Reviews

Dunkirk is not a history, at least not in any remotely traditional sense of the genre. The intention of the film is not to educate on the events on that French beach that dreary week, day, and hour. Rather, Nolan used what happened at Dunkirk, a very real part of history, as the foundation for building what is a visceral and ultra-realistic war experience. As only Nolan can do, he turns a smart, if ordinary, concept (a film about Dunkirk) into an ingenious and wholly unique film (an uncomfortable, horrifying, and realistic wartime experience). This is a film that is no fun to watch, as it shouldn't be because war is the worst kind of human evil. Christopher Nolan tries to capture that reality and does so with more gusto than any filmmaker before him. And in that pursuit, his war picture stands alone even among the most insightful war movies. He shakes us to the core, terrifies us, and leaves us traumatized afterward. This was his intention from the start; don't mistake that for bad filmmaking.

Dunkirk works because the history of it, the reality that these sorts of events actually happened to real human beings and aren't just inventions of imagination, immediately gets our attention. While we know deep down that none of these particular characters are real, we are convinced that they certainly could have been and the actions depicted on the screen were likely the same of many hundreds of men on that beach. In a sense, these virtually nameless and unexplored characters serve as the embodiment of all those men – human beings just trying to survive another day. We know nothing of their lives outside that beach, but it doesn't matter. Only survival matters.

The actors turn in solid performances. This is a film designed to do a specific purpose and it is not to showcase the actors. These actors do their part in making the experience come to life. Hans Zimmer turns in another powerful score. While it falls short of his work on Interstellar and Inception, it should rightly earn him some recognition come award season. There is not one single flaw to be found in this movie. As is usually the case with Nolan, he does all the heavy lifting and everyone else does their part to finish the job. While the second, third, and fourth viewing will prove if this is his best work for me, the talk of Dunkirk being Nolan's masterpiece is not unfounded. This is a great film; there is no doubt about that.

It should be said that this is a movie that is very uncomfortable at times. The sound engulfs everything. Occasionally, dialogue is missed because there is so much background noise. However, war is not comfortable so it is natural that a war movie wouldn't be either. It is in these details that Nolan perfects the experience of a war film like no other. If you are looking for a nice evening at the movies, this is not for you. This is an intense, loud, and overall unpleasant movie. Yet, it is beautiful and moving, powerful in its stroke. This is a movie worth watching – not for entertainment but for experience.

From the very first moment, Nolan tries to convince us that what we are watching is not only a true story, but might very well be the actual footage of those fateful days at Dunkirk. And, from the first moment, we believe him. We are engulfed by the deafening sound of planes flying overhead and jolted by the bullets ripping by; we scream in horror as men drown in front us; and we feel hopeless as struggle after struggle continues to leave thousands of men stranded as the enemy closes in. This must be real. No other film experience in my life has so deeply and palpably made me feel as if I am living the same reality as the characters on the screen. I left the theater feeling as if I was leaving Dunkirk myself – just surviving to fight another day.

I've rated almost a hundred movies and I've only ever given out six 10s on this website. I don't rave about many movies and I am tough to please when it comes to film, but this film is absolute brilliance. It is flawless. This one earns its 10 and it is one of the best films I have ever seen.

Everything about this film is brilliant. The camera work is great and the score is underrated. However, what makes this film is an absolutely genius screenplay that is acted to perfection. This script will rock your world. I am not Catholic. I didn't grow up in a deeply Catholic area, but this film still affected me greatly. Everyone should see this movie for that reason. That is something that you have to see for yourself.

However, I'd like to focus a little more on the technical aspects. Beyond the fact that the subject matter is heavy and extremely important to American and world culture, this movie does everything else right. The acting is absolutely phenomenal. This is particularly true for Ruffalo and McAdams. I adore the subtlety with which they both act. It is brilliant. There isn't much more to say. This film is pure brilliance from its opening frame to its closing moment. For both cinematic and cultural reasons, this is a film that every person should see.

From reading what many others have said, it appears that there is some controversy surrounding many aspects of this film. I would like to address those first. I personally knew very little about the story upon which Argo is based going into this movie. I didn't really care to know because I felt that there was no way it was a better film than Django, Lincoln, or Silver Linings Playbook. All of which it beat out for Best Picture. However, I caved and decided to watch it. Many say that it diminishes the role that the Canadian government played in the actual operation and greatly exaggerated the CIA's role. I can imagine this to be true. It portrayed the American intelligence as the strongest proponent of the operation certainly. Which, after research, I understand to be false. However, while the roles of the two nations may be reversed, I felt that Canada was not totally snubbed. After the film ended, I felt grateful for the Canadian help, particularly that of Ken Taylor. I don't think the falseness is a complete crime. In reality, the true heroes are not either government but the individuals. Regardless of who did or didn't do what, the dramatic liberty taken does not take away from the films quality.

From a technical aspect, this film is very solid. The camera work, the cinematography, the score and soundtrack, the directing, the script, and the acting are all spot on. Really, nothing about this film is going to blow you away. Alan Arkin and John Goodman give very strong and convincing performances. Neither of which I feel are Oscar worthy. Cranston, Affleck, and the rest of the ensemble give solid performances. The script is good. It is coherent, riveting, and easy to follow. Affleck has once again proved himself to be a great director. The reality is that this won't be very many people's favorite movie, but it does everything it sets out to do and does it well. It is just a good piece of filmmaking.

I wasn't sure what to expect going to the theaters. Man of Steel had many, many issues. Too many, I thought, to be fixed in just one movie. Not to mention the fact that it was painfully boring and dry. So, I didn't have overly high hopes. I wasn't disappointed or surprised.

Honestly, this movie takes a lot of risks. Batman is totally and completely different from any version I've seen and Lex Luthor is much different than you would expect. Affleck's performance, whether you like his rendition of the Bat or not, is solid. He makes a very strong and convincing Bruce Wayne. I prefer a lighter and more traditional version of the Caped Crusader, but I respect Affleck's showing. I look forward to seeing where they take the Bat moving forward. Eisenberg's performance is much more polarizing. It's not for everybody, but you have to respect how much he committed. It was a risk. And it definitely made him stand out as a villain.

Cinematographically, this movie is surprisingly brilliant. The opening of the movie contains many varied and interesting shots, even poetic at times. The dark colors work much more beautifully with the introduction of Batman. The score is very well written and very evidently varies from character to character, hero to hero.

There is one major thing which kills this movie. The script is a mess. Act 1 is brilliant and act 3 is solid. However, it falls apart in act 2. It feels as if we have five different movies in one. It is sloppy and hard to follow through the middle. I think they tried to accomplish to much in this one film. Rather than being just a Batman vs Superman plot, it is that plus many other various major plot lines. This movie should've accomplished one goal, but rather tried to move the universe five steps ahead instead of one. You will see what I mean when you watch it. It isn't the individual moments or the dialogue. In fact, other than a few stray scenes, most dialogue and action is solid. In acts 1 and 3 there are even some great and powerful moments. It is how the story is told that makes it feel sloppy.

Overall, this movie was good and worth watching. It felt difficult and sloppy at times, but the action was great. What it did well, it did really well. What it did poorly, it did really poorly. It will suffice for what it meant to accomplish. I just don't know that I can sit through 5 or 10 more DC movies like that.

Let me start by saying that I have never heard wheezing in pain that was so convincing that I believed it Oscar worthy. However, Leo is an absolute genius in this picture. As my friend quipped, "I couldn't even make my leg look that dead; how does he do it?" I can't even describe for you how great DiCaprio's performance is in this film. I honestly have never been on the Leo bandwagon. I think he's a great actor who has turned in many Oscar worthy performances, however, I do not worship the ground upon which he walks. This is not a Leo groupie lauding unnecessary and bloated praises. This performance is genuinely one of the best I've seen.

This film generally has a small plot, which includes a lot of violence. Frankly, I have never been accepting of these terms, but this movie makes up for it else where. The cinematography of this is flawless. The cut to shots are beyond genius, the camera work is brilliant, the colors are rich, the costumes are great, the makeup is greater, and the technicalities are perfection. Every t is crossed and every i dotted. The film won't wow you with an incredible plot but it dives deep into what it has and let's the visuals speak for themselves. It is an instant masterpiece of filmmaking which turns in great performances from two of today's top actors. I don't know whether it will pull down a Best Picture Award from the Academy, but it doesn't need accolades for longevity. It is genius. Innaritu has proved himself one of the best filmmakers in the industry today. There isn't much more to say about this movie. Go see it and you will see exactly what I mean. It is polarizing so whether you like it or not, I think we can all admit that it a great achievement all around.

I just want to be clear here. I know a lot of people are claiming that the science in this movie is outrageous and unbelievable. I am no scientist by any stretch of the imagination. I took one semester of Chemistry in high school. However, even I know that the science depicted in this movie and, more specifically, the book is actually quite conceivable. There are obviously factors that are, for lack of a better word, stretched, but almost completely the science is still POSSIBLE. That is what I find most interesting. So, be careful before writing a review that this movie is impossible or, at the very least, unconvincing.

With that said, this is my favorite movie of 2015. Though I doubt that it will win Best Picture at the 88th Academy Awards, it certainly is worthy of its nod. Matt Damon is absolutely at his finest and is certainly one of my favorites for Best Actor. He achieves an acting performance that even surpasses Tom Hanks (for whom I have a soft spot), in Zemeckis's Cast Away. The supporting cast is lovely. More interestingly, I am thoroughly impressed with Goddard's adaptation. After reading the book (which I did after watching the movie), I was blown away that Goddard could craft such a fiction into a film (and one that is in fact even better than an already great book). And of course, Ridley Scott is brilliant. The visuals of this movie are beautiful. I went to see this on a whim. I actually wanted to see Bridge of Spies of but didn't have the chance. I decided to watch this on the basis that "eh, it looks pretty good." I was not disappointed. This movie will surprise you.