Disappointing, perhaps Nolan's weakest (subjectively)

Rating: 4/10 (3 August 2017)

"Dunkirk" is a fairly new 105-minute release (2017) and the most recent work by Oscar-nominated writer and (not Oscar-nominated) director Christopher Nolan. It is actually pretty short for a film by him. And the history/war genre is also pretty new for him. Maybe that's the reason why this project did not really work out too well. But first things first. The best thing about the film is the technical side. No doubt the film will score a few Oscar nominations there, for its sound probably, perhaps for visual effects, editing or cinematography as well. But that is really almost the only positive thing I can say here. It also shows that story is way more important than all these previously mentioned factors and this is where the film disappoints the most. The problem is not even that Nolan included so many unknown actors. I guess this was even somewhat smart because the soldiers should be a great mass of people like you and me. But Tom Hardy was really completely wasted, what a joke how they used him. His character added nothing and still they thought we would care for his fate at the very end. Oh yeah he wears a gas mask again like in his role as a Batman antagonist. Branagh, another Oscar nominee, was also very much wasted, even if not as much as Hardy. Recent Oscar winner Rylance had the best material (together with Murphy) from the known cast members and he was also the MVP I guess. Or lets better say the least forgettable.
Story-wise, the ending was decent, a scene here and there too (like what happens after they find the Dutchman, that's also one of several moments when we realize drowning was a really present danger and potential cause of death back then in these military fights) and the early scenes on Rylance's character's boat were okay too before they do stupid stuff like have an untrained guy shoot down a German plane out of nowhere. I thought the general idea of having Rylance represent marine / water, Hardy represent air (force) and Branagh represent ground / foot soldiers was a nice one, but what they eventually made of this premise was really disappointing I would say. Also the Dunkirk situation is a promising one for a movie, but this is hopefully not all they can make of the subject. Even the British recent movie "Their Finest" that has some Dunkirk references in it was considerably superior. Also this is another Nolan movie that will certainly not get much (if any at all) awards attention for the actors. Only Ledger managed to break the cycle, even if Bale, Hathaway, Cotillard, Caine and some others too gave decent performances at times. Anyway, back to this one here. I cannot say I was well entertained watching it and that's why I give it a thumbs-down. Then again, while I love history, war films have never been great for me, so maybe if you enjoyed the likes of "Saving Private Ryan", "Black Hawk Down" or "Band of Brothers", then you will enjoy this one more than I did and can check it out. But if you didn't, then it is best to skip it because I as a Nolan fan (like some of his works, even loved others) never managed to warm up to the material. Maybe the helping hand of his brother as a screen writer could have helped. The actual outcome is perhaps the biggest disappointment of 2017 movie-wise.