Saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially as all effects were practical, but as groundbreaking as everyone keeps saying it is, it did fall into some of the same old pitfalls these movies generally do:
For a start Nolan once again makes a film that isn't as clever as it thinks it is. By going for the different timeframes angle he weaves several interesting stories into one and keeps us guessing, but not without cost. The film suggests Spitfires can only carry enough fuel for an hour's flying, have about 5 times their real ammo capacity, and can run out of fuel and still coast up and down a beach without losing height, even while firing 8 machine guns. The events on the beach occupy a week, but it looks like two days maximum. For dramatic effect all of the little boats arrive at the same moment, which is -to be honest- utterly stupid. All air combat takes place at around 300 feet, when in reality it would have been much higher. A Stuka is shot down mid-dive at the climax (which is to be fair a common movie occurrence) but actual spitfire pilots said that was the only time the usually slow dive bombers could not be caught.
Interestingly enough this is one of the only periods of the war when Stukas still used the siren, and I was very pleased to see it used to full effect in the film.
Then there's the usual modern war film traps. Like many, many recent war films, Dunkirk names itself after an entire battle/region, then chooses only to show a fraction of it. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to convey the whole scale and all those involved in an operation (it's not the glory days of the 1970s anymore after all) but it shouldn't be named after the whole thing. Curiously enough most movies that genuinely can be said to have covered all the angles of something as complex as a battle, like Tora Tora Tora, A Bridge Too Far, and The Longest Day, don't even bother to give themselves such a lofty, literal title. If Dunkirk showed us the furious battle in the town between the armoured units of the German army hacking away at the French, British and Belgian perimeter, and showed the passage of time on the beach more properly instead of indulging in it's own brand of time compression, maybe THEN it could be called after the whole event.
Dunkirk thankfully avoids most of the usual grandstanding and dripping patriotism that war films from the U.S. seem to have written into their greenlight contracts, but it goes the other way a bit too far instead. Good on them for showing the French at the start and everything, but just like the gates on the Titanic, in reality the evacuation wasn't so segregated. The first French soldiers began getting taken out as early as the 2nd day, so it's a bit rich seeing them getting forced back on the mole like that.
Another error that is just as bad now as it was in 1969 is the aerial gunnery. Filmmakers think you line the camera, crosshair, and enemy plane up in a neat line before you pull the trigger. No, you have to use deflection shooting. Otherwise you'll never hit anything unless you're right behind them on a parallel course. Big points for having the spits painted with the proper wing markings though, and I understand why they made the 109s like that, so I'll let that slide.
There needed to be more BEF equipment lying around. Like
everywhere. Hitler boasted afterwards how the British army left it's guns and tanks behind when it fled. There's no sense of this at all. Even Battle of Britain did that part better:
I generally hunt down the older war movies to see, but so far the 1958 Dunkirk is one I still haven't seen yet. Looking forward to giving it a try.
Hawki said:
Also, if you want another film that deals with Dunkirk, see 'Their Finest'. It's a WWII romance/comedy/sattre rather than a war movie, and also gets 3/5, but still a much more emotionally fulfilling one.
Definitely agree- I saw this one about a week before Dunkirk and it was very fulfilling. Pretty good date movie too, and Bill Nighy was as delightful as ever.
