I will give my review after watching the movie but these are some of the reviews from critics worldwide. Enjoy!

A technical masterpiece that is nearly devoid of palpable emotion and compelling characters.

Author: Cameron Clay (criticadelcinema)
19 July 2017
Might as well get right to it, then. At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, I did not love this film. Do I love elements of this? Yes. Is this a 5-star masterpiece? Unfortunately, no.

The cinematography here at least, is masterful. Director Christopher Nolan has, without a doubt, reached the pinnacle of on-screen spectacle here. The feats of practical effects in this film are breathtaking. The casting of nearly 6,000 extras, authentic WWII vehicles, and shooting on location in Dunkirk, France contribute to a great sense of scale here. There is ongoing trend of action films in recent years of relying on CGI, and thankfully Nolan bucks that trend.

Similar to War for the Planet of the Apes, much of the film plays out without much dialogue, leaning on just the score and sound design in most scenes. It almost goes without saying that Hans Zimmer delivers with another incredible score. The sound design is also extremely well crafted, which, paired with Nolan's great work behind the camera, truly transports you to the Battle of Dunkirk. The wailing of planes passing above, the drone of gunfire, and the roar of explosions all contribute to the complete immersion into the world these characters are trapped in. This results in some of the most immersive wartime action scenes since Saving Private Ryan.

This film has and will continue to be compared to World War II classic Saving Private Ryan. Both films are beautifully filmed WWII period pieces with casts that deliver great performances. The similarities end there. Whereas Saving Private Ryan was engrossing as a narrative due to it's characters with depth and arcs, Dunkirk instead leans on it's subject matter and spectacle.

And while the subject matter of Dunkirk is fascinating, as a film it lacks emotional firepower due to the absence of a strongly written protagonist. This is strangely uncharacteristic of a director of Nolan's caliber, especially when you recall the complex character work in his most acclaimed films: The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige. Instead of focusing on a single character or single group of characters, the focus is spread across three protagonists in completely different situations. Showing the Dunkirk Evacuation through the three different perspectives of those on the beach, the sea, and the air is only an interesting proposition on paper. The narrative, due to this writing choice, is spread far too thin, with few characters getting enough screen time to develop even the mildest emotional connection.

While the characters in this film aren't written to even remotely be compelling, the great work from this cast is not to be overlooked. Harry Styles, known for being a member of English boy band One Direction, is surprisingly excellent here in his acting debut. Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, and Fionn Whitehead also all give standout performances despite the limited screen time they are given.

I should love this film. Historical drama? WWII setting? My favorite director Christopher Nolan? Amazing cinematography? Superb performances from an ensemble cast? All of these elements made me sure I would love this going in. But, Dunkirk's lack of emotional connection severely detracts from the awe-inspiring scope and technical prowess displayed.

If I reviewed based on visuals alone, this is a slam-dunk, walk-off home run of a 5-star film. While a focus on grandeur and situation over character depth and emotion may work for some (it obviously worked for 98% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes), it did not work for this critic.

This is without a doubt a cinematic achievement, but without an emotional core, it's impossible for this film not to feel cold and empty. Despite being a technical masterpiece, this is Christopher Nolan's most disappointing film yet.

Another hit from Nolan,very different approach to war genre..

Author: Dp003 from nowhere
17 July 2017
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For the majority of his career Christopher Nolan has thrived in surrealism, whether it be focusing on caped crusaders or unchartered space missions. So it's intriguing to see him return to a narrative steeped in realism, and grounded by its commitment to real life occurrences. The results are staggeringly impressive too, while the talented filmmaker maintains his creative sensibilities, crafting a war movie that feels distinctively his.When thinking about war films, it's very hard not to go straight to the classics such as Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Saving Private Ryan.You have to make something very special to be mentioned in the same sentence as films like those.

Naturally I was excited for the movie and I think most people were because we knew that it is Nolan's movie. From the opening shot of dunkirk you are in it and You are experiencing everything like you are there , there's never a dull moment or scene where characters sit around a campfire and say who you got back home no background stories. You don't get those kind of things in Dunkirk what you are used to see in war films yeah this could be a problem because you don't feel connected to specific characters and you are not connected emotionally but this movie is not like others there are many war movies and we have seen many similar things but this movie is not about individual it's completely about the event. It's about the evacuation like being in the middle of this horrific situation. According to my opinion When you are in a situation like this you don't say "hey my name is.....what's yours where are you from - oh I thought we could have a conversation between all the bombs and planes firing constantly" No this movie is in the moment and how Nolan show us the event It's what movies were invented for. everything on the screen look completely authentic there's never a moment that feels wasted. When I heard that it's only 106 minutes long I thought it should be 3 hours long movie but when I saw that it starts in battle and ends in battle I think it's perfectly made in one and half hour. And if you're expecting big arcs then sorry because sometimes in war people die alone and no one's there to comfort them or tell them it's going to be OK that's what make this movie so terrifying.

"Dunkirk" tells the story of a group of allied soldiers from Belgium, France, and the British Empire. When they find themselves surrounded by the Germany army on the beaches of Dunkirk, the film follows the story of the evacuation of 400,000 during the early stages of World War II.boasting an incredible cast, Christopher Nolan allows his players to internalize the fear and emotion, and allow them to express it in the most aromatic and penetrating demeanor's. As Tommy, Fionn Whitehead makes an astounding mark in his feature film debut. With no true lead in the movie, his point of view is often a crutch for the audience to rest upon, as his internalization of the character is one of the film's most pivotal high points.It is gripping from its very opening moments, in which we see soldiers getting picked off by invisible snipers in the middle of the titular town as propaganda flyers shower from overhead, announcing to the British, French, Canadian, Belgian and Dutch troops that they are hopelessly penned in by the Germans.We are in the early months of World War Two.Christopher Nolan makes the decision to avoid all of this explanation, and to give us a Dunkirk that focuses on the personal experiences of the war by land, sea and air

The sea battle is also done very well from a technical perspective. We get a sense of the claustrophobia of being aboard ship, the shell-shock and the terror of a watery death, especially when combined with lit gasoline. I thought the acting was by far the best in this segment. I very much liked Mark Rylance's quiet earnestness as a civilian sailor sailing to Dunkirk with his son - the quiet communication between the two of them with glances - the profound sympathy toward Cillian Murphy's traumatised rescued RAF pilot. And the scene of soldiers drowning under a fiery sea is one of the most memorable and rightly horrific in the film.

Dunkirk is edge of your seat filmmaking. Can honestly say I've never seen anything like it.A lot of people were wondering about Harry_styles & unknown cast. They're all great but Dunkirk is not about any one solider. Also 'Dunkirk' is another brilliant collaboration between Nolan & HansZimmer. The way he mixes in a ticking clock with score is nail biting.DUNKIRK relies on very little dialogue.We all know what happened on that beach, but Nolan's take is worth visiting. Yes, DUNKIRK relies heavily on sound of an increasingly fast ticking clock to build suspense.Drop everything and go watch Dunkirk. It is an experience. Not a mere film.

Nolan's perilous masterpiece that never lets up!

Author: Calum Rhys from Worcester, United Kingdom
21 July 2017
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Christopher Nolan. That name alone has the star-power of an acting giant. A name that once heard, turns the heads of an audience, whether it be a superhero movie, a science fiction epic... or a war drama, a typical moviegoer (even those less cinema-savvy or those who lack the traits of a "cinephile" will instantly be attracted to his movie at hand. We saw this with 'Inception', we saw this with 'Interstellar', and now we're seeing this with 'Dunkirk'. And my God, what a film it is. No film is truly flawless, but if a war film comes close to it, it's Nolan's new epic that does so.

We've seen the tale of Dunkirk undertaken several times on screen before, whether back in the 1950's or during that stunning and sweeping shot in 'Atonement', but none have come close to the realism, the grittiness and the intensity that 'Dunkirk' bestows upon the audience. The tale of a retreat that was seen as heroism, wait what? Yes, you read that right, the retreat at Dunkirk became one of World War II's greatest tales of heroism in the face of adversity. How Churchill had asked to ensure that at least 30,000 troops made it home... that number instead came in at a steady 300,000, and not just British soldiers. French, Belgians and some Dutch, it was a tale of spectacle that truly required an honest account from an auteur capable of bravura direction... well that auteur is Nolan.

We're all now used to Nolan's use of non-linear storytelling, and once again he utilises his famed formula to stunning effect, with three stories, each from the land, sea and air, all focusing on a different time frame, but effectively intersecting throughout. Our three heroes are newcomer Fionn Whitehead (land), Mark Rylance (sea) and Tom Hardy (air), each providing near-flawless performances. Lacking of actual dialogue, the sequences instead thrust the audience into a world of visual splendour and build the narrative through the use of sound and peril, the haunting and deafening sounds of diving Stukas, the ripping roar of the Spitfire's engine and the sudden silence, building to impending doom. The sound is this film's highlight, with Hans Zimmer returning once more to unleash yet another stunning score. Now, the cinematography, well what can I say? Hoyte Van Hoytema, take a bow, the imagery is both stark yet beautiful, its gritty yet serene, its claustrophobic yet sweeping... it's utterly encapsulating, from the opening shot, it draws you in, it takes you to that beach, it places you in the thick of it, and all the while avoiding the sight of the actual enemy in person, they're just lingering, unseen to the naked eye.

One side note that I'd love to delve into is Harry Styles, wow what a shocking achievement. Alike Heath Ledger as The Joker, Nolan has turned an unlikely cast member into someone of true talent.

In the 17 years of cinema-going during my life, I have seen some truly amazing movies, some that completely stunned me, many of which have been by the director at hand, including a fantastic IMAX experience of 'Interstellar', but never before have I left the cinema so awestruck, so silenced by the intensity of a movie. 'Dunkirk' isn't a typical movie, it isn't your typical war movie, this is more, much more. This is a film about the prevalence of heroism, the prevalence of Britishness, and how fear can strike drive and willpower into a human entity. This is a visual masterpiece, it is more than a movie, it's an experience, and one that should be witnessed by all!

Nolan may have earned himself some high accolades come Oscar season

Author: Brandon Robinson from San Bruno, CA
17 July 2017
No reviewer was lying when they said see this in 70mm IMAX (full disclosure, I saw this on a regular screen). In my opinion, it necessitates it. I can just "tell" from what I saw. The aerial shots alone would provide good reasoning for it, but the sound that those theaters provide with the big picture in front of you will captivate you exactly the right way.

This isn't a social kind of film, and it certainly isn't popcorn entertainment. Not a summer blockbuster at all. This film's scope feels very small, even though it carries epic tones within. Nolan really broke a lot of traditional film conventions with this, and I think that exact kind of ambition is what makes this movie work for a more general audience. I somewhat think audience members need to know what they're getting into beforehand to be accepting of that fact, but once they are I think they will be just fine.

On a technical level, I think this is Nolan's best yet. The Prestige still might get higher honors simply because of the more demanding writing that is involved, but given what Nolan intended to do, this nearly screams "perfection." Did he try and go for an R-rating? No. Did that matter? Not even close. Did he try and provide massive amounts of character development? No. Did that matter? Depends on who you talk to. I could honestly say that if there were two cuts of this film—an extended cut that develops the characters and this one—you could give us the option and we would find the one we enjoy more depending on what we're looking for. Did he look to vilify the Germans to the point of controversy? No. Did that matter? It didn't, but only one part does stick out for me (the "one flaw" that Nolan often has trouble with in his writing) and I'll get back to that in a moment.

"Harrowing" is easily my favorite word to describe Dunkirk. This is a survival film, and that's all it is. He put us on the beach, on the sea, and in the air. He gave the characters a want and will to live with an impending threat for which we understand its consequence, without need of showing thousands of deaths or lots of blood. When one moment of attempted survival ends, another one begins without warning. That doesn't mean the film is relentless action, but it certainly is relentless tension, if for no other reason than Hans Zimmer's score. I'm telling you right now, his score is my favorite part of the film. It's actually mostly a quiet kind of score, but it is frightening and works with the film so very well.

Nolan has had a lot of trouble doing "show, not tell" in his past films. This time he has learned a lot, not letting the actors expose everything (acting was fine all around, by the way... not much to say about it honestly, as it's not the film's high point). I did not feel the presence of the surrounding enemies, though. If the film didn't tell us about it, I probably wouldn't have felt the pressure of getting off that beach sooner than later. Hearing the planes incoming was always scary of course, but as we only had the British perspective and a week-long time line at most, there simply wasn't a chance of feeling time cave in on them. This to me is this film's only real flaw.

That being said, the only real limitation that holds this film back is that it's based in reality, which means that we are already aware of the outcome. I think for this particular story it's fine, because it's not one specific moment that lets us breathe again... so letting it play out the way that it did is okay with me. I do not think this will go over with people who come in completely uneducated about Dunkirk. I made a mistake in stating that I wanted this film to educate me on the evacuation story. I think I'd rather have learned about it first and then seen the film, kind of like seeing United 93 after having lived 9/11 (not totally, but I was at least cognizant of all that transpired). That doesn't mean to research the film itself, but rather just the historical event.

I do hope that Nolan goes back to fictional work after this. Here was an awesome deviation from the norm that he chose to do, and he went out in grand style. I could have used a longer film with fleshed out character development, but this film also works as well especially in the month of July. I see this receiving many Oscar nominations such as score, editing, cinematography, visual effects, etc... I do not see any acting or writing awards... and yes, I see a director nomination as well. If the academy believes some of those earn him victories, then god damn it give him his Best Picture Oscar as well.

I can't really yet rank this film with his other films, because it's just so different. I don't see too many of the Inception parallels here. Every film of his outside of Insomnia either does nonlinear or intertwining storytelling, but this one is without the cleverness involved in the script. It's just playing things out as they do. Survive. So to revisit, I believe this may be his best work yet, even if I don't know if it's my favourite of his. I really just want to put this in another category from other films entirely, in which case it's my favourite of "that kind of film."

My heart is still pounding from this film. I simply cannot wait to see this in 70mm IMAX on Thursday.

In 2017, over 330.000 film viewers were stuck in a cinema, surrounded by boredom, can they be rescued?

Author: Martin010 from Netherlands
21 July 2017
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's hard to understand critic ratings of 10/10 while this movie undeniably lacks quality on some very important aspects. Let me start off with some positive notes:

- IMAX: The impact of the bullets and bombs felt as if you were really there. The entire movie is shot in a very realistic way.

- Opening scene: The suspense, music and cinematography all came together very well in the opening scene, which really made me excited for the scenes to come.

- Acting: Poor acting can easily distract the audience from their experience of being in a certain time/place. But there was not a single moment in which an actor did something out of character. All expressions were very believable. Great acting!

But there were some major aspects I had issues with:

- Characters: The characters did not have any background story and there's hardly any dialogue to give some insight. The main characters are therefore replaceable for any other random soldier on that beach. I do not expect an elaborate introduction of every character, certainly not in a historical war movie, but the downside is that the audience cannot empathize with the main characters. I really didn't care for one of them to die. I've seen hundreds of soldiers die in earlier scenes of the movie, why would one or two more (just as hollow and unknown as any other soldier) bother me a bit? It's no must to focus on character development, as long as the other aspects of the movie make up for the lack of it. In Dunkirk that sadly was not the case.

- Editing: Sometimes it was hard to follow which moment in time is shown, because the movie abruptly cuts between three perspectives, therefore even showing some events twice. I find this non-linear storytelling and continuity breaks unnecessary and poorly executed.

- Repetitive: Much scenes are identical or slightly different from another. Especially the flight scenes did not add much to the story. Instead I rather would've seen some scenes at the front-line with troops actually defending the beach instead of just a bunch of scared, helpless troops waiting for the next plane to fly over and bomb the shite out of them. Keeping out the Germans at the front-line is just as much a part of the story of Dunkirk and it would've given us a chance to actually see the enemy and get some awesome battle scenes.

- Music: Usually I enjoy Zimmer's score. But in this movie there was no moment of silence, not a moment to break the suspense. Especially in IMAX, my ears were buzzing hours after I left the cinema. Was this intentional? Was it supposed to feel like one big action scene without any breaks, to get the same feeling of those soldiers, trapped between battles unable to take a break, constantly in stress of a nearing attack? Well, than Nolan did succeed. But I found it very annoying.

Overall I believe this movie is highly overrated, due to many biased Nolan fans and critics blindly hopping on the hype-train. I found it a very boring movie. The lack of an interesting plot or any interesting characters sadly wasn't compensated enough by the impressive audiovisuals. Rescue yourself from boredom and don't watch this movie!
*this is funny to say the least! Some people are just haters for no reason. Mtchewww..
*

Christopher Nolan created an impressive blockbuster on World War 2, with the focus on survival.

Author: Danielpotato
22 July 2017
The most important lesson in the history of our humanity, surpassed in genre, religion among other moral aspects, is simply the survival of the species or a human being in question. Our most basic instinct is survival and when we unite, forgetting our differences (as a group of Individuals, not nations), for the sake of our survival and our well-being, the human race shines in the most intense sense possible. The cooperation between several elements, to come out alive from a complicated situation.

One scene, caught my attention when a group of Allied soldiers were surrounded in a ship and this same ship was being attacked on all sides by the German troops. One of the characters was being forced out of the ship to see if the tide sea was rising or not. Out of fear, this character did not want to leave the ship, it was when an English soldier replied: for the others to survive, one person has to die.

The theme of this film is survival, especially surviving in a difficult situation, is in itself a great victory

Nothing is better expressed in this film and executed in a way with as much talent as Nolan achieved in making with this film. Not only by itself, the message is passed to the audience in a clear and perfect way as is demonstrated in small scenes that help convey this message and build a fitting end to the film itself.

The film goes straight to the narrative and action of the movie without losing in passing with interesting monologues, unlike Inception, a film in which Nolan himself created a character with the sole purpose of explaining the rules of this universe for the audience, this is the apex of Nolan as a Film director and he performs his work in a simple and exemplary way. So Dunkirk is his smaller commercial movie, but with the bonus without unnecessary scenes that could crumble the experience of the film.

The performances are excellent and accompany the director's talents (the direction of the film itself) and the script in a cohesive, simple and direct way, highlighting Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance and of course the very competent Kenneth Branagh. These excellent actors help immerse the audience in the cinematographic aspect of the movie itself to make the experience as real and emotional as possible.

Again, congratulations to Nolan for choosing actors relatively unknown to the general public, but outstanding in their work of acting. Instead of trying to choose famous actors (whose private lives are always in the mouths of the people and the magazines), these people are celebrities and not actors. For this reason I never managed to pass the first act of Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg made a mistake filling his film with the most popular Hollywood All Star cast of famous actors at that time (their lives were so exposed that it was hard to see those people as soldiers or survivors of WWII). At this point, Nolan fared better than Spielberg.

By completing this great experience, special and sound effects are applied in an exemplary way and these same technologies make almost perfect use of the IMAX screen. The technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget (105 millions). The cinematography is very good (almost perfect, like in most of Nolan movies) and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful.

See the aerial combat of the characters of Tom Hardy (Farrier) and Jack Lowden (Collins) in aerial planes that looked with great and amazing beauty in fighting against the planes of the Germans. A technical amazing work of Nolan and his production team. Amazing, no doubt. Especially on the IMAX screen, where the film shows all its beauty, and if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in IMAX, it is one, this new work of Christopher Nolan, no doubt. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works. Making the storytelling move to viewers in three different locations (The Mole, The Sea and The Air). In a cohesive, precise and confusing way. This film shows a great talent of Nolan, and it reaches his talent to create sequences in parallel assembly the characters of the film in a brilliant way. The soundtrack composed by the veteran Hans Zimmer is amazing, Hans in turn creates a memorable theme for the theme of World War II. Fantastic and great.

The great and only problem I see that disturbs the experience of the film is limited by the PG-13 and thus limit the blood and violence, for God's sake, it is a film about a war blood and violence are common. At times it seemed like I was looking at some scenes and these same scenes seemed so artificial and displaced from the film itself, like the scene of the soldiers corpses coming to the beach, or the English troops being smashed by the sinking ship (two clear examples that PG-13 influenced negatively the movie).

One problem that some people go through seeing this movie is the lack of depth in some characters, however there are characters with depth, but not the kind of depth shown through dialogues or exposition. Nolan wanted to show something bigger. And I think Nolan did it. Nolan created in this movie to show the question of survival and its consequences in the lives of the people close to war and the soldiers who were fighting in that war. He wanted to show us how and survival define us, and I think he got the message very well across this movie. Even for this, he sacrificed some dramatic depth. Depth for certain characters, however Nolan passed a larger message, which surpasses any dramatically deep element. Nolan wanted to get something bigger. And in my opinion he did it.

Christopher Nolan is overrated abeg
Just because of inception and the dark knight we nor go hear word again
Interstellar was good though

jonbellion:
Christopher Nolan is overrated abeg
Just because of inception and the dark knight we nor go hear word again
Interstellar was good though

I will disagree with you but each person with his/her opinion! Though, I will suggest you watch Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, then cool down and watch the Batman series, after which you watch Inception before moving to Interstellar then finally Go to cinema, relax and watch Dunkirk, you will know Christopher Nolan is just not the God of Cinema but he is surely not overrated.

This movie was so rich, so detailed and so profoundly moving that it's hard to put it into words. Christopher Nolan is back and he's here to show us what a master can create.

Author: uhsheen from South Korea/ Ireland
17 July 2017
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review will be mostly spoiler free but I don't want to be banned so I clicked it just to be safe..

The basic plot revolves around the 450,000 odd British soldiers trapped in Dunkirk, France as the German troops close in. They don't close in on foot though, instead opting to pick the trapped soldiers off from the air and sea.

This movie isn't a propaganda piece touting the glory of British resilience; most of the movie is just young men trying to survive, petrified for their own lives. The threat is ever present, there was a wonderful sense of tension throughout the entire movie. You really felt the cinema shake as the German planes closed in on the soldiers and let loose their bombs and you can feel the thick fog of fear.

The enemy in this movie is very interesting because you never actually see a German face. The enemy is just a looming threat and comes in the shape of torpedo attacks and bombs from planes. I read that Nolan spent a lot of time studying silent films and how they built tension which is pulled off masterfully in this movie. Like the movie Gravity once this movie begins there is no down time, they are constantly being attacked in one way or another.

The casting for this movie was absolutely superb. Our very own Barry Keoghan had a short role that I would liked to have seen fleshed out more but he pulled it off very well. Cillian Murphy was wonderful as always and played the role of a shell shocked soldier. Mark Rylance stole the show for me and put on a stellar performance as the father who is doing his duty to his country. His bravery never fades. Fionn Whitehead and Aneurin Barnard were excellent choices and I liked how Nolan chose largely unknown and inexperienced actors to mimic how young and inexperienced the soldiers really were during the war.

When I heard that Harry Styles was in this movie I figured that it was just a clever ploy to pull in more ticket sales but I absolutely stand corrected. He put on an authentic, honest performance that was very impressive. There's a great scene in a boat where you see how he is affected by desperation and sheer terror that really sold it for me, his performance was extremely consistent.

Tom Hardy is a chameleon... Any role he plays he is completely dedicated and immersed and you can't peel your eyes away from him. He has some of the most nail biting scenes and his scenes toward the end of the movie were very emotional and moving.

Strangely enough some parts of the movie felt like watching old WW2 footage; it was grainy and real. This movie didn't rely on CGI, it was gritty and honest and beautifully shot.

You really can't talk about a Christopher Nolan without talking about Hans Zimmer and the soundtrack. There were some scenes that were reminiscent of the docking scene in Interstellar because the music flowed so well with each scene that it evoked a sense of urgency and intensity. This is a phenomenal soundtrack. The movie starts to a ticking clock and it's only a matter of time until time runs out.

There is very little dialogue in this movie but it isn't missed at all. This movie is an emotional power horse. I was genuinely moved a couple of times throughout it and it's one that will stay in my head for a long time.

THE GOOD:

Casting was perfect, the lesser known actors held their own weight against some of the veterans. The cinematography was fantastic, you really felt completely immersed in the movie. Hans Zimmer's score was Oscar-worthy. The movie will leave you on the edge of your seat throughout.

THE BAD:

The story line is not always linear which was confusing. Dialogue was sometimes hard to hear (but not necessary)

_______

Dunkirk is a fantastic movie, it's as simple as that. This should be the standard of movie that other directors should attain to achieve and here Nolan proves that he is one of the greatest directors of all time. The acting is superb and the entire movie is a treat for the eyes and ears. Don't miss out on seeing this in a cinema.

Virtual Experience of war, chaos, horror and hope

Author: reisen55 from United States
22 July 2017
From a different viewpoint as this author walked down 101 floors of the South Tower on September 11. Worked for Aon and came away with not PTSD or dust-health problems (I was far uptown when the towers came down). So as I sat watching Dunkirk, the cummulative effect was to virtually relive aspects of THAT day for me. It's impossible to describe horror, fear and what it was like to BE there, or BE at Dunkirk. Many films and books (fondly MRS. MINIVER was the first). Or the heroic dogfights of BATTLE OF Britain. This one - far different. I came out of the theater feeling that I had just been through not only Dunkirk but 9-11 as well. It is THAT effective. The lack of dialogue for a good part of the film draws the viewer INTO the story as a real participant. YOU'RE THERE. Spielberg did it a few times such as the 20 minute Omaha Beach segment of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN but even that film became just a more intense version of the standard war film.

Be prepared to have your life changed by this one. It's that damn good.

Its official. Movies are no longer about telling a story.

Author: jaymcr from Manchester
22 July 2017
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am sure that the critics that write the reviews are paid shills because anyone who considers that movie to be a masterpiece has either never seen a war movie or is just taking money to lie to the public.

Dunkirk was more spectacular than 7 or so boats, 3 planes and less than 300 men in a line on a beach.

And whose idea was it to pay Tom Hardy a ridiculous sum of the budget to once again hide his face and never actually do what he is paid to do which last I checked was acting? It's obvious he was used in this movie to give it some credibility just like they did with the Mad Max debacle where he spent 3 quarters of the movie with a face covering on preventing him from speaking.

The noise was awful and apparently some of that noise was considered to be music! Dull bass throbbing in every scene.

Story? Lets not even go there. I can sum up the Story in one paragraph although you cannot really consider it a spoiler because there's nothing in this to spoil.

"Trapped on a beach awaiting rescue but the ships keep getting destroyed by dive bombers with only 3 planes to protect those ships. Ends with Hardy finally revealing his face when he is captured after landing his plane which has run out of fuel."

That's it. Everything else in between is just noise.

To the people who consider themselves to be critics I say this: If you want the movie industry to become like the gaming industry where the main goal is most profit in shortest time regardless of the content then keep spouting the BS otherwise you need to start telling the truth for once.

Two hours of noise and it cost them $100 million to make? It's obvious where that money went because these so called movie creators couldn't even be bothered to use CGI to expand the number of men, ships and planes to really set the scene.

There was nothing in this movie and Tom Hardy was thick or corrupt enough to be used as the marketing tool.

Don't waste your money.