Well, that was terrible…
| Storytelling | 🐷 |
| Characters | 🐷 |
| Acting | 🐷🐷 |
| Drama, Baby! | 🐷🐷 |
| Fun | 🐷 |
| Humour | 🐷🐷 |
| Visuals | 🐷🐷🐷🐷 |
| Music and Sound | 🐷🐷🐷 |
| Originality | 🐷🐷 |
| Entertainment value | 🐷 |
| Production value | 🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷 |
| Satisfaction | 🐷 |
Well, that was terrible…
| Storytelling | 🐷 |
| Characters | 🐷 |
| Acting | 🐷🐷 |
| Drama, Baby! | 🐷🐷 |
| Fun | 🐷 |
| Humour | 🐷🐷 |
| Visuals | 🐷🐷🐷🐷 |
| Music and Sound | 🐷🐷🐷 |
| Originality | 🐷🐷 |
| Entertainment value | 🐷 |
| Production value | 🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷 |
| Satisfaction | 🐷 |
Christopher Nolan is a very cool director. He makes very cool movies. That’s great for fantasy or science fiction but for a war-themed movie like «Dunkirk» his modus operandi is an unusual approach. The movie is gorgeous to look at, but if it wasn’t for Hans Zimmer’s excellent soundtrack, I wouldn’t have felt much watching it.
Depicting war as a force of nature without any real antagonist doesn’t help either. But that’s not really a problem because «Dunkirk» was not made to be a war movie.
The funny thing is that while the movie might lack emotions by identification, it is still better described as a feeling than as a movie. A thing to be experienced, not watched as a traditional hero’s journey motion picture (Terrence Malick comes to mind). And it does a very good job at it.
All in all, watching «Dunkirk» and «Darkest Hour» back-to-back was a lucky happenstance, making one damn fine double feature movie night with two sides of the same precious coin.