sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Fandango At Home
+4
Dunkirk
Dunkirk
+4
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
Dunkirk

Dunkirk

2017
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 46m
Allied soldiers from Belgium, the British Empire, Canada, and France are surrounded by the German army and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II. (imdb)

Directed by:

Christopher Nolan

Screenwriter:

Christopher Nolan

Starring:

Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Aneurin Barnard, Harry Styles, Damien Bonnard, Jack Lowden, Fionn Whitehead, Barry Keoghan, Tom Glynn-Carney

Genres:

Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Action, War

Countries:

France, Netherlands, UK, USA

Languages:

English, French, German
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

Dunkirk

2017
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 46m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 59.05% from 5843 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(5910)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
kasperlKasperL
Rated 20 Jul 2017
55
39th
Impersonal. It's by design, but it's a mistake. For 'Dunkirk' plays more like a disaster movie than a war movie, and I needed a character to latch on to. Between Nolan's admittedly effective visual bombardments of my senses, and whenever Zimmer's woefully distracting and catastrophically overused score pulled me out of the experience, I found myself getting frustrated that I was unable to connect with it. Skillful though the editing may be, it fails to disguise the fact that the story is so-so.
Rated 20 Jul 2017
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 01 Aug 2017
80
77th
Christopher Nolan jerks off to clocks.
Rated 01 Aug 2017
suture_selfSuture Self
Rated 27 Jul 2017
3
24th
I watched hundreds of nameless faces drown on a giant screen with Hans Zimmer's sledgehammer soundtrack reverberating the walls and I felt absolutely nothing because Christopher Nolan is an unfeeling worm of a man that probably has freezing cold hands and an icebox for a heart. The non-linear triptych "story" had one of the most frustrating and tedious plotting structures of any movie I've seen since Memento. Anytime a scene might build towards something, Nolan deflates it with a quick edit.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 24 Jul 2017
6
35th
Ever since TDKR, Nolan's films have left me with this strange, underwhelming feeling, as though his obsession with technicalities and making his complicated productions feel as grounded as possible is starting to seriously impact the thematic and emotional resonance that made his films great in the first place. As much as I wanted to like Dunkirk, the jumbled, mostly hollow narrative and slight character development prevent the film from going down as a truly memorable experience.
Rated 24 Jul 2017
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 04 Jan 2018
95
83rd
The more I heard people talk about what the experience was like, I changed my expectations and went into the movie with a different idea of what it's like and I ended up loving it. No, it isn't like the other war films I've seen before, but it's suppose to be different. It's from a different point of view that I thoroughly enjoyed. It also has great acting, directing, music, and (loud) editing. I wish I could have seen it on the big screen. Very good if you go in with the right mindset.
Rated 04 Jan 2018
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 31 Jul 2017
95
96th
I think Christopher Nolan has finally answered that long lingering question: What if 'Saving Private Ryan' were a good movie?
Rated 31 Jul 2017
corbadCorbad
Rated 27 Jul 2017
90
95th
Masterful cinematography, sound, and music flow through an ingeniously crafted story structure and allow the simple profundity of action and image--realized in capable performance and authentic sets--to speak volumes, even of the complexities of war, of its horror and heroics. A stunning barrage of image and sound.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
djrossdjross
Rated 26 Dec 2017
72
82nd
More than any other director, Nolan seems to believe he can combine commercial with artistic imperatives in a way that does not cause them to work against each other. Here he tries to create a kind of pure cinema intended to convey tension and fear without presenting any kind of anti-war critique (to the contrary). Compared to THE THIN RED LINE this is a cinema of feeling rather than ideas, but criticisms of the lack of "humanity" or "character" seem much more conventional than the film itself.
Rated 26 Dec 2017
bofbof
Rated 17 Dec 2017
76
73rd
More of a disaster movie than a war movie; the Germans barely visible, no more monstrous than any oncoming storm, while people try desperately to escape and help others escape. A technical masterpiece, it looks gorgeous, and even if there are a few unfortunate THIS IS A HISTORICAL MOVIE ABOUT HEROES signposts, Nolan's timeline fuckery both keeps it gripping and chaotic and helps defuse that we all know how it ends.
Rated 17 Dec 2017
mrandersen10mrandersen10
Rated 26 Jul 2017
80
78th
I believe approaching this w/ proper expectations will enhance your experience. Educate yourself first of the story's history. Realize the entire movie boils down to one extended escape seq. Understand this is a cold, clinical experience unlike the typical dramatic American War film. Character dev and drama fall by the wayside. It relies instead on the power of artistic imagery. And perk up your ears-- it can be difficult to hear dialogue under artillery fire and Zimmer's blaring soundtrack.
Rated 26 Jul 2017
wwallce4prezWWallce4prez
Rated 24 Jul 2017
90
95th
Dunkirk is an experience. It is visceral, loud, unnerving, and gorgeously realized. Those that fault its lack of character and even its ability to earn the heartfelt moments may not be wrong, but I challenge anyone to find a comparable experience on film. Nolan's ability to show expansive beaches that feel claustrophobic and inescapable is magical. Add the arresting score and aggressive sound design and you have something quite different but absolutely special.
Rated 24 Jul 2017
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 21 Jul 2017
70
77th
Dunkirk doesn't tell a particularly engrossing story, and its characters leave a lot to be desired. We're asked to care about their plight as a whole instead of on an individual basis and, because of the film's arm's-reach approach to storytelling and the constant shift in perspective, it doesn't stir the emotions. It's very impressive on a technical level and its acting is great, but it leaves one coming away feeling cold and uninvolved.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
antidood1antidood1
Rated 20 Jul 2017
55
24th
Impressive cinematography, a great visual style and some good special effects amount to little more than a barrage of sensory input. This movie severely lacks a hook, either in the form of a captivating story or an interesting character, which sadly renders the movie mostly flat.
Rated 20 Jul 2017
xakkmasterXakkMaster
Rated 19 Aug 2017
81
65th
The Dream Theater (band) of war movies... It was so technically awesome, but emotionally hollow... I went in with that expectation and was able to enjoy it for what it was. Seeing it in IMAX really enhanced the visceral experience.
Rated 19 Aug 2017
paxtonPaxton
Rated 09 Aug 2017
94
94th
What if you wanted to convey all of the tension that found footage movies intend to put a viewer through but you didn't want to make a lackluster found footage movie? The lack of character development actually assisted me in relating to the characters, or at least their terror. The score is constantly building towards a crescendo that never comes and while incredibly effective I thought it was slightly overused. There are so many moments when jumping into a hopeless ocean is the best option. Eek
Rated 09 Aug 2017
gideonGideon
Rated 25 Jul 2017
2
59th
What a let down, Dunkirk. In a way it seems Nolan went all Malick on us. As in; what the f-ck is going on? Sure, it's a technical feat of the highest order, but what about the elements that make a film a good film? Story? Script? Character development? Surely these aren't 'oldfashioned' ingredients to a good film? In order for an audience to invest emotionally these core elements should be fleshed out. Dunkirk feels hollow. I felt detached. This is not the way it ought to be. Get a grip, Nolan.
Rated 25 Jul 2017
backwardsuitbackwardsuit
Rated 13 Aug 2017
75
66th
Nolan continues his admirable attempt to raise the bar of modern big budget Hollywood blockbusters. He brings a lot of flair & class relying on classical filmmaking craft & proper use of SFX without cheap gimmicks. Along with his fluid time jumping editing this amounts to a really tense, tight, coherent & engaging spectacle that functions wonderfully but makes the inevitable cheesiness & overstatement really stand out. Same can be said of the score. See it on the biggest loudest screen possible.
Rated 13 Aug 2017
spanksSpanks
Rated 05 Aug 2017
45
33rd
Further confirmation that Christopher Nolan is not a human being. He is an A.I. cyborg constructed by the European Union, specifically crafted to create technical masterpieces for the screen. Yet his lack of humanity is none more apparent than in "Dunkirk," as it's painfully obvious that he cannot wrap his hard drive of a mind around this little thing called "emotions." Not to mention this is his second film in which he's hidden the glorious Tom Hardy behind a mask. What more proof do you need?
Rated 05 Aug 2017
beer94Beer94
Rated 27 Jul 2017
75
85th
It's not what I expected at all but it's very competently made and clearly a very visceral, relentless tale that is also really well scored. Plays more like a docu film but as long as you're down with that rather than a narrative-driven emotional tale, then you'll be in for a good time. The top half of Tom Hardy's face deserves an Oscar nomination for sure.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
timecapsuleTimeCapsule
Rated 27 Jul 2017
86
90th
This Christopher Nolan war film is an entertaining big budget dramatic re-enactment documentary of sorts. Although certainly a gigantic and intense cinematic historical experience, the film lacks maybe a little "movie" magic for my taste. Despite the thrilling and dramatic action throughout, I left still hungry for something more processed(?) I think it's like when you prefer Kraft Parmesan cheese, wood pulp and all, over the real thing. But I might have trashier taste come to think about it.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 27 Jul 2017
85
82nd
A pocket of sorts. Dunkirk, with very little in terms of dialogue or narrative operates in its own little bubble, as essentially a re-enacted documentary. In this sense, it is super cool. Entertaining and suspenseful throughout, I think Nolan has crafted something spectacularly interesting, if not a little strange. Not the narrative driven war film you expect to see, but a well acted, shot, and scored piece of history.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
the_pirateThe Pirate
Rated 23 Jul 2017
82
67th
Doesn't reach levels set by Saving Private Ryan, but it comes damn close. There were people in the audience near me who were literally gripping their seats during certain scenes. True to the marketing, this is primarily a survival story, not a war picture, and as such, it's extremely suspenseful. By the end, almost every opinion one could have about war is portrayed in an objective way, leaving the ending open to a lot of interpretation.
Rated 23 Jul 2017
filliganFilligan
Rated 23 Jul 2017
94
90th
I don't intend to belittle the events portrayed here whatsoever when I say this, but Dunkirk is kind of like riding a rollercoaster than watching a movie. It's something you experience. I hear the complaints about underdeveloped characters, but I feel the lens is intentionally retracted to relate these harrowing events in the massive perspective it requires. Again, Nolan plays with time and it's not always obvious how, but it eventually clicks and feels unique. This is an artist at work.
Rated 23 Jul 2017
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 22 Jul 2017
80
84th
Dunkirk operates more like one of those WW2 air documentaries with grainy sweeping dogfights of planes being shot down. It's also abstract enough to bewilder and make you realize exactly what reality the men suffered throughout this ordeal. Nolan wisely stays away from narrative themes and creates a time/space abstraction which allows us to view events as singular traumatic events that transpire in these men's lives. It is all anchored in one brief heroic action which concludes the film.
Rated 22 Jul 2017
badfurdayBadFurDay
Rated 19 Jul 2017
8
87th
You don't expect a movie to be a physically exhausting experience, but Dunkirk is. As usual, Nolan delivers top tier quality. The topic of choice is interesting, the format of the storytelling is unorthodox, the visual and audio atmospheres are oppressive in a good way. It's not the movie of the century, but it's one that I would recommend everyone go and watch, if possible in IMAX.
Rated 19 Jul 2017
terrymacterrymac
Rated 09 Sep 2019
85
93rd
I found this very effective, and quite affecting. Tragic, but with some hope; there weren't many laughs to be had here, of course. The austere style, lacking the bombast of many war films, was unusual, but it really worked well. The cast controlled their performances nicely; I really liked Rylance. Zimmer's score was a highlight for me, linking in with the action wonderfully. Probably my favourite of Nolan's films so far. Exhausting, but worthy.
Rated 09 Sep 2019
aflickeringAFlickering
Rated 26 Mar 2018
1
3rd
'Men marched asleep! Many had lost their boots! But limped on! Blood-shod! All went lame! All blind! Drunk with fatigue! Deaf even to the hoots! Of tired! Outstripped! Five-nines! That dropped behind! Gas!!!!!! Gas!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quick, boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An ecstasy of fumbling! Fitting the clumsy helmets just! In! Time! Motherfuckersssss!!!' - a poem by wilfred owen, translated by christopher nolan, read by hans zimmer
Rated 26 Mar 2018
pratchett3Pratchett3
Rated 25 Jan 2018
5
18th
some beautiful images, probably was awesome if you're a war history geek, but the film jumps between like four simultaneous groups of people and there just wasn't enough characterization for me. the only people that got adequate characterization were the civilian boat people, if that. the dude we followed from the beginning only said like 4 words the whole film, and Airplane Dude only said airplane stuff over his airplane radio. speaking of, the plane tracers were off, or shot late, irked me
Rated 25 Jan 2018
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 04 Jan 2018
50
20th
Despite staging a solid technical production, Christopher Nolan, for all his accolades, still struggles with character development and making the audience care about what is happening to whom. 'Dunkirk', if you're not a history buff, is actually a bit of a slog when it gets down to it. 107 minutes of pure suspense isn't all that intense when the characters have zero substance.
Rated 04 Jan 2018
adiljunadiljun
Rated 28 Dec 2017
19
8th
the only thing on this film is allways trying to get you into various desperate situations. but these scenes are not part of a topic integrity because there is nothing but greenbox and fighting toys: ///28 Dec 2017 - 29/// 2nd watch: still boring
Rated 28 Dec 2017
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 04 Aug 2017
85
92nd
I have a lot of praise for this off-beat war story in general, but the dog fight scenes, all done with (mainly) practical effects, filmed in IMAX and set to Zimmer's pulsatingly minimalistic score was the most immersive experience I've had in the cinema for a long, long time.
Rated 04 Aug 2017
bownBown
Rated 27 Jul 2017
85
75th
It's ok if it isn't for you, but honestly? The two highest-rated reviews here seem to straight-up not get it. Probably Nolan's best - certainly his best since Memento.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
deaddillydeaddilly
Rated 23 Jul 2017
85
84th
'Dunkirk' Pulsates between the micro and macro casualties of war. Blurring the passage of time and bypassing the importance of character, Nolan's vision is pure and uncompromising. An absolute classic of the genre.
Rated 23 Jul 2017
xenophuleXenophule
Rated 21 Jul 2017
4
7th
Watch: Big screen is great for the big kabooms, but don't worry if you miss this one. | The one thing this movie does well is build lots and lots of tension. What it doesn't do well is having that tension lead up to any good payoffs or give us a character or a story that's interesting to latch on to. Nolan is excellent at making fantasy realistic (Batman, etc.), but when applied to this it makes a shit situation even more unbearable.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
montycircusMontyCircus
Rated 21 Jul 2017
20
12th
Billed as a "thrilling" war epic. This has no thrills and is shorter than the rom-com I just saw. It's practically a silent film (I hate them), with the soundtrack being the hum of plane engines and the crashing of waves. There are no characters, I'm not sure anyone in the film is named. No German faces are seen. In the film credits I assume everyone is named "Earnest Brit #1", "Earnest Brit #2". There is no humour. The lines that do exist are all garbled and unintelligible. Disappointment.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
juntakinte99juntakinte99
Rated 21 Jul 2017
97
93rd
Dunkirk keeps of Nolan's trademark philosophies: parallel storytelling, shifting timelines, and a character confronted by a big lie that they are willing to believe. But what's new about this film is a (timely) humanity. Nolan has some interesting thoughts on how we treat refugees, how the "other" can be impacted by conflict, and old men sending young men to fight. It does lose some steam due to bad dialogue mixing. But that's a minor complaint. Highly recommended & maybe the year's best film.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
patmanpatman
Rated 19 Jul 2017
79
91st
Nolan throws his audience straight into a series of intense events set during WWII, without being a "war movie". The focus is an admitted defeat, an evacuation and a fight for survival, where it finds power in the individual and communal tales of heroism. An experimental approach structurally, but technically a masterpiece. Have a few sensational action sequences, while the lack of a stronger told characters makes it difficult to engage throughout and grasp the scale and horror of what went on.
Rated 19 Jul 2017
ribcageribcage
Rated 10 Apr 2018
88
89th
Nolan continues to prove he's a master of "taking you there", of using the magic of his craft to immerse audiences in visceral vicarious experiences. Dunkirk is the masterpiece of this grab you by the hand, throw you in the action style, making the thrill rides of his previous films, even Interstellar, seem like merely a tease. For this one, Nolan becomes truly one of the greats, a man with precise touch on what strings to pull to make a movie pure magic.
Rated 10 Apr 2018
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 01 Mar 2018
4
74th
The first Nolan film that I have enjoyed with unambiguous enthusiasm. Its temporal amalgamation is remnant of his insistence on yarny machinations, but this is an otherwise undiluted and riveting audiovisual episode. The lack of interior characterization and contrived motivations make the film less conventional than its detractors contend. The point is the throng, the scraping and the clawing, the happening and the experience, impressions conveyed in textures only attainable through cinema.
Rated 01 Mar 2018
hawkinsHawkins
Rated 20 Jan 2018
79
67th
Nolan depicts a war not between axis and allies but between men and water.
Rated 20 Jan 2018
moonsmilkmoonsmilk
Rated 25 Dec 2017
8
59th
I tend to run really hot or cold on Christopher Nolan, but this is probably his most interesting film in ages. He's a legitimately smart and interesting filmmaker, but he tends to get caught up in overly clever/elaborate setups. I'm not sure why Nolan never tried to do a war movie before, because the specifics of the subject matter seems to really fit his particular, aggressively asexual vision of film. This is as much of a meticulous clockwork machine of a film as he's ever going to make.
Rated 25 Dec 2017
byderByder
Rated 23 Dec 2017
72
72nd
The people who think this movie is confusing should consider a visit to the doctor for an MRI.
Rated 23 Dec 2017
bakcheiabakcheia
Rated 20 Dec 2017
52
40th
Dunkirk is an incredibly empty spectacle, loitering on screen far more than it needs to at any point in time. Sure, we watch Kenneth Branagh stare at things pensively a bit, and we also watch a guy commit suicide, but none of the psychology of these characters is ever remotely explored. Why you may ask? It seems somewhat intentional that the movie is all about external events, yet I honestly think Nolan is just a robot. Tom Hardy is your best actor, why was he behind a full face mask?!
Rated 20 Dec 2017
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 11 Dec 2017
38
24th
I've never seen a more humdrum, generic war movie. You can watch this with the sound off and get roughly the same experience.
Rated 11 Dec 2017
timmytomtimmytom
Rated 06 Dec 2017
60
36th
Perhaps some day Nolan will learn how to portray a human being. I doubt it.
Rated 06 Dec 2017
theescapistTheEscapist
Rated 19 Sep 2017
63
29th
Very misleading posters and advertising. The film feels disappointing. Feels like a small scale budget fan film with no script but quality cinematography and superior visuals. The characters aren't very interesting and are mostly pretty one-dimensional. Very abrupt ending, doesn't leave an emotional impact. The plot feels very lacking, in fact I'm pretty sure this film lacks a plot altogether. Some tense scenes and good cinematography, but overall quite disappointing.
Rated 19 Sep 2017
lookjabbaLookJabba...
Rated 26 Aug 2017
9
91st
Dunkirk almost feels like an IMAX event as apposed to a feature film. In terms of story and character development this is not what I expected, but technically this is a staggering cinematic spectacle from Christopher Nolan. The performances across the board are understated yet believable, the tension is relentless throughout and Hans Zimmer's score is an integral part of this visceral experience. As expected the cinematography is stunning and the aerial dogfights in particular are spectacular.
Rated 26 Aug 2017
djembadjemba
Rated 11 Aug 2017
79
70th
Do people watch other war movies? Madness. If Dunkirk gets score 100 than Come and See, Apocalypse Now or Paths of Glory should get 200
Rated 11 Aug 2017
detoxDetox
Rated 04 Aug 2017
65
34th
While its depiction of survival is pretty intense, I can't get rid of the feeling, that the film is first and foremost a technical exercise. When it touches real topics at all, it only does so in a superficial manner and one reason for this is because Nolan has to show us once again that he is capable of building oh so complex plot structures. And while I usually like Hans Zimmer, the score here is really too much. What this film needed was to take a step back. Props to Tom Hardy though.
Rated 04 Aug 2017
big_lemonsBig Lemons
Rated 02 Aug 2017
82
53rd
Tense film with a nauseating Zimmer score.
Rated 02 Aug 2017
sabysimssabysims
Rated 29 Jul 2017
40
0th
Another Chris Nolan crapfest. Boring and lame scriptwriting, not credible, cheap production assets and scene setting, story arc and buildup had no momentum and grip, illogical sequences... Waste of money...
Rated 29 Jul 2017
ocelotOcelot
Rated 28 Jul 2017
75
81st
better than expected for Nolan, considering his other movies are closer to neocon doctrine than anything else. the final shot is brilliant. any despite being a historical film, he still managed to work in a brilliant twist where it turns out Tom Hardy was in the movie all along
Rated 28 Jul 2017
joelwatchesmoviesjoelwatchesmovies
Rated 27 Jul 2017
7
63rd
I appreciated the effort to strip any story fluff or contrived emotions away from the event at hand, and along with the triple-timeline narrative it made for a tightly focused and refreshing approach to the genre, but in the end its lack of exposition on the event's scope and context (just a title screen wasn't enough for me) made for a bit of an underwhelming experience, despite the amazing visuals, tense action set pieces, solid acting, and perfectly subtle yet strong character work.
Rated 27 Jul 2017
difontaineDifontaine
Rated 24 Jul 2017
90
96th
It's a film I really can't review properly yet. I'm still stunned by it, several days on. Do go see at the cinema, ideally with the big IMAX screen.
Rated 24 Jul 2017
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 24 Jul 2017
75
56th
Doesn't blow me away as a complete movie, but it's an experience at the same time that should not be missed on a big screen. It would be fair to describe the movie as vociferous: it's incredibly loud and places you right in the middle of things at all times, employing sound as the primary narrative. No standout performances, just an adequate ensemble. Technically brilliant as always. Not the most fun you'll have at the movies this weekend, nor is it it's own best version. But it's worth seeing.
Rated 24 Jul 2017
speedmarqueSpeedMarque
Rated 22 Jul 2017
35
19th
It might be visually good but the story is so lacking that I wonder why I didn't fall asleep.
Rated 22 Jul 2017
mattorama12mattorama12
Rated 22 Jul 2017
78
85th
An effective war experience, near perfect technically in terms of audio and visuals. I felt the decision to play with the chronology was probably more to do with Nolan feeling at ease doing that kind of thing rather than any real reason the story called for it. Edit: Saw it a second time (mostly by happenstance) and this time in IMAX--well worth it to do IMAX if possible. Apart from the IMAX, I enjoyed the narrative quite a bit more the second time around.
Rated 22 Jul 2017
langelundLangelund
Rated 21 Jul 2017
65
57th
Sympathetic in every way, and from a cinematic point of view you have never seen a war epic like this. With that said, I was way more engaged in the five-minute Dunkirk one-take from 'Atonement', and even though I like Nolan's bravery to avoid melodrama, I did feel quite distanced by most of the film.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 08 Jun 2018
88
83rd
First, Nolan is over praised. While there's a great deal of technical virtuosity on display, why can't he write a more seamless non-linear structure? About halfway through when 2 storylines first cross, confusion is likely to result as you realize the opening titles of "week 1", "day 1", etc don't make much sense. There's also only so many pilot scenes one can take. Still, this builds to a powerful & moving tribute to the honor of simply having served - a message Trump would never appreciate.
Rated 08 Jun 2018
alex_watkinsAlex Watkins
Rated 02 Mar 2018
3
38th
A curiously bloodless and weightless film about death on a massive scale, which attempts to shape the chaotic events of history into a linear (albeit strangely telescopic) narrative against all rhyme or reason. It's like a World War II film as post-rock, all giant crescendos that never peak or hit you in the gut. I would rather have spent the entire film with Hardy's character, whose perspective offered, quite literally, a new angle on things.
Rated 02 Mar 2018
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 25 Feb 2018
73
88th
Like most Nolan films, it's a stunner when it comes to audio/visuals. The nonlinear storytelling adds some nuance to an otherwise straightforward tale. It captures the tense often claustrophobic presence in the ships and the dogfighting is realistic and amazing. The thumping score drives home everything it's supposed to. It does not have a lot of character development per se but I really don't know how it would and still pull off the massive scale. A very nice acheivement all in all.
Rated 25 Feb 2018
jnydamjnydam
Rated 25 Feb 2018
42
29th
Tried to be the Titanic and failed. Boring narrative, disjointed. Visually stunning like the Revenant but like it that's almost all it had going. The score is impressive too. Not enough to make me a fan
Rated 25 Feb 2018
zanginZangin
Rated 13 Jan 2018
33
6th
Vapid. Sure, it's shot well and has a few tense moments. Not really much here beyond that though.
Rated 13 Jan 2018
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 28 Dec 2017
60
36th
It's relentless and well made in every sense with the actual act of film making. My biggest issue (and it is a big one for me and often a complaint I've had with Nolan works) is that it is dry and lacks any sort of way for me to care about the characters. The visuals give individual scenes more impact than the movie as a whole which makes the movie very watchable but ultimately empty by the end. It's so reliant on visuals it doesn't surprise me that people who saw this in IMAX love it.
Rated 28 Dec 2017
vinegarbobVinegarBob
Rated 28 Dec 2017
30
12th
A strangely disconnected war film with a bunch of young kids running around not doing much of anything and not an enemy in sight. None of the characters are more than sketches, and the set-pieces have no meaning beyond an attempt to generate cinematic tension for its own sake. The whole film simply feels like a montage of clips from all the war films you've seen over the years.
Rated 28 Dec 2017
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 23 Dec 2017
90
97th
Superb and undoubtedly one of the great war films. Nolan's never lets things slip into bombastic flag-waving nor melodramatic sloppiness; rather we get a story of an event and a glimpse of the humans caught up in it. It's brutal without gore, frightening without gimmicks and visually incredible; the aerial vistas of Spitfires gliding over the Channel a particular highlight. Zimmers score is a masterpiece and is used to the maximum by Nolan. Astounding from start to finish.
Rated 23 Dec 2017
yoshinarutoYoshinaruto
Rated 23 Dec 2017
55
31st
As others have said, its approach to the characters is flawed. I didn't care about most of them. The "protagonist" (if you can single out any character as more important) often got lost in the background for me, and as such, I didn't care much about what happened to him. There's more or less 3 stories going on. The soldiers, the small boat, and the pilot. The pilot feels the most drawn out, the soldiers aren't developed, and the small boat doesn't feel important.
Rated 23 Dec 2017
vahidtrvahidtr
Rated 19 Dec 2017
59
13th
well, that was unexpected. I really didn't expect that from Nolan, it's his worst movie. the more I tried to communicate with the movie, the less I understood it. seems like I was watching a bunch of unrelated and irrelevant scenes on big screen. the movie's score was irritating, the cinematography and sounds couldn't help the movie. I'm disappointed
Rated 19 Dec 2017
aaautinAAAutin
Rated 18 Dec 2017
70
84th
Christopher Nolan LOVES Tom Hardy, but HATES his face.
Rated 18 Dec 2017
barraocBarraoc
Rated 11 Dec 2017
80
85th
Technically perfect and what a unique use of different time spans - 1 hour, 1 day, and 1 week - brought together toward the end?
Rated 11 Dec 2017
amazedemonamazedemon
Rated 08 Dec 2017
68
79th
Dunkirk is Nolan's (and Zimmer's) masterpiece in tension. The narrative is built around the adage of By Land, Sea and Air, focusing solely on the evacuation without showing an impact on wider war, nor delving too deep into individual's stories. This is a positive as it delivers a film that is intense and paced perfectly for its sub-2 hr runtime. Consequently, the characters lose their distinguishability, merely acting as representations of bravery, cowardice and an unrelenting urge to survive.
Rated 08 Dec 2017
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 05 Dec 2017
80
95th
Stunning.
Rated 05 Dec 2017
ippeiIppei
Rated 03 Oct 2017
85
95th
Christopher Nolan has made so many great films, even a film of this quality still doesn't count as his best. Though I'd argue that this is his best-made film. From the intense soundtrack (with the ticking clock) to managing to tell one story in three different timelines, this is so technically sound, you can just get lost in this film. Doesn't focus on any star or character either to show the true nature of war, this is a great film.
Rated 03 Oct 2017
kenmeistersKenMeisters
Rated 25 Sep 2017
82
88th
Really tense and told in an interesting way. Great performances and even without IMAX visually impressive. Don't belive people who say it's confusing. Those people lie and don't think you are smart enough for this movie!
Rated 25 Sep 2017
eric_janeric-jan
Rated 23 Sep 2017
65
30th
Urg, sorry to be one of the few.. but I was very unimpressed with this movie! It felt like the same situation was happening over and over again (75% of the movie = get on a boat, think all is well and then get off the sinking boat..). Obviously the airplane battles were amazing and the movie felt 'epic' and yes the ending was ok... but jeez, I was expecting a lot more: very slow paced, unrelatable characters, not a lot 'happens' besides constant same type of action, no blood. Good acting though.
Rated 23 Sep 2017
thorn969thorn969
Rated 29 Aug 2017
65
66th
This movie reminded me a bit of Captain Phillips. It was better done. But why did it need to be made? I don't think it really taught or showed us anything.
Rated 29 Aug 2017
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 23 Aug 2017
81
77th
Perhaps Nolan has spent too much time as a blockbuster filmmaker, as he now approaches everything with a sledgehammer. That being said, the material here certainly fits that sort of treatment, meaning we get an incredibly tense and draining experience. You really do feel like you're on the beach with them. The resolution did seem to stumble a bit, though.
Rated 23 Aug 2017
kingjohnbbqKingjohnbbq
Rated 21 Aug 2017
92
72nd
This was a great look into how large scale warfare feels in absolute desperate situations. I liked that it did not really have a lot of character development, the character was the war. The struggle was humanity trying to come out whole on the other side. This is a good representation of the bleakness of it all. I found my anxieties being driven up with almost every scene.
Rated 21 Aug 2017
guy-piranhaguy piranha
Rated 17 Aug 2017
85
95th
A textbook example on visual storytelling and suspense building. Nolan achieves impact and tension purely by what he chooses to show and even more so by what not to. Superb sound design and Zimmer's unrelenting crescendos help, as always. At first i feared the unusual chronology would be a show off and ruin things in the long run. But after a short acclimatisation period it worked so incredibly well, i'm not even sure why. All i know is i can hardly find any fault in this. Welcome back, chris!
Rated 17 Aug 2017
whatisitiseewhatisitisee
Rated 11 Aug 2017
65
29th
Nolan makes a war movie that is less action and more thriller- Soundtrack-driven tension builder that manages to develop suspense and has some nice shots, but fails to amount to much more than that
Rated 11 Aug 2017
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 10 Aug 2017
9
91st
Film Score: The Movie. A momentous piece of work. This is one of the definite musts for cinema experiences in 2017. Not a character study piece but a wonderfully pieced three arc war story that is breathtaking pretty much entirely throughout.
Rated 10 Aug 2017
ni7eNi7e
Rated 09 Aug 2017
5
18th
too flat can't really think of much too say, but I guess it didn't feel like a movie, but almost like a documentary. Too detached personally, although the scenes showed suffering of people.
Rated 09 Aug 2017
icybrianIcyBrian
Rated 08 Aug 2017
78
62nd
I had a hard time connecting with this movie. Part of that had to do with the lack of focus on characters (which made it hard to care about them as individuals), and the uneven sound edit (which made it tricky to make out a lot of the dialogue.) The nonlinear narrative is a bit confusing to get used to, but works well in the end. I think that's an aspect I'd appreciate more upon further viewing. Also worth noting is the amazing score by Hans Zimmer.
Rated 08 Aug 2017
zealot185Zealot185
Rated 05 Aug 2017
60
40th
Props to Nolan for applying a non-linear approach to a war movie, but whatever effect he was going for (the impact of time from various POVs?) was lost on me.
Rated 05 Aug 2017
foxyrussianFoxyRussian
Rated 31 Jul 2017
49
15th
A very uneven, uninteresting war drama. The war never feels big, with maybe 400 extras on a beach shot in a flat boring way. 3 separate timelines which don't intermingle till the very end, means we retread the same scene from multiple perspectives multiple times, cheapening the emotional impact and needlessly complicating a simple plot. All the characters have no characterization and no attachment to the viewer. Acting though is very solid, especially by Harry Styles and Cillian Murphy
Rated 31 Jul 2017
okayfrogokayfrog
Rated 30 Jul 2017
50
21st
106 minutes. Noticeably shorter than most war movies, and lacking in a lot of exposition/character development those other films have. As a result, I found it hard to care about anything happening in the film. A lot of explosions and cardboard cutouts, but no substance. An empty, empty film. Technically great, yet soulless.
Rated 30 Jul 2017
ytadelYtadel
Rated 28 Jul 2017
7
84th
First off, lemme say that my thoughts may be a bit negatively impacted by the fact that I felt pretty sick during this film. Got me some explosive diarrhea not forty minutes before the screening started! Yep, just TMIed you - whatcha gonna do about it?! I found the movie itself overwhelming and badass and dread-soaked and technically extremely impressive, though quite impersonal. Saving Private Ryan is still WWII movie top dog for me! I should really watch this again sans stomach issues though.
Rated 28 Jul 2017
gnalkhereGnalkhere
Rated 27 Jul 2017
80
72nd
This is why i've always liked Tom Hardy; he's consistently been acting with his eyes the last few years
Rated 27 Jul 2017
velvet_croweVelvet Crowe
Rated 26 Jul 2017
43
40th
Weirdly, I thought this was one of the few examples where IMAX improved the experience. The use of sound created unstartling intensity with the boom of the IMAX theatre. That said, that doesn't save the movie from being extremely dull. I left the movie not knowing anything about its cast and not really caring about what happened to the people who survived the conflict. On a technical level, I don't even think it was that impressive - it's par for course when it comes to high budget films.
Rated 26 Jul 2017
notitlenotitle
Rated 25 Jul 2017
50
8th
I slept in Cinema
Rated 25 Jul 2017
obdurateObdurate
Rated 25 Jul 2017
65
30th
It's better than Interstellar by a little bit because it doesn't really have anything that annoyed me. But I think Nolan is starting to lose me. His directorial sense is strong here; it looks beautiful, everything is framed wonderfully, he makes the environment interesting even if it's mostly water. His usage of loud sounds and unconventional music is great, lends it a sense of dread. But I felt cold, it was dry, a little boring, very little heart and the performances were only ok.
Rated 25 Jul 2017
jackryan2014JackRyan2014
Rated 24 Jul 2017
80
94th
One long battle scene where the events on the beach, at sea and in the air occur over different time span. There was minimal plot or narrative with the focus being on building tension throughout. It was more interested in the evacuation as a whole rather than individual characters but those who were shown seemed believably human and not defined by a single aspect of their personality. My main issue was the hard to hear dialogue which often was muffled or overwhelmed by the gunfire and explosions
Rated 24 Jul 2017
jlfmJLFM
Rated 22 Jul 2017
100
99th
The craft and scale of this thing is just staggering. There's hardly a shot in this film that doesn't look like it cost several million dollars, with boats, planes, hundreds of extras all orchestrated to chaotic perfection moving from one excruciatingly tense set-piece to another. On a macro-level, Nolan's chops are just as evident. The three-way timeline device is utterly ingenious; it occasionally recalls the dopamine-addled highlights of Memento especially when the timelines overlap.
Rated 22 Jul 2017
bizortbizort
Rated 22 Jul 2017
44
20th
No character development whatsoever so you don't care about what happens to these people. The audio mixing is off so you can barely hear the dialog and then the accents make it difficult to understand them. Just plain boring. Like a dry documentary made into a film. The first bad Nolan movie. Then it ends with some cheesy patriotism and no typical Nolan plot twist The good? At times it looks cool and it doesn't last 2.5-3 hours as his films normally do.
Rated 22 Jul 2017
whotempwhotemp
Rated 21 Jul 2017
75
41st
Had my hands clenched the whole time. Did a good job portraying the desperation to cling to life as well as the meaninglessness of death in war (poor boy). And fear (absolutely no judgement here) as well as courage. The music was overpowering, felt like a cheap trick to provoke tension instead of using the story. Was Churchill's speech supposed to be powerful? In history it was, but here it felt weak. It left me confused, which was perhaps the point of the whole thing.
Rated 21 Jul 2017
ofterdingenOfterdingen
Rated 20 Jul 2017
82
95th
The question is how much there is to gain from the nonlinear narrative that sometimes seems more auteur-ish than strictly necessary. That, and the fact that it never feels like more than 5000 soldiers on a beach, are my only objections to an often perfect film.
Rated 20 Jul 2017
cameron326cameron326
Rated 10 May 2022
55
13th
Totally Overbearing score which almost leads the film, rather than complimenting/raising the visuals. Bland 2D characters. Stunning visuals but often no sense of threat or danger, which is absurd given the scenario. I expect many talented documentary film makers could have done better with a tenth of the budget.
Rated 10 May 2022
martrynmartryn
Rated 03 May 2021
86
88th
Another solid Christopher Nolan film. I enjoyed the various plot lines that played out in the film. I'm not sure it will ever be a "classic" war movie as it lacks that extra little personal touch that I think audiences identify with, but you can't find much fault in the film as a whole. This movie will not change your mind about Christopher Nolan.
Rated 03 May 2021
arossaross
Rated 17 Feb 2021
89
84th
Beautiful movie. I liked the three different timelines being presented, and limiting the heroics while showing people trying to desperately escape makes it feel more real.
Rated 17 Feb 2021
quintonjaminQuintonjamin
Rated 13 Feb 2021
80
80th
It's masterfully made. I just wish I'd seen it in the theater.
Rated 13 Feb 2021

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...