Dunkirk is the most disappointing movie I've watched all year.

Watch
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Went to watch it yesterday, boarding the hype train once again. Was a complete failure, and I am mystified as to how it has such good reviews. I'm really passionate about History, I find myself especially fascinated by France under Nazi occupation, so I thought this would really interest me, but I found it increasingly dull and boring:

The plot was non-existent, and there was no character development throughout the whole movie. The acting was emotionless and there was no interesting action scenes at all. No new ideas during the movie, just the same fighters attacking the same bombers etc. The number of reused scenes was appalling, and the soundtrack left me purely irritated. 2.4 / 10. Opinions?

Edit: Having spoken to various members on TSR, I find myself with a new outlook. I stick by my words that I was disappointed, finding that it didn't live up to the hype I had expected, but I can now see where people found the effect and emotions produced in this movie. I still believe that this movie was slightly repetitive and rather dull at times, but I do plan to watch it again, with a fresh mind, when it comes out on DVD, and see how I find it. Regardless, I do believe that I was overly critical at the start of this thread, and give it a refined score of 4.9 / 10 - Subject to Change.
5
reply
Mr_Nobody
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I've not seen it myself, but Christopher Nolan's movies are pretty hit-or-miss from my experience, and somehow always seem to get great reviews regardless.

For example, The Dark Knight is one of my all-time favourite movies, but The Dark Knight Rises is probably my least favourite movie ever, suffering from some of the same problems you identified with Dunkirk.
1
reply
JMR2021_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by bjt1882)
Went to watch it yesterday, boarding the hype train once again. Was a complete failure, and I am mystified as to how it has such good reviews. I'm really passionate about History, I find myself especially fascinated by France under Nazi occupation, so I thought this would really interest me, but I found it increasingly dull and boring:

The plot was non-existent, and there was no character development throughout the whole movie. The acting was emotionless and there was no interesting action scenes at all. No new ideas during the movie, just the same fighters attacking the same bombers etc. The number of reused scenes was appalling, and the soundtrack left me purely irritated. 2.4 / 10. Opinions?
WTH, it was a great film.
5
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by JMR2017)
WTH, it was a great film.
What specifically about the film makes you say that?
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Ahem: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=4846940
0
reply
Terry Tibbs
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Majority consensus is that it's one of the greatest war movies of all time and a masterpiece, clearly you're in the minority.

Posted from TSR Mobile
3
reply
stressedteen
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by bjt1882)
Went to watch it yesterday, boarding the hype train once again. Was a complete failure, and I am mystified as to how it has such good reviews. I'm really passionate about History, I find myself especially fascinated by France under Nazi occupation, so I thought this would really interest me, but I found it increasingly dull and boring:

The plot was non-existent, and there was no character development throughout the whole movie. The acting was emotionless and there were no interesting action scenes at all. No new ideas during the movie, just the same fighters attacking the same bombers etc. The number of reused scenes was appalling, and the soundtrack left me purely irritated. 2.4 / 10. Opinions?
That's the point, Nolan didn't want some silly love stories or character development, he just wanted to show the harsh reality of war. I think it was beautifully produced.
6
reply
LauraBMS
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I think it's one of the best war films I've ever seen. It's a masterpiece as far as I am concerned. What's great about it is that it told a true story that did not need embellishment with love stories or over the top action scenes. A war veteran who was actually there at Dunkirk said he was moved to tears and "It was just like I was there again". I don't know if you can get better praise than that. It was a beautiful, moving film.
2
reply
alexschmalex
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
I think it was a really different type of war movie. I need to watch it again but for a movie without any real focal characters or anything like that, it was insanely intense and the sound design/score was absolutely monumental. I was bored at first but once I saw how the plot was coming together I got more and more invested in the movie. Not sure I'll be rewatching it 5 years down the road like with Dark Knight but I think it's cool Nolan took a risk with the movie
1
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by stressedteen)
That's the point, Nolan didn't want some silly love stories or character development, he just wanted to show the harsh reality of war. I think it was beautifully produced.
How did it show the harsh reality of war? There were barely any death scenes etc. Saving Private Ryan and the likes show the harsh reality of war a thousand times better than Dunkirk.

I understand that Dunkirk was not a huge invasion obviously, so in my opinion they could have shown the reality of war by making a much more dialogue based movie, that emphasises the days of waiting and the desperate attempts to get home. That would have made a much more effective movie than random action scenes to draw in viewers following the trailers. As an action movie, yes the scenes were good. But as a movie that is meant to show the reality of one of the greatest military successes in the 20th century, it simply does not fit the bill. Nolan could have chosen countless other events to show the harsh reality of war, that might have played much more to his advantage.
0
reply
username3079870
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by bjt1882)
Went to watch it yesterday, boarding the hype train once again. Was a complete failure, and I am mystified as to how it has such good reviews. I'm really passionate about History, I find myself especially fascinated by France under Nazi occupation, so I thought this would really interest me, but I found it increasingly dull and boring:

The plot was non-existent, and there was no character development throughout the whole movie. The acting was emotionless and there was no interesting action scenes at all. No new ideas during the movie, just the same fighters attacking the same bombers etc. The number of reused scenes was appalling, and the soundtrack left me purely irritated. 2.4 / 10. Opinions?
One of the reasons it got good reviews is a general lowering of standards amongst film critics and the general movie going public IMO. Blockbuster movies have been pretty poor over the last few years in particular, and very few are actually decent. So a decent movie, like Logan, becomes a great movie because based on other films in the current blockbuster market, it is great. Based against films from the last 50 years, it's merely decent.

Dunkirk is a good film IMO, but not great. It is probably the best film I've seen this year though. That is daming something with faint praise, given this was the year of POTC: Part 74, Guardians of the CGI borefest, Kong: Dull Island.... I could go on.

Dunkirk is original, well made, and the rarest of things these days: truly cinematic. Whatever flaws the film has, it uses images to tell a story. It's not Tom Hiddlestone looking barely alive spouting some nonsense exposition while he flexes his bicep about a giant CGI monkey. Sadly studios make few movies with the quality of Dunkirk, and more movies of the quality of Kong, GotG etc...
2
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by alexschmalex)
I think it was a really different type of war movie. I need to watch it again but for a movie without any real focal characters or anything like that, it was insanely intense and the sound design/score was absolutely monumental. I was bored at first but once I saw how the plot was coming together I got more and more invested in the movie. Not sure I'll be rewatching it 5 years down the road like with Dark Knight but I think it's cool Nolan took a risk with the movie
I am happy to agree that some scenes were intense, and the music was effective at first. The score did get a little bit repetitive I felt towards the middle, and the ticking time felt a bit cliche, especially for Zimmer. I feel that a bit more of a focused plot might have improved this movie for me. It just felt a bit dysfunctional as a storyline.
0
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by jestersnow)
One of the reasons it got good reviews is a general lowering of standards amongst film critics and the general moving going public IMO. Blockbuster movies have been pretty poor over the last few years in particular, and very few are actually decent. So a decent movie, like Logan, becomes a great movie because based on other films in the current blockbuster market, it is great. Based against films from the last 50 years, it's merely decent.

Dunkirk is a solid film, but nothing more than that. I wouldn't watch it again. Yet in year of POTC: Part 74, Guardians of the CGI borefest, Kong: Dull Island, Dunkirk is original, well made, and the rarest of things these days: truly cinematic. Whatever flaws the film has, it uses images to tell a story. It's not Tom Hiddlestone looking barely alive spouting some nonsense exposition while he flexes his bicep about a giant monkey.
Completely agree with that first paragraph, couldn't have put it better myself. SPR (19 years old now) got a lower IMBd score by 0.1 than Dunkirk, but even now, I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that SPR is a better movie than Dunkirk.

I do agree that Dunkirk is definitely not the worst movie i've watched this year, bear in mind that my title was "disappointing" and not "worst", but with the amount of hype surrounding this movie, I did hope that it would live up to my (granted, high) expectations, but it fell short it comparison to so many other movies based in this time period.
1
reply
SMEGGGY
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Think idiot Harry Styles is in it so idiotic yeen girls bigged it up like he's some Marlon Brando

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by SMEGGGY)
Think idiot Harry Styles is in it so idiotic yeen girls bigged it up like he's some Marlon Brando

Posted from TSR Mobile
oK. Didn't actually know who he played until somebody pointed him out to me during the movie. So I guess he cant be that bad at acting if i didn't notice him...
0
reply
username3079870
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by bjt1882)
Completely agree with that first paragraph, couldn't have put it better myself. SPR (19 years old now) got a lower IMBd score by 0.1 than Dunkirk, but even now, I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that SPR is a better movie than Dunkirk.
I'm grateful these days if I go to the cinema and come out of it not hating a film. Which is a real shame as going to the cinema to see a movie is one of my very favourite things to do.
1
reply
SMEGGGY
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by bjt1882)
oK. Didn't actually know who he played until somebody pointed him out to me during the movie. So I guess he cant be that bad at acting if i didn't notice him...
If he was good st acting then you'd have noticed

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
essexgrad16
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
I have to say I disagree, I thought it was a pretty excellent movie. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a "masterpiece", it was very good. I loved how the audience was just thrust into the action, and the noise and shudders from the audience during certain scenes was classic Nolan, his ability as a director to make an audience on-edge is second-to-none at the moment. Certainly the best film I have seen this year (but we were working from a low bar, the only thing that has come close if War for the Planet of the Apes). 8/10.
0
reply
bjt1882
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by SMEGGGY)
If he was good st acting then you'd have noticed

Posted from TSR Mobile
I know that was my second thought also...
0
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Skull island nuff said.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (172)
44.1%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (43)
11.03%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (32)
8.21%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (83)
21.28%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (38)
9.74%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (22)
5.64%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed