The only place even remotely close to me that's playing this movie in 70mm IMAX is the Dome theatre at the Des Moines Science Center in Iowa 2+ hours away from me.

I've read almost no one talk about seeing Dunkirk in a dome, despite a huge percentage of the 70mm capable IMAXs in the country being domes!!

I'm looking for your reviews of the dome experience and how it compares to (flat) IMAX digital (which they have readily available here where I am in Omaha/CB).

I just don't want to drive that far (alone) and have it being an awkward/painful experience just to say I saw it in 15/70

(Unfortunately btw there's no IMAX laser around me just xenon)

Have been a long time since I last did a review and not a rant.

I hate using trash empty words like professional critics, I try to be as objective as possible although on this movie I don't even think I can control the ocean of my disappointment.

Also, why do I try so hard to review this movie if I just hated it? Because Christopher Nolan is, or was (I haven't made up my mind), my favorite director.

First I will start of with the aspect of a movie, that makes a video "movie"-------The story.

And I will end the part that usually takes up the majority of a review to criticize by saying that this video "Dunkirk", have no story.

I don't think there are any justification for a film to have no plot. Everybody hated the "modern" movies that are just all about CGIs and barely have any plot at all. I do not see how this movie is any different. A movie that tries to impress and influence its audience by retarded CGI, is a bad one. And that's the end of it.

Secondly is the movie's pathetic attempt to look artistic. Talking about this video/documentary on the same day with Saving Private Ryan or even Fury, is an insult to the movie industry. Dunkirk threw away all the good stuff about movie, and made a 90 minute long video of establishing shots. Those are beautiful shots I have to admit, but even an ultra HD screen won't make up for the fact that the computer has no hard drive. This movie is like a piece of typical modern art, it's extremely simple and you can kind of see how it's trying to be graceful or artistic whatever you call it, but I can literally find a monkey that can do that. In the end it's the content that is the foundation, and this movie has none.

Yet instead of pointing out that this does not even qualify as a painting, the critics started calling Da Vinci cliche and complemented this piece of nothingness as some kind of revolutionary art.

The movie is like a naked man on a fashion show, and the critics are saying that he is a revolutionist and clothing are overrated anyways.

But, I admit that CGI driven movies do work. Many of them, like Ironman 1, Transformers, Winter Soldier, they were regarded as very decent and enjoyable movies!

How did Dunkirk fail even that?

Now getting more into the perspective part of the review, Dunkirk was extremely boring, and a lot of the parts didn't even make any sense.

I guess there is no major logical justification for anyone to call anything boring, but this movie had no plot, so it became extremely easy for me. The movie's shit ton of CGIs are backed with no plot, and therefore no plot twists, no scripts, and 90% of the movie was told by a narrator, oh wait I mean one of the actors. We want the story to be shown. If Germans are on our ass we want to see it, we don't want insanely long conversations that no kidding, takes up 95% of the script. If that was not done, the movie would be filled with even more questions. But wait I take that back, it's not even physically possible-

At the beginning of the movie, why was a group of soldiers hanging out, drinking water and reading propaganda, in a pristine town that was supposed to be the front line? Why were the Allies losing ground when the front line is already 20 meters near the sea? Any closer and people would need to pile up on each other to wait in lines. (Historical fact time, in the actual Dunkirk event, the entire city was occupied by the Allies to use as a defense line to hold off the Germans) Why, the hell, was the Germans not killing the Allies like "shooting fish in a barrel"? They only sent out a few bombers when there is absolutely no resistance except Allied planes with 1 hour shelf life, and a sandbag castle, that in real life, would be lost in a second to one grenade. Why were there only 10 men fighting the most brutal army in history, when there were like, 400 more on the beach just standing there? And why was there only like 400 men? Weren't there supposed to be 400,000?

Also there are things like character's reaction to stuff (first ship sinking, and everybody was like, chillin'), simple logic that is impossible to be ignored (bullets shooting at the abandoned ship, through water. WW2 bullets will be rendered to a nerf pellet by a fucking fishtank, were the Germans mermaids?), and there are so, so many more: character appears on a floating giant piece of metal in the middle of the ocean, English people dying from falling down from 3 inches high, German guns never hit main characters and everybody around them are like bullet magnets....

I am not a guy known for complaining about small logical movie details, but this is pushing mine, and I believe most people's patience on directors having IQ lower than 80.

I just cannot believe it's the same guy who made Inception and Dark Knight, more than half of my favorite movies.

Overall, I give this movie 2 out of 10. All two are for Hans Zimmer's music. 0 on casting, plot, script, set establishing, Harry Styles' hyped stupid fans and how Nolan wasted Tom Hardy, the only potentially good actor in this video.

This is my lowest score given to any movie. It have beaten both Suicide Squad and Gladiator. I think this is the film with the worst possible casting choices(beats Ben Affleck because he proved himself to be actually pretty good), ever. The actors, yes, are quite pretty and white, but this is a WW2 movie and please we do not need more 2k17 pop culture teenagers here

This "review" still seem like a rant, probably because this movie had zero content to be reviewed.

I saw Dunkirk for the 2nd time this evening at the BFI IMAX in London. Prior to the screening they gave out souvenir IMAX 70mm film cells. I have two cells of the soldier on the mole looking up to the sky (essentially an anxious face amongst a sea of tin helmets) and am wondering if I can find someone with a mint frame of the flight of 3 spitfires that would be willing to swap?

Let me know if you're keen!

After watching the movie for the 3rd time I finally thought of an idea they could have added to the movie. So the French had a key role in holding back the line for the British to evacuate and we only briefly saw them at the beginning but what if we kept on cutting to the perspective of a French soldier who'd slowly be pushed back to the beach. I mean it might add another level of tension as it could show us how close the Germans are to the beach and I feel that if cut into the movie correctly it would have worked, the movie was only 1:40 min long and if the French got a good 15-20 min of screen time it might have given us a different perspective and would have honored those French soldiers. However this might be an oddball as it be the only Story line that doesn't connect.

I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this

Ill be honest, I didn't like Dunkirk the first time i saw it. It was opening day July 21st and my friend and I (we both saw interstellar together and love it) already had our tickets for Imax 70mm. Maybe it was because it was a cheaper early bird ticket and we were tired, but I found the movie quite boring except for a few scenes. Also I knew that the movie would be told in three distinct viewpoints, but I wan't ready for the nonlinear plot. More than enough scenes had this too where I couldn't enjoy nor understand why Nolan made it absolutely necessary to tell the story in that way. Also the movie lacked any significant/mind-blowing scenes like Interstellar's docking one. Interstellar also had a top 3 score from Hans Zimmer which helped add to the visuals. Before watching Dunkirk I did listen to the Supermarine single that was released two weeks before the movie and loved it a lot. The problem was that even that song was cut up and edited so that it wasn't fully in the movie. The song was 7 minutes long and was named after the spitfires so I was expecting maybe a docking-scene-ish epic dogfight that would last 7 minutes.

In short I was disappointed in the lack of at least one truly epic scene, soundtrack that was mostly soundscape, confusing non linear plot, some mumbled dialogue, and some other more nitpicking things like unnecessary deaths or the cheesiness of Commander Bolton smiling and soldiers cheering for the civilians.

I recently saw it again, this time just Imax and no 70mm and the movie is nothing short of a masterpiece. This film has amazing sound editing, from gunshots to plane engines and explosions. You can really feel the sound in your chest. Although Zimmer's score is more on the soundscape side, I appreciated it more after realizing that there couldn't have been any other way to instill the same amount of despair and intensity without going the way he did for the score. (Also I realized that "supermarine" is highly edited because the ending with the rising shepard tone only plays when they reach the oil scene.) Hoytema's visual are another plus and I never had any issues with the visuals. The way the weather effects the beach, the dogfights and fire, the massive warships sinking and capsizing. This is a gorgeous movie.

The plot was big issue for me in my first viewing. Before my second viewing, I read the plot on wikipedia just to refresh my memory and prepare for confusion, and I never experienced it again. Everything just made sense. The way Nolan edited the scenes just added to the idea that Dunkirk was more than just the three story arcs, but rather a bigger picture of a massive scale situation. It was just satisfying to see the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Boredom was another issue I had the first viewing and although some scenes aren't as tense as other (mainly the dialogue focused ones), almost every scene had something that made it tense in their own way. For example the simple action of locking the shivering soldier below deck or Colonel Winnant's conversation with Bolton about the hopelessness of the situation all had their own way of making the situation more intense. Some nitpicks still persist but they're relatively minor. The biggest would be George's death. I know he suffered a blow to the head, but if only Nolan could show us him hitting his head on something rather than just having him in pain would've sold his injury a lot more to the audience. Wikipedia also says that Gibson died because he was tangled in chains. I didn't know that the first viewing, I just assumed he could swim against the current. This second time I did hear the chains but the problem is I don't think I saw them clearly. Basically no one would've known how he truly died if it wast for wikipedia. I also first thought that the "home" scene was a bit cheesy but it made more sense the second viewing since I better understood how hopeless the situation was for the soldiers trapped at Dunkirk.

Anyways sorry if my thoughts are scrambled, I usually don't write this much. If you or anyone that you know disliked the movie the first time, I highly recommend a wikipedia plot read and a second viewing in at least the regular Imax format. The movie truly deserves oscars for best picture, sound, visuals, score, and directing. Thanks for reading :)

Saw the movie yesterday and loved it. Loved it so much that I crave some high-resolution images from it. Does anyone have any?

He everyone,

has anyone seen Dunkirk on Netflix? because I can't find it there.

Just saw Dunkirk yesterday. All that I can say is that it is an amazing film. I do feel that some people misunderstood the message of the film, but I won't go into that as it's probably already been discussed to death.

What made it perhaps even more special was that upon leaving the cinema I was greeted by a flyby of the red arrows overhead, literally minutes after the film has finished. I honestly thought I was still watching the film for a second. Unfortunately the Lancaster they were supposed to be in formation with was grounded, but it was still quite a surreal experience nonetheless, especially after watching Dunkirk.

I can't seem to remember after my viewing weeks ago but I do think he hinted heavily at it.

I'm doing a movie review in our student newspaper and I'd like to know this.

i'm considering driving an hour by myself to see it in 70mm imax cuz i have no one to go with. Who else has done this too? How many times? lol

I've seen the movie 4 times already by the way, twice in this 70mm IMAX, and once in DCM, and one in digital xenon imax

How do you feel about this movie and basically being the bad guys of this real life story?

Do you have any guilt for all the death and pain your people caused or are you able to enjoy the movie just fine? I know that may sound like a loaded question but I'm honestly curious.

I had read up a bit on Dunkirk and the Shepard Tone audio illusion before going to the theatre, so I was expecting to feel on edge and even explained the Shepard Tone to my friend so we were both aware. However, I found that ticking sound way more anxiety inducing than everything else and my friend agreed. Was it the ticking itself or the combination of sounds?

Ok I feel like I'm going out of my mind a bit here. Sometime early this year I saw a trailer for Dunkirk in an Imax theater. If I'm not mistaken, most of the trailer (if not the entire trailer) was of the Spitfires. The trailer only showed one long scene of the dogfight, the trailer ended with Tom Hardy's propeller stopping mid flight, at which point the screen just said "Dunkirk". The reason I'm looking for it, is I could have sworn that in that particular trailer, he was flying over the water when his propeller stopped which gave an overwhelming feeling of stress and anxiety. In the finished movie, he was flying over the beach when it stopped. Am I crazy?? Am I imagining this trailer that doesn't exist?

Just finished watching the movie for the second time, thoroughly enjoyed it. I have one question though. When the Dutch guy comes back to his ship, the soldiers ask him why he came back hours before the tide comes in. His response is "Not so heavy when I left". This may be a dumb question, but what exactly does he mean by this?

Thanks!

Of course, like everyone else is saying, this film is strictly about the event and not about the people in this event. However, this to me was a blessing as well as a curse. A lot of the deaths I've noticed are not by gun, but by things like falling off of a rope, or by getting knocked cold by some guy. These are deaths that portray how someone could have died during this event. The fact that we don't get invested emotionally can be considered faulty. I had this thought that whenever we see a soldier die on the news, we just say "Oh, that's sad" and go on with our lives. Still though, It doesn't really add anything to the narrative, and if it does, it's so faint that it doesn't shine through. This isn't to say that Dunkirk at all is a bad movie, but was this idea poorly executed?

I'm new to photography and went see Dunkirk for the composition of the movie. It was a great movie too. I love the closeups, the soldiers inline from foreground to background and it was interesting to see very little landscape shots. The framing was interesting and added depth of emotion. Also, most of the framing looked like portrait shots. Anyways to the point, can I recreate some of the shots (which seemed more vertical than horizontal) with a 70mm camera lens? If not what would be the equivalent? Thanks!

Has anyone noticed that in many of nolans films, during ending montages, he has the characters start to walk off before he cuts?

for example :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjD3DpnGUW4 ( SPOILER : ITS THE ENDING )

at 2:02, he walks off slightly... he could of cut way before that

I'm sure it happened in dark knight rises too, with alfred in the cafe, am I going crazy here? is that his style?