Movie Reviews

Dunkirk

Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard

Release Date: Fri, Jul 21, 2017

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement

Comments (19)

Leave a comment
  1. Keith Morris  •  Jul 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Overhyped, fragmented, too long and really missed the mark. We were seriously disappointed. I guess we were expecting something along the caliber of Saving Private Ryan. Well, that sure didn't happen.

  2. Kyle stoddard  •  Jul 24, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Are you out of your mind? This movie was an insult to the people who participated in the Dunkirk Evacuation. No a single character in this steaming pile was real. None of the actual stories of the evacuation were told. This was fiction, and pretty dull, uninspiring and absurd fiction at that. You should be ashamed of this review Michael, considering your love of history. I am dumbfounded by this and most of the reviews of this hack job of an actual, important historical event.

    • Trow  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 1:32 am

      Yes, he's been out of his mind for decades.

  3. Rob Kjar  •  Jul 25, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Could not agree more with you, Michael. Nolan and Zimmer have to be mentioned in the same breath–the achievement of intimate peril in combination with the vastness of the skies, seas and beach shows his artistry and zimmer proves again that the best supporting actor goes to the score. Brilliant. Worthy of the hype if you're willing to see. This is a story of futility, cowardice, survival, bravery and "seeing" rather than averting — not blood and guts on a beach, but our willingness to face and overcome our enemies in a broad sense of the word. The pilot, the young soldier, the admiral–these are each played in the extreme foreground with a moving result. What movie did these other guys see?

  4. matt@  •  Jul 25, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    I haven't seen this yet, but I do know a few things about WW2. I read Dorothy Rabinowitz' review in the WSJ, and I look forward to seeing for myself if she's right. More later……….

  5. Dave Mitchell  •  Jul 28, 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Hated it, the historical event is so compelling and has so much potential for a great movie. There are some compelling stories in the movie, fiction or not, but they aren't developed, it was very flat. To me it felt like a college cinema club made it. The music and sound effects were overly dramatic and loud in an attempt to stir the emotions where the storyline and script should have but didn't.

  6. Trow  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 1:27 am

    Here's a mini review of integrity and savvy, something a worthless shill critic doesn't have.

    Absurdly blindly over-praised by the pretentious jackass critics herd purely based on subject not the movie itself which is not only not great, but lousy! No plot or story dynamics, zero character development, no performances, another awful sound mix with unintelligible dialogue from a pompous self-indulgent over-rated director who thinks he understands the audience but does not. You are far better off reading a text book or watching a documentary on the event on the History Channel than sitting two hours through this bore.

    What could be worse? Seeing it on film! That goes for the passé outdated tech that is 35mm or retro gimmick 70mm, both are far lower resolution than today's state-of-the-art digital projection, especially IMAX laser digital. Worse still, theaters don't care nor even know how to clean their film systems and the prints are already trashed in under two weeks of play!
    Good job luddite Nolan, you're as delusional about the reality of the technology as you are in telling a gripping story for an audience (not yourself).

    Audiences should be honest with themselves and not be fooled by important historical pretense. This was supposed to be a Hollywood movie.

    • d smith  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 2:20 am

      Your use of "worthless" and in reference to Michael Medved along with adding a review you agree with, only betrays your bias and immaturity. It is okay to disagree and have different opinions but the use of insults tells us more about you than Michael's review.

    • SD  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 4:53 pm

      Worthless shill critic? It's just a movie review, pal. Calm down. Different strokes for different folks.

      • R. Silva  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 9:45 pm

        Hey SD, using the words "worthless shill critic" is offensive. How about a more to-the-point-yet-kinder approach: "I disagree". Our words affect others, let's be careful with our choices.

  7. SD  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    Worthless shill critic? It's just a movie review, pal. Calm down! Different strokes for different folks.

  8. R. Silva  •  Aug 1, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    The script is good, the picture is amazing, the score is very well done, acting is excellent, and the progress of the movie through various stories makes the movie worth it.

  9. E. Frat  •  Aug 3, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    There was very little dialogue and what there was of it was drowned out by the music. Was the lead character deserting ?
    I was very disappointed in the movie. I do like Tom Hardy but they could have had a stand in for all that he contributed to the movie

  10. Ron Ettinger  •  Aug 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    Michael, My wife and I are going to see Dunkirk regardless of the pans it got from some of your listeners.
    Michael, love your reviews, it is very rare that you disappoint.

  11. Ron Ettinger  •  Aug 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    A lot of one liners. Waiting but it never developed the characters. Aerial war fighting was very good but the movie
    needed more. Reading the comments here, no middle ground. You either loved it or not so much.

  12. Mary Carskadon  •  Aug 14, 2017 at 1:46 am

    We loved it! Guess it helps to not go to BE critical..just enjoy a true rendition . We were deeply moved by the civilian participation and long to see America just CARE about humanity enough to reach out and help others sacrificially. We got stuck paying for the IMAX and we were glad we did!

    • matthew colling  •  Aug 15, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      Just saw this movie. Its better than I expected, but it lacked in in the very important area of historical context. Almost completely leaving out images of the Nazis, and failing to explain why Goering failed to press the attack was a huge miss, in my opinion. Had the Nazis crushed the BEF on his beach, the outcome of the war would have been far worse for the Allies, and certainly for Great Britain. On a side note, there have been complaints by the usual racial trolls that there were no black troops to be seen. Not true. There were black French troops in view, clearly. They didn't have a prominent role in this film, but so what? Make a movie about their experience and I'll see it. Stop bitchin'.

  13. JOHN HOCH  •  Sep 8, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Michael- I won't say it is a bad movie, but 4 stars?!? Being a history buff, I was truly disappointed in the movie for multiple reasons-

    Nothing is said about how and why 330,000 Allied soldiers came to be trapped on the beach at Dunkirk.
    (also, CGI would have been greatly appreciated in this regard, to give viewers a more honest scale)

    There were twice as many German troops (800,000) surrounding the Allies at Dunkirk, and yet not a single one actually seen!?

    Over 1000 German planes involved at Dunkirk, flying over 4,000 sorties during the 10 days of "Operation Dynamo", the term given to the rescue operations. That would be 400 sorties a day; given roughly 15 hrs of daylight, that would be about 25 sorties an hour!
    There were 16 squadrons of RAF fighters involved at Dunkirk, roughly 350 Spitfires and Hurricanes.

    THE SKIES OVER DUNKIRK WOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH AIRPLANES!!! CGI also would have helped to add scale to the movie.

    A compelling aspect of this story would have been the origination and implementation of the rescue; who came up with the idea of private watercraft for the rescue operation (Admiral Bertram Ramsey, approved by Churchill).

    How was the request for private watercraft issued to civilians? What timeframe was involved? Again, CGI would have been helpful to impress on viewers the scale of the aquatic aspect of the operation.

    The timeline used in the movie was extremely confusing; why a daylight scene on or over the English Channel juxtaposed with a night scene in Dunkirk, when there is only 40 miles separating Dover (headquarters for Operation Dynamo) and Dunkirk?

    An RAF Spitfire only has 15-20 seconds of ammunition for its machine guns, yet Tom Hardy used about 10 seconds for each German plane. He would have been out of ammo once he ran out of fuel.

    What Hardy did whe his plane was out of fuel was IMPOSSIBLE!! Flying back and forth over the beach without losing altitude, and yet at the last was able to maneuver up and behind a German plane, shooting it down??? Unbelievably stupid. Also, if his plane was that miraculous, why not deadstick land the plane with wheels up, near the British troops and ships at the beach, instead of flying off into the distance and landing in the middle of the German troops?

    Obviously, this movie was made by someone with no regard or knowledge of history or facts, made for viewers with no knowledge or regard for history or facts. Truly sad. In retrospect, I will say it was a bad movie.

  14. Lila Marantz  •  Sep 19, 2017 at 1:12 am

    I loved Dunkirk. It was riveting, and used an interesting device of time warping which kept me wanting to know more about each character. Michael Medved again hits the nail on the head with his review. Everyone should see this movie. Excellently directed with a perfect cast. Much less gore than Private Ryan, and easier to watch because of this.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn