New review: Dunkirk 30.07.2017

First of all, this film can be a long and inspired to criticize than some of them do. And you can look at it from a different angle and get a certain buzz. Of course, many people only like to criticize, but I don’t want to, because it’s a Nolan — if he says something, you should try to listen and understand.

“Dunkirk” is not a classic film by Nolan. The fans love this wonderful Director for the complex plot, detailed characters, there are all sorts of moral and General intellectual blockbuster. A movie about Dunkirk all slightly different. Here, the concept of “plot” is somewhat blurry and is presented from a different angle, the story is not really about the characters, morality does not read Michael Caine, and the blockbuster here is not the flow. So is it worth even watching?

Generally Dunkerque is a town in France, which in may 1940 was hell, game and game company (although, of course, such things during the Second World few people can surprise). During the French campaign, the Allied forces failed and were forced to retreat across the sea. On land they were surrounded by troops of the Wehrmacht, simultaneously bombed from the air, it was necessary to somehow get across the sea in England, but it was extremely problematic because of the bombers and submarines.

What new movie blonde Brit? The closest comparison is a three — dimensional animated sketch. It’s not really a movie. There’s no main character or even main characters. The viewer looks at everything as if from outside, although it is in the thick of things. The camera flies over the scene of the theatre of war from all sides: what do the soldiers that are waiting for boarding the ship to sail Home, along with varying degrees of success dodging air strikes; as a civilian not give their yachts the military to just go to the shores of Dunkirk to rescue the soldiers; pilots, forgetting about the fuel, sent to protect troops occupied…

We’ve learned that in the movies of Nolan, each character spelled out to the max, to the end of the film we see him inside out, that’s all. In “Dunkirk” history and nature of the character you have to collect bit by bit, small details, and rare deeds and the very very rare things. There are no superheroes, it’s not “the Dark knight” or even “interstellar” with their inspirational speeches, tears and motivational Hans Zimmer. Here the ordinary soldiers, which most do not want to die, you only need to survive in this kromeshnom hell and horror. And to survive, as we know, this is not the most noble, and does not always imply only honest way. Sometimes, to get on Board the outgoing ship, you have to step on someone’s head. And that balloon didn’t fall, someone has to make a hard landing without a parachute. This is done, however, is still under Hans Zimmer. Another question: is it really screwed up the Allies at Dunkirk.

It is certainly possible to criticize the movie. For example, a couple of shot guns. From the beginning of hostilities is composed of air and ground attacks of the Third Reich, land and air protection for Allied ships and their caravans. Somewhere in the beginning of the film we are told that there are still German submarines, but until the end of the film the viewer so they will not show. Another strange detail: the end of the film we never show the Germans with one easy reservation. Zimmer sometimes goes too far, and even during the most ordinary scenes plays well, very tense music. Tom hardy did not give turn: Nolan pinned him to the pilot’s mask and not withdrawn before the end. Other actors, too, fate is hard, because all the characters are plus or minus the ordinary, and they do a lot. And dialogues here are very few.

Objective of pluses with which one will not argue, it is the technical part, of course. Camera, editing, effects, music — this are no surprises, everything is fine. Another item of historical neutrality. No exaggeration of the importance of the influence of Allies in the war, sometimes even displayed not a very good end of the main politicians. I really liked the contrast between the expectations of the military about how they will be met at home, and reality. A lot of minor details that you want to appeal — the actions of the characters are not always clear, we are talking about different traits of character. Fine details even built some intrigue and plot twists. But it is certainly not important.

Let’s how to court, to answer a few main questions. What is this movie? Is it worth it to watch? The first question I tried to give a detailed answer, and in short, it is actually not the movie. And if a movie is not quite fiction and not a documentary. This picture is a little more classic sense than calling picture movies. Only the picture is three-dimensional, dynamic and like the scenery painted on top of it people in the style of Hieronymus Bosch: his micro stories and narrates every square millimeter.

Is it worth it to watch? To this question you need to answer yourself. If you love movies in the usual format, if you like Nolan exactly those films that are shot, and are not ready to hear from him something new, it is unlikely that you should go to “Dunkirk”. The main thing is not to contrive anything extra and go with a fresh head. Christopher Nolan is one of the most important people in film today and throughout the history of cinema including. It is very important to listen to what he says, because his words are changing fashion in the movie and change the movie itself. One film Nolan has created kynoselen DC, and his appearance created the genre of “intelligent blockbuster.” It is, in my belief, the genius of modern times, and his statements are very important. You can be ten times disagree with him, but I listen to it just need.

I usually at the end of review put the film rating, but this time I find it difficult to choose simply a number on a scale. On IMDb I put 9/10. To understand Nolan’s films is clear: for example, after “Inception” I was ecstatic, and from “The Dark Knight Rises,” I spat, still considered the worst film Nolan and even, perhaps, the most incompetent, no matter how loudly it sounds in relation to the genius. After “Dunkirk” I have long thought and tried to realize what it was.

In General, I encourage you to watch and share with me the opinion.

Happy viewing, and do not bring popcorn.

PS there’s no blood and no severed limbs.

New review: Dunkirk 30.07.2017

Поделиться в соц. сетях

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus
Share to LiveJournal