Reżyseria:
Christopher NolanScenariusz:
Christopher NolanZdjęcia:
Hoyte van HoytemaMuzyka:
Hans ZimmerObsada:
Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, Jack Lowden, Will Attenborough, James D'Arcy (więcej)VOD (5)
Opisy(1)
Film otwiera scena, w której wroga armia otacza setki tysięcy Brytyjczyków i aliantów. Oddziały uwięzione na plaży, między morzem a siłami przeciwnika, muszą stawić czoła niemożliwemu. Akcja filmu rozgrywa się na lądzie, na morzu i w powietrzu. Myśliwce RAF-u toczą podniebny bój z wrogiem ponad kanałem La Manche, starając się ochronić bezbronnych ludzi na ziemi. W tym czasie setki niewielkich łodzi z załogą złożoną zarówno z wojskowych, jak i cywilów wyruszają w desperacką misję ratunkową, ryzykując życiem i ścigając się z czasem, aby ocalić choć garstkę żołnierzy. (Warner Bros. PL)
(więcej)Materiały wideo (20)
Recenzje (22)
Though Nolan’s previous films were more refined in terms of narrative and intellectually more ambitious, their ostentatious structure often overshadowed emotion. Dunkirk, which stays more grounded in a number of respects, is his most functional prototype of the epic movie that Hollywood currently needs, a major film that you will want to see not only in a technically well-equipped cinema (preferably IMAX), but also repeatedly. Thanks to Nolan’s focused direction, everything in the film is subordinated to the maximum sensory experience, the intensity of which rises with each viewing, as you become better oriented in the temporal relationships between the individual storylines and can experience more while working less on solving the narratological puzzle. Dunkirk is intoxicating, dizzying and unrelenting in its intensity from start to finish. (Viewed three times in the cinema, of which IMAX twice.) 90%
()
A fascinating production background and a demonstration of the capabilities of a Hollywood blockbuster at its peak. However, there’s no emotion in there. It's like a war documentary but without the distinctive voiceover. I understand that this was the creative intent, but for the first time in my life I was missing Nolan and suddenly it felt like when a girl cheats on you after being in a happy relationship for years. I'll give it another chance in time, but I'm afraid that without the assistance of the IMAX format, my opinions will just be solidified.
()
Pomo, you just didn't get it. This isn't "sloppily edited", this is the brilliant creative intent of Nolan. The way he works with time in this film, how he tells three storylines through different time spans and then glues them together with the surgical precision of a master watchmaker, letting them intersect at the end to achieve a cathartic effect is simply admirable. Brilliant screenwriting. And this film has such high production values that I wouldn't hesitate to compare it to David Lean's war epics. This film will be the subject of extensive essays in film schools in the future, and film theorists will discuss it until judgement day. And it’ll get Oscars for sure.
()
Emotionally, it flew over my head. Like, really, zero experience. Dunkirk looks nice, but that’s all there is to it. What fascinates me somehow is that Nolan, who’s always been a better storyteller than a director of action scenes, chose for his latest film a plot-lacking reconstruction of one action scene. He only gave the shape of a film to a historical event, which, given his cold approach, wasn’t enough for me. He made an unconventional war movie, yes – without Germans, almost without dialogue, alternating three storylines of different lengths … but to me the result is nothing. I never got the impression that the intertwining storylines supported each other in any way. If only their overlaps had some kind of reinvigorating effect (which was 100% de case in the escalating climax of Inception). Here, there’s nothing but chaos, which, IMHO, is also strangely missing some rather important parts of the story (the pier line: the conversation between the commanders, while two boys are hidden under the pier, that no other ship can sink by he pier … and voilà, in the next chronologically linked scene there’s another ship sinking? How did it get there? Did the boys try to get on it? How much time passed? Or was it the ship that sailed in the previous scene?). And though it all somehow fits together temporarily (although, at least for me, nothing comes out it, no catharsis, no satisfaction), in terms of spacial orientation, a couple of the scenes are a real mess. The pathos in the end unpleasantly surprised me, given the course so far. The concept is great, but the execution lacks any subjective effect.
()
This badly edited depiction of the hellishness of war is packed with great shots and a retro atmosphere that is nicely
enhanced by celluloid impurities in the picture and the absence of ostentatiously digital elements. The tension in the
film (even in scenes that don’t need it) is created only by its soundtrack. But after the end of the movie, I was glad to
enjoy some precious silence.
()
Reklama