Dunkirk is a movie with two faces. The initial countenance, the one that a majority of us were exposed to thanks to the brilliant trailer, is a cinematic masterpiece. Like a true storyteller, the Dunkirk trailer builds tension, never revealing much of the plot, and letting our imagination fill the gaps.
The other face of Dunkirk is the actual movie. Given the brilliance of writer/director Christopher Nolan, and the hypnotic soundtracks of Hans Zimmer, I was expected Dunkirk to be the quintessential definition of "epic." Unfortunately, it was nothing more than an epic letdown.
Now, don't get me wrong -- Dunkirk is a solid movie. If it were a school paper, I'd imagine it would definitely receive a C+, maybe even good enough for a B-. The problem is this: at no point did Dunkirk ever reach its emotional zenith. In fact, when the moment arrived, all I could think of was, "that's it?"
Perhaps Dunkirk the film told the Gospel truth of the actual incident, and maybe that incident was as mundane as the modern-day portrayal. But given that Hollywood is notorious for stretching the truth for cinematic effect, I expected Nolan to integrate creative licenses.
Alas, he did not, and what we are left with is what Tri-City Herald's Gary Wolcott describes as a "disjointed" story. And is it ever. Non-linear timelines were powerful elements when they were initially introduced. But to incorporate it in a historical piece such as Dunkirk fell flat.
Our paradigm is linear. Our stories should be as well.
But beyond this annoying, almost amateurish gimmick, the audience is never given a chance to relate to any of the characters. From various angles, the players are thrust into the battlefield, and that's about it. If we were supposed to feel animus for the Nazis, and anxiety for our heroes, you could have fooled me.
Adolf Hitler could have used Dunkirk as a propaganda piece, and it would have been just as effective for his side as any Third Reich film production.