Dunkirk – War Kills: a film review

So, I did what I said I would do and went and watched Dunkirk, even though it is a war film and I am really not a fan of war films, but as it was a Christopher Nolan film, I made an exception. And I am glad that I did! My head is still hurting from the emotional impact of the piece. It is a film that has deservedly garnered five-star reviews.
With an incredibly sparse script, this is a story told how film should be, without all the clever exposition – though there is a tiny bit -, just a full on visual and aural assault. It is so evident in the storytelling that this is a subject that is close to Nolan’s heart. After a quiet, sedate opening, that last less than two minutes, the bombs, literally and aurally, start dropping.
Besides the sound, in an age where the ability to film in 4K or 1080p digital is available to anyone who can afford a high-end mobile phone or even just a good DSLR camera, Nolan, a real film lover, resolutely shoots on celluloid. With Dunkirk, he shot the film on 70mm celluloid and it looks spectacular for it. The colour depth is astounding, everything looking real without looking overly enhanced or saturated.
The wide shots of the beach have you staring as if you were actually on the beach, sand and soldiers as far as the eyes can see. Nolan’s obsession with water – Inception, Interstellar – continues in Dunkirk out of pure necessity. There is so much of the channel in this film, one could get seasickness. So many shots display the vastness and isolation that the young men feel as they wait and struggle and strive to escape the hell of the war and the impending arrival of the German forces.
Hans Zimmer is at the peak of his powers on the soundtrack, his powerful melodies carrying the emotion of war as much as the bombings and air raids. As much as the picture is captivating and the sound both deafening and enveloping, it is the way that the film makes you feel that is especially powerful.
Fear is a terrible and powerful thing and in the faces of the young soldiers, hoping and praying to get back to a home that, with a keen eye, can be seen on a clear day from the beaches, makes the fear tangible. Exposed on an open beach and piers, as they wait for transportation that may or may not be coming, the sound of an incoming enemy plane, laden with bombs, a horrible siren of death and they can do nothing but cower and pray that, though they are prepared to die for their fellow countrymen on the field of battle, the bomb does not drop on them and instead hits some other poor unfortunate soul.

At just over an hour and forty minutes long, Dunkirk is one of Nolan’s shortest films in some years. Not that the running time affects the storytelling. If anything, it enhances it, such is the tension when watching, it is hard to know if it would have been possible to maintain that tension over two hours.
As has been popular recently, there was an appearance by a famous face, one that is not known for acting. After Ed Sheeran turning up in the omnipresent Game Of Thrones and David Beckham lending his thespian talents to Guy Richie’s latest effort, King Arthur, neither of which I have seen – sorry, I don’t watch GOT and I’m too far behind to start now – both cameos getting a critical bashing, it was a risk for Nolan to cast a pop star whose magnitude matches Ed Sheeran’s. Not only did he cast Harry Styles, he of One Direction fame – I know the band, but please do not ask me to name one of their tracks! – he gave him a proper role, an acting role and he was good.
Looking the right age to play a young soldier, Styles blends in seamlessly with the surroundings, his stratospheric fame not affecting or impacting the performance. Nolan claimed to have no notion as to who Styles was before the shooting of the film. Perhaps this is true, but if Styles global fame can entice a new audience, a younger audience that probably would have no interest in Dunkirk and its place in history were it not for their idol, then the casting, accidental or not, will have been a stroke of genius. Just like the film.

Outerstellar

Sometimes, many times actually, reviewers get carried away and lavish praise on films that, frankly speaking, are the equivalent of the emperor’s new clothes.
You know the sort of thing; not a bad film by any means, in fact, they tend to be good films. They’re just not as fantastic or brilliant as the reviewers would have you believe.    Today I went and watched a film that has received much praise and kudos for its scope and execution.

Of course, there have been the dissenting voices, those who will damn with faint praise and remain completely unmoved by the cinematic spectacle. These are the same reviewers who no doubt raved over the brilliance of ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ (do not get me started!) Back on topic – Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar.

So, just in case you are bored of reading, let me say right away that this film is epic. Admittedly I am a fan of Nolan’s works – The Prestige, The Dark Knight trilogy,  Inception – so my expectations were pretty high anyway. Though, as I freely admit, I am a fan, I did not think the final Batman film was as enjoyable as the previous installments. It was good, but not fantastic.

With the high praise and hyperbole surrounding his latest endeavour, it was always going to be a real task to match it. In my humble opinion, he absolutely does and then some. Though it does not compare to the cinematic scope and visual brilliance of Gravity, storywise, it delivers both intellectually and emotionally.

Utilizing one of Nolans’ – the brothers – favorite themes – time – the film, whilst not as mind-bending as Inception, still offers up some bold and thoughtful story strands. The overwhelming arc of connection whilst simplistic and, if I’m being picky, an easy plot device, works well and pulls the film through just when it looks as if they have been too clever. Interstellar is a great, grand and brilliant film. Go and see it.