Dunkirk - Movie Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- Christopher Nolan brings us his WWII epic! Here's my review of DUNKIRK!
See more videos by Jeremy here: / jeremyjahns
Follow Jeremy on Twitter: / jeremyjahns
Friend Jeremy on Facebook: / realjeremyjahns - Zábava
"We're gonna need a bigger boat." Shit. Wrong movie. Shit. Wrong quote.
Pizza Time
Larry Kenshalo wrong quote too
You're*
Yes technical wrong quote. Another example of the Mandela Effect
I'm not pissed at your opinion, my OCD was just annoyed that you didn't give it a score
Same lol
Watched the video three times to make sure I didn't miss it. He really didn't give it a score.
Arcadio Castellanoz that must be a first, I don't recall another movie review without a score, here I was kinda expecting a no alcohol required and then.....punched screen and I'm like ....ok..........weird.
Lmao i watch the video 2 times cause i was thinking i miss it xD
Arcadio Castellanoz Jeremy's never been a fan of giving scores. He said that in the video breaking down what his scores were. This is a case of that, I guess.
I honestly felt connected to all the characters even though we don't know their names. They were just kids trying to survive, that was enough to have me hooked.
The whole point of this film was to show the event not the characters. It was realistic because the characters wouldn't have been talking about their lives at home because they were to busy trying to survive. Also the editing wasn't bad it was the whole point of the films timeline, because it was told in 3 different perspectives which take place in different periods of time which overlap at the ending
Getting the “whole point” doesn’t make it a good movie neither does being “realistic”.
David I was just stating what the narrative structure of the film was. At no point did I say that this means you have to think it’s a good film. It’s a matter of preference.
Wouldn't a documentary be a better way to show all that?
Alen S a documentary would probably contain a lot of factual information about Dunkirk, which is good, however a lot less people would watch it compared to an actual film, having it a film means that the film has a wider audience and more budget to make it so it’s probably best they made it a film, and the narrative structure is unique and something that wouldn’t make sense to do in a documentary
The movie wasn't even historical accurate. It was a bad movie get over it, it is trash.
wait what, no rating? what?
THUNDERBOLT PRODUCTIONS it's not about the rating, isn't the review as a whole enough?
THUNDERBOLT PRODUCTIONS yeah I was about to say
David Wyatt I think they just want to know does Jeremy recommend it or not
David Wyatt it is but he always gives a rating :(
Pretty sure this movie is "would be great if you were drunk ". I tthink he just doesnt want to piss people of in the comment section.
Have to disagree with some of this review. I'm actually glad there's no cliche campfire scene where everyone is talking about back home and how hot their girlfriends or wives are. I feel like that would be too out of place for the film. As Chris said in his review, it's about the event, not the people. Everybody is a nameless soldier just trying to survive. No heroics or anything.
That being said, I still think Tom Hardy did an amazing performance considering he was wearing a mask for a full 3/4th of the movie. You could see the desperation in his eyes and I really rooted for him.
xKami102x Same, i was attatched to tom and his buddy, sounded like his name was "Golluts" or something. Edit: It's Collins.
xKami102x Tom Hardy does good performances while wearing masks, we all know this.
harry styles wasnt that bad either, my only issue was the kid you get to see in the beginning, his facial expressions always weirded me out and felt unfitting
that sounds like a really subjective thing.... you mean the guy accused of being a spy?
I wonder it being a British ww2 story that maybe some Americans just might not be connecting to it cos they are used to their type of ww2 stories where it's more about the characters with their campfire stories rather than the intensity of being put into this war and just wanting to go home
TLDR: The movie was meant to show the peril and types of situation the people faced in Dunkirk
I believe the lack of dialogue was intentional. The movie focuses on three different plots that may have actually occured on Dunkirk.
We weren't meant to see these characters as unique individuals because they were meant to resemble the idea that they could have been anyone.
And I think the situations being hard to follow didnt matter because what matters is that these people were in a dangerous situation of great intensity. But this is all just my opinion.
Of course it's intentional. Nolan has gone on record on that. Ppl make this out to be a slight on Nolan's part....
Potato
TLDR? What?
TLDR means too long don't read.
Still thought the way it was edited was unnecessary. Not a big fan of the films nonlinearity. Would have had the same effect if it weren't.
Could you imagine writing a tldr for 4 sentences
This whole movie was just ear porn
and eye porn. was gorgeous as fuck.
I was feeling like a straight guy, listening to gay ear porn.
so its a song not a movie ? now ?
If the soundtrack is so terrible that you can't focus on the movie, then the soundtrack is a huge flaw.
Maybe because it's a war film with gunshots and not a musical?
"a lot of average looking white dudes with dark hair"
Yes Jeremy, maybe because they're British soldiers..
He meant that because they had no personality whatsoever
Yes, like the British.
The End of Zombie Shakespeare Stop talking out of your arse
The End of Zombie Shakespeare the best comedians are British
Never been to England have we?
"Jeremy Jahns doesn't love the movie that I was hyped for so I hate him even though I loved the other 500 reviews he did". Come on guys.
It was three time lines converging that’s why you saw things twice
Mate I 100% agree with you. Me and 2 of my friends were bored to death watching Dunkirk. The character development was terrible. I didn't care for a single character. I even confused the french boy with the other a couple of times. I didn't even get what their story was. If you are going to focus in a couple of characters do it because they have a story worth telling. Anw! I never expected this from Nolan. Although if I was going to rate his latest movies they would have a downward rating. I think his peak was the Dark Knight. I hope he gets back into the game (for us common folk)
An honest opinion is what matters, thanks for giving yours
Agree but it would be awesome if he rate this movie using his normal scale.
Alexis true 👏
Zamir Ariff He became a bigger person by not rating the movie 🖖
He gave Interstellar "good time, no alcohol required" and that, if I'm not mistaken is a positive review. If he gave this movie that rating, it would be alright if that's what he honestly thought.
Alwin Benjamin i know, but it would be so cool if he does that
Smart. You didn't give it a rating coz then fanboys would fixate on the rating alone and not what you said in the review.
Rahul Varma it is what he used to do. Jeremy had said several times that he hates rating movies because that makes people ignore everything else he said in the review and judge it solely by the rating. Personally i don't mind him not giving ratings but a lot of people told him it was important so eventually he started doing it
MiJerk. While I can understand that, I hope he doesn't lose them altogether. I quite like his unique rating system.
The unique system is really nice. Still smart of him not to rate this movie
Ofc, what else can they use when in the near future he gives a better rating to what they may think is an objectively worse movie?
Ironic thing is that people will now only talk about rating and guessing which one he would give lol
I agree. At least with 1917 there are characters that are on screen that connect you as an audience to the film. Dunkirk felt like I was watching deleted scenes of a film stitched together to form half of a movie.
Yes because we all know during the evacuation of Dunkirk, soldiers were talking about their lives and having pick nicks as the Germans were only a few miles behind them.
That's the reality of war, the commander was no greater than the soldiers. Anyone could die
The storytelling in this movie is top notch, if you think that you probably just dont get it.
Fun fact: the plane sound effects were probably digitally upgraded, but the planes in use (Messerschmitts/Stuka Dive Bombers) often had additions on their wings that, when the wind funneled through them, added an additional level of warfare (psychological) by creating and amplifying a “howling” noise while diving.
"Valerian and the War for the Planet of Dunkirk Homecoming" going down this weekend
Txmothy "War for the City of a Thousand Planets of Dunkirk Homecoming"
homecoming is forgettable
"Planet of the War for the baby homecoming of the Dunkirk Driver"
I've got it: "Valerian and the War for the Homecoming of Dunkirk"
Valerian and the Planet of the Homecoming Wonder of Dunkirk Driver Vol. 2
95% is his opinion and that's fine, but the statement about the editing is false I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was nominated for its editing!
It shouldn't be... I really love the movie, but that editing was my one gripe. It really did bother me in the final climax part. I was really confused if I had already seen Tom Hardy shoot down that final plane. And that is on the editing. A lot of it really worked but it was my main flaw
The whole 3 perspectives and their duration was what made it so confusing. The mole takes place over a whole week, the sea over a day and the air within an hour all leading up to the final moments in a non-linear fashion which was confusing at times. Then flashbacks were thrown in from certain characters into the story and as everything is leading to those final moments I wasn't sure who was where or when things were happening which adds to that. Sure it was confusing at times, but to handle a non-linear timeline like that is rather impressive (or at least interesting) to condense 3 stories that span from a week to one hour.
Herman Falck How I had no issues following everything cliqued for me immediately and when I saw it a second time you can really tell how well everything gels, although I may have been exaggerating the oscars thing but I see where you are coming from!
Jaydan Olive I can see how one finds it confusing but I was never lost and part of the reason I was so engaged was to watch all the timelines collide and see whatever one was doing during this time with a fresh new take
I didn't have issues either, though I thought it was linear until it became night and Cillian Murphy popped up, but I liked the "... Aaaaah I see" moment. Plus Nolan explained that the purpose of the editing was to give a similar feel that Memento gives: you only know what the characters know from their perspective (which changes during the end as the perspectives and time collide). Also I second seeing it the second time, you really see things you didn't notice before or think they were important, which is part of the perspective thing Nolan wanted to create.
Personally, I have to disagree. I think Dunkirk was an amazing movie. Tech-wise, this movies sound design, combined with the killer soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, and the amazing cinematography, made this one of the best movies of the past few years. Very little dialogue removed the problem of a character driven movie, and the choice to tell the story in stories was a great choice by Christopher Nolan.
I'm there with you, Jeremy. I didn't know who any of these characters were nor any of thier backstories there it make it very difficult for me to care about any of them and thus made it less intense.
I can understand not liking the movie...hell not every movie is for every person, but idk how anyone can call it boring. I was sweating in my seat through the whole damn thing.
There are more visual thrills instead of emotional thrills and that doesn't jive with everyone. It comes off as more of an experience than a story
Well I was feeling a lot of emotion by the end. I thought it had a nice juxtaposition between good and evil. However art is subjective so I dont expect everyone to agree.
And that's exactly what it was supposed to be, to let us experience it. Wikipedia has the story.
News are full of stories of horrific events, which we read/listen/view while eating, driving or taking a shit :)
You might like revenant movie
I certainly do!
I'm glad you're being entirely honest Jeremy and I respect you for it, but I just thought I'd explain why I disagree, with no hate whatsoever lol. I don't know if my British pride is getting in the way but I found myself undeniably attached to all the characters involved? I felt there was no room for character development and if there was it would have been very out of place. Like imagine being in this life or death situation and then randomly asking the other guy his life story. I think the focus on the actual event rather than the characters is what helped make this movie so great. I think the lack of character depth aided this movie as it showed the true brutalities, and bare human instinct of ww2 and how whoever you were back home, did not matter. we were all equals for once in a world of hierarchies, a coming together of the people to survive.
emma Unfortunately, the lack of American patriotism, bravado, dialogue and heavy action sequences bored some people. Clamoring through CZcams reviews of dunkirk, people who disliked the movie were either bored or confused. Confusion stemmed from being a fucking idiot. Boredom stemmed from the aforementioned lack of dialogue, lack of heavy action and barren character development. If the characters were American, a bit more bombastic and there was some more cgi then this movie would've appealed to them. Even though my opinion seems rather illogical and narrow minded, as I scrolled through the videos, people who disliked the movie generally couldn't put an articulate sentence together and LOVED superhero movies. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be American. The palate for great cinema and the emotional intelligence to comprehend such a dire situation seem to be sternly absent from the American mind. Americans have been conditioned into yearning for mindless action and fantastical characters. Dunkirk really should have a societal consensus on how great it is, but alas the Hollywood machine and American education ruins it.
Jinha Choi lol I don't appreciate the angry vibes you're throwing my way, I just said I liked the movie, never called out anyone who didn't - we all have our own opinions
emma They're not talking about you.
What was the fucking rating Jeremy???
Simon Chowdhury true for the most part, but the American bias will always play a role in Cinema.
What the hell? 400,000 thousand men were on that beach, the men didn't need backstorys they were volunteers trying to survive. The movie was great and it wasn't fast pace because if it was people would complain about how characters got from one place to another.
And it's a movie and I'd like to care about who's in peril. 800,000 people died in the Rwandan genocide but a movie of people just getting killed doesn't have the same impact when a movie like Hotel Rwanda provides insight into the mind of a person living through the genocide. Cinema is storytelling, not just narrating an event. That's what documentaries are for.
400 000 men i think you mean 40 000
Jahns is a legend, thank you for your honest and valid analysis, I agree with you Sir.
Gonna have to disagree. That said, your honest opinion is your honest opinion, and I thank you for sharing it. By the way, why no rating?
I know I was waiting for it!
I have been wondering the same thing
His rating will be “ alcohol required “ for sure, but he knew the fanboys of Nolan will jump on him for the whole year.
I think it was gonna be a forget rating. He never sounded like he thought it was dogshit, but he never said it was good, or very enjoyable.
I guess he'd give it a better time if you're drunk, or at worst a t-minus
Its alright if Jeremy didn't like the movie. Most critics did love it and so did the audience. Jeremy doesn't always have to love a film because everyone loves it. Perhaps it wasn't what he wanted. So let us not bombard him cause there's a shitstorm I smell brewing.
Richank Dubey I tip my hat off to you sir 🎩
Exactly. No need to be uncivil just because of a difference of opinion
Abhishek Shah It probably is with alcohol. He clearly didn't completely hate it but overall didn't like it so....
Same I love BvS and while I have debate with people over the flaws of the movie I still respect their opinion as valid and that we just have to agree to disagree.
I thought the movie was not good. As an experience, it was amazing. Someone in the theater yelled 'get down' at one point.
lol
I'm so happy that Jeremy thought the same as i did- I couldn't see anything great about the movie past the sound design and cinematography. Yeah they acted well- not hard when you dont have many lines to deliver. The story/ script offered little to nothing. I didn't give a damn about anyone, i was confused, it was repetitive. I only cared about the pilot when he crashed into the water and when they set fire to the oil water. I wish i cared more about whether characters lived or died
Nolan deliberately avoided the "sitting around a camp fire in between fights scene talking about wives at home boohoo" scenes because the movie is not meant to be about the characters, but the event. The characters carry the story, not the other way around. I think you're too used to individual heroics type movies
Desciple why care about an event if none of the people being affected by the event matter?
You're supposed to be immersed in the events as if you were there. It is a thriller and the characters need to feel normal so you would not think you're wathcing a movie. When there's the classic protagonist, you don't think about the intensity of the events as much as the character's fate. For me, it truly worked, but I totally understand why people could not like it.
Demetri J your supposed imagine if you were one of the soldiers on that beach
Demetri J they're blank slates to immerse you in the event, for you to project yourself onto them.
Desciple yeah I agree. People are too used to seeing the whole "sitting around a campfire talking about your life". That's not what always happens.
I can see where he's coming from but I think Jeremy's missing the point. It wasn't supposed to be some overly emotional war story with great heroes and explosive last stands. It was to show you the evacuation of Dunkirk in the most realistic way possible. Christopher noland was right to have very little dialogue, it made you focus on what was happening instead of the characters and their little back stories and personalities that in the end don't matter. It forces you to focus on the sights and sounds you see before you, the dogfights, the stuck dive bombers and their terrifying screeches, the near drownings, the gunshots, and the feeling amongst the soldiers of utter defeat and hopelessness as the enemy closes in and watching as your means of escape are sunk before your eyes all while home is right their, a few miles across the English Channel.
I completely understand his point, if you don't get on board, you do lose out in a movie like this. I was close to at times.
Particularly the ending when it tends to wrap up pretty quickly.
Definitely Not nolans best movie and this from a big fan of his work and Hans Zimmer too. But it wasn't a bad film at all. I just think it could have used a more accurate portrayal of Dunkirk. For one, there wasn't enough men on the beach. (At first I was okay, because I thought this was meant to represent a small section of the beach) but now looking at it, it does seem a bit odd.
And secondly, the beach was too clean. And so was the city. Could have maybe added to it more if there craters and destroyed ships everywhere, destroyed city. Could have added to the tension Nolan was going for. Because it was apparent to me, that Nolan was trying to give the illusion of an impending force. You never see the German soldiers till the end, they're allusive for the whole movie yet ominous. (Kind of like the jaws method of never actually seeing the monster, makes you fear it more)
So seeing the devastation, it might have added to the chaos
But perhaps Nolan wanted to lower the scale of the film to make it digestible. I'm not sure.
But if it isn't sypposed to have emotions, then what am I watching? A series of images?
There were real things that happened and Dunkirk that didnt need embellishing to make for a better but still "realistic" story.
Hmm realistic? Nothing about the French that fought till the end suffering a lot of casualties to save the rossbifs.The city of Dunkirk doesn't look really bad in fact it doesn't seem that It has been bombarded heavily.The little boats only evacuated 6000people out of 400000 while in the movie it seems like the turning point of the evacuation.If you knew history it would be better so don't say that Nolan was ment to show an historically accurate representation of the real story
If I wanted only realism all the way through, I would watch a documentary.
many people in the comments don't appear to be able to comprehend the idea of an opinion that is different then theirs.
u don`t come and tell me this shit is good
THERE IS NOTHING GOOD about "shit"
shit is shit u don`t tell me ur opinion after watching 2 girls 1 cup
SHIt
IS
sHiT
its not food
its not cloth
its shit
there is no opinion over here
there is no acting no action no story no script so slow no war lame air fight
there is no dangerous u failed to make me care about those soldiers
hell i hate those selfish soldiers they are not helping each other they just want to run away
they will kill that french guy just to escape
a war movie with no civilian ? with no black people ? with no anti air guns (with no enemy)
dunkirk looks so clean for a place that suffer from nazi air plane
a pilot who can`t open his window soooooo lame and stupid
how a pilot don`t have a gun in his pocket
a kid who poop in public after escaping a death situation and i should care about him fuck that stupid kid
u don`t reward stupid people by making them survive
and that other kid who was under water with fire above him and he did`t swim far away from the fire
he just wait under the fire 20 sc and then go up and die
and i should care about him ? fuck that kid at this point i`m on nazi side those uk soldiers r so stupid
a pilot who can`t open his air plane wheels that is used in every single american movie over there nothing new
its shame to compare this movie with fury or saving private rayan a SHHHHAMe
just take ur oscar and go to my list worst movie ever made just over there next to suicide squad and the revenant
karimkopra I don’t think I’ve ever read a more toxic and close-minded comment in my life.
wondered that people in the comment section are expressing their OPINION as well.
@@a.morphous66 read the Nolan fans comments then.
@@karimkopra don't forget Tom Hardy flying the plane for ages when it was already established that there is low fuel when he can only fly for some hours.
Saw Dunkirk on opening night because I love Nolan more than any other. And I agree 100%.
I thumbed this down after initially watching but after coming to my senses, realized we are subscribed to you for your opinion. not for our preconceived thoughts on a movie to be fulfilled. we can't be angry if you have your own thoughts. it's why we subscribed in the first place
Maturity? Integrity? On the internet?
Does not compute. (In all seriousness though, much respect :P)
Thank you!
Tommy Townsend
People are taking a simple opinion way too far. Really cringy.
Good to see smart people instead of triggered Nolan fanboys.
Thank you, when it comes to movie reviews on CZcams it seems like viewers no longer care about hearing someone express their (Possibly different) opinion on a movie, they wanna hear that reviewer say exactly what we thought of it, like “I thought this movie was awesome so I wanna hear this guy talk about how awesome it is” or “I thought this movie was terrible so I wanna hear this guy talk about how terrible it is” but that’s not the point of reviews, they’re for that 1 individual to express his own personal thoughts on the movie, regardless if it aligns with yours or not
This movie might be a good time..... if you're drunkirk
Up this comment!-- ^
Dinesh Rashid nice
Yeah! Now its a Party!
Yeah now it's a party! With guns!!
genious
Dude, I thought I was going crazy for not being amazed by it. Thanks for your honest review.
Welcome back Jeremy... I felt the old you in this one. Great review! Best Ive heard from you in a while.
Watched two times till I realized there is no rating
Zahra Osman me too! 😅😂😂
Is this the first ratingless review from Jeremy?
I don't know, technically he said 50 shades of Gray was "nothing", not even a dogshit. Does that count as no-rating?
MaC S3th So this fuckin masterpiece is now on par with Fifty Shades of Horseshit?!
+Hua Mulan
I don't know and I don't care. Just pointing out that there was something similar to lack of rating in the past.
He didn't give Shutter Island a rating.
I believe he didn't do ratings around 2010
The siren sound effect used with the German planes is authentic. The German Junkers Ju 87 "stuka" was a ground attack fighter, also known as a dive bomber. The siren was used for pure psychological effect early in the war. Every time you hear that sound in a movie, TV show or cartoon it shows just how much of an impression the siren has made.
3:05 This was my problem with the movie. It starts off with tension and then most of it is people ... "doing" things. It had just enough suspense and just enough stellar shots to keep me watching, although I'd say barely...
Just watched it and found it boring as fuck
You didn't tell us what it was!
Is it Awesometacular?
Obviously not.
I'm guessing it's somewhere between Good Time No Alcohol required and Good Time if you're drunk. If he says it's visually appealing and a good realistic take with couple of negatives, mainly losing focus on storytelling, it's gonna be one of those.
Frank Hardy He said it was boring, and he usually rates boring movies "not gonna remember in T - 1 day"
He's said himself that he only uses those ratings because people seem to insist upon a "score" for film but rating art in that way feels weird to him. I guess he forgot to include an arbitrary rating, he told you what he thought of it.
If he was gonna rate it, it would probally be T minus 1 day, since he rates boring movies that , and movies with bad plots but are fun , a good time iiiifffff your drunk
Back in my day, people subscribed to online reviewers because they wanted to hear their opinion instead of today where they sub to them because they want to seek validation for a movie they love.
Varinder Bhandal We live in a world of opinions mate.
THIS. FUCKING THIS.
so true
That is called "Confirmation Bias".. its everywhere these days.. u only want to see the content/news/reports which satisfies your preconceived opinions..
"Back in my day" no. It's always been this way bud
agree with this review. i just found it okay maybe it’s because i watched it on desktop monitor with 2.1 speakers
Did you watch it the second time?Cause I'm sure you didn't fully understood the screenplay the first time you watched
I watched this movie with out reading any reviews, and my first reaction was "man this is boring". So I fully agree with Jeremies review...
Interesting, I also just watched it without seeing a single review, and thought it was the most thrilling movie I’ve ever seen. That’s all I ask from a movie is to make me feel emotion
Same. When there are far better war movies out there that's actually good. Thin Red line, All quiet on the western front, Saving Private Ryan, Bridge on the river kwai, the battle of algiers, apocalypse now, hacksaw ridge etc. I could go on and on, you get the gist
I think it's fuckn stupid that yall are arguing against Jeremy for his opinion on the movie, EVEN after what he says at 4:10.
If he's supposed to kiss the movie's ass just cos some of yall liked it and want it that way?
Then how is that a review?
It's a useful word for a language that lacks a different widely used plural version of You
Jukka lol Jesus why the fuck do you hate it so much
Kimqi The people defending Jeremy now are the same ones who shitted on him when he said Suicide Squad was good lol
Thank God, he didn't kissed the movie's ass like each and every reviewer out there and called it like what it is.
i think the whole point was to NOT have character development. the point is an observation of an event in real time. not fake drama.
apope06 it was like a documentary in a movie
That would be fine if it was accurate, but it wasn't. The evacuation of Dunkirk was over 6 days, with significant help from the air force (not just 2.5 Spitfires) and a vast number of other things that change the story. If this was a made up story, fine, but it's recent and documented history.
Nolan was aiming for wow factor, not accuracy, and in my opinion the wow factor wasn't enough to carry it.
+Victoria Robinson: and we have a winner. The purpose of the movie is irrelevant. In the end you go to a movie to be entertained or at least to be engaged by the material. It wasn't Jeremy's cuppa tea. Doesn't mean he doesn't "get the movie". It just means it wasn't for him.
Just returned from a film - waste of time. First of all, the argument that it was all about the observation of the event does not stand. NO WHERE in the entire film do you actually sense the scale of what was happening.
Mild spoilers, if you could call them that...
You see a couple of thousand soldiers on the entire beach line (at best) and a dozen or so ships and/or boats, maybe 10 trucks.
That's it.
In reality, there were around 400.000 soldiers cramped in that city (that is actually portrayed as completely deserted), Germans were away fighting in the countryside against combined French-British rearguard (not 150 meters from the beaches as portrayed in the film), and UK left over 2000 artillery pieces, tens of thousands of vehicles (including ~700 tanks) and God know how much of small arms and supplies there.
All you see is intact city, with maybe 2000 soldiers standing in line on a clean beach. No sense of scale what so ever!
And complete waste of good actors - roles that big names played here could have been played by anyone. Just pluck a man from a street and have him play the role. For Tom Hardy it was even worse - you don't even see his face and he has maybe 10 sterile lines in the entire film. So you don't see him, there is barely any chance to hear him and when you do it is nothing that you'd need Tom Hardy for. He was like an extra in this film. Imagine, Tom Hardy, playing an extra in historical war film.
A few pointless pathetic scenes, some shameless historical inaccuracies (no time in listing them all), film devoid of scale and actual happening, wasted great actors...
I don't know. I did not expect it to be the next Saving Private Ryan (or a Bridge to Far or some other great war classic), but I did not expect it to suck balls this much.
Film had three good things in it:
1. If you like practical effects, you will be pleased. Not so many of them, and CGI would actually be nice here as film lacked scale, but I guess practical effects were nice.
2. French rearguard was mentioned twice in the film - so nice of them to mention who held the line.
3. The last 5 seconds of the film when Spitfire is burning, foreshadowing (in my opinion) the Battle for Britain that is to come.
And that's it. Nothing else, in the entire film, was of any noteworthy value. I am VERY disappointed. I'd give it "Won't remember it in T-10 minutes". And I really like the actors and Nolan, so this is not some hate throwing. I like them, i like the theme, I expected a *decent* film, not "OH MY GAWD THIS IS SO AWESOME!!!" and I got this piece of crap that I wasted a bit over an hour and a half and $5 for a ticket.
If it was in "real time" his movie will be 3 days long.
completely agree with your thoughts on characters. i thought it was visually stunning but the characters weren’t very interesting and the editing was a bit confusing. but i actually liked that the characters weren’t focused on. it does make the situation more realistic and makes the film be able to focus more on other aspects.
I was a huge fan of this movie. But I was also a huge fan of your review. Thank you for disagreeing and not being afraid to go against the grain. You made me respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Well done.
Got a trailer for dunkirk in the ad before this video. It's a sign.
I fail to interpret, is that a good sign for a movie or ..?
It's a sign the studio has money?
Just Saiyan It's a sign that CZcams shows ads that relate to the content you're watching?
Hardly coincidence really...
I find the lack of a final verdict disturbing.
black screen, no meme He probably didn't wanna give one cause it'd pretty negative, and people would be just throwing that in his face rather than listening to what he has to say about the movie in detail. And after seeing the movie, I think it's pretty clear Jeremy missed the point of it.
Yeah, is this an "awesometacular," "see it when you're drunk," or "buy it on blu ray?"
3:15 At the end of that metaphor, I thought he was going to say: "Watching two cops sitting in their car for a stakeout, not for a few entertaining minutes, but for a looooooooong time as they just wait...they just wait, that's it. Maybe they eat a donut or two, but other than that, they do nothing."
I can agree with Jeremy about the character thing. I wanna be able to say, "oh man, I was so concerned about John and Sgt. McKenzie." But I can't. It was just a bunch of your typical soldiers. That's probably fine for most of you, but it just didn't work for me. It was also kinda slow because some scenes have little to nothing happening. But in the end, I think it is a good movie. I'll probably watch it again and even buy it on Blu-ray (not my official rating; it's more of a good time no alcohol required)
What's the rating though Jeremy? Should I bring a drink into the movie theatre? Would it be better if I was drunk?
I always puke on my way to the cinema. Makes for a very even ground for me to review my feelings on the movie.
The Pirate King drunkkirk
The Pirate King Every movie is better when you're drunk.
The rating is Dogshit. Jeremy just couldn't muster the courage to say it.
Subr Subrr yeah nah, the movie was fucking amazing, guessing you have not seen it yet?
It's almost like film is subjective......weird.
Your personal favourites are subjective, knowing what a good, well made film is not.
doc chicken not entirely. someone could dislike the writing but someone else could think it was good.
I get where you're coming from but that is only half true. There are a ton of "well made" films that have boring plots but great visuals, fantastic dialogue but shallow characters. Nearly EVERYTHING in film is subjective. It all depends on the individual and where their taste lies. Just like art, music, etc.
Liking or disliking a film is subjective, but not if it's a good or bad movie....I've liked bad movies and I've disliked good movies
These comments act like most people in the world have the opinion that film is not subjective. Stop acting like most people are butt hurt by this video, 99% of people commenting have the same opinion as you do.
First time I saw this movie, I thought it was just fine. Now though, I think it is one of the greatest films ever made.
Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Jeremy on this one, Dunkirk bored the hell out of me... The only scenes I remember from it are the scenes where a group of soldiers are stuck in a beached boat & Tom Hardy's pilot character saving the beach with his crippled plane & him being captured afterwards at the end.
Both the characters & intensity are much better in Midway (2019) imo. That movie kept me hooked onto the people with their strategies & doctrines of war, and it's also visually gratifying with the sets & action!
yeah, but what's the final "rating"? I need to know if I should be drunk or if I'm going to forget it.
Edward Deedon he said he forgot some of the characters names so its probably a ur not going to remember it in t-minis something
Default is always to fill the flask.
Maybe that's the point of the video actually. I think he wants us to get an opinion about Dunkirk. What do WE thought about the movie? Is it worth watching it or no?....hmmm...
;)
What if the event itself is the main character and the soldiers are simply extras?
And I think being on a attack people didn't have time to talk about their lives and shit.
So Nolan just made it more realistic.
Jeremy didn't get Interstellar,which is a brilliant film,i kinda expecting this kind of reaction from him.
jackygomes What if, people like caring about and connecting with on screen characters? I am in the same boat as Jeremy, I like the movie, glad I went to go see it, but I'm not gonna care in about a week
Hence making a boring movie, btw nice grammar
jackygomes Yeah sometimes realistic makes way for boring lady, thats why we watch movies? not for how realistic it is, but how epic it is. Thats my idea of a war movie, not realistic. you can balance realistic and epic, hence Saving Private Ryan and Hacksaw Ridge, both are true stories but are a bit exaggerated to make it bigger.
Somnath Das people need to stop acting like interstellar is genius, it's literally just " love transcends time and space" that's it, nothing brilliant, just a sci fi adventure with a different plot and TONS of exposition
I definitely sympathize with Jeremy here. It's always tough to go on the Internet and tell people you didn't like a movie that is widely beloved. It was cool to see Chris Stuckmann have his back here even though he really enjoyed this movie.
Lol came to this after his review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.. somehow knew he hated this too. Refreshing to see this honesty with everyone’s favorite directors
guess I forgot that when you're being massacred with bombs, guns and torpedoes and having your friends slaughtered in front of you the first thing you're going to want to do is tell people about your backstory...
idk about you, but if I dont give a fuck about the characters, then why should I give a fuck about whats happening to them??? the only way to care about a character is to have some damn character development. I swear if it was some other director who made this movie the same exact way, so many people would hate on it. but since its Nolan, everyone has to suck the films cock.
TRUTH.
people in the comments keep saying "but the movie is not meant to have character development! so why hate it for not having character development???" -_- just because it was meant to be that way, doesnt take away from the fact that it sucked. Pineapple Pizza is supposed to have Pineapples on it, but that doesnt stop it from tasting like ass.
IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE. The characters don't have to tell you their backstory, or about them. THE FUCKING MOVIE CAN.
Disturbed702 It's called fucking empathy. Simply knowing that these are flesh and blood people in a crisis that they have no ability to avert or avoid should be enough. From there, it's all about the heat of the moment and the things they do to survive and carry on. Do you watch the news when a tragedy occurs, say to yourself you know nothing about them, and move on without the least bit of compassion?
Jeremy: "do they have wives? Families? Kids? I want to hear them talk about it!"
Chris: "I'm so happy there wasn't a dumb scene of them sitting around a campfire like 'who do you got back home?'"
Hmm chris seems to be in the lead🤔
Miles Kenney What's wtong with that scene
Miles Kenney Are you expecting them to have the same views on individual movies? Or are you saying that just because Chris said something you agreed on, makes his review greater than Jeremy's? Because either one of those situations are fucking stupid...
Yes that shit is all cliche, but then what? Instead of cliche we got boring. Maybe Nolan could have devised a clever way to tell a we story instead of the clever arrangement of vignettes.
Seems like Chris just knows film a bit more than Jeremy. Both are great but i trust chris reviews more than any other movie review youtuber
That would have been cliche, however there are other ways to tell a person's backstory than sitting around a campfire. Knowing nothing about any of these people made this boeing
Thank you for this review. It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one.
I agree with his points. I wanted to love this movie. But it was a huge disappointment. Nolan's last 3 films aren't good imo. Inception was his last great movie. I hope Tenet is goid. The trailers look so promising
Yeah, I disliked that movie as well
That's how I discovered Jeremy Jahns. Finally an reviewer out there who called it like what it is, even when each and every reviewer out there was scared of giving their honest opinions for obvious reasons.
@@hulkfan97 I feel the same way, last time Nolan made an masterpiece was 'Inception'. The movies that came later are decent at best.
I actually liked how the story kept switching to different perspectives at a different time. The flyby over one of the evacuation ships is a good example. The squadron chases down the bomber that's trying to destroy the ship the army men in the fishing boat are heading to while the civilian boat with that old guy sails by and saves most of the crew when the bomber explodes.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I think the lack of well developed characters is intentional. In a war, especially a retreat like Dunkirk, there isn't time for people to stand above or for singular heroes to really stand out, it's just acting on impulse and getting as many people out as you can
Great review as usual though
I never said that. Saving Private Ryan was obviously about the characters more than the event, hell just look at the title. Dunkirk is supposed to be a purely visceral experience that focuses on the event and the desperation of the country as a whole rather than the individual people during the event. Obviously I can't speak about the quality of the film as a whole because I haven't seen it yet, but I can still know what the intent was when bringing it to the big screen.
it's obviously intentional from what I gathered from reviews. whether you like it or not in the movie is the real question.
Nolan himself said he just wanted guys. Guys you didn't know, guys you didn't know what to expect. Even his casting choices like Harry Styles. All intentional.
DoubleOscar fucking love fans if it's a Nolan movie... 'no well developed characters but don't worry IT'S INTENTIONAL'... LITERALLY no other director gets excuses like Nolan movies
When a movie is not realistic people complain about it. When movie is realistic people say realistic movies don't work.
Theknowabout ya it's a realistic war movie where no one ever bleeds \s
And when a movie has backstory and exposition people complain about it. When it has neither people lose their minds :D
It almost like talented filmmakers can balance the two and everyone is happy!
You can go realistic and NOT BE LAME
That's not what he said at all. He never said realistic movies don't work. He said a movie won't work just because it's realistic. There's a big difference.
So what do you think, should we buy it on blue ray or ....
I totally agree with you on the whole "lack of characters" thing. I walked out of the theatre thinking that.
Totally respect your point of view and glad that you stuck to your guns. Your review and honest opinion makes me want to watch the movie even more and form my own opinion. Thank you, Jeremy!
I can understand where Jeremy is coming from with lack of dramatization and characterisation, but the whole movie isn't based on characters or trying to learn their back story - the main character is actually YOU - the audience member, and you're experiencing the hell that these men are going through in that moment in time. As one reviewer put it, it's like "VR without the goggles".
Also, there isn't much focus on one character, mainly because every single person on the beach, is an important character, and they too have a backstory, and the most important thing is how they all work together to survive in this situation where time is against them.
And even though there is very little dialogue, I still found characterisation from each character's actions and their expressions, which made me understand who they are to a degree - as they say, actions sometimes do speak louder than words.
Well said John Smithee
well said
Even though the characters didn't say too much, we still care for them mainly because of the actions, heroics, choices and sacrifices they make in that situation and at that point in time.
These characters become the eyes for the audience because we see and know what they see and know, and because we're not given a heavy backstory for every person on the beach, we don't know or expect to know if someone is going to live or die.
This is why the choices and sacrifices they make to keep fighting to save someone else's life, despite the fact that they won't ever be recognised for it or whether they live to see another day, is what makes their decisions even more heroic and heartbreaking.
Thanks Dennis :)
If its about me then I need a character to latch on too!
Thank you so much for being the only reviewer on youtube who agrees with me about everything holy shiy
I totally agree with you Jeremy. I told my roommate I didn't like it but couldn't put into words exactly why. Thank you for doing so.
Do I disagree with the review? Yes. Will I keep watching Jeremy? Yes.
Same.
I rate that honesty
I LOVED the film. But I respect Jeremy's opinion. Can't win them all...
I feel that Jeremy missed the entire point of Dunkirk. I respect his opinion, but I feel as though he was looking for a movie that is "based on a true story" rather than what we get, which is "the true story."
Sorry what point did he miss? I thought he was right on point. I would add the movie missed some key points and wasn't very historical accurate. You get the sense that RAF was very effective in protecting their ships. While loses were heavy for both combatants, Luftwaffe pretty had command over the air. Luftwaffe was hampered more by smoke and bad weather which greatly aided the evacuation effort. But that doesn't make good story telling right?
Suicide Squad Worth to buy on bluray. Dunkirk is boring. Jeremy´s logic. But you know what? i respect you man, you have balls.
ulises noble Balls for what? Honesty
Uh, It is you don't want him to have a taste or an opinion...
Groot's movie is not much better than Suicide Squad
Ofer Mizrahi rotten tomatoes disagrees
Ofer Mizrahi and why should we care what Rotten tomatoes says? Think for yourself
Having finally seen this movie and coming back to this review.. I can't help to disagree with you Jeremy. This movie had me at the edge of my seat for 99% of its run time. The visual work, the sound quality and the portrayal of desperation and survival in this movie was sublime. It didn't need a "central character to follow", all I felt was the hope that these young people of my I age made it home. This is (imo) a war movie that anyone should give a chance to see.
However, I do respect your opinion.
This movie was excellent and very original. You will not see another movie like it. The main character in this film is not a person but the event surrounding Dunkirk. Well done Nolan.
Thank you for your honest opinion
Chris Wong-Swenson what about my honest comment?
Chris Wong-Swenson The pace is really fucked up. They should focus on one storyline instead of three.
Chris Wong-Swenson
seriously he is wrong..aerial shots are unbelievable and take us in to war....no talking but itz okay with it this movie doesn't need characters...itz now became second fav war movie
Frankie Z
Lol. Rewatch it. Its not 3 storylines.
I'm surprised you didn't event give it a rating
I think he's scared of what people will say .
Are there other movies that Jeremy has not given ratings to?
Gary Smith well he did not give ratings before he started his rating system
This movie felt like something you'd watch on history channel (not a bad thing) and that it needs a narrator.
Jeremy isn't wrong for what he said.
This should be expected if "the whole event is the main character."
You are awesome, I think exactly the same and been arguing for over a week now. Thank you for being so great
I get how so many critics are calling this movie a masterpiece, but in the future you shouldn't shy away from giving a movie,irrespective of what everyone says, your personal rating just because it may differ from the popular vote. That defeats the whole point of the channel. If people agree with you, awesome. If they don't, it's still awesome. These different perspectives that audiences have is what makes the whole movie discussion all the more interesting for film lovers like yourself.
Well said!
I think it’s because in terms of the toxicity of the CZcams comment sections it seems like CZcams has become the place where different opinions go to die
I don't watch these for validation of my opinion on a movie I haven't seen. I watch them to get an honest non-spoiler review by someone that I have a pretty good idea what their taste in film is. Agree or not, I want honesty. If I want idol worship I'll join a religion. Keep up the great work, Jeremy.
Terry McQuarrie Preach
I like honesty from a reviewer. Thanks! I'm weird too, I don't like movies just because everyone else does.
Best review by Jeremy Jahns EVER!!!!! Sooooo honest and real!
You did not give the movie a score?
The 3 storylines has different timelines. The Mole Takes place in ONE WEEK, The SEA takes place in ONE DAY and THE AIR takes place in an hour.
that confused me the most, i think it could have been explained better.
GAME OVER "WE HAVE EVERY PIXEL COVERED" It was LITERALLY written on the screen...
How do you know that? No where in the movie did it specify this. Why was it non-linear? It's a simple historical event, not an interstellar our inception. It got in the way of the story telling (which was also terrible). The movie was dull.
how does he know that? its literally in the movie in fucking writing XD. understandable if you didn't like it but if you couldnt even catch that and the intent behind the way it was filmed then you werent really paying attention or had no intention to
They literally fed that information to the audience in writing. Do you read?
Old soldiers/sailors/airmen said that they were either "bored to death or scared to death," when tedium was replaced with sudden-death action. When you're in a large group of mixed units, you don't know much about 'Pvt. Slabotnik of the 20th regiment of foot." One tends to hang with members of the same unit, who could be strange to you unless you find a basic training/pub crawl buddy. If/when a bomb/bullet has their number, it's on to the next second/minute/day. If you want a "great war movie," see "All Quiet on the Western Front." "Dunkirk" is a tale of survival, which is random, fickle, and a "never give up" experience.
I couldn't agree more with this review after watching the movie
I like how every time people disagree with Jeremy, they point to his Suicide Squad review. Is he not allowed to have an opinion because he likes that movie or am I missing something?
tquinton1 Well, before the Suocide Squad review, people pointed to the Green Lantern review. People will always fault others for their own opinions.
tquinton1 Well of course is he allowed to have an opinion about a certain movie. And we are also allowed to notice some inconsistency in his reviews aswell.
Critics don't necessarily have to be consistent. Roger Ebert gave the original Last House on the Left 3.5/4 stars but the remake only 1/4 I think and he said something in his review about how he has "no desire to be consistent." People change their movie tastes.
And I'll admit I liked Suicide Squad too. By no means is it some masterwork film, and maybe BvS lowered my bar significantly, but I had fun with it.
Him liking Suicide Squad completely disregards all credibility in his reviews. That movie was a complete mess, him like it shows that he knows zero things about film and cinema. Why people still take this hack seriously I will never undestand.
doc chicken destroys his credibility to you, while others might actually like suicide squad and agree with Jeremy's review. Every reviewer is entitled to their own opinion and if you want a consensus opinion go to rotten tomatoes
From Jeremy's Most Anticipated movies of 2017 video: *"Interstellar taught me a very important thing. Sometimes when you watch a movie, give it time to marinate, maybe watch it a second time. Then do your review, don't just power out the review because of the competitive world of CZcams".*
I guess Jeremy forgot he made this statement...
Who knows, this will probably be in his top ten movies of the year when it sits and boils in him for a few months.
Joey Martinez it won't, I'm calling it now.
Agreed
I guess he's just an hypocrite.
And how do you know he didn't watch this movie twice? I remember hearing him say he watches movies twice before reviewing them. You realize it's easily possible that he watched the movie twice and simply didn't like it either time?
The sound of the Jericho trumpets gave me chills, as they were made to do
so what score did you give it?
Not surprised given that Jeremy was also bored by the first half of Alien (1979) b/c the Xenomorph hadn't attacked yet, despite the fact that it's meant to immerse the viewer into that world. He already has preconceived notions on how a story should be told, and isn't willing to let a movie take him to unfamiliar territory.
I bet he would also dislike Sergio Leone films, since they consist on Visual Storytelling instead of pointless dialogue.
Cris Zapot The world of the Alien franchise.
+Tom Caine As a movie critic, it's his job to inform people why certain films didn't work for him instead of simply saying "different strokes for different people", and that's what he does in this video. But just b/c he's a critic doesn't mean he's immune to criticism. For it's also important to inform people the tendencies of certain critics to have a better gauge of what the films that they're criticizing can offer.
+Tom Caine Regardless of what he calls himself, he doesn't just leave his analysis w/ "different strokes for different people". Reviews are what critics do, and he makes a living off of that. There's nothing wrong w/ anything he said. You just seem to be under the impression that CZcams commenters have to adhere to certain rules and regulations simply b/c they have accounts. They don't. It's their subscription and they can say whatever they like.
+Tom Caine No, I already said "Regardless of what he calls himself" in my previous post to take your point into account. People don't have to consider him as a critic in order for his analysis to be criticized.
how come he didn't give it a rating ?
What is the rating Jeremy?
that's what I said
What would he rate it as?
Awesometacular? No, negative review
Buy it on blu ray? No, negative review
Good time no alcohol? No, negative review
Good time if you're drunk? Who would want to watch this movie with alcohol?
Won't remember in t-? Maybe, but that does kinda understate the good visuals and sound effects. It's not that bad.
Dogshit? No, it's definitely not that bad.
Gilberto Solorio Didn't have the guts to give his honest rating on it
Because you can't give ZERO a rating! the movie is pure fucking crap!!
The whistle sound 'effect' you pointed out when the planes start dive bombing isn't an effect. It was an actual design choice by Hitler's designers of his Stukas during ww2 which were multi-role fighter planes capable of ground and air combat. The sound came from an intricate hole or holes in the landing gears of the planes, designed to make a siren of whistle when going at high speeds. The idea was to strike terror and create disorganisation amongst the enemy and it worked wonderfully well during the blitzkrieg, aiding the pushing onslaught of fast moving tanks and motorised infantry.
Im a Nolan fan, there was so much to love about this movie. But I agree with everything Jeremy said!
That & the beach didn't look like it had 400,000 soldiers on it & all the buildings were clean & intact at Dunkirk. Didn't look or feel like a lost hope warzone at all
Dunkirk felt like a Malick film at times. For me that was a win.
Jeremy, I'm super happy that you've told the truth on how you feel about this movie. I'm sure it can be tough to get your real opinion out there because of how insane the internet can be when people disagree. This channel is supposed to be YOUR OPINION and I personally like it because you're a sensible guy who is usually pretty honest and considerate with your reviews. That said, I hope you can continue to make videos like this so that you don't have to feel like you're tip-toeing around every word and we can have more content.
What is his review at the end?
I completely agree with you, Jeremy. Great looking movie that I couldn't care less about.
There was one scene that I really liked, and it was when Scarecrow (you know who I mean) asked if the boy, who was already dead, would be okay and the blondie told him yes because he realized that guy already had enough on his conscience. But other than that, meh.
I probably would've loved this movie if it came out in 2009, but Nolan has the tendency not to live up to his own standards. After Inception and Interstellar... I dunno, I was expecting a bit more.