of people told him it was important so eventually he started doing it
I can understand not liking the movie...hell not every movie is for every person, but idk how anyone can call it boring. I was sweating in my seat through the whole damn thing.
Well I was feeling a lot of emotion by the end. I thought it had a nice juxtaposition between good and evil. However art is subjective so I dont expect everyone to agree.
And that's exactly what it was supposed to be, to let us experience it. Wikipedia has the story. News are full of stories of horrific events, which we read/listen/view while eating, driving or taking a shit :)
Personally, I have to disagree. I think Dunkirk was an amazing movie. Tech-wise, this movies sound design, combined with the killer soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, and the amazing cinematography, made this one of the best movies of the past few years. Very little dialogue removed the problem of a character driven movie, and the choice to tell the story in stories was a great choice by Christopher Nolan.
I thumbed this down after initially watching but after coming to my senses, realized we are subscribed to you for your opinion. not for our preconceived thoughts on a movie to be fulfilled. we can't be angry if you have your own thoughts. it's why we subscribed in the first place
Thank you, when it comes to movie reviews on RUclips it seems like viewers no longer care about hearing someone express their (Possibly different) opinion on a movie, they wanna hear that reviewer say exactly what we thought of it, like “I thought this movie was awesome so I wanna hear this guy talk about how awesome it is” or “I thought this movie was terrible so I wanna hear this guy talk about how terrible it is” but that’s not the point of reviews, they’re for that 1 individual to express his own personal thoughts on the movie, regardless if it aligns with yours or not
Chris Wong-Swenson seriously he is wrong..aerial shots are unbelievable and take us in to war....no talking but itz okay with it this movie doesn't need characters...itz now became second fav war movie
Totally respect your point of view and glad that you stuck to your guns. Your review and honest opinion makes me want to watch the movie even more and form my own opinion. Thank you, Jeremy!
3:05 This was my problem with the movie. It starts off with tension and then most of it is people ... "doing" things. It had just enough suspense and just enough stellar shots to keep me watching, although I'd say barely...
It shouldn't be... I really love the movie, but that editing was my one gripe. It really did bother me in the final climax part. I was really confused if I had already seen Tom Hardy shoot down that final plane. And that is on the editing. A lot of it really worked but it was my main flaw
The whole 3 perspectives and their duration was what made it so confusing. The mole takes place over a whole week, the sea over a day and the air within an hour all leading up to the final moments in a non-linear fashion which was confusing at times. Then flashbacks were thrown in from certain characters into the story and as everything is leading to those final moments I wasn't sure who was where or when things were happening which adds to that. Sure it was confusing at times, but to handle a non-linear timeline like that is rather impressive (or at least interesting) to condense 3 stories that span from a week to one hour.
Herman Falck How I had no issues following everything cliqued for me immediately and when I saw it a second time you can really tell how well everything gels, although I may have been exaggerating the oscars thing but I see where you are coming from!
Jaydan Olive I can see how one finds it confusing but I was never lost and part of the reason I was so engaged was to watch all the timelines collide and see whatever one was doing during this time with a fresh new take
I didn't have issues either, though I thought it was linear until it became night and Cillian Murphy popped up, but I liked the "... Aaaaah I see" moment. Plus Nolan explained that the purpose of the editing was to give a similar feel that Memento gives: you only know what the characters know from their perspective (which changes during the end as the perspectives and time collide). Also I second seeing it the second time, you really see things you didn't notice before or think they were important, which is part of the perspective thing Nolan wanted to create.
I'm glad you're being entirely honest Jeremy and I respect you for it, but I just thought I'd explain why I disagree, with no hate whatsoever lol. I don't know if my British pride is getting in the way but I found myself undeniably attached to all the characters involved? I felt there was no room for character development and if there was it would have been very out of place. Like imagine being in this life or death situation and then randomly asking the other guy his life story. I think the focus on the actual event rather than the characters is what helped make this movie so great. I think the lack of character depth aided this movie as it showed the true brutalities, and bare human instinct of ww2 and how whoever you were back home, did not matter. we were all equals for once in a world of hierarchies, a coming together of the people to survive.
emma Unfortunately, the lack of American patriotism, bravado, dialogue and heavy action sequences bored some people. Clamoring through RUclips reviews of dunkirk, people who disliked the movie were either bored or confused. Confusion stemmed from being a fucking idiot. Boredom stemmed from the aforementioned lack of dialogue, lack of heavy action and barren character development. If the characters were American, a bit more bombastic and there was some more cgi then this movie would've appealed to them. Even though my opinion seems rather illogical and narrow minded, as I scrolled through the videos, people who disliked the movie generally couldn't put an articulate sentence together and LOVED superhero movies. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be American. The palate for great cinema and the emotional intelligence to comprehend such a dire situation seem to be sternly absent from the American mind. Americans have been conditioned into yearning for mindless action and fantastical characters. Dunkirk really should have a societal consensus on how great it is, but alas the Hollywood machine and American education ruins it.
Jinha Choi lol I don't appreciate the angry vibes you're throwing my way, I just said I liked the movie, never called out anyone who didn't - we all have our own opinions
I completely agree with you, Jeremy. Great looking movie that I couldn't care less about. There was one scene that I really liked, and it was when Scarecrow (you know who I mean) asked if the boy, who was already dead, would be okay and the blondie told him yes because he realized that guy already had enough on his conscience. But other than that, meh. I probably would've loved this movie if it came out in 2009, but Nolan has the tendency not to live up to his own standards. After Inception and Interstellar... I dunno, I was expecting a bit more.
That's not what he said at all. He never said realistic movies don't work. He said a movie won't work just because it's realistic. There's a big difference.
I think it's fuckn stupid that yall are arguing against Jeremy for his opinion on the movie, EVEN after what he says at 4:10. If he's supposed to kiss the movie's ass just cos some of yall liked it and want it that way? Then how is that a review?
This movie felt like something you'd watch on history channel (not a bad thing) and that it needs a narrator. Jeremy isn't wrong for what he said. This should be expected if "the whole event is the main character."
I get how so many critics are calling this movie a masterpiece, but in the future you shouldn't shy away from giving a movie,irrespective of what everyone says, your personal rating just because it may differ from the popular vote. That defeats the whole point of the channel. If people agree with you, awesome. If they don't, it's still awesome. These different perspectives that audiences have is what makes the whole movie discussion all the more interesting for film lovers like yourself.
I think it’s because in terms of the toxicity of the RUclips comment sections it seems like RUclips has become the place where different opinions go to die
I don't watch these for validation of my opinion on a movie I haven't seen. I watch them to get an honest non-spoiler review by someone that I have a pretty good idea what their taste in film is. Agree or not, I want honesty. If I want idol worship I'll join a religion. Keep up the great work, Jeremy.
Im a Nolan fan, there was so much to love about this movie. But I agree with everything Jeremy said! That & the beach didn't look like it had 400,000 soldiers on it & all the buildings were clean & intact at Dunkirk. Didn't look or feel like a lost hope warzone at all
To be honest, I agree with Jeremy. I had read reviews of the film before watching it, most of them positive reviews. I went to see the movie and I couldn't help but feel bored as well. It's not that I "didn't get it" I understand a lot of elements the movie brought like not completely focusing on a character because this is war, and I was looking for the good stuff the reviews were talking about as well and there was some nice things, but I couldn't help feeling bored. I watched Jeremy's video after watching the film and I honestly couldn't agree more. It is honestly hard to make a good story without truly caring or connecting with the characters. Just one man's opinion. Don't hate him or me for it.
I finally got the chance to watch Jeremy Jahns review because I don't watch reviews til after I post my own. I don't understand why so many people are giving him hate about his opinion. First off it's just that, his opinion. It's also his channel so he can do whatever he wants. He can give a rating or not give a rating if he wants. Honestly everything he mentions in this review I agree with. I completely understand his viewpoint on this film. I can also see why people may like it. However, I agree with Jeremy and didn't care for this movie.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I think the lack of well developed characters is intentional. In a war, especially a retreat like Dunkirk, there isn't time for people to stand above or for singular heroes to really stand out, it's just acting on impulse and getting as many people out as you can
I never said that. Saving Private Ryan was obviously about the characters more than the event, hell just look at the title. Dunkirk is supposed to be a purely visceral experience that focuses on the event and the desperation of the country as a whole rather than the individual people during the event. Obviously I can't speak about the quality of the film as a whole because I haven't seen it yet, but I can still know what the intent was when bringing it to the big screen.
Nolan himself said he just wanted guys. Guys you didn't know, guys you didn't know what to expect. Even his casting choices like Harry Styles. All intentional.
DoubleOscar fucking love fans if it's a Nolan movie... 'no well developed characters but don't worry IT'S INTENTIONAL'... LITERALLY no other director gets excuses like Nolan movies
At this point I've pre-ordered my tickets. So my goal in watching this video is to find the mentality and expectation needed to enjoy the movie most. Thanks to Jahns for warning what not to expect, and to Stuckmann for illustrating the mindset for appreciating the films strengths, I've got the best shot I can at getting my money's worth.
I'm there with you, Jeremy. I didn't know who any of these characters were nor any of thier backstories there it make it very difficult for me to care about any of them and thus made it less intense.
I saw it in IMAX earlier was blown away with the intense parts. The whole movie I was like ahhhhhhh. As far as the characters go I kind of liked them being unfocused because it gives a layer of ambiguity
now try to see it without the cinema effect without ..... lie effect movie = story movie = the speed and plot twist on how u say that story movie = acting movie = creativity+imagine movie = action movie = emotion and connecting with actors movie = logic and realistic movie = cinematography and camera angel not movie = good audio ! that`s a song thing ...that`s a night club thing when people start talking about this movie they all start saying AUDIO that`s just a failure going to cinema is awesome ur happy be cause ur in cinema not be cause the movie its like a party u don`t know or hear the dj but u know that girl over there is hot and she be come ur wife u don`t come and tell me that dj is the best dj u ever heard in ur life be cause at his party u find ur wife -_-ُ
I get where you're coming from but that is only half true. There are a ton of "well made" films that have boring plots but great visuals, fantastic dialogue but shallow characters. Nearly EVERYTHING in film is subjective. It all depends on the individual and where their taste lies. Just like art, music, etc.
These comments act like most people in the world have the opinion that film is not subjective. Stop acting like most people are butt hurt by this video, 99% of people commenting have the same opinion as you do.
Back in my day, people subscribed to online reviewers because they wanted to hear their opinion instead of today where they sub to them because they want to seek validation for a movie they love.
That is called "Confirmation Bias".. its everywhere these days.. u only want to see the content/news/reports which satisfies your preconceived opinions..
I was a huge fan of this movie. But I was also a huge fan of your review. Thank you for disagreeing and not being afraid to go against the grain. You made me respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Well done.
Jeremy: "do they have wives? Families? Kids? I want to hear them talk about it!" Chris: "I'm so happy there wasn't a dumb scene of them sitting around a campfire like 'who do you got back home?'" Hmm chris seems to be in the lead🤔
Miles Kenney Are you expecting them to have the same views on individual movies? Or are you saying that just because Chris said something you agreed on, makes his review greater than Jeremy's? Because either one of those situations are fucking stupid...
Yes that shit is all cliche, but then what? Instead of cliche we got boring. Maybe Nolan could have devised a clever way to tell a we story instead of the clever arrangement of vignettes.
That would have been cliche, however there are other ways to tell a person's backstory than sitting around a campfire. Knowing nothing about any of these people made this boeing
Its alright if Jeremy didn't like the movie. Most critics did love it and so did the audience. Jeremy doesn't always have to love a film because everyone loves it. Perhaps it wasn't what he wanted. So let us not bombard him cause there's a shitstorm I smell brewing.
Same I love BvS and while I have debate with people over the flaws of the movie I still respect their opinion as valid and that we just have to agree to disagree.
Jeremy, I'm super happy that you've told the truth on how you feel about this movie. I'm sure it can be tough to get your real opinion out there because of how insane the internet can be when people disagree. This channel is supposed to be YOUR OPINION and I personally like it because you're a sensible guy who is usually pretty honest and considerate with your reviews. That said, I hope you can continue to make videos like this so that you don't have to feel like you're tip-toeing around every word and we can have more content.
Ok first off, i just wanna say that i am a fan of the dark knight trilogy and of interstellar, haven't seen this movie but i was able to understand jeremy's negatives about interstellar. But i just love how people in this comment section are trying so hard to defend nolan who they believe is the film god who can do no wrong that they are actually going so far as to calling this movie a character itself and just calling the actual people extras. News flash everybody: christopher nolan isn't a perfect film maker. I love your channel and your reviews jeremy I'm a huge fan. Keep up the great work!
No, I am not here to here your opinion on the movies (well partly), but more so I know what to go watch and what my expectation should be. So thank you for this review; I was having unreasonable expectations for this movie, which I will now adjust and hopefully enjoy it more.
99% of this comment section: People complaining about other people complaining about Jeremy's review 1% of this comment section: People actually complaining about Jeremy's review
dalton jackson this happens all of the time in popular RUclipsr channels when they come up with a unpopular opinion, their fanboys will therefore defend their favorite youtubers from criticism
What I hate is when people make comments like this acting like they see all and know all. Dalton, I literally just scrolled past a comment complaining about the review. Seriously, just because you arent seeing it doesnt mean it isnt there.
3:15 At the end of that metaphor, I thought he was going to say: "Watching two cops sitting in their car for a stakeout, not for a few entertaining minutes, but for a looooooooong time as they just wait...they just wait, that's it. Maybe they eat a donut or two, but other than that, they do nothing."
I loved this movie precisely for the reasons you didn't like it. It's the anti-Pearl Harbour and it's great. It's not about the characters (and their wives, or teaching background) I think, it's about the soldiers (and their sacrifice and bravery). I think of it as a excerpt of the Britannica Encyclopedia in which I'm learning about the Dunkirk evacuation, not the biography of each and every soldier. The emotions don't come from sentimentality but rather from intensity of the event. I even like it better than Saving Private Ryan because it doesn't pause a minute to tell me about the lives of the brave soldiers. Instead, this is a very cut and dry depiction of war which I think illustrates very the real world distance that the general public can feel toward an event that took place "many years ago" to people who "we never met". Yet, I felt every single blow of fear these men were bombarded with. Dunkirk, I thought was a brilliant film. It's okay to not like it though, it really is.
The way the people acted on the beach was very realistic. In a situation like this, most people don't talk, they go in on themselves. You would have be fed up, terrified and trying to hold it all in. That part of it was far more realistic than most Hollywood war films
Nolan would have had to substitute realism for that. If you dont like reality and you'd rather exaggerated war thats fine but Nolan accomplished what he went out to do.
joel leighton Well if I have to watch a boring movie for the sake of realism fuck it. I'd rather actually care about what's happening on screen then a series of scenes of bland characters run around like headless chicken. Doesn't even does it's job being realistic when people get hit by bombs and look like all they did was pass out. Bombs fucking blow off limbs, the movie suffers from being pg-13. And no he wouldn't need to sacrifice realism for some characterization, it's not impossible. He couldve used the scenes of them standing around for some dialouge.
I like how every time people disagree with Jeremy, they point to his Suicide Squad review. Is he not allowed to have an opinion because he likes that movie or am I missing something?
tquinton1 Well of course is he allowed to have an opinion about a certain movie. And we are also allowed to notice some inconsistency in his reviews aswell.
Critics don't necessarily have to be consistent. Roger Ebert gave the original Last House on the Left 3.5/4 stars but the remake only 1/4 I think and he said something in his review about how he has "no desire to be consistent." People change their movie tastes. And I'll admit I liked Suicide Squad too. By no means is it some masterwork film, and maybe BvS lowered my bar significantly, but I had fun with it.
Him liking Suicide Squad completely disregards all credibility in his reviews. That movie was a complete mess, him like it shows that he knows zero things about film and cinema. Why people still take this hack seriously I will never undestand.
doc chicken destroys his credibility to you, while others might actually like suicide squad and agree with Jeremy's review. Every reviewer is entitled to their own opinion and if you want a consensus opinion go to rotten tomatoes
Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Jeremy on this one, Dunkirk bored the hell out of me... The only scenes I remember from it are the scenes where a group of soldiers are stuck in a beached boat & Tom Hardy's pilot character saving the beach with his crippled plane & him being captured afterwards at the end. Both the characters & intensity are much better in Midway (2019) imo. That movie kept me hooked onto the people with their strategies & doctrines of war, and it's also visually gratifying with the sets & action!
One reason why Saving Private Ryan was an amazing movie was because it shows what the soldiers were fighting for and it gave character to all the soldiers. For example the captain Tom Hanks played as was a High School teacher for like under 10 years, he had a wife, and a few kids. So when you see these characters go through a mission you feel for the characters.
Acti0n Jack thats the point. nobody would know about 400 000 men they were going to die. characters mean nothing but the sheer horror is what made it tragic
Jesus christ Christopher Nolan fanboys...there is plenty of positive reviews go comment on those if you feel the need to gush about how this movie will be the second coming of Jesus Christ. Just because he didn't like it doesn't mean you dislike the video and attack him.
Harry We are the Norg. We will assimilate all of your opinions to reflect that Christopher Nolan is Ultimate Supreme Commander God of the Multiverse. Resistance is futile.
I strongly disagree. Dialogue is not the way this film wanted us to connect with the characters. It's the things unspoken that show us so much more about the story. Dialogue is overused in films and is too often used as a crutch to "tell us" things in place of a lack of a better filmmaker to show us. But if your the type that has to have everything spelled out for you, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of screen writers in Hollywood that would love to dish you out some B class garbage.
Tanner Browning I strongly agree when you say that dialogue was not the way Nolan wanted to tell the story, but I think your confusing dialogue with exposition. dialogue can help move the story forwards in a way that visual storytelling just cant, I mean if you have ever seen a Tarantino movie, you know that he loves to have 10 minute conversations about nothing!, and that is not "spelling it out for you", that is just great dialogue. I get what Nolan wanted to do with this movie, and I admire it, but if you grab ANY book about screenwriting I bet that the first two chapters are called STORY, and CHARACTERS, and this movie failed at delivering both. this is my opinion, and I respect both yours and Jeremys, and I see where both of you are coming from
I agree both story and characters are the most important pieces of any compelling story. I just want to make it clear, I wasn't meaning that dialogue isn't important. Because everyone knows it's a powerful tool. Again, the argument is that there neither being STORY and character in this film. And that cannot be determined by either too much or lack of dialogue. I would argue that there is plenty of both in this film. it really annoys me when critics say generically " it wasn't a good story" or, "I didn't find the characters interesting". And without saying specifically WHY that's the case, it becomes less a problem with storytelling and more of a personal taste. Maybe I should be asking the why it failed in your opinion? But yeah Tarantino, great dialogue.
Tanner Browning The reason I think it failed at delivering a good character was not because I didnt know his backstory, but becuase I didnt even know their personality. for example during the first 2 indiana jones movies, we know nothing about his past, except for the fact that he knew marion, but still we cared about him, because he was a well thought out character, that had a clear goal and personality, he was funny, sarcastic, and the best professor in the world. but in dunkirk they all act like the same person, and becuase of this, the story has no good characters to latch on to. saving private ryan has a good story,(group of soldiers have to tell a young man, that his brother is now dead and can now go back to his family, all while there is a war going on), because it has good characters to tell it through. this movie's story is, there is a war... and nothing else! in Saving private ryan war is an external element, and the characters are the focus, but in this one its the opposite, war is the focus, and characters are an external element. I actually disagreed with jeremy when he said he wanted to know the characters history, becuse even in drive, a movie with little dialogue, and no exposition, I still knew how the character felt, and how HE would react to any certain event. you need good characters to tell a good story, and you need a good story for your characters to feel relevant, otherwise why are they the main focus of the movie? I actually really liked this movie. everything on SCREEN is perfect, the acting, the cinematography, the score, the directing, however the script is the exact opposite. this is (in my opinion) Nolans worst SCRIPT (not movie) it has terrible structure, poorly written characters, and nothing much of actual content. it's just the description of alot of excelent shot action scenes. many are saying that the lack of characters is a choice not a flaw, but I see it as, (and this is my opinion) an on purpose choice to focus on the visuals rather than the story, which is a FLAW IN THE SCREENPLAY, and by extension the film. as I said I still liked the movie and this is pne of those movies that if you loved it, i get it...and if you hated it I also get it. I am actually interested in why you personally cared about these characters beyond the fact that they are in a terrible situation
I´ve just seen the movie and I agree 100% with Jeremy. Movie was visually beautiful, nice and realistic air combats (despite not seeing a single german down a british plane like they did) and agonizing scenes of men drowning in the dark. Having that said, movie has waaay too much long silences, the cliche of traumatized soldiers not speaking when spoken to, not knowing the names of anyone or caring if they live or die (was the kid who died related to the old guy and the blond kid? Don't know, don't care). A lot of times I wished I could fast foward the movie.
Maybe that's the point of the video actually. I think he wants us to get an opinion about Dunkirk. What do WE thought about the movie? Is it worth watching it or no?....hmmm... ;)
Definitely agree with you. Jeremy said it was messy because Dunkirk requires people to pay attention and think so he blamed the editing instead of his ADD.
"Dunkirk editor Lee Smith's work on Christopher Nolan's WWII epic won the trophy for outstanding editing in a feature, during the 12th annual Hollywood Professional Association (formerly Hollywood Post Alliance) Awards Thursday night at the Skirball Cultural Center.": www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-professional-association-awards-winners-2017-list-full-1058842/item/outstanding-color-grading-feature-film-1058855
Breaking Banter I think that the dramatic question of Memento is "How did this happen? The structure of that film supports that question. The dramatic question of Dunkirk is "what happens next?". This structure doesn't support that question. It destroyed that tension.
black screen, no meme He probably didn't wanna give one cause it'd pretty negative, and people would be just throwing that in his face rather than listening to what he has to say about the movie in detail. And after seeing the movie, I think it's pretty clear Jeremy missed the point of it.
How do you know that? No where in the movie did it specify this. Why was it non-linear? It's a simple historical event, not an interstellar our inception. It got in the way of the story telling (which was also terrible). The movie was dull.
how does he know that? its literally in the movie in fucking writing XD. understandable if you didn't like it but if you couldnt even catch that and the intent behind the way it was filmed then you werent really paying attention or had no intention to
I'm guessing it's somewhere between Good Time No Alcohol required and Good Time if you're drunk. If he says it's visually appealing and a good realistic take with couple of negatives, mainly losing focus on storytelling, it's gonna be one of those.
He's said himself that he only uses those ratings because people seem to insist upon a "score" for film but rating art in that way feels weird to him. I guess he forgot to include an arbitrary rating, he told you what he thought of it.
If he was gonna rate it, it would probally be T minus 1 day, since he rates boring movies that , and movies with bad plots but are fun , a good time iiiifffff your drunk
I just saw the movie too, and Jeremy I understand, really. But as a historian and movie lover the film is called Dunkirk... The setup is the battle itself, the operation and the lifes of 450,000 men that couldnt get home just a few miles away. Sometimes in this type of movies.. Or history, you have to be inmerse in the situation, wich is about just that, what happened, it doesnt have to be a sob story all the time, war movies dont have to be always about one person or... A love triangle (fucking movie) it can be just about the war and how you can see thousands of people interact with it, we dont get movies like that anymore.
For some people it's easier to immerse yourself in the situation if you're able to understand and relate to some of the characters, if the characters are just numbers, even if technically they're human lives, it might feel boring.
I just got through watching this movie on HBO MAX. Missed it in theaters. I was surprised that I just didn’t like it either. Wasn’t bad or anything. There was a lot happening but there were no arcs for anyone and I don’t know or care about anyone. I figured it’s Christopher Nolan and WWII. That should have been a win right there.
First of all: Some of the comments in the comment section are really mean, but don't pay attention to them Jeremy. Just continue to give your honest opnion, that's why I watch your videos. I also saw this movie yesterday and of course I respect your opinion (I watch many of your reviews), but I have to disagree with you. I'm on the side of most of the other critics, this is my favorite movie from Nolan (TDK & Inception #2 & #3). Eveyone's entitled to their own opinion, but it feels like you missed the point of the movie. This is a movie about suspense and the experience not about the characters. We don't need to know them, we don't need a backstory, actually I'm glad it isn't there. This isn't a character study, it's a masterclass in suspense building. Had there been backstory the movie wouldn't have pulled off its sense of urgency and that was the whole point of the movie. We already know what the stakes are and that everyone will lose everything during the war so there was no need to have that kind of exposition or backstory. They're just people and they're trying to survive and that's all you need to know. That's the fun thing about movies, people have different opinions and you don't always have to agree with everyone. Edit: Maybe suspense is the wrong word. I like this movie, because it's immersive. Just a few minutes in it feels like you're actually there on the beach. I almost forgot I was watching a movie. Imo that's an incredible feat and that's the main reason I like this movie. But as you probably already found out it's hard to accurately describe this movie and the best (and only) way to really know if you like it, is to watch the movie.
Top Lists Movies and Music yes but clearly Jeremy and others like myself prefer films with fleshed out characters and backstorys, but yes it is down to opinion
A great idea for a movie, show people almost zero gravity on screen and kill most of the cast. Why? because of some malfunction. Only Great movies win oscars.
Yes listening to his review I think he really thought this would be a war movie focused on characters like Hacksaw Ridge (which is also amazing btw) and if you go in with those expectations I can understand that you wouldn't like it as much as you hoped you would.
I can understand where Jeremy is coming from with lack of dramatization and characterisation, but the whole movie isn't based on characters or trying to learn their back story - the main character is actually YOU - the audience member, and you're experiencing the hell that these men are going through in that moment in time. As one reviewer put it, it's like "VR without the goggles". Also, there isn't much focus on one character, mainly because every single person on the beach, is an important character, and they too have a backstory, and the most important thing is how they all work together to survive in this situation where time is against them. And even though there is very little dialogue, I still found characterisation from each character's actions and their expressions, which made me understand who they are to a degree - as they say, actions sometimes do speak louder than words.
Even though the characters didn't say too much, we still care for them mainly because of the actions, heroics, choices and sacrifices they make in that situation and at that point in time. These characters become the eyes for the audience because we see and know what they see and know, and because we're not given a heavy backstory for every person on the beach, we don't know or expect to know if someone is going to live or die. This is why the choices and sacrifices they make to keep fighting to save someone else's life, despite the fact that they won't ever be recognised for it or whether they live to see another day, is what makes their decisions even more heroic and heartbreaking.
I definitely sympathize with Jeremy here. It's always tough to go on the Internet and tell people you didn't like a movie that is widely beloved. It was cool to see Chris Stuckmann have his back here even though he really enjoyed this movie.
Definitely respect your opinion.I am never one for hating someone for not liking a movie that I absolutely love. I feel this film is a masterpiece, one of the greats of 2017. Others feel the same way. But hey, movies touch people in different ways. Obviously, it didn't quite get to you as much as it did for me. But there's nothinf wrong with that. Always behind ya mate, no matter what you think about a movie!
I think that the lack of characterization was perfect for this type of movie. Dunkirk is a survival movie as much as it is a war movie. Everything comes together in order to place the viewer in what was a dreadful waking nightmare. I found it equal parts realistic and surrealistic, in the sense that the sound design and pacing keeps you on the edge the entire time, and the very few moments of silence in the film are shocking. You almost feel like something is wrong, as your senses are suddenly and unexpectedly not being assaulted. The sparse dialogue further contributed to this overall effect. 400,000 men trapped on a strip of sand waiting to die... any inclusion of misty eyed reminiscing about their wives and family, i feel, would have taken away from what the movie was trying to portray. It would have broken the pacing, and given the audience a moment to relax, which is NOT what you want for this type of film. Dunkirk, for me, was about terror. The kind of fear that you would sacrifice your loved ones in order to escape. Being stripped of everything that makes you human (which includes your family and personality). A brilliant moment in the movie (SPOILERS) is when the young soldier from the opening scene is underneath the pier and hears the officers talking about the evacuation plan. What he hears is grim, and speaks volumes about what all the men on that beach were thinking. I heard someone (can't remember who) say that this movie was an two hour long panic attack that you were glad you had. I couldn't put it any better. During the movie I was wishing for it to just be over, which is what I imagine only a fraction of what the troops at Dunkirk were experiencing. Once it ended, I wanted to watch it again. Really brilliant movie, probably my favorite movie of the year, and definitely my favorite war movie of all time.
I think the negative aspect of any survival movie is lack of empathy. You have to root for the survivor to actually escape. This is a story about losers who were surrounded, forced to retreated and they only survived because Germany committed (yet another) critical military mistake. That's it, there's nothing special about it saved only by the gigantic number of survivors. When you watch this kind of historical movie knowing the background, knowing how the civilians helped the whole thing, etc.. It loses all the interest, unfortunately. The movie had a intense soundtrack, but I never doubted the young dude presented in the intro and the boat people, I never doubt they would have died in the end. This is Nolan, he is a blockbuster director, the protagonists don't die even in a PG-13 War movie (which is just ridiculous, no blood whatsoever). You don't feel any kind of danger. Only when the boat starts to sink, everything goes black and etc.. That's threatening. The sound of the planes as well.. But that's it. A cool edited movie with great music telling the story of sore losers, that's the crude reality.
guess I forgot that when you're being massacred with bombs, guns and torpedoes and having your friends slaughtered in front of you the first thing you're going to want to do is tell people about your backstory...
idk about you, but if I dont give a fuck about the characters, then why should I give a fuck about whats happening to them??? the only way to care about a character is to have some damn character development. I swear if it was some other director who made this movie the same exact way, so many people would hate on it. but since its Nolan, everyone has to suck the films cock.
people in the comments keep saying "but the movie is not meant to have character development! so why hate it for not having character development???" -_- just because it was meant to be that way, doesnt take away from the fact that it sucked. Pineapple Pizza is supposed to have Pineapples on it, but that doesnt stop it from tasting like ass.
Disturbed702 It's called fucking empathy. Simply knowing that these are flesh and blood people in a crisis that they have no ability to avert or avoid should be enough. From there, it's all about the heat of the moment and the things they do to survive and carry on. Do you watch the news when a tragedy occurs, say to yourself you know nothing about them, and move on without the least bit of compassion?
Having watched the film yesterday, whilst I think its still a really good film, I definitely agree with a lot of what he says here. Specifically, I really enjoy character development in a movie and found it quite lacking in this film. I wasn't really invested in anyone save for the RAF pilot and even then only because he was a badass rather than any emotional attachment. But the point is, it shouldn't matter if I agree or not. This is a review, an opinion. I've disagreed with JJ a *lot* of times but I still watch his videos because it lets me see things from different perspectives and also because they are engaging and entertaining. Like it astounds me that people are so ridiculously insecure that the sole reason they watch these reviews is to validate their own opinions and if they don't experience this validation they take such personal offence to it that they devolve into abusing someone who reviews movies for fun
I agree. At least with 1917 there are characters that are on screen that connect you as an audience to the film. Dunkirk felt like I was watching deleted scenes of a film stitched together to form half of a movie.
Yes because we all know during the evacuation of Dunkirk, soldiers were talking about their lives and having pick nicks as the Germans were only a few miles behind them.
The fact that there was no characterization is what made this movie so perfect. No unnecessary love scenes, no unnecessary dialouge about personal lives. It was just the horrors of war. One of the best war movies in the past 3 decades
ThreeStarEdits Vine you can show the horrors of war as well as not have dialogue, or even you can do it AND have dialogue. A lot of good scripted movies show the realistic side of war but this movie doesn't even make you care about whether or not the majority of the characters live. And why the story of Dunkirk to display the horrors of war? There are more disastrous events in war history. I couldn't feel at all for any of the people there.
Dw, your honest opinion has still helped validate what i'd hoped the movie would be. It's a shame you didn't enjoy it, but a gorgeous, historically accurate film is what i wanted out of Dunkirk, so hearing that kind of thing is still personally useful. Everything past that is up to you, so why should i fight it?
Fun fact: the plane sound effects were probably digitally upgraded, but the planes in use (Messerschmitts/Stuka Dive Bombers) often had additions on their wings that, when the wind funneled through them, added an additional level of warfare (psychological) by creating and amplifying a “howling” noise while diving.
Jeremy evidently is a character-driven critic, because the movie isn't about characters. It's about the scope and depiction of the event. You can tell that Nolan wanted it to be like you were there, not for it to be all about some people there.
I didnt feel like I was there though... besides the stuka dive bomber scenes I didnt feel any threat...without any characters to latch onto it was just a bunch of beautiful action scenes strung together. Maybe if you hadnt heard about or looked into the battle before it would be interesting, but as someone who already knows whats going to happen it was hard to feel like there were stakes. Not to mention if the movie was supposed to be about the event, then why does it follow around and focus heavily on what happens to a group of bland characters? Seems to be an error in your logic there, cause if this movie was supposed to be about the event I would have much-prefered a documentary-style movie where it showed different battles and events that took place within the battle.
All the hate in the comment section is so called for! I mean, how dare Jeremy share his own opinion on a movie? It's not like he's a movie critic or anything, right?
completely agree with your thoughts on characters. i thought it was visually stunning but the characters weren’t very interesting and the editing was a bit confusing. but i actually liked that the characters weren’t focused on. it does make the situation more realistic and makes the film be able to focus more on other aspects.
What would he rate it as? Awesometacular? No, negative review Buy it on blu ray? No, negative review Good time no alcohol? No, negative review Good time if you're drunk? Who would want to watch this movie with alcohol? Won't remember in t-? Maybe, but that does kinda understate the good visuals and sound effects. It's not that bad. Dogshit? No, it's definitely not that bad.
That would be fine if it was accurate, but it wasn't. The evacuation of Dunkirk was over 6 days, with significant help from the air force (not just 2.5 Spitfires) and a vast number of other things that change the story. If this was a made up story, fine, but it's recent and documented history. Nolan was aiming for wow factor, not accuracy, and in my opinion the wow factor wasn't enough to carry it.
+Victoria Robinson: and we have a winner. The purpose of the movie is irrelevant. In the end you go to a movie to be entertained or at least to be engaged by the material. It wasn't Jeremy's cuppa tea. Doesn't mean he doesn't "get the movie". It just means it wasn't for him.
Just returned from a film - waste of time. First of all, the argument that it was all about the observation of the event does not stand. NO WHERE in the entire film do you actually sense the scale of what was happening. Mild spoilers, if you could call them that... You see a couple of thousand soldiers on the entire beach line (at best) and a dozen or so ships and/or boats, maybe 10 trucks. That's it. In reality, there were around 400.000 soldiers cramped in that city (that is actually portrayed as completely deserted), Germans were away fighting in the countryside against combined French-British rearguard (not 150 meters from the beaches as portrayed in the film), and UK left over 2000 artillery pieces, tens of thousands of vehicles (including ~700 tanks) and God know how much of small arms and supplies there. All you see is intact city, with maybe 2000 soldiers standing in line on a clean beach. No sense of scale what so ever! And complete waste of good actors - roles that big names played here could have been played by anyone. Just pluck a man from a street and have him play the role. For Tom Hardy it was even worse - you don't even see his face and he has maybe 10 sterile lines in the entire film. So you don't see him, there is barely any chance to hear him and when you do it is nothing that you'd need Tom Hardy for. He was like an extra in this film. Imagine, Tom Hardy, playing an extra in historical war film. A few pointless pathetic scenes, some shameless historical inaccuracies (no time in listing them all), film devoid of scale and actual happening, wasted great actors... I don't know. I did not expect it to be the next Saving Private Ryan (or a Bridge to Far or some other great war classic), but I did not expect it to suck balls this much. Film had three good things in it: 1. If you like practical effects, you will be pleased. Not so many of them, and CGI would actually be nice here as film lacked scale, but I guess practical effects were nice. 2. French rearguard was mentioned twice in the film - so nice of them to mention who held the line. 3. The last 5 seconds of the film when Spitfire is burning, foreshadowing (in my opinion) the Battle for Britain that is to come. And that's it. Nothing else, in the entire film, was of any noteworthy value. I am VERY disappointed. I'd give it "Won't remember it in T-10 minutes". And I really like the actors and Nolan, so this is not some hate throwing. I like them, i like the theme, I expected a *decent* film, not "OH MY GAWD THIS IS SO AWESOME!!!" and I got this piece of crap that I wasted a bit over an hour and a half and $5 for a ticket.
An honest opinion is what matters, thanks for giving yours
Agree but it would be awesome if he rate this movie using his normal scale.
Alexis true 👏
Zamir Ariff He became a bigger person by not rating the movie 🖖
He gave Interstellar "good time, no alcohol required" and that, if I'm not mistaken is a positive review. If he gave this movie that rating, it would be alright if that's what he honestly thought.
Alwin Benjamin i know, but it would be so cool if he does that
Gonna have to disagree. That said, your honest opinion is your honest opinion, and I thank you for sharing it. By the way, why no rating?
I know I was waiting for it!
I have been wondering the same thing
His rating will be “ alcohol required “ for sure, but he knew the fanboys of Nolan will jump on him for the whole year.
I think it was gonna be a forget rating. He never sounded like he thought it was dogshit, but he never said it was good, or very enjoyable.
I guess he'd give it a better time if you're drunk, or at worst a t-minus
I honestly felt connected to all the characters even though we don't know their names. They were just kids trying to survive, that was enough to have me hooked.
The whole point of this film was to show the event not the characters. It was realistic because the characters wouldn't have been talking about their lives at home because they were to busy trying to survive. Also the editing wasn't bad it was the whole point of the films timeline, because it was told in 3 different perspectives which take place in different periods of time which overlap at the ending
Getting the “whole point” doesn’t make it a good movie neither does being “realistic”.
David I was just stating what the narrative structure of the film was. At no point did I say that this means you have to think it’s a good film. It’s a matter of preference.
Wouldn't a documentary be a better way to show all that?
Alen S a documentary would probably contain a lot of factual information about Dunkirk, which is good, however a lot less people would watch it compared to an actual film, having it a film means that the film has a wider audience and more budget to make it so it’s probably best they made it a film, and the narrative structure is unique and something that wouldn’t make sense to do in a documentary
The movie wasn't even historical accurate. It was a bad movie get over it, it is trash.
Have to disagree with some of this review. I'm actually glad there's no cliche campfire scene where everyone is talking about back home and how hot their girlfriends or wives are. I feel like that would be too out of place for the film. As Chris said in his review, it's about the event, not the people. Everybody is a nameless soldier just trying to survive. No heroics or anything.
That being said, I still think Tom Hardy did an amazing performance considering he was wearing a mask for a full 3/4th of the movie. You could see the desperation in his eyes and I really rooted for him.
xKami102x Same, i was attatched to tom and his buddy, sounded like his name was "Golluts" or something. Edit: It's Collins.
xKami102x Tom Hardy does good performances while wearing masks, we all know this.
harry styles wasnt that bad either, my only issue was the kid you get to see in the beginning, his facial expressions always weirded me out and felt unfitting
that sounds like a really subjective thing.... you mean the guy accused of being a spy?
I wonder it being a British ww2 story that maybe some Americans just might not be connecting to it cos they are used to their type of ww2 stories where it's more about the characters with their campfire stories rather than the intensity of being put into this war and just wanting to go home
I can see where he's coming from but I think Jeremy's missing the point. It wasn't supposed to be some overly emotional war story with great heroes and explosive last stands. It was to show you the evacuation of Dunkirk in the most realistic way possible. Christopher noland was right to have very little dialogue, it made you focus on what was happening instead of the characters and their little back stories and personalities that in the end don't matter. It forces you to focus on the sights and sounds you see before you, the dogfights, the stuck dive bombers and their terrifying screeches, the near drownings, the gunshots, and the feeling amongst the soldiers of utter defeat and hopelessness as the enemy closes in and watching as your means of escape are sunk before your eyes all while home is right their, a few miles across the English Channel.
I completely understand his point, if you don't get on board, you do lose out in a movie like this. I was close to at times.
Particularly the ending when it tends to wrap up pretty quickly.
Definitely Not nolans best movie and this from a big fan of his work and Hans Zimmer too. But it wasn't a bad film at all. I just think it could have used a more accurate portrayal of Dunkirk. For one, there wasn't enough men on the beach. (At first I was okay, because I thought this was meant to represent a small section of the beach) but now looking at it, it does seem a bit odd.
And secondly, the beach was too clean. And so was the city. Could have maybe added to it more if there craters and destroyed ships everywhere, destroyed city. Could have added to the tension Nolan was going for. Because it was apparent to me, that Nolan was trying to give the illusion of an impending force. You never see the German soldiers till the end, they're allusive for the whole movie yet ominous. (Kind of like the jaws method of never actually seeing the monster, makes you fear it more)
So seeing the devastation, it might have added to the chaos
But perhaps Nolan wanted to lower the scale of the film to make it digestible. I'm not sure.
But if it isn't sypposed to have emotions, then what am I watching? A series of images?
There were real things that happened and Dunkirk that didnt need embellishing to make for a better but still "realistic" story.
Hmm realistic? Nothing about the French that fought till the end suffering a lot of casualties to save the rossbifs.The city of Dunkirk doesn't look really bad in fact it doesn't seem that It has been bombarded heavily.The little boats only evacuated 6000people out of 400000 while in the movie it seems like the turning point of the evacuation.If you knew history it would be better so don't say that Nolan was ment to show an historically accurate representation of the real story
If I wanted only realism all the way through, I would watch a documentary.
I feel you. I like films with stories and characters with arcs.
Empathy isn't enough, I want to sympathize with them, that I might shed a tear. Even recent visceral/participatory films like Gravity and The Revenant had an actual story and some character development. Sounds like this movie could have been stronger with such.
I felt emotions due to scenes in this movie, like when the flotilla of small boats showed up, and the soldiers cheered them on, or when Tom Hardy shot down the Ju-87 that was going to kill everyone on the bridge which caused the soldiers on the beach to cheer again as they saw their Spitfire fly past. It doesn't have to be characters deaths that get me to cry. I thought it was a breath of fresh air to deviate from the "Character is a personal hero" story and focus more on the characters don't matter, the event does.
You're comment would be more forceful if you understood the meaning of both empathy and sympathy. As you have got them completely mixed. For example, I can sympathize with people who need to be spoon fed a weepy narrative to underatand a movie but I can't really empathize with it because i just can't imagine being that stupid
+First Galactic Empire
I too felt a sense of triumph and salvation during that same scene, but alas, it was the only time in the film and at the end. I had the same feels during the end sequence on Call of Duty 1. And yet, I still didn't care or know the characters or nameless soldiers. And at no time did anyone's actions move me in any way. As short as the film was, it could have had a bit of room for characterization and internal conflict. It didn't need a 'hero' story either. It could have been one of redemption. I think this may take the reigns as my least favorite Nolan film, as I pretty much stopped even thinking about it after I walked out of the theater.
Search: *Call of duty 1 ending HD*
Dick Nasty
Agreed. It seems like people are rooting for the lowest form of story telling just because Nolan's name attached to it. Cinerama had some story less films decades ago just to sell an event or spectacle and look what happened to them. This whole viewer experienced cinema could very well just be another trend just like 3D has come and gone before. We might just be seeing a resurgence. But even Cinerama's biggest hits had some story elements. How the West was Won and 2001: A Space Odyssey for example.
Michael O'Brien Your*
TLDR: The movie was meant to show the peril and types of situation the people faced in Dunkirk
I believe the lack of dialogue was intentional. The movie focuses on three different plots that may have actually occured on Dunkirk.
We weren't meant to see these characters as unique individuals because they were meant to resemble the idea that they could have been anyone.
And I think the situations being hard to follow didnt matter because what matters is that these people were in a dangerous situation of great intensity. But this is all just my opinion.
Of course it's intentional. Nolan has gone on record on that. Ppl make this out to be a slight on Nolan's part....
Potato
TLDR? What?
TLDR means too long don't read.
Still thought the way it was edited was unnecessary. Not a big fan of the films nonlinearity. Would have had the same effect if it weren't.
Could you imagine writing a tldr for 4 sentences
I'm not pissed at your opinion, my OCD was just annoyed that you didn't give it a score
Same lol
Watched the video three times to make sure I didn't miss it. He really didn't give it a score.
Arcadio Castellanoz that must be a first, I don't recall another movie review without a score, here I was kinda expecting a no alcohol required and then.....punched screen and I'm like ....ok..........weird.
Arcadio Castellanoz Jeremy's never been a fan of giving scores. He said that in the video breaking down what his scores were. This is a case of that, I guess.
Thats what it was i knew something was missing
Smart. You didn't give it a rating coz then fanboys would fixate on the rating alone and not what you said in the review.
Rahul Varma it is what he used to do. Jeremy had said several times that he hates rating movies because that makes people ignore everything else he said in the review and judge it solely by the rating. Personally i don't mind him not giving ratings but a lot of people told him it was important so eventually he started doing it
MiJerk. While I can understand that, I hope he doesn't lose them altogether. I quite like his unique rating system.
The unique system is really nice. Still smart of him not to rate this movie
Ofc, what else can they use when in the near future he gives a better rating to what they may think is an objectively worse movie?
Ironic thing is that people will now only talk about rating and guessing which one he would give lol
"a lot of average looking white dudes with dark hair"
Yes Jeremy, maybe because they're British soldiers..
He meant that because they had no personality whatsoever
Yes, like the British.
The End of Zombie Shakespeare Stop talking out of your arse
The End of Zombie Shakespeare the best comedians are British
Never been to England have we?
First time I saw this movie, I thought it was just fine. Now though, I think it is one of the greatest films ever made.
Lol.. In the thumbnail, Jeremy is like, "PLEASE DON'T KILL ME GUYS!!" xD
;)
"We're gonna need a bigger boat." Shit. Wrong movie. Shit. Wrong quote.
Pizza Time
Larry Kenshalo wrong quote too
You're*
Yes technical wrong quote. Another example of the Mandela Effect
I can understand not liking the movie...hell not every movie is for every person, but idk how anyone can call it boring. I was sweating in my seat through the whole damn thing.
There are more visual thrills instead of emotional thrills and that doesn't jive with everyone. It comes off as more of an experience than a story
Well I was feeling a lot of emotion by the end. I thought it had a nice juxtaposition between good and evil. However art is subjective so I dont expect everyone to agree.
And that's exactly what it was supposed to be, to let us experience it. Wikipedia has the story.
News are full of stories of horrific events, which we read/listen/view while eating, driving or taking a shit :)
You might like revenant movie
I certainly do!
Personally, I have to disagree. I think Dunkirk was an amazing movie. Tech-wise, this movies sound design, combined with the killer soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, and the amazing cinematography, made this one of the best movies of the past few years. Very little dialogue removed the problem of a character driven movie, and the choice to tell the story in stories was a great choice by Christopher Nolan.
I thumbed this down after initially watching but after coming to my senses, realized we are subscribed to you for your opinion. not for our preconceived thoughts on a movie to be fulfilled. we can't be angry if you have your own thoughts. it's why we subscribed in the first place
Maturity? Integrity? On the internet?
Does not compute. (In all seriousness though, much respect :P)
Thank you!
Tommy Townsend
People are taking a simple opinion way too far. Really cringy.
Good to see smart people instead of triggered Nolan fanboys.
Thank you, when it comes to movie reviews on RUclips it seems like viewers no longer care about hearing someone express their (Possibly different) opinion on a movie, they wanna hear that reviewer say exactly what we thought of it, like “I thought this movie was awesome so I wanna hear this guy talk about how awesome it is” or “I thought this movie was terrible so I wanna hear this guy talk about how terrible it is” but that’s not the point of reviews, they’re for that 1 individual to express his own personal thoughts on the movie, regardless if it aligns with yours or not
"Valerian and the War for the Planet of Dunkirk Homecoming" going down this weekend
Txmothy "War for the City of a Thousand Planets of Dunkirk Homecoming"
homecoming is forgettable
"Planet of the War for the baby homecoming of the Dunkirk Driver"
I've got it: "Valerian and the War for the Homecoming of Dunkirk"
Valerian and the Planet of the Homecoming Wonder of Dunkirk Driver Vol. 2
Thank you for your honest opinion
Chris Wong-Swenson what about my honest comment?
Chris Wong-Swenson The pace is really fucked up. They should focus on one storyline instead of three.
Chris Wong-Swenson
seriously he is wrong..aerial shots are unbelievable and take us in to war....no talking but itz okay with it this movie doesn't need characters...itz now became second fav war movie
Frankie Z
Lol. Rewatch it. Its not 3 storylines.
It was three time lines converging that’s why you saw things twice
wait what, no rating? what?
THUNDERBOLT PRODUCTIONS it's not about the rating, isn't the review as a whole enough?
THUNDERBOLT PRODUCTIONS yeah I was about to say
David Wyatt I think they just want to know does Jeremy recommend it or not
David Wyatt it is but he always gives a rating :(
Pretty sure this movie is "would be great if you were drunk ". I tthink he just doesnt want to piss people of in the comment section.
"Jeremy Jahns doesn't love the movie that I was hyped for so I hate him even though I loved the other 500 reviews he did". Come on guys.
Totally respect your point of view and glad that you stuck to your guns. Your review and honest opinion makes me want to watch the movie even more and form my own opinion. Thank you, Jeremy!
3:05 This was my problem with the movie. It starts off with tension and then most of it is people ... "doing" things. It had just enough suspense and just enough stellar shots to keep me watching, although I'd say barely...
Just watched it and found it boring as fuck
95% is his opinion and that's fine, but the statement about the editing is false I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was nominated for its editing!
It shouldn't be... I really love the movie, but that editing was my one gripe. It really did bother me in the final climax part. I was really confused if I had already seen Tom Hardy shoot down that final plane. And that is on the editing. A lot of it really worked but it was my main flaw
The whole 3 perspectives and their duration was what made it so confusing. The mole takes place over a whole week, the sea over a day and the air within an hour all leading up to the final moments in a non-linear fashion which was confusing at times. Then flashbacks were thrown in from certain characters into the story and as everything is leading to those final moments I wasn't sure who was where or when things were happening which adds to that. Sure it was confusing at times, but to handle a non-linear timeline like that is rather impressive (or at least interesting) to condense 3 stories that span from a week to one hour.
Herman Falck How I had no issues following everything cliqued for me immediately and when I saw it a second time you can really tell how well everything gels, although I may have been exaggerating the oscars thing but I see where you are coming from!
Jaydan Olive I can see how one finds it confusing but I was never lost and part of the reason I was so engaged was to watch all the timelines collide and see whatever one was doing during this time with a fresh new take
I didn't have issues either, though I thought it was linear until it became night and Cillian Murphy popped up, but I liked the "... Aaaaah I see" moment. Plus Nolan explained that the purpose of the editing was to give a similar feel that Memento gives: you only know what the characters know from their perspective (which changes during the end as the perspectives and time collide). Also I second seeing it the second time, you really see things you didn't notice before or think they were important, which is part of the perspective thing Nolan wanted to create.
I'm glad you're being entirely honest Jeremy and I respect you for it, but I just thought I'd explain why I disagree, with no hate whatsoever lol. I don't know if my British pride is getting in the way but I found myself undeniably attached to all the characters involved? I felt there was no room for character development and if there was it would have been very out of place. Like imagine being in this life or death situation and then randomly asking the other guy his life story. I think the focus on the actual event rather than the characters is what helped make this movie so great. I think the lack of character depth aided this movie as it showed the true brutalities, and bare human instinct of ww2 and how whoever you were back home, did not matter. we were all equals for once in a world of hierarchies, a coming together of the people to survive.
emma Unfortunately, the lack of American patriotism, bravado, dialogue and heavy action sequences bored some people. Clamoring through RUclips reviews of dunkirk, people who disliked the movie were either bored or confused. Confusion stemmed from being a fucking idiot. Boredom stemmed from the aforementioned lack of dialogue, lack of heavy action and barren character development. If the characters were American, a bit more bombastic and there was some more cgi then this movie would've appealed to them. Even though my opinion seems rather illogical and narrow minded, as I scrolled through the videos, people who disliked the movie generally couldn't put an articulate sentence together and LOVED superhero movies. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be American. The palate for great cinema and the emotional intelligence to comprehend such a dire situation seem to be sternly absent from the American mind. Americans have been conditioned into yearning for mindless action and fantastical characters. Dunkirk really should have a societal consensus on how great it is, but alas the Hollywood machine and American education ruins it.
Jinha Choi lol I don't appreciate the angry vibes you're throwing my way, I just said I liked the movie, never called out anyone who didn't - we all have our own opinions
emma They're not talking about you.
What was the fucking rating Jeremy???
Simon Chowdhury true for the most part, but the American bias will always play a role in Cinema.
That's why you rock Jeremy! You are always honest with your opinion, keep it up!
Matthew Bickerton yet everyone was mad at him because he game suicide squad a good score... okay
James Paul yeah people can't seem to accept that just because someone has an opinion it doesn't mean that they have to agree with it
I completely agree with you, Jeremy. Great looking movie that I couldn't care less about.
There was one scene that I really liked, and it was when Scarecrow (you know who I mean) asked if the boy, who was already dead, would be okay and the blondie told him yes because he realized that guy already had enough on his conscience. But other than that, meh.
I probably would've loved this movie if it came out in 2009, but Nolan has the tendency not to live up to his own standards. After Inception and Interstellar... I dunno, I was expecting a bit more.
When a movie is not realistic people complain about it. When movie is realistic people say realistic movies don't work.
Theknowabout ya it's a realistic war movie where no one ever bleeds \s
And when a movie has backstory and exposition people complain about it. When it has neither people lose their minds :D
It almost like talented filmmakers can balance the two and everyone is happy!
You can go realistic and NOT BE LAME
That's not what he said at all. He never said realistic movies don't work. He said a movie won't work just because it's realistic. There's a big difference.
I think it's fuckn stupid that yall are arguing against Jeremy for his opinion on the movie, EVEN after what he says at 4:10.
If he's supposed to kiss the movie's ass just cos some of yall liked it and want it that way?
Then how is that a review?
It's a useful word for a language that lacks a different widely used plural version of You
Jukka lol Jesus why the fuck do you hate it so much
Kimqi The people defending Jeremy now are the same ones who shitted on him when he said Suicide Squad was good lol
Thank God, he didn't kissed the movie's ass like each and every reviewer out there and called it like what it is.
WOW! WTF This review was a surprise. I loved the movie. I don't give a shit about there backstory I just want them to live.
Whitedragonking Ocola I think that was the intent.
True
This movie felt like something you'd watch on history channel (not a bad thing) and that it needs a narrator.
Jeremy isn't wrong for what he said.
This should be expected if "the whole event is the main character."
I get how so many critics are calling this movie a masterpiece, but in the future you shouldn't shy away from giving a movie,irrespective of what everyone says, your personal rating just because it may differ from the popular vote. That defeats the whole point of the channel. If people agree with you, awesome. If they don't, it's still awesome. These different perspectives that audiences have is what makes the whole movie discussion all the more interesting for film lovers like yourself.
Well said!
I think it’s because in terms of the toxicity of the RUclips comment sections it seems like RUclips has become the place where different opinions go to die
I don't watch these for validation of my opinion on a movie I haven't seen. I watch them to get an honest non-spoiler review by someone that I have a pretty good idea what their taste in film is. Agree or not, I want honesty. If I want idol worship I'll join a religion. Keep up the great work, Jeremy.
Terry McQuarrie Preach
Got a trailer for dunkirk in the ad before this video. It's a sign.
I fail to interpret, is that a good sign for a movie or ..?
It's a sign the studio has money?
Just Saiyan It's a sign that RUclips shows ads that relate to the content you're watching?
Hardly coincidence really...
Im a Nolan fan, there was so much to love about this movie. But I agree with everything Jeremy said!
That & the beach didn't look like it had 400,000 soldiers on it & all the buildings were clean & intact at Dunkirk. Didn't look or feel like a lost hope warzone at all
This movie might be a good time..... if you're drunkirk
Up this comment!-- ^
Dinesh Rashid nice
Yeah! Now its a Party!
Yeah now it's a party! With guns!!
genious
To be honest, I agree with Jeremy. I had read reviews of the film before watching it, most of them positive reviews. I went to see the movie and I couldn't help but feel bored as well. It's not that I "didn't get it" I understand a lot of elements the movie brought like not completely focusing on a character because this is war, and I was looking for the good stuff the reviews were talking about as well and there was some nice things, but I couldn't help feeling bored. I watched Jeremy's video after watching the film and I honestly couldn't agree more. It is honestly hard to make a good story without truly caring or connecting with the characters. Just one man's opinion. Don't hate him or me for it.
Suicide Squad Worth to buy on bluray. Dunkirk is boring. Jeremy´s logic. But you know what? i respect you man, you have balls.
ulises noble Balls for what? Honesty
Uh, It is you don't want him to have a taste or an opinion...
Groot's movie is not much better than Suicide Squad
Ofer Mizrahi rotten tomatoes disagrees
Ofer Mizrahi and why should we care what Rotten tomatoes says? Think for yourself
Totally agree with you Jeremy. Band of brothers way better
I finally got the chance to watch Jeremy Jahns review because I don't watch reviews til after I post my own. I don't understand why so many people are giving him hate about his opinion. First off it's just that, his opinion. It's also his channel so he can do whatever he wants. He can give a rating or not give a rating if he wants. Honestly everything he mentions in this review I agree with. I completely understand his viewpoint on this film. I can also see why people may like it. However, I agree with Jeremy and didn't care for this movie.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I think the lack of well developed characters is intentional. In a war, especially a retreat like Dunkirk, there isn't time for people to stand above or for singular heroes to really stand out, it's just acting on impulse and getting as many people out as you can
Great review as usual though
I never said that. Saving Private Ryan was obviously about the characters more than the event, hell just look at the title. Dunkirk is supposed to be a purely visceral experience that focuses on the event and the desperation of the country as a whole rather than the individual people during the event. Obviously I can't speak about the quality of the film as a whole because I haven't seen it yet, but I can still know what the intent was when bringing it to the big screen.
it's obviously intentional from what I gathered from reviews. whether you like it or not in the movie is the real question.
Nolan himself said he just wanted guys. Guys you didn't know, guys you didn't know what to expect. Even his casting choices like Harry Styles. All intentional.
DoubleOscar fucking love fans if it's a Nolan movie... 'no well developed characters but don't worry IT'S INTENTIONAL'... LITERALLY no other director gets excuses like Nolan movies
At this point I've pre-ordered my tickets. So my goal in watching this video is to find the mentality and expectation needed to enjoy the movie most. Thanks to Jahns for warning what not to expect, and to Stuckmann for illustrating the mindset for appreciating the films strengths, I've got the best shot I can at getting my money's worth.
...OMG you plan to *form your own opinion?* After...watching it?
I applaud your non-conformity!
I'm there with you, Jeremy. I didn't know who any of these characters were nor any of thier backstories there it make it very difficult for me to care about any of them and thus made it less intense.
You must love Adam Sandler movies. That's about the height of your intellect.
I saw it in IMAX earlier was blown away with the intense parts. The whole movie I was like ahhhhhhh. As far as the characters go I kind of liked them being unfocused because it gives a layer of ambiguity
now try to see it without the cinema effect without ..... lie effect
movie = story
movie = the speed and plot twist on how u say that story
movie = acting
movie = creativity+imagine
movie = action
movie = emotion and connecting with actors
movie = logic and realistic
movie = cinematography and camera angel
not
movie = good audio ! that`s a song thing ...that`s a night club thing
when people start talking about this movie they all start saying AUDIO that`s just a failure
going to cinema is awesome ur happy be cause ur in cinema not be cause the movie
its like a party u don`t know or hear the dj but u know that girl over there is hot and she be come ur wife
u don`t come and tell me that dj is the best dj u ever heard in ur life be cause at his party u find ur wife -_-ُ
@@karimkopra what are you talking about?
@@killer92173
its 1 year ago
i will not re read or re watch any thing
and i don`t care if u understand what i say or not
@@karimkopra then why did you bother commenting?
@@karimkopra go home you're drunk
It's almost like film is subjective......weird.
Your personal favourites are subjective, knowing what a good, well made film is not.
doc chicken not entirely. someone could dislike the writing but someone else could think it was good.
I get where you're coming from but that is only half true. There are a ton of "well made" films that have boring plots but great visuals, fantastic dialogue but shallow characters. Nearly EVERYTHING in film is subjective. It all depends on the individual and where their taste lies. Just like art, music, etc.
Liking or disliking a film is subjective, but not if it's a good or bad movie....I've liked bad movies and I've disliked good movies
These comments act like most people in the world have the opinion that film is not subjective. Stop acting like most people are butt hurt by this video, 99% of people commenting have the same opinion as you do.
Back in my day, people subscribed to online reviewers because they wanted to hear their opinion instead of today where they sub to them because they want to seek validation for a movie they love.
Varinder Bhandal We live in a world of opinions mate.
THIS. FUCKING THIS.
so true
That is called "Confirmation Bias".. its everywhere these days.. u only want to see the content/news/reports which satisfies your preconceived opinions..
"Back in my day" no. It's always been this way bud
I was a huge fan of this movie. But I was also a huge fan of your review. Thank you for disagreeing and not being afraid to go against the grain. You made me respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Well done.
Jeremy: "do they have wives? Families? Kids? I want to hear them talk about it!"
Chris: "I'm so happy there wasn't a dumb scene of them sitting around a campfire like 'who do you got back home?'"
Hmm chris seems to be in the lead🤔
Miles Kenney What's wtong with that scene
Miles Kenney Are you expecting them to have the same views on individual movies? Or are you saying that just because Chris said something you agreed on, makes his review greater than Jeremy's? Because either one of those situations are fucking stupid...
Yes that shit is all cliche, but then what? Instead of cliche we got boring. Maybe Nolan could have devised a clever way to tell a we story instead of the clever arrangement of vignettes.
Seems like Chris just knows film a bit more than Jeremy. Both are great but i trust chris reviews more than any other movie review youtuber
That would have been cliche, however there are other ways to tell a person's backstory than sitting around a campfire. Knowing nothing about any of these people made this boeing
Its alright if Jeremy didn't like the movie. Most critics did love it and so did the audience. Jeremy doesn't always have to love a film because everyone loves it. Perhaps it wasn't what he wanted. So let us not bombard him cause there's a shitstorm I smell brewing.
Richank Dubey I tip my hat off to you sir 🎩
Exactly. No need to be uncivil just because of a difference of opinion
Abhishek Shah It probably is with alcohol. He clearly didn't completely hate it but overall didn't like it so....
Same I love BvS and while I have debate with people over the flaws of the movie I still respect their opinion as valid and that we just have to agree to disagree.
Jeremy, I'm super happy that you've told the truth on how you feel about this movie. I'm sure it can be tough to get your real opinion out there because of how insane the internet can be when people disagree. This channel is supposed to be YOUR OPINION and I personally like it because you're a sensible guy who is usually pretty honest and considerate with your reviews. That said, I hope you can continue to make videos like this so that you don't have to feel like you're tip-toeing around every word and we can have more content.
Ok first off, i just wanna say that i am a fan of the dark knight trilogy and of interstellar, haven't seen this movie but i was able to understand jeremy's negatives about interstellar. But i just love how people in this comment section are trying so hard to defend nolan who they believe is the film god who can do no wrong that they are actually going so far as to calling this movie a character itself and just calling the actual people extras. News flash everybody: christopher nolan isn't a perfect film maker. I love your channel and your reviews jeremy I'm a huge fan. Keep up the great work!
No, I am not here to here your opinion on the movies (well partly), but more so I know what to go watch and what my expectation should be. So thank you for this review; I was having unreasonable expectations for this movie, which I will now adjust and hopefully enjoy it more.
You said it right
So... what was your rating?
Probably a better time if you're drunk
a reviewer who doesn't give his rating does not really believe in his own opinion
Ratings mean nothing, sweetheart.
TacTixHD LISTEN.
5/10 at best
99% of this comment section: People complaining about other people complaining about Jeremy's review
1% of this comment section: People actually complaining about Jeremy's review
soo true xD
dalton jackson this happens all of the time in popular RUclipsr channels when they come up with a unpopular opinion, their fanboys will therefore defend their favorite youtubers from criticism
What I hate is when people make comments like this acting like they see all and know all. Dalton, I literally just scrolled past a comment complaining about the review. Seriously, just because you arent seeing it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Now im making another reply because i scrolled down to see a bunch of people giving Jeremy shit. Thats why comments like these are idiotic.
I AM NELSON
3:15 At the end of that metaphor, I thought he was going to say: "Watching two cops sitting in their car for a stakeout, not for a few entertaining minutes, but for a looooooooong time as they just wait...they just wait, that's it. Maybe they eat a donut or two, but other than that, they do nothing."
I loved this movie precisely for the reasons you didn't like it. It's the anti-Pearl Harbour and it's great. It's not about the characters (and their wives, or teaching background) I think, it's about the soldiers (and their sacrifice and bravery). I think of it as a excerpt of the Britannica Encyclopedia in which I'm learning about the Dunkirk evacuation, not the biography of each and every soldier. The emotions don't come from sentimentality but rather from intensity of the event. I even like it better than Saving Private Ryan because it doesn't pause a minute to tell me about the lives of the brave soldiers. Instead, this is a very cut and dry depiction of war which I think illustrates very the real world distance that the general public can feel toward an event that took place "many years ago" to people who "we never met". Yet, I felt every single blow of fear these men were bombarded with.
Dunkirk, I thought was a brilliant film. It's okay to not like it though, it really is.
I detest when people say its realistic...why its Pg-13? Isnt war a violent act of human tragedy?
The way the people acted on the beach was very realistic. In a situation like this, most people don't talk, they go in on themselves. You would have be fed up, terrified and trying to hold it all in. That part of it was far more realistic than most Hollywood war films
Alberto Don't you think the event would be a little more intense if we like yknow cared about any of these characters?
Nolan would have had to substitute realism for that. If you dont like reality and you'd rather exaggerated war thats fine but Nolan accomplished what he went out to do.
joel leighton Well if I have to watch a boring movie for the sake of realism fuck it. I'd rather actually care about what's happening on screen then a series of scenes of bland characters run around like headless chicken. Doesn't even does it's job being realistic when people get hit by bombs and look like all they did was pass out. Bombs fucking blow off limbs, the movie suffers from being pg-13. And no he wouldn't need to sacrifice realism for some characterization, it's not impossible. He couldve used the scenes of them standing around for some dialouge.
I like how every time people disagree with Jeremy, they point to his Suicide Squad review. Is he not allowed to have an opinion because he likes that movie or am I missing something?
tquinton1 Well, before the Suocide Squad review, people pointed to the Green Lantern review. People will always fault others for their own opinions.
tquinton1 Well of course is he allowed to have an opinion about a certain movie. And we are also allowed to notice some inconsistency in his reviews aswell.
Critics don't necessarily have to be consistent. Roger Ebert gave the original Last House on the Left 3.5/4 stars but the remake only 1/4 I think and he said something in his review about how he has "no desire to be consistent." People change their movie tastes.
And I'll admit I liked Suicide Squad too. By no means is it some masterwork film, and maybe BvS lowered my bar significantly, but I had fun with it.
Him liking Suicide Squad completely disregards all credibility in his reviews. That movie was a complete mess, him like it shows that he knows zero things about film and cinema. Why people still take this hack seriously I will never undestand.
doc chicken destroys his credibility to you, while others might actually like suicide squad and agree with Jeremy's review. Every reviewer is entitled to their own opinion and if you want a consensus opinion go to rotten tomatoes
everybody first watch the movie and then make your opinion and then talk about what's right and what's wrong with the film.
Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Jeremy on this one, Dunkirk bored the hell out of me... The only scenes I remember from it are the scenes where a group of soldiers are stuck in a beached boat & Tom Hardy's pilot character saving the beach with his crippled plane & him being captured afterwards at the end.
Both the characters & intensity are much better in Midway (2019) imo. That movie kept me hooked onto the people with their strategies & doctrines of war, and it's also visually gratifying with the sets & action!
One reason why Saving Private Ryan was an amazing movie was because it shows what the soldiers were fighting for and it gave character to all the soldiers. For example the captain Tom Hanks played as was a High School teacher for like under 10 years, he had a wife, and a few kids. So when you see these characters go through a mission you feel for the characters.
Acti0n Jack it has been done before lets see something different with Dunkirk
400,000 men on a beach, I think its safe to assume most have either wives, kids, jobs, brother and sisters etc etc.
Acti0n Jack Dunkirk tries to simply portray war like the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!
Saving private ryan was about a small group of soldiers. Dunkirk is about an event involving 400,000 men.
Acti0n Jack thats the point. nobody would know about 400 000 men they were going to die. characters mean nothing but the sheer horror is what made it tragic
Jesus christ Christopher Nolan fanboys...there is plenty of positive reviews go comment on those if you feel the need to gush about how this movie will be the second coming of Jesus Christ. Just because he didn't like it doesn't mean you dislike the video and attack him.
Harry We are the Norg. We will assimilate all of your opinions to reflect that Christopher Nolan is Ultimate Supreme Commander God of the Multiverse. Resistance is futile.
Jatori Ravenell why? hes saying the same thing 100 other people have already said. his comment is actually very redundant and unnecessary
Harry Preach. I'll be honest here too. Interstellar kinda sucked...
David Callahan Hey assface, who else was using the Borg angle to poke fun at Nolanosers, hmm? Gimme some examples.
Dean Strickson just you. im so impressed let me tell you
I strongly disagree. Dialogue is not the way this film wanted us to connect with the characters. It's the things unspoken that show us so much more about the story. Dialogue is overused in films and is too often used as a crutch to "tell us" things in place of a lack of a better filmmaker to show us. But if your the type that has to have everything spelled out for you, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of screen writers in Hollywood that would love to dish you out some B class garbage.
Tanner Browning I strongly agree when you say that dialogue was not the way Nolan wanted to tell the story, but I think your confusing dialogue with exposition. dialogue can help move the story forwards in a way that visual storytelling just cant, I mean if you have ever seen a Tarantino movie, you know that he loves to have 10 minute conversations about nothing!, and that is not "spelling it out for you", that is just great dialogue. I get what Nolan wanted to do with this movie, and I admire it, but if you grab ANY book about screenwriting I bet that the first two chapters are called STORY, and CHARACTERS, and this movie failed at delivering both. this is my opinion, and I respect both yours and Jeremys, and I see where both of you are coming from
I agree both story and characters are the most important pieces of any compelling story. I just want to make it clear, I wasn't meaning that dialogue isn't important. Because everyone knows it's a powerful tool. Again, the argument is that there neither being STORY and character in this film. And that cannot be determined by either too much or lack of dialogue. I would argue that there is plenty of both in this film. it really annoys me when critics say generically " it wasn't a good story" or, "I didn't find the characters interesting". And without saying specifically WHY that's the case, it becomes less a problem with storytelling and more of a personal taste. Maybe I should be asking the why it failed in your opinion?
But yeah Tarantino, great dialogue.
the film needed more backstory. It wanted you to feel scared without caring for the characters emotionally
Who needs backstory in WWII movies at this point???
Tanner Browning The reason I think it failed at delivering a good character was not because I didnt know his backstory, but becuase I didnt even know their personality.
for example during the first 2 indiana jones movies, we know nothing about his past, except for the fact that he knew marion, but still we cared about him, because he was a well thought out character, that had a clear goal and personality, he was funny, sarcastic, and the best professor in the world.
but in dunkirk they all act like the same person, and becuase of this, the story has no good characters to latch on to.
saving private ryan has a good story,(group of soldiers have to tell a young man, that his brother is now dead and can now go back to his family, all while there is a war going on), because it has good characters to tell it through.
this movie's story is, there is a war... and nothing else!
in Saving private ryan war is an external element, and the characters are the focus, but in this one its the opposite, war is the focus, and characters are an external element.
I actually disagreed with jeremy when he said he wanted to know the characters history, becuse even in drive, a movie with little dialogue, and no exposition, I still knew how the character felt, and how HE would react to any certain event.
you need good characters to tell a good story, and you need a good story for your characters to feel relevant, otherwise why are they the main focus of the movie?
I actually really liked this movie.
everything on SCREEN is perfect, the acting, the cinematography, the score, the directing, however the script is the exact opposite.
this is (in my opinion) Nolans worst SCRIPT (not movie)
it has terrible structure, poorly written characters, and nothing much of actual content. it's just the description of alot of excelent shot action scenes.
many are saying that the lack of characters is a choice not a flaw, but I see it as, (and this is my opinion) an on purpose choice to focus on the visuals rather than the story, which is a FLAW IN THE SCREENPLAY, and by extension the film.
as I said I still liked the movie and this is pne of those movies that if you loved it, i get it...and if you hated it I also get it.
I am actually interested in why you personally cared about these characters beyond the fact that they are in a terrible situation
I´ve just seen the movie and I agree 100% with Jeremy. Movie was visually beautiful, nice and realistic air combats (despite not seeing a single german down a british plane like they did) and agonizing scenes of men drowning in the dark.
Having that said, movie has waaay too much long silences, the cliche of traumatized soldiers not speaking when spoken to, not knowing the names of anyone or caring if they live or die (was the kid who died related to the old guy and the blond kid? Don't know, don't care). A lot of times I wished I could fast foward the movie.
yeah, but what's the final "rating"? I need to know if I should be drunk or if I'm going to forget it.
Edward Deedon he said he forgot some of the characters names so its probably a ur not going to remember it in t-minis something
Default is always to fill the flask.
Maybe that's the point of the video actually. I think he wants us to get an opinion about Dunkirk. What do WE thought about the movie? Is it worth watching it or no?....hmmm...
;)
You did not give the movie a score?
I'm here for the honesty Jeremy. Thank you (not sarcasm. I want to know what a person actually think about movies)
Saw Dunkirk on opening night because I love Nolan more than any other. And I agree 100%.
I loved the movie, but I can say it wasn't for everyone.
"Editing was kind of messy"
Um, nah lock in the Oscar for Lee Smith right now.
Definitely agree with you. Jeremy said it was messy because Dunkirk requires people to pay attention and think so he blamed the editing instead of his ADD.
"Dunkirk editor Lee Smith's work on Christopher Nolan's WWII epic won the trophy for outstanding editing in a feature, during the 12th annual Hollywood Professional Association (formerly Hollywood Post Alliance) Awards Thursday night at the Skirball Cultural Center.":
www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-professional-association-awards-winners-2017-list-full-1058842/item/outstanding-color-grading-feature-film-1058855
Breaking Banter I think that the dramatic question of Memento is "How did this happen? The structure of that film supports that question. The dramatic question of Dunkirk is "what happens next?". This structure doesn't support that question. It destroyed that tension.
Breaking Banter P.S. This is kind of Nolan's microwave against Netflix. This film mostly cannot be enjoyed in the home. It's a THEATRICAL experience.
It got critics' choice nomination for editing. Probably will get nomination from Academy Awards.
Yeah, saying lot abot Jeremy's credibility.
I find the lack of a final verdict disturbing.
black screen, no meme He probably didn't wanna give one cause it'd pretty negative, and people would be just throwing that in his face rather than listening to what he has to say about the movie in detail. And after seeing the movie, I think it's pretty clear Jeremy missed the point of it.
Yeah, is this an "awesometacular," "see it when you're drunk," or "buy it on blu ray?"
This whole movie was just ear porn
and eye porn. was gorgeous as fuck.
I was feeling like a straight guy, listening to gay ear porn.
so its a song not a movie ? now ?
If the soundtrack is so terrible that you can't focus on the movie, then the soundtrack is a huge flaw.
Maybe because it's a war film with gunshots and not a musical?
The 3 storylines has different timelines. The Mole Takes place in ONE WEEK, The SEA takes place in ONE DAY and THE AIR takes place in an hour.
that confused me the most, i think it could have been explained better.
GAME OVER "WE HAVE EVERY PIXEL COVERED" It was LITERALLY written on the screen...
How do you know that? No where in the movie did it specify this. Why was it non-linear? It's a simple historical event, not an interstellar our inception. It got in the way of the story telling (which was also terrible). The movie was dull.
how does he know that? its literally in the movie in fucking writing XD. understandable if you didn't like it but if you couldnt even catch that and the intent behind the way it was filmed then you werent really paying attention or had no intention to
They literally fed that information to the audience in writing. Do you read?
You didn't tell us what it was!
Is it Awesometacular?
Obviously not.
I'm guessing it's somewhere between Good Time No Alcohol required and Good Time if you're drunk. If he says it's visually appealing and a good realistic take with couple of negatives, mainly losing focus on storytelling, it's gonna be one of those.
Frank Hardy He said it was boring, and he usually rates boring movies "not gonna remember in T - 1 day"
He's said himself that he only uses those ratings because people seem to insist upon a "score" for film but rating art in that way feels weird to him. I guess he forgot to include an arbitrary rating, he told you what he thought of it.
If he was gonna rate it, it would probally be T minus 1 day, since he rates boring movies that , and movies with bad plots but are fun , a good time iiiifffff your drunk
I just saw the movie too, and Jeremy I understand, really. But as a historian and movie lover the film is called Dunkirk... The setup is the battle itself, the operation and the lifes of 450,000 men that couldnt get home just a few miles away. Sometimes in this type of movies.. Or history, you have to be inmerse in the situation, wich is about just that, what happened, it doesnt have to be a sob story all the time, war movies dont have to be always about one person or... A love triangle (fucking movie) it can be just about the war and how you can see thousands of people interact with it, we dont get movies like that anymore.
For some people it's easier to immerse yourself in the situation if you're able to understand and relate to some of the characters, if the characters are just numbers, even if technically they're human lives, it might feel boring.
I just got through watching this movie on HBO MAX. Missed it in theaters. I was surprised that I just didn’t like it either. Wasn’t bad or anything. There was a lot happening but there were no arcs for anyone and I don’t know or care about anyone. I figured it’s Christopher Nolan and WWII. That should have been a win right there.
Is this the first ratingless review from Jeremy?
I don't know, technically he said 50 shades of Gray was "nothing", not even a dogshit. Does that count as no-rating?
MaC S3th So this fuckin masterpiece is now on par with Fifty Shades of Horseshit?!
+Hua Mulan
I don't know and I don't care. Just pointing out that there was something similar to lack of rating in the past.
He didn't give Shutter Island a rating.
I believe he didn't do ratings around 2010
First of all: Some of the comments in the comment section are really mean, but don't pay attention to them Jeremy. Just continue to give your honest opnion, that's why I watch your videos.
I also saw this movie yesterday and of course I respect your opinion (I watch many of your reviews), but I have to disagree with you. I'm on the side of most of the other critics, this is my favorite movie from Nolan (TDK & Inception #2 & #3). Eveyone's entitled to their own opinion, but it feels like you missed the point of the movie. This is a movie about suspense and the experience not about the characters. We don't need to know them, we don't need a backstory, actually I'm glad it isn't there. This isn't a character study, it's a masterclass in suspense building. Had there been backstory the movie wouldn't have pulled off its sense of urgency and that was the whole point of the movie. We already know what the stakes are and that everyone will lose everything during the war so there was no need to have that kind of exposition or backstory. They're just people and they're trying to survive and that's all you need to know. That's the fun thing about movies, people have different opinions and you don't always have to agree with everyone.
Edit: Maybe suspense is the wrong word. I like this movie, because it's immersive. Just a few minutes in it feels like you're actually there on the beach. I almost forgot I was watching a movie. Imo that's an incredible feat and that's the main reason I like this movie. But as you probably already found out it's hard to accurately describe this movie and the best (and only) way to really know if you like it, is to watch the movie.
Top Lists Movies and Music Oh good. So Chris Stuckman was right. And yes I believed in him. But I have to see it myself. 😂😂. Sooo... 😂😂😂
Top Lists Movies and Music Gravity had a central character that it focused on though, so that's a poor comparison.
Top Lists Movies and Music yes but clearly Jeremy and others like myself prefer films with fleshed out characters and backstorys, but yes it is down to opinion
A great idea for a movie, show people almost zero gravity on screen and kill most of the cast. Why? because of some malfunction. Only Great movies win oscars.
Yes listening to his review I think he really thought this would be a war movie focused on characters like Hacksaw Ridge (which is also amazing btw) and if you go in with those expectations I can understand that you wouldn't like it as much as you hoped you would.
I can understand where Jeremy is coming from with lack of dramatization and characterisation, but the whole movie isn't based on characters or trying to learn their back story - the main character is actually YOU - the audience member, and you're experiencing the hell that these men are going through in that moment in time. As one reviewer put it, it's like "VR without the goggles".
Also, there isn't much focus on one character, mainly because every single person on the beach, is an important character, and they too have a backstory, and the most important thing is how they all work together to survive in this situation where time is against them.
And even though there is very little dialogue, I still found characterisation from each character's actions and their expressions, which made me understand who they are to a degree - as they say, actions sometimes do speak louder than words.
Well said John Smithee
well said
Even though the characters didn't say too much, we still care for them mainly because of the actions, heroics, choices and sacrifices they make in that situation and at that point in time.
These characters become the eyes for the audience because we see and know what they see and know, and because we're not given a heavy backstory for every person on the beach, we don't know or expect to know if someone is going to live or die.
This is why the choices and sacrifices they make to keep fighting to save someone else's life, despite the fact that they won't ever be recognised for it or whether they live to see another day, is what makes their decisions even more heroic and heartbreaking.
Thanks Dennis :)
If its about me then I need a character to latch on too!
I definitely sympathize with Jeremy here. It's always tough to go on the Internet and tell people you didn't like a movie that is widely beloved. It was cool to see Chris Stuckmann have his back here even though he really enjoyed this movie.
Definitely respect your opinion.I am never one for hating someone for not liking a movie that I absolutely love. I feel this film is a masterpiece, one of the greats of 2017. Others feel the same way. But hey, movies touch people in different ways. Obviously, it didn't quite get to you as much as it did for me. But there's nothinf wrong with that. Always behind ya mate, no matter what you think about a movie!
I think that the lack of characterization was perfect for this type of movie. Dunkirk is a survival movie as much as it is a war movie. Everything comes together in order to place the viewer in what was a dreadful waking nightmare. I found it equal parts realistic and surrealistic, in the sense that the sound design and pacing keeps you on the edge the entire time, and the very few moments of silence in the film are shocking. You almost feel like something is wrong, as your senses are suddenly and unexpectedly not being assaulted.
The sparse dialogue further contributed to this overall effect. 400,000 men trapped on a strip of sand waiting to die... any inclusion of misty eyed reminiscing about their wives and family, i feel, would have taken away from what the movie was trying to portray. It would have broken the pacing, and given the audience a moment to relax, which is NOT what you want for this type of film. Dunkirk, for me, was about terror. The kind of fear that you would sacrifice your loved ones in order to escape. Being stripped of everything that makes you human (which includes your family and personality). A brilliant moment in the movie (SPOILERS) is when the young soldier from the opening scene is underneath the pier and hears the officers talking about the evacuation plan. What he hears is grim, and speaks volumes about what all the men on that beach were thinking.
I heard someone (can't remember who) say that this movie was an two hour long panic attack that you were glad you had. I couldn't put it any better. During the movie I was wishing for it to just be over, which is what I imagine only a fraction of what the troops at Dunkirk were experiencing. Once it ended, I wanted to watch it again. Really brilliant movie, probably my favorite movie of the year, and definitely my favorite war movie of all time.
Idletree This shit was ass stop
Fine premise it just gets repetitive and boring.
Hacksaw was better.
I think the negative aspect of any survival movie is lack of empathy. You have to root for the survivor to actually escape. This is a story about losers who were surrounded, forced to retreated and they only survived because Germany committed (yet another) critical military mistake. That's it, there's nothing special about it saved only by the gigantic number of survivors. When you watch this kind of historical movie knowing the background, knowing how the civilians helped the whole thing, etc.. It loses all the interest, unfortunately. The movie had a intense soundtrack, but I never doubted the young dude presented in the intro and the boat people, I never doubt they would have died in the end. This is Nolan, he is a blockbuster director, the protagonists don't die even in a PG-13 War movie (which is just ridiculous, no blood whatsoever). You don't feel any kind of danger. Only when the boat starts to sink, everything goes black and etc.. That's threatening. The sound of the planes as well.. But that's it. A cool edited movie with great music telling the story of sore losers, that's the crude reality.
Of all time?
Over Apocalypse Now? Oh hell nah
guess I forgot that when you're being massacred with bombs, guns and torpedoes and having your friends slaughtered in front of you the first thing you're going to want to do is tell people about your backstory...
idk about you, but if I dont give a fuck about the characters, then why should I give a fuck about whats happening to them??? the only way to care about a character is to have some damn character development. I swear if it was some other director who made this movie the same exact way, so many people would hate on it. but since its Nolan, everyone has to suck the films cock.
TRUTH.
people in the comments keep saying "but the movie is not meant to have character development! so why hate it for not having character development???" -_- just because it was meant to be that way, doesnt take away from the fact that it sucked. Pineapple Pizza is supposed to have Pineapples on it, but that doesnt stop it from tasting like ass.
IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE. The characters don't have to tell you their backstory, or about them. THE FUCKING MOVIE CAN.
Disturbed702 It's called fucking empathy. Simply knowing that these are flesh and blood people in a crisis that they have no ability to avert or avoid should be enough. From there, it's all about the heat of the moment and the things they do to survive and carry on. Do you watch the news when a tragedy occurs, say to yourself you know nothing about them, and move on without the least bit of compassion?
Jahns is a legend, thank you for your honest and valid analysis, I agree with you Sir.
Dunkirk felt like a Malick film at times. For me that was a win.
Having watched the film yesterday, whilst I think its still a really good film, I definitely agree with a lot of what he says here. Specifically, I really enjoy character development in a movie and found it quite lacking in this film. I wasn't really invested in anyone save for the RAF pilot and even then only because he was a badass rather than any emotional attachment.
But the point is, it shouldn't matter if I agree or not. This is a review, an opinion. I've disagreed with JJ a *lot* of times but I still watch his videos because it lets me see things from different perspectives and also because they are engaging and entertaining.
Like it astounds me that people are so ridiculously insecure that the sole reason they watch these reviews is to validate their own opinions and if they don't experience this validation they take such personal offence to it that they devolve into abusing someone who reviews movies for fun
Watched two times till I realized there is no rating
Zahra Osman me too! 😅😂😂
I agree. At least with 1917 there are characters that are on screen that connect you as an audience to the film. Dunkirk felt like I was watching deleted scenes of a film stitched together to form half of a movie.
Yes because we all know during the evacuation of Dunkirk, soldiers were talking about their lives and having pick nicks as the Germans were only a few miles behind them.
That's the reality of war, the commander was no greater than the soldiers. Anyone could die
The storytelling in this movie is top notch, if you think that you probably just dont get it.
The fact that there was no characterization is what made this movie so perfect. No unnecessary love scenes, no unnecessary dialouge about personal lives. It was just the horrors of war. One of the best war movies in the past 3 decades
ThreeStarEdits Vine you can show the horrors of war as well as not have dialogue, or even you can do it AND have dialogue. A lot of good scripted movies show the realistic side of war but this movie doesn't even make you care about whether or not the majority of the characters live. And why the story of Dunkirk to display the horrors of war? There are more disastrous events in war history. I couldn't feel at all for any of the people there.
Dw, your honest opinion has still helped validate what i'd hoped the movie would be.
It's a shame you didn't enjoy it, but a gorgeous, historically accurate film is what i wanted out of Dunkirk, so hearing that kind of thing is still personally useful.
Everything past that is up to you, so why should i fight it?
How about a magic trick? I'm gonna make Jeremy's rating disappear. TA-DA! it's... It's gone.
That was no magic, i saw it go up into this guys skull!
major cop out on Jahns part. My guess is wont remember in t minus 1 day
Fun fact: the plane sound effects were probably digitally upgraded, but the planes in use (Messerschmitts/Stuka Dive Bombers) often had additions on their wings that, when the wind funneled through them, added an additional level of warfare (psychological) by creating and amplifying a “howling” noise while diving.
Jeremy evidently is a character-driven critic, because the movie isn't about characters. It's about the scope and depiction of the event. You can tell that Nolan wanted it to be like you were there, not for it to be all about some people there.
What scope? They're was no scale. You see like 7 planes and like 2000 men the whole movie
Ever heard of the fog of war? Even generals rarely saw much of their own armies.
Jeremy Salkeld You could see for miles down the beach.......
Jeremy Salkeld look up pictures of the actual battle
I didnt feel like I was there though... besides the stuka dive bomber scenes I didnt feel any threat...without any characters to latch onto it was just a bunch of beautiful action scenes strung together. Maybe if you hadnt heard about or looked into the battle before it would be interesting, but as someone who already knows whats going to happen it was hard to feel like there were stakes.
Not to mention if the movie was supposed to be about the event, then why does it follow around and focus heavily on what happens to a group of bland characters? Seems to be an error in your logic there, cause if this movie was supposed to be about the event I would have much-prefered a documentary-style movie where it showed different battles and events that took place within the battle.
All the hate in the comment section is so called for! I mean, how dare Jeremy share his own opinion on a movie? It's not like he's a movie critic or anything, right?
How dare he see a movie....
*Looks at thumbnail*
*looks at critic reviews*
Oh, shit.
completely agree with your thoughts on characters. i thought it was visually stunning but the characters weren’t very interesting and the editing was a bit confusing. but i actually liked that the characters weren’t focused on. it does make the situation more realistic and makes the film be able to focus more on other aspects.
how come he didn't give it a rating ?
What is the rating Jeremy?
that's what I said
What would he rate it as?
Awesometacular? No, negative review
Buy it on blu ray? No, negative review
Good time no alcohol? No, negative review
Good time if you're drunk? Who would want to watch this movie with alcohol?
Won't remember in t-? Maybe, but that does kinda understate the good visuals and sound effects. It's not that bad.
Dogshit? No, it's definitely not that bad.
Gilberto Solorio Didn't have the guts to give his honest rating on it
Because you can't give ZERO a rating! the movie is pure fucking crap!!
I'm surprised you didn't event give it a rating
I think he's scared of what people will say .
Are there other movies that Jeremy has not given ratings to?
Gary Smith well he did not give ratings before he started his rating system
i think the whole point was to NOT have character development. the point is an observation of an event in real time. not fake drama.
apope06 it was like a documentary in a movie
That would be fine if it was accurate, but it wasn't. The evacuation of Dunkirk was over 6 days, with significant help from the air force (not just 2.5 Spitfires) and a vast number of other things that change the story. If this was a made up story, fine, but it's recent and documented history.
Nolan was aiming for wow factor, not accuracy, and in my opinion the wow factor wasn't enough to carry it.
+Victoria Robinson: and we have a winner. The purpose of the movie is irrelevant. In the end you go to a movie to be entertained or at least to be engaged by the material. It wasn't Jeremy's cuppa tea. Doesn't mean he doesn't "get the movie". It just means it wasn't for him.
Just returned from a film - waste of time. First of all, the argument that it was all about the observation of the event does not stand. NO WHERE in the entire film do you actually sense the scale of what was happening.
Mild spoilers, if you could call them that...
You see a couple of thousand soldiers on the entire beach line (at best) and a dozen or so ships and/or boats, maybe 10 trucks.
That's it.
In reality, there were around 400.000 soldiers cramped in that city (that is actually portrayed as completely deserted), Germans were away fighting in the countryside against combined French-British rearguard (not 150 meters from the beaches as portrayed in the film), and UK left over 2000 artillery pieces, tens of thousands of vehicles (including ~700 tanks) and God know how much of small arms and supplies there.
All you see is intact city, with maybe 2000 soldiers standing in line on a clean beach. No sense of scale what so ever!
And complete waste of good actors - roles that big names played here could have been played by anyone. Just pluck a man from a street and have him play the role. For Tom Hardy it was even worse - you don't even see his face and he has maybe 10 sterile lines in the entire film. So you don't see him, there is barely any chance to hear him and when you do it is nothing that you'd need Tom Hardy for. He was like an extra in this film. Imagine, Tom Hardy, playing an extra in historical war film.
A few pointless pathetic scenes, some shameless historical inaccuracies (no time in listing them all), film devoid of scale and actual happening, wasted great actors...
I don't know. I did not expect it to be the next Saving Private Ryan (or a Bridge to Far or some other great war classic), but I did not expect it to suck balls this much.
Film had three good things in it:
1. If you like practical effects, you will be pleased. Not so many of them, and CGI would actually be nice here as film lacked scale, but I guess practical effects were nice.
2. French rearguard was mentioned twice in the film - so nice of them to mention who held the line.
3. The last 5 seconds of the film when Spitfire is burning, foreshadowing (in my opinion) the Battle for Britain that is to come.
And that's it. Nothing else, in the entire film, was of any noteworthy value. I am VERY disappointed. I'd give it "Won't remember it in T-10 minutes". And I really like the actors and Nolan, so this is not some hate throwing. I like them, i like the theme, I expected a *decent* film, not "OH MY GAWD THIS IS SO AWESOME!!!" and I got this piece of crap that I wasted a bit over an hour and a half and $5 for a ticket.
If it was in "real time" his movie will be 3 days long.
Dude, I thought I was going crazy for not being amazed by it. Thanks for your honest review.