Cool

The reviews do sound encouraging but I've seen the trailers and it looks boring af.

Looks intense, glad to see those great reviews. Just proves that no matter the material, Christopher Nolan just doesn't know how to disappoint

I don't care how good it might or might not be. I have no interest in yet another war movie.

It's good to see Nolan turn his hand to something that isn't sci-fi or fantastical. He hasn't done so since Insomnia. Even The Prestige had elements of sci-fi.

This movie was disappointing, given the raves it's getting.

And I disagree about having to see it in IMAX, if possible. I don't feel it needs, or deserves it. In fact, the herky-jerky filming technique so favored by many directors, is very distracting in IMAX. In general, a good movie, but not great, and all the high-ricedtalent on screen are generally under-utilised, or wasted, with the exception of Mark Rylance. Very interesting score and sound. Great aerials.

@Lenny/Mosko said:

This movie was disappointing, given the raves it's getting.

And I disagree about having to see it in IMAX, if possible. I don't feel it needs, or deserves it. In fact, the herky-jerky film ing technique so favored by many directors, is very distracting in IMAX. In general, a good movie, but not great, and all the high-ricedtalent on screen are generally under-utilised, or wasted, with the exception of Mark Rylance. Very interesting score and sound. Great aerials.

Did you see it in both IMAX and regular theater, or just one? Because I have done both, and I can assure you that 70mm IMAX is a must if there is one nearby you. It is ungodly.

First - it's not a movie I'd feel compelled to watch twice, but no, only saw it in IMAX. I am definitely NOT a fan of the currently- popular cinematic technique of hand-held, shaky cameras to try to add immediacy and excitement, and that is constantly on display in this movie. In IMAX, it is not only distracting, but became annoying on such a large format.

Ironically, what I considered the best cinematography were the aerials, and that was done mostly in a stabilized style.

Okay, I'll let you have your handheld comment because there is a bit of it here, but I don't really think it shakes to the point of something like Paul Greengrass. Nolan actually often doesn't shake in his movies like that, especially with IMAX. I for one thought it was exquisite, but we can't all win I guess.

As for the repeated viewing comment, everybody I've heard who has seen it twice (including myself) has loved the second viewing more than the first one. If you haven't yet, check out NolanFans Forum. I couldn't link you to exactly where everyone is raving about a second viewing, but read enough posts and you'll find them. Not one person said it was one viewing too many, or anything like that.

Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm, but I just wasn't that excited by it. I think I've subsidised Warner Bros enough with my IMAX purchase. I found the Dunkirk-related film Their Finest to be much more enjoyable (although it's a much different type of war movie).

Of course, that's no problem.

Reading forums always gets me more enthusiastic. This film didn't leave me standing and applauding, but it did leave my heart racing for about the next 48 hours. Saw it last Monday, then on Thursday night. Hopefully when my sister and her boyfriend come into town next weekend we can see the 70mm IMAX showing again.

I was trying to figure out what seemed off in Nolan's movie, and finally figured it out - everything was too clean. The town was clean, the streets were clean, the beach was clean and the unifoms were clean. The real Dunkirk was a bombed-out mess and there was debris covering everything. It was much better depicted in Atonement, I feel. https://vimeo.com/85529607

Yes, I recall the Dunkirk scene in Atonement being much more chaotic and frightening.

Saw it on Thursday, loved it.