Dunturd - Hyped up mediocre pretentious war film - watch it on netflix

Rating: 4/10 (21 July 2017)

Gushing reviews and hype led me to believe this was going to be an amazing war film. So many people compared Dunkirk very, very favourably to 'saving private ryan'. Many rave reviews 10/10 'the best war film ever'& 'Nolan masterpiece' etc.
First things first, this film bears absolutely no comparison to 'saving private ryan'. Dunkirk is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Spielbergs masterpiece.
Saving Private Ryan is deservedly a classic war film that can be watched many times.
Dunkirk is (at best) mediocre. Watch once, unremarkable and quickly forgotten, vastly overrated and over-hyped.
We went expecting greatness, (which we were led to believe was this film) and left, as I heard a fellow member of the audience state on leaving, "thats 2 hours I won't get back again".
It's yet another of those Hollywood offerings, a clapped out ford escort disguised under a 'ferrari body kit'. From outside it looks good, but once you get in and drive, it's a clapped out ford escort.
Enough of my disappointment:-
The film shows the British/French military disaster of Dunkirk, where the British expeditionary force and thousands of French troops had retreated to Dunkirk, as conquering German armies swept across France using 'Blitzkreig' tactics.
The only hope for those at Dunkirk was evacuation by sea or face annihalation.
The film attempts to tell the story through the eyes of a Spitfire Pilot (Tom Hardy)
A group of British tommies attempting to escape from Dunkirk (including Harry Stiles who gave a creditable performance)
and civilian small boat skipper (Mark Rylance) who is sailing over as one of 'the little ships' to rescue the army.
The mistake is trying to cram to many viewpoints, with a slightly different time line, into too short a film (1hr 46mins) Also having characters you actually don't care much about.
The 1958 film Dunkirk did a much better job on both aspects and was over 30 minutes longer.
Visually it's good, (back to the Ferrari body shell) but you don't get any empathy for the characters, particularly the soldiers, who should be the key to the story (being about the evacuation from Dunkirk)
The film spends far too long with Tom Hardy, flying his remarkable spitfire, it flies on and on with limitless ammo. He shoots down several fighters, a bomber, and (amazingly) even a stuka whilst his plane is gliding (having run out of fuel)
The film title is 'Dunkirk' not 'Spitfire Battles' so detracts from the main story - which surely is about the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Mark Rylance is good as the boat skipper with his son plus a 17 year old boy as crewman.
However, its a bit Uuh? as he just sails off with his boat as the RN is trying to put naval crews on board, and remarkably knows exactly where he has to go and why. In reality the RN briefed the small boats and gave them routes to skirt minefields etc.
On route Rylance picks up Cillian Murphy sitting atop a mostly submerged ship hull. Murphy is a bit 'shell shocked'.
On realising he is being taken back to Dunkirk, in a scuffle with the skipper to turn around the boat, the 17 year old is accidentally fatally injured.
Pointless sub story compared to the main 'event' (Dunkirk evacuation) Another uuh! moment.
The film tries to be 'clever' (but doesn't pull it off) entwining all three story lines to meet at the same event. When Hardy attacks the bomber, attacking the minesweeper, that the soldiers are trying to swim to from their sinking fishing boat and Rylance rescues them.
The British soldiers, who the film follows, are remarkably cowardly. Bearing mind the Britsh Expeditionary Force, although small, was a professional army. Not conscripts.
I felt nothing for the soldier characters, other than a mild contempt for being so cowardly, no attempt to find their units, just run for the ships, by any means.
The film has several good actors, which seemed remarkably wasted, murphy as battle fatigued coward !
Brannagh as some senior naval officer on the pier - more of a cameo Hardy was convincing as a pilot but rather detracted from the evacuation story.
In many respects, this film is a glib, colour version of a disastrous part of our military history and a remarkable evacuation.
I did get a lump in the throat at the sight of the 'little ships' but only about 7 were shown, and it was almost a 'by the way' scene, as if not important.
In reality 800 or so, civilian small vessels, of all shapes and sizes, from paddle steamers to river launches, bravely sailed across to rescue the army.
However, you never get the scale of the event nor feel any empathy, let alone sympathy, for the characters.
This director is a poor scriptwriter for an historic event within living memory. He should stick to science fiction stories.
The sound was mostly loud dirge 'music' that did nothing for me.
Whats the difference between a bucket of faeces and the film Dunkirk 2017 ? The bucket!
4.5/10
p.s. I nearly laughed out loud at the end. On a surprisingly modern train in blighty, the soldiers wondered what people would think of them? Bearing in mind how they had jumped every queue and used every deception to save their skins. I think 'cowards' would be appropriate.