I rate "worst" movies in proportion to their budget. I have no trouble seeing the half-hidden merits in a low-budget indie effort. But when the budget is up in nine figures, I expect exceptional work, admirable in every respect.
On this basis, I have to rate Dunkirk as without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly one of the dumbest and most pointless. And, for some reason, also one of the most preposterously over-rated.
To itemize just a few of its glaring flaws:
* THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT. We learn nothing whatsoever about the tactical situation, or the vagaries of war that led to it. There's no map, no background. Compare this to a great film such as A Bridge Too Far, which has no trouble explaining a complex military situation in great detail, while introducing the personalities behind the tactics and also telling several compelling individual stories.
* THE HUMAN STORY IS WEAK. Nolan's Dunkirk focuses on a couple of craven lamebrains - out of thousands of brave, remarkable, peculiar or even average individuals who'd have make for a much better story. Nolan's decision to focus on these two goof-offs is indefensible. It gives us no useful insight into the range of emotions and reactions within the large group of desperate individuals who were trapped on Dunkirk beach. Nolan's primary job as screen writer was to find *interesting* stories to tell. The phrase 'epic fail' was never more apt.
* CILLIAN MURPHY's CHARACTER IS POINTLESS. He's a sizable yet utterly pointless digression, a needlessly miserable sub-plot that shed no light on the overall story of Dunkirk. Rather, it burns up screen time that could have been used to develop the historical background, get inside some interesting characters, or develop an overall story arc of some sort.
* THE CLIMACTIC DOGFIGHT IS LAUGHABLE - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the big screen. (Even dumber than Nolan's depiction of a black hole, which at least lies in the realm of speculation, rather than well-established engineering.)
For the record: a Spitfire *does not* shoot down multiple Messerschmitts.with its engine disabled. It doesn't do *anything* other than plummet steeply earthward. The Spit was a "fighter" - a very big engine bolted on to tiny wings. It would have had amazing maneuverability - under power! - but *gliding* ability only slightly superior to that of a really good sports car.
Anyone who knows *anything* about aircraft can only be appalled by such blatant nonsense. Supplied with a $100,000,000 budget, a director like Nolan has an obligation to hire really good technical advisors - and then *pay attention* to them - not simply display the depths of his ignorance about his chosen subject.
Apart from these obvious detriments,Nolan's Dunkirk exhibits a complete lack of any real merits. There's not much story, no deep drama, no memorable characters, and no catchy dialog. The action is haphazard and uninteresting - and, lacking any historical context, effectively meaningless.
I'll freely admit that Nolan is not a bad director - when it comes to putting images on the screen. But he seems to have great difficulty distinguishing a clever script from a load of horse manure. Two of his three Batman movies are silly and tedious. Interstellar is as insulting to physics as Dunkirk is to aerodynamics and history. I only wish someone would pay me Nolan's salary to be similarly incompetent.
And yet, much to my surprise, Nolan's recent Oppenheimer managed to be coherent and historically accurate. Was it truly written by the same guy? Or does Nolan have a ghost writer who only works on every other project? It's a mystery.
Even more of a mystery is the reason for the insanely high ratings for Nolan's Dunkirk- many of them from reputable reviewers who might be expected to know better. Is it really enough nowadays for a movie to *look* good, courtesy of copious computer graphics?
Personally, I'd have to say no - especially when that movie competes directly with really excellent treatments of the same story. The best by far is the 1958 Ealing Studios (UK) production also entitled simply 'Dunkirk." On a fraction of Nolan's budget, it manages to be dramatic, gripping and insightful, while offering a reasonable overview of the historical reality. Also worth a watch is the French movie 'Weekend at Dunkirk,' which goes deeper into the state of mind of the troops on the beach - especially the French troops, who were very doubtful of being rescued by the British flotilla.
RATING: I give Dunkirk one very generous star for its slick CG visuals, and another for the competent acting. I deduct any other potential stars for its complete emptiness and relentless stupidity.
On this basis, I have to rate Dunkirk as without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly one of the dumbest and most pointless. And, for some reason, also one of the most preposterously over-rated.
To itemize just a few of its glaring flaws:
* THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT. We learn nothing whatsoever about the tactical situation, or the vagaries of war that led to it. There's no map, no background. Compare this to a great film such as A Bridge Too Far, which has no trouble explaining a complex military situation in great detail, while introducing the personalities behind the tactics and also telling several compelling individual stories.
* THE HUMAN STORY IS WEAK. Nolan's Dunkirk focuses on a couple of craven lamebrains - out of thousands of brave, remarkable, peculiar or even average individuals who'd have make for a much better story. Nolan's decision to focus on these two goof-offs is indefensible. It gives us no useful insight into the range of emotions and reactions within the large group of desperate individuals who were trapped on Dunkirk beach. Nolan's primary job as screen writer was to find *interesting* stories to tell. The phrase 'epic fail' was never more apt.
* CILLIAN MURPHY's CHARACTER IS POINTLESS. He's a sizable yet utterly pointless digression, a needlessly miserable sub-plot that shed no light on the overall story of Dunkirk. Rather, it burns up screen time that could have been used to develop the historical background, get inside some interesting characters, or develop an overall story arc of some sort.
* THE CLIMACTIC DOGFIGHT IS LAUGHABLE - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the big screen. (Even dumber than Nolan's depiction of a black hole, which at least lies in the realm of speculation, rather than well-established engineering.)
For the record: a Spitfire *does not* shoot down multiple Messerschmitts.with its engine disabled. It doesn't do *anything* other than plummet steeply earthward. The Spit was a "fighter" - a very big engine bolted on to tiny wings. It would have had amazing maneuverability - under power! - but *gliding* ability only slightly superior to that of a really good sports car.
Anyone who knows *anything* about aircraft can only be appalled by such blatant nonsense. Supplied with a $100,000,000 budget, a director like Nolan has an obligation to hire really good technical advisors - and then *pay attention* to them - not simply display the depths of his ignorance about his chosen subject.
Apart from these obvious detriments,Nolan's Dunkirk exhibits a complete lack of any real merits. There's not much story, no deep drama, no memorable characters, and no catchy dialog. The action is haphazard and uninteresting - and, lacking any historical context, effectively meaningless.
I'll freely admit that Nolan is not a bad director - when it comes to putting images on the screen. But he seems to have great difficulty distinguishing a clever script from a load of horse manure. Two of his three Batman movies are silly and tedious. Interstellar is as insulting to physics as Dunkirk is to aerodynamics and history. I only wish someone would pay me Nolan's salary to be similarly incompetent.
And yet, much to my surprise, Nolan's recent Oppenheimer managed to be coherent and historically accurate. Was it truly written by the same guy? Or does Nolan have a ghost writer who only works on every other project? It's a mystery.
Even more of a mystery is the reason for the insanely high ratings for Nolan's Dunkirk- many of them from reputable reviewers who might be expected to know better. Is it really enough nowadays for a movie to *look* good, courtesy of copious computer graphics?
Personally, I'd have to say no - especially when that movie competes directly with really excellent treatments of the same story. The best by far is the 1958 Ealing Studios (UK) production also entitled simply 'Dunkirk." On a fraction of Nolan's budget, it manages to be dramatic, gripping and insightful, while offering a reasonable overview of the historical reality. Also worth a watch is the French movie 'Weekend at Dunkirk,' which goes deeper into the state of mind of the troops on the beach - especially the French troops, who were very doubtful of being rescued by the British flotilla.
RATING: I give Dunkirk one very generous star for its slick CG visuals, and another for the competent acting. I deduct any other potential stars for its complete emptiness and relentless stupidity.