Dunkirk
Don't believe the hype.

-1 STAR

Film Review © 2017 by Trip Reynolds

Action/Drama

Directed by Christopher Nolan; Screenplay by Christopher Nolan; Produced by Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas; Line Producer (France) John Bernard; Line Producer (Netherlands) Erwin Godschalk; Associate Producer (Netherlands) Maarten Swart; Associate Producer Andy Thompson; and Executive Producer Jake Myers.

Starring: Fionn Whitehead (as Tommy), Damien Bonnard (as the "spy," French Soldier); Aneurin Barnard (as Gibson); Lee Armstrong (as Grenadier), and James Bloor (as Irate Soldier), Barry Keoghan (as George), Mark Rylance (as Mr. Dawson), Tom Glynn-Carney (as Peter), Tom Hardy (as Farrier), Jack Lowden (as Collins), and a robust supporting cast and extras.

"Dunkirk (2017)" is not a remake of the 1958 film of the same title, and it's not a "re-imagining" of another film. Contrary to positive reviews from mainstream film critics, this 2017 version of “Dunkirk” is not one of the best World War II films ever made. So, this mediocrity stands on its own. What makes this film so bad? That's easy to delineate.

First, for the overwhelming majority of non-comedic, reality-based war films, "action" and "drama" are consistently the two most dominate plot devices or techniques to move the story narrative forward. This film lacked both action and drama. Instead, this film is configured into three individual but convoluted themes that don't actually intersect until very late in this slowly paced film: (1) the mole, about a soldier believed to be a spy; (2) the sea battle, of how the British navy conficated civilian ships or civilians volunteered to rescue stranded armed forces from Dunkirk; and (3) the air, about the cat-and-mouse aerial battles between British and German planes across the English Channel. These "themes" are solidly episodic and are only worthy of televsion or cable, but do not rise to the higher standard required for a very expensive, theatrically released major motion picture.

Second, the action and dramtic sequences are not compelling. This film spends more time with key players running and hiding from the enemy on the street, on a pier, on the beach, sneaking onto a ship with an injured soldier, hiding in a boat to evade the enemy, etc., than actually fighting the enemy. Plus, the focus of the sparsely written script is not about being victorious, but the apparent ineptness of allied forces and the mediocrity of basic survival. Classic WWII prison camp films such as "Stalag 17 (1953)" and "The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)" are significantly more inspiring and compelling than "Dunkirk (2017).

Third, given this film genré, the absence of truly heroic images embelishes the mediocrity of this film. There are no "name above the title" heroes in this film. There are no "leading" men (John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Robert Downey, Jr., etc.) or women (Sigourney Weaver, Cynthia Rothrock, Zoe Saldana, etc.). Oh, there are a few acts of self-sacrifice, but the overall tone of this film is not heroic, nothing like the final scene of Steve McQueen in "Hell Is For Heroes (1962)." Of course, nowadays, all military personnel and every civilian first-responder (police, fire, medical rescue, etc.) are often labeled a hero. There was a time when the act of simply putting on a uniform didn't automatically qualify someone as a "hero" or someone special. The "job" is the job; nothing more or less, and as consistently conveyed by the most awarded soldier in World War II, Audie Murphy, and the most awarded soldier in World War I, Alvin Cullum (Sergeant) York, doing the job involes humility not recognition. Unfortunately, in our current social climate of always being "politically correct" about everything, and giving everyone an award so as not to exclude anyone, this "modernized" war film seems to suggest that even cowardice, running from the enemy, is a virtue.

"Dunkirk" is blatantly pretentious by posturing to be greater than it is, and it's deceptive to suggest "Dunkirk (2017)" as equal to or greater than any of the following exciting World War II era films, most of which are highly thought-provoking or controversial, epic or near-epic.

1949	1949	1953	1953	1954	1955
1957	1958	1958	1959	1962	1962
1963	1965	1965	1965	1967	1968
1970	1970	1980	1981	1985	1987
1993	1997	1998	2006	2006	2016

When you have no sense of history, no sense of dramatic perspective, it's easy, it's very easy to inaccurately label "Dunkirk (2017)," as something more than it is, and "Dunkirk" does not rise to the level of reality such as documentaries like "Shoah (1985)," or a film with the heroism of "Hacksaw Ridge (2016)," or a film with the scope of hopeless abandon and awe of "Empire of the Sun (1987)."

The acting performances were perfunctory and by-the-numbers. Music by Hans Zimmer was by-the-numbers. Cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema was dark and brooding. Film editing by Lee Smith was lethargic.

Direction by Christopher Nolan was dark, brooding, and lethargic. Although film is only 106 minutes, film felt much longer due to dark tone and being extremely slow paced. Film should have been trimmed by at least 15 minutes.

Recommendation: Presented above are thirty-(30) films that are signifcantly more compelling, and typically with more action than "Dunkirk (2017)." Pick one. Pick two. Learn even more about war and great filmmaking by watching them all, which the director, writer, and producers of "Dunkirk" clearly failed to do.

.

.