Nolan misses the Slam-Dunk(irk) on this one

Rating: 5/10 (21 July 2017)

With his newest release 'Dunkirk' , high-profile director Christopher Nolan ensures that I've seen more duds from him rather than successes. In fact, if I hadn't known Nolan directed 'Dunkirk', I'd never have suspected it after the movie , aside from soon forgetting the film anyway. Here's a fabulous example of how to spend a big fortune on a war movie, with all the sound and swooping visuals, and yet ultimately leave the viewer with precious little to hang on to after it's all over. Pic is based on the eventual evacuation of more than 330,000 British and allied troops from France's Dunkerque coast where they were trapped after the Germans pushed them there in 1940 in WWII. The Nazi's bizarre decision not to advance full-throttle on these cornered troops is perhaps not relevant to the movie but Nolan commits other glaring omissions - afraid perhaps of upsetting his current-day German pals, he uses the non-specific word 'enemy' instead of Germans ; more disturbing is the fact that he refuses to show even passing footage of how in real life more than 30,000 French soldiers gallantly assisted British evacuation while themselves having to surrender to the Nazis. Forgetful that he's directing a movie and not a mute show-'n'-read- out picture show, the movie's preamble informs us of the above background in print instead of having characters tell the situation to us with simple dialogue.
Nolan seems to have held his background-score composer to rifle- point and warned him of impending strafing if he ever stops the music - the result is non-stop keening from the foreboding cellos. The relentless background music, even if it is not that loud, ensures that there is barely any moment of reflection, perspective or poise in this hectic collage. I often accuse Indian mainstream film-makers of BGM overkill - Nolan here seems to tell them 'Don't worry, I'm with you'. The lens refuses to dwell on any given situation or character at length ; resultantly very few scenes pack emotional gravitas and I will be genuinely stunned if you remember in later months the sentimental impact of any character from this movie. A character comes to an unfortunate end unrelated to the direct strike of war but the story-teller here is unable to extract wrenching impact from that turn. Emotional force and even poignant throb was indubitably present in Nolan's genius 'Memento' and the monumental 'The Dark Knight' but the same conceptual somersaults hamstrung by an inadequate emotional core which afflicted his 'Inception' and 'Interstellar' are on unfortunate evidence here. Caught up in large-scale logistics again, the director fails to present an adequate supply of absorbing dramatic scenes as if to imply that the bare-bones appeal of elemental theater do no interest him.
But this is a war movie with a lot of action which is more important - some might say. Sure why not, I greatly appreciated the no-hold- barred carnage exploding in 'Saving Private Ryan' but that focus is missing here. The soldiers on the beach and wharf taking a pounding from the overhead planes is initially impressive but soon that is frittered away in shifty scene planning. Point of View shots from the fighter pilot's plane admirably show us how difficult it is to aim at the constantly moving enemy planes in contrast to easy video games, but that vicarious whiz-'n'-danger of those zooming fighter planes is not fully realized, with the editing of those aerial scenes not generating any thrilling continuity either.The ending is quite anti-climactic - I barely cared who lived and who did not. When you spend $150 million on a movie, such things should matter, I think. By UPN/EarnesTaster