Christoper Nolan, you did it again.
It also lacks things like character development, a sense of investment in the story, originality, pacing etc. A general lack of clichés does not excuse the movie from being a clusterfuck of earrape and cookiecutter characters
Yet that is the Idea of a niche war movie. When we look back on history, we tend to focus more on the whole squadron of soldiers to the entire army. Most of us only think about the countries and what die their on. The only names ever mentioned are the people who are in charge.
Yes, but when people don't care about the characters, they don't care about the film. Realistic, perhaps, but I paid to watch a MOVIE. Movies are enjoyable, entertaining, might be a bit dark, but dunkirk isn't a movie. Might also be worth noting that my eardrums haven't fully recovered yet.
Sorry about that. I guess you saw something different from what I saw. I saw, pretty much a very stylised war documentary. A documentary that focuses on the larger scale of the war rather than on a few men.
Yes, a documentary focusing primairly on fictional people and action sequences rather than, you know, DOCUMENTING. It's not a documentary, it's not a movie, it just IS. I honestly don't hate the movie, just the fact that people treat a sub-par movie like it's the second coming of christ.
Pulp fiction? why?