Intense, taut, and Rylance

Rating: 8/10 (7 August 2017)

How could Christopher Nolan, a lover of twisted timelines and bender of perceived realities, make a WWII movie interesting? With the evacuation of Dunkirk, he's chosen what would appear to be a straightforward, linear plot. Get from the city to the coast, get from the coast to a boat, and get from the boat to the other side of the English Channel to enjoy the vista that is (are) the White Cliffs of Dover.
His creative touch, and what makes the movie an entertaining thrill, is to follow three interwoven timelines: (i) if by land; (ii) if by sea; and (iii) if by Spitfire. The characters are disposable, much like people in war, yet Mark Rylance proves again his mettle as one of the most under-appreciated actors of our time, and Harry Styles perfunctorily portrays the human version of a turd without too much distraction. Would David Bowie have found a role had he lived long enough? Sting is surely still available, and Phil Collins could always use more screen time.
Dunkirk reminds us that war is hell, some humans are good people, and ultimately nothing really matters unless you get your story printed in the newspapers. What good is the spectacle if no one sees it? That's why movies have advertising budgets, after all.
As for the Hans Zimmer score, which makes overuse of Shepard tones in order to imbue intensity, it's fine. It's bombastic and detracting, and the movie could have done entirely without music without affecting the intensity, urgency, or sense of desperation.
Much like Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan wants you to know he's a great filmmaker, and you can feel it oozing from the screen. Perhaps they could stand to use a little more Rylance in their lives.