Oscars Countdown: 'Dunkirk'

Dunkirk takes a less is more approach to the often-glamorized war genre, foregoing over the top heroics for a gritty survival experience. The film’s consistent sense of realism contains just about all of its appeal because, to be honest, this is a pretty boring movie. A filmmaking style capable of great suspense is let down by shallow, forgettable characters. This is a tough one to love or hate, leaving Dunkirk with a mysteriously mediocre result. I will now attempt to review something that isn’t interesting enough to praise, but also not bad enough to make fun of. Happy Oscar season, everyone.

Characters

Dunkirk’s cast features a collection of interesting people playing uninteresting people. For every great actor on screen, there's an equally great disappointment on paper. It takes a real effort to suck the charisma out of Cillian Murphy, but they managed. The story clearly prioritizes the boots on the ground atmosphere over all else, almost intentionally under-developing its characters to serve a greater purpose. It’s an effective way to lend the audience some perspective on what really matters. The idea is that England herself is the film's hero, and that point is made efficiently enough. But some emotionally captivating leads might’ve heightened the tension, which might’ve altered the fact that I really did not care what happened to anyone in this movie.

World War II: Not Fun After All

It’s refreshing to see a war film that, for once, makes the situation seem larger than anyone in it. You definitely can't call this a "Hollywood" take on war, violence, or history in general. I love Lone Survivor as a movie, but the most important thing in Afghanistan should never be Mark Wahlberg. So there’s something to be said in favor of Dunkirk’s more grounded approach. But it’s not the most fascinating watch, and it certainly isn’t the most entertaining. So you basically end up feeling nothing, enjoying nothing, and only having learned that World War II was probably a bad time. That’s something you may very well know already.

Presentation and Subtleties

Dunkirk isn’t all bad. The film has great sights and sounds, all of which contribute to some suspenseful sequences. The cast is strong, regardless of the material. And it’s the first sans-Batman movie Christopher Nolan’s made this century that doesn’t feel like he’s desperately trying to be the smartest guy in the room. It's one of the least manipulative titles in his history, managing to survive all the way until the film's final few minutes before telling you how to feel. So much of Dunkirk’s presentation has the subtleties that should stand out among the more grandiose Oscar bait. But a great deal of subtlety comes at the expense of more memorable characters.

Academy SparkNotes

I honestly wonder if the Academy watched this movie. That obviously sounds harsh; I only mean to say this one looks more like a nominee from a distance. Dunkirkis nominated for Best Picture and, before I saw it for myself, everything about the film did seem like an award season regular. The director, concept, and cast are like an Academy Award Mad Lib. But having actually experienced the movie, I now see that absolutely nothing in Dunkirk stays with you. For such an impactful story, the retelling made very little. So I’m tempted to join the coalition of conspiracy theorists and say the Academy may occasionally profile a few of their choices without giving things a closer look. They may have “skimmed” this one, so to speak.

The Verdict

You can miss this one unless you're marathoning the Best Picture nominees. If that's the case, hope it's somewhere in the middle when you're hitting the wall and can't pay full attention to anything. This time around, Oscar catchup felt a bit like homework. The best thing about Dunkirk? I felt unfulfilled and had to watch another movie after it ended. Turns out The Big Sick is pretty great. There’s my Dunkirk review: go check out The Big Sick.