Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo


Posted : 11 months, 2 weeks ago on 10 February 2018 05:16

Darkest Hour from the other side, and with many of the same problems as that film, Dunkirk is possibly director Christopher Nolan’s most emotionally distant and perfunctory film. There’s some bravura sequences scattered throughout, but great individual sequences do not a great film make. Dunkirk is all cool technique for the sake of it, as there’s no actual story, characters, or reason to care involved.


I mean, there’s a lot of characters, but there’s no context, motivations, or development of any of them. Many of them, especially the young soldiers on the beach, vaguely resemble one another so keeping track of who is who depends on your ability to differentiate between handsome brunette actors in period military uniform. Then there’s a series of big name actors lending their artistic cache and gravitas to their thinly written roles, including Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy, and James D’arcy. Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy remind us of how great and underappreciated they are as actors by seemingly turning their vaguely sketched out characters into golden material with more weight and teeth than the script contained.


Yet Dunkirk contains some of the greatest filmmaking in Nolan’s career. The opening stretch is a small wonder, and would’ve made for one hell of a short film. There’s also the tense scenes of desperation and hopelessness as threats continually pummel the Allied Forces while they wait for help to arrive. Yet much of this is happening without major context, and the splicing of three stories taking place across different time zones creates a hazy sense of continuity, narrative coherence, and understand of what is going on when and where.


Spatial coherence has never been a strong selling point for Nolan, and Dunkirk represents this problem in stereophonic sound and the widest screen imaginable. What was a forgivable sin in his Batman trilogy becomes a major black mark against this film as the precise editing tricks of the opening fall by the wayside to pure visual and sonic cacophony. If this editing choice was supposed to represent the emotional bewilderment of the soldiers, then it succeeds in the sense that the audience will be just as equally bewildered as to what is going on.


He’s better than this, so of course he’s finally being rewarded for his least personal or adventurous film to date. It’s handsomely made, but rather anonymous in execution. Any number of talented British directors could have made this film, and probably made it just as fussy and with the muted colors.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dunkirk (2017) review

Posted : 1 year ago on 2 January 2018 02:23

so tight and tense ans irresistible, in spite of becoming superficial, heroism and fear and stubbroness; but Nolan makes it eloquent

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dunkirk (2017) review

Posted : 1 year ago on 25 December 2017 12:03

Christopher Nolan is a great favorite director who rarely makes a disappointment, not this time either.

First did not think so much about this war movie but because it was his movie, I rented it on Itunes and I do not regret it.

This is a minor masterpiece that just flew forward. I do not usually like movies based on reality, seen too many half well of that kind of movie.

Nice to get rid of most big stars that are always in these movies and most of them were actors I have not seen before.

But I like Tom Hardy even though he is hidden by his aircraft equipment for the most part.

The best part is, however, is the music of my great favorite composers, Hans Zimmer, his huge soundtrack lies and pumps almost the whole movie and I think it's a big part in making this a big movie.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Elephant (2003) + Saving Private Ryan = Dunkirk

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 25 August 2017 06:48

[English Version]

Notes: Before I begin, I must clarify that this review would have some spoilers in order to make a point. So, if you haven't seen the film yet and you are afraid of spoilers, please do not continue reading.

So, I recently watched the new Christopher Nolan's film, and I must said that I wasn't particullary excited about it, since I am a total stranger to Nolan's works and (at least where I lived) it wasn't very sponsored. But, when I finally saw it with some friends, it turn out to be one of the most tense and beautiful experiences I've seen this year.

To start with, I will said that were it comes down to the visuals I have 0 complains about it: The soundtrack is excelent (making every sense both tense or dramatic where it should be, mixing also with sounds efects like the clock helping the suspense), the cinematography is gorgeous, the acting is very solid for all the cast, both the special efects and the clothes help to make the war setting more plausible, and the directing it pretty good, talking more with visuals rather than info-dumping. All this makes up for some really cool scenes (for example the first 15 minutes).

As for the story, in the surface looks pretty simple (been only a representation of the British soldiers fighting in the war sector during World War II) there is more to it. You see, the movie is basically told from three perspectives - land, sea, and air- each with his unique thems, challenges, and conection near the end, all enganging to watch, with a well presented tone and well structure, Nolan manages to put the viewer in the environment that is based on this real story. Also, the pacing is really good . One problem I had with the story, would be the characters, since the are very simple and some of them only help to move the plot foward, this is both a positive and a negative aspect. On one hand, this makes a little difficult for some it would be difficult to follow the history with this simpel characters, on the other hand, the main focus of the film is not them, is the feeling of war itself, and does not seek dramatization in this, but rather all connect based on knowing the context. 

Another thing would be his narrative: It jumps back and forward between the 3 stories, the montage between the 3 stories it is hard to follow and piece it all together the first time that you watched, but trust me, it is all worth it for the powerful message that left us. We need more movies like this: direct, based on context and visual poetry, and especially beautiful in message (and more if it is one with the impact and accessibility that had this that even a casual audience can enjoy and maybe interested in such a cinema ).

So as a whole, Durkirk is an awosome movie and (athough with his mistakes) by far one the films that I watched this year so far. 

Final Score: 8.5/10

[Spanish Version]

Notas: Antes de comenzar, debo aclarar que esta revisión tendría algunos spoilers con el fin de hacer un punto. Por lo tanto, si aún no has visto la película y tienes miedo de spoilers, por favor no sigas leyendo.

Asi que, recientemente vi la nueva película de Christopher Nolan, y debo decir que no estaba muy entusiasmado por ello, ya que soy un total desconocido para las obras de Nolan y (al menos donde yo vivía) no era muy patrocinado. Pero, cuando finalmente lo vi con algunos amigos, resultó ser una de las experiencias más tensas y hermosas que he visto este año.

Para empezar, diré que si se reduce a las visuales tengo 0 quejas sobre ello: La banda sonora es excelente (haciendo que todos los sentidos tanto tenso o dramático donde se puede enviar, la mezcla también con efectos sonidos como el reloj ayudando al suspenso), La cinematografía es magnífica, la actuación es muy sólida para todo el elenco, tanto los efectos especiales y la ropa ayudan a hacer la configuración de la guerra más plausible, y la dirección es bastante bueno, hablando más con imágenes en el lugar de sobre-exponer. Todo esto compensa algunas escenas realmente geniales (por ejemplo, los primeros 15 minutos).

En cuanto a la historia, en la superficie parece bastante simple (siendo sólo una representación de los soldados británicos que luchan en el sector de la guerra durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial), pero hay más. Verán, la película es básicamente contada desde tres perspectivas - la tierra, el mar y el aire - cada una con sus temas únicos, retos, y conexión cerca del final, todo interesante de ver, con un tono bien presentado y bien estructurado, Nolan logra Poner al espectador en el entorno que se basa en esta historia real. El ritmo es realmente muy bueno también. Un problema que tuve con la historia, serían los personajes, ya que son muy simples y algunos de ellos sólo ayudan a mover la trama hacia el futuro, esto es tanto un aspecto positivo y un aspecto negativo. Por un lado, esto hace un poco difícil para algunos, sería difícil seguir la historia con los personajes tan simples, por otro lado, el foco principal de la película no es ellos, es el sentimiento de la guerra en sí, y no busca Dramatización en esto, sino más bien todos conectados basados en conocer el contexto. Algo asi como en pelis como The Thin Red Line

Otra cosa sería su narrativa: salta hacia atrás y hacia adelante entre las 3 historias, el montaje entre las 3 historias es difícil de seguir y juntar todas las piezas la primera vez que usted vio, pero confía en mí, todo vale la pena oor el poderoso mensaje que nos deja. Necesitamos más películas como esta: directas, basadas en el contexto y la poesía visual, y especialmente hermosas en el mensaje (y más si es una con el impacto y la accesibilidad que tenía esto que incluso un público casual puede disfrutar y tal vez interesado en un cine de este tipo ).

Así que en conjunto, Dunkerque es una película impresionante y (aunque con sus errores), de lejos una de las películas que he visto este año hasta ahora.

Nota Final: 8.5/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

"Dunkirk" (2017)

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 24 August 2017 06:01


Allied soldiers from Belgium, Britain and France are surrounded by the German army and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II.

First, let me make it clear: I did enjoy this movie. I just can't sing its praises quite as enthusiastically as everyone else is. I'm a sucker for anything Christopher Nolan directs, but this is the first of his movies not to really blow my mind. I get that this is an important movie, given its subject matter, but war movies just aren't my thing.

Hardly any of the characters have clearly defined personalities, which sadly kept me from forming any emotional attachment to them.

That said, the film itself is masterfully shot and edited, which, in conjunction with the overall sound design, makes you feel like you're truly in the situation yourself, so it still manages to be hard-hitting in that regard.

Plus, being a Christopher Nolan movie, it's still a cool brain-teaser. I was warned in advance about the three different timespans, so I had fun trying to keep up with the overall timeline and piece it together.

To recap, it's definitely a good movie, but for me, its lack of characterisation made it less potent than it should have been.

My rating: 75%

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Great and great and more great

Posted : 1 year, 5 months ago on 7 August 2017 12:26

Hi people! Im walterwhite, i'm gonna review Dunkirk. This is the first movie by Nolan that i see.
let's begin!


The story is based on an incident that happend on World War 2. In Dunkirk about 400,000 were trapped and surrounded by the Axis powers, in the film, the soldiers try to return home to England safe and sound.

For me this movie is a masterpiece... ok no so much, but is good. Since sometimes it gets good or sometimes very good, especially at the end.

The participation of Harry Styles is decent, or at least is better than other things that he has done. Tommy, played in the film by Fionn Whitehead, is good as he did save people and he wanted to make them save.

The character that was interpreted by Tom Hardy, i don't have much to say only that he acted well, especially in the end, where he saved everybody and unfortunately was assassinated.

Alex, the one played by Harry Styles, was decent. I have not a lot to say, but only that, for being the voice of celebrity was better than others like the shitty voice of German Garmendia in the shit of Ice Age 5 in the Latin American version.
(PD Just so you know, he is the chilean youtuber who has the second highest number of subscribers, only passed by pewdiepie)

And I think the actors gave life very well to their characters

i have nothing else to say

Dunkirk is a great movie for me is good and i like it I recommend it for more if you like Chirstopher Nolan movies,

final rating 8,9/10

If they ask for what 5 Reviews, i want to review the five movies, i review but Now that there is nothing interesting FOR ME The next movie is lego ninjago, and when i have time i review in a heartbeat, i have Little things what to say,
Could be today

This is all and bye

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A very good movie

Posted : 1 year, 5 months ago on 6 August 2017 09:30

Of course, since I had seen all the movies directed by Christopher Nolan, I also had to watch this movie at some point. Well, it seems to be already another box-office hit for Nolan which is even more remarkable since you wouldn't expect a movie dealing with WWII to be able to compete with your usual summer blockbusters. Still, to be honest, I don't think it will be remembered as one of his best movies. I mean, sure, I was glad that he was at last doing something else than a super-hero flick or some high-concept science-fiction thriller, but at the end of the day, even if it looked different, it was still yet another thriller, something he has been doing through his whole career. Furthermore, I have seen my share of movies dealing with this conflict and, even though it was really good, I have seen better to be honest. On top of that, I didn't care much for the mixed chronology and it didn't help that really none of the involved characters was developed at all. Still, from a technical point of view, it was really quite impressive and I have to admit that this movie was just seriously entertaining. To conclude, it is possible that my rating might be slightly too generous but I still enjoyed the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Christopher Nolan's work.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A technical marvel without compelling characters

Posted : 1 year, 6 months ago on 22 July 2017 04:36

The latest big-budget magnum opus from director Christopher Nolan, 2017's Dunkirk is one of the purest cinematic experiences of the year; a war epic built around visual storytelling backed by minimal dialogue. In a number of ways, Dunkirk is a masterpiece - it looks and sounds great, flaunting top-notch production values across the board, and it is a stunner to behold projected in 70mm. Backed by a generous $100 million budget, Nolan puts his audience into the thick of this pivotal World War II tale, covering land, air and sea to convey the breadth of the miraculous true-life event. However, it's also almost entirely devoid of emotional attachment, finding Nolan ostensibly unwilling to even try to carve out fully-realised characters or create any arcs, as he's too focused on the you-are-there experience of the Dunkirk evacuation. With this in mind, the extent of the film's effectiveness will remain in the eyes of the beholder, but I was left wishing I liked the movie more than I did.

The Dunkirk evacuation - also known as "The Miracle of Dunkirk" - occurred in the summer of 1940, during the early days of WWII. German forces managed to successfully advance in their planned takeover of Europe, in the process pinning 400,000 Allied troops against the English Channel, leaving them stranded due to complicated geographic accessibility and a shortage of available warships. With Hitler's armies closing in, Winston Churchill orders recreational boat captains to mobilise for the rescue while the soldiers at Dunkirk hold out as best they can. Among the soldiers on the beach, Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) sticks with Alex (Harry Styles) and Gibson (Aneurin Barnard) as they attempt to escape on a vessel, while an overwhelmed Commander Bolton (Kenneth Branagh) tries to coordinate the mayhem as dive bombers swoop the area. Across the channel, boat captain Dawson (Mark Rylance) answers the call to assist in the Dunkirk rescue, and encounters a shell-shocked soldier (Cillian Murphy) along the way. Up in the air, Royal Air Force fighter pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) puts his life in the line as he winds through the air with limited fuel to take out as many German bombers as possible.

Written solely by Nolan himself, Dunkirk is experimental in its narrative structure, opting for a nonlinear approach in order to create a weighty payoff when all plot threads coalesce for the climax. This nonlinear technique was seemingly also employed because the three stories occur across different periods of time - as informed by brief captions, the land-based story happens over a week, the sea-based story is a day, and events in the air happen within an hour. To be sure, the use of different perspectives is effective to convey a grander understanding of the evacuation, while also serving to keep the film feeling fresh. However, the chronology-bending antics can be confusing, and it remains questionable whether the project even needed this type of structure. Indeed, it's jarring to leap from midday to pitch-black night and then back to daylight, and it appears that we eventually start seeing the same action from another viewpoint, but it can be hard to tell if it's supposed to be a replay or a different event entirely. The palpable intent is to create the sort of confusion that soldiers feel in war, but confusion is sufficiently built by not seeing the actions of the Germans. Perhaps Dunkirk might have worked better if each segment played out individually, before cumulating for the big finish.

In a way, Dunkirk's lack of emotion feels like a conscious effort on Nolan's part to challenge his critics after Interstellar, which was drenched in forced sentiment that the helmer ostensibly struggled with. Aside from a few moments in Dawson's story and a touching closing scene, there's very little in the way of humanity here, and there’s no central character to latch onto. Characters are thinly-defined, with no backstories or personalities – hell, most aren't even given names! Again, you can understand that Nolan was aiming for an experience with minimal dialogue, but you need something more in a movie to make it feel more dramatically cohesive. With the cast mostly comprised of unknown performers, the film basically belongs to the recognisable veterans. Branagh is particularly exceptional, not to mention superbly naturalistic as a smart, dedicated officer, while Rylance again shows his terrific acting chops with an understated but flawlessly essayed portrayal of a kind-hearted civilian trying to do his bit. Poor Hardy, meanwhile, is stuck wearing a mask for most of his screen-time, making him tough to understand and severely limiting his expressivity. James D'Arcy (Agent Carter) is also on hand as a colonel who serves Commander Bolton, and he brings sufficient gravitas to the role. As for the casting of One Direction pop singer Harry Styles? The low-ranking soldiers are so generic and undefined that I couldn't even figure out where he was, and the casting decision does seem like a cheap way to boost ticket sales for the tween audience.

Nolan's dedication to shooting on celluloid and using practical effects remains a genuine breath of fresh air in today's digital effects-laden blockbuster climate, and his style is a perfect fit for a war movie of this scope and scale. One would be hard-pressed to pick out any shots containing obvious CGI, as Nolan wisely elected to use real ships, real planes and real locations as much as possible, creating an astonishingly tangible aesthetic that's impossible to fault. Furthermore, to ensure the best possible image quality, director of photography Hoyte Van Hoytema (Spectre, Interstellar) lensed Dunkirk using a combination of 65mm and 70mm film stock, and the resultant dimensionality and crispness would be impossible to achieve digitally. There are many taut, suspenseful set-pieces throughout the film which get under the skin, including frenzied dogfights in the air and warships being sunk, showing the superlative level of cinematic craftsmanship that Nolan is capable of. It's topped off by a powerful, dynamic sound design and a relentless score courtesy of Hans Zimmer which does effectively support the imagery and drive the pace, but can also be too intrusive at times.

To Nolan's credit, there are some genuinely unnerving sequences as well - such as a moment depicting soldiers getting crushed by a drifting ship, and a set-piece in which many poor souls are trapped in the belly of a sinking ship, helplessly drowning in the terrifying darkness. However, one can only dream of what Dunkirk might have been with the freedom of an R-rating. The film strictly keeps within the boundaries of a PG-13 rating (a pathetic 12A in the UK), undeniably restricting the combat sequences, making it feel unnaturally sterile when the brutality of war should not be sanitised. The lack of blood instantly takes you out of the film, reminding you this is a commercial product. Early into the movie, for instance, dive bombers attack Dunkirk beach and a soldier is directly hit with a bomb, but his body isn't blown apart and there's no blood or viscera. Plus, whenever said bombers unload their canons which are capable of tearing soldiers to pieces, there isn't a drop of blood to be seen. The bloodless attacks are admittedly scarce, but it's impossible to convey the full horror of war within the constraints of a PG-13 rating, especially in the shadow of full-blooded WWII films like Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge and 2014's Fury.

Mercifully, this is one of Nolan's shortest motion pictures, clocking in at a mere 106 minutes including credits. It's certainly a refreshing change after the indefensibly plodding Interstellar and the bloated Dark Knight Rises. Oddly, however, the scope of the movie suddenly feels a tad restricted as it approaches the finish line. It still looks marvellous, of course, but the major turning point in the evacuation is short-changed; only a dozen or so civilian skiffs are glimpsed arriving to evacuate troops, rather than the hundreds which would be required for such a large-scale operation. The actual evacuation actually continued for eight days, but in the film, it abruptly ends not long after the boats are seen arriving - there aren't even captions to fill in the blanks. As a result, it's impossible to get the feeling that over 300,000 troops were evacuated, which is bizarre for an otherwise expensive, large-scale film. Also pertinent is that it's hard to get any sense that thousands of German soldiers surround the beach and are closing in whilst Allied forces pray for a miracle, which could have been visually conveyed in some of the many sweeping aerial shots of the beach.

Ultimately, Dunkirk feels like the latter half of a great war movie - it lacks in context, character and even story. It's the equivalent of starting a Titanic movie right as the ship begins to sink. Many are already claiming Dunkirk to be the best war movie of all time, which is an absurd statement. Its technical accomplishments are not to be underestimated, and the movie looks stunning in 70mm, but its shortcomings in terms of character and storytelling are hard to overlook. Still, Nolan does build to a touching footnote in which Winston Churchill's famous address is read aloud by one of the soldiers, though this moment does serve to highlight how emotionally bereft the rest of the film truly is. Shortcomings aside, Dunkirk is a worthwhile war movie that absolutely demands to be witnessed on the biggest possible screen.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Masterful visual storytelling

Posted : 1 year, 6 months ago on 19 July 2017 04:34

Quick review.

Dunkirk is a visual masterpiece of storytelling, unlike anything you've ever seen in recent years. We've gotten countless of films centered around World War II throughout the years, but what Christopher Nolan have achieved with Dunkirk is outstanding. He's taken a genre that have become rather formulaic over the years and shattered it completely. He breaks the formula and creates a film that should aspire other directors to follow his example. 

I see the word "immersive" being tossed around in regards to several other films every now and then, but Dunkirk is one of the few film that I truly believes deserves to be called immersive. It's fully tense experience that doesn't let hold of you until it explodes in an emotionally satisfying climax. This is all achieved with stunning visuals, perfect use of practical effects and a ticking score by Hans Zimmer that seamlessly blends in with the sound design. Dunkirk is so intense that you feel exhausted when it's over. It's a film that truly captures just how horrible and pointless war is, particularly for the people involved and that feeling translates well to the audience.

Dunkirk have opened to critical acclaim from critics, which is well-deserved. Though the film has received some criticism for its lack of character development. This is true. The film doesn't have any character development, nor does it have any stand-out characters. Usually I would agree that this is a flaw, but due to nature of how Dunkirk is and what it essentially is about, I attribute this as one of the film's strengths instead. It's a film that doesn't require characters to sit down and talk about their back stories, motivations and goals for us to be emotionally invested in them. This time around, we get emotionally invested in them because of the situation their in. We care about them simply as humans stuck in a horrible war with death all around them. The tense nature of the film wouldn't have worked if the film were to take its time and properly introduce us to each character. We do follow some characters throughout the film, but they're more like framework in this case, to base the film around them. As of such, there's very little dialogue in this film. There's very little exposition. It's a film about the event itself and the way that Nolan deconstructed the traditional formula to tell this story in a clean and visual way is something that ought to be celebrated.

One important thing to mention is the gorgeous cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema. The film is beautiful to look at and it deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible in order to fully get the scale and spectacle of it, but also the intimacy and claustrophobic feel the film has. Dunkirk is a masterpiece. It's a cleverly structured film that with the help of the highest level of technical craftsmanship goes beyond what you would normally expect from a war film. It's not a film for those who want character driven pieces, but for those of us who want the filmmaking itself to lure us in to an intense and emotionally rich film.

0 comments, Reply to this entry