Movie Review: War for the Planet of the Apes and Dunkirk
Jul 24, 2017 9:32:40 GMT -5
amig0 and Bill like this
Post by Sgt. AWOLaLot on Jul 24, 2017 9:32:40 GMT -5
Saw both of these this weekend and very satisfied with both. Reeves offers a great ending to the prequel Planet of the Apes trilogy and once again Nolan impresses with his first war film. It seems he can do no wrong.
Written July 23rd, 2017: War for the Planet of the Apes
""Apes. Together. Strong." Finally got to see War for the Planet of the Apes, and I'd say it was a satisfying and appropriate conclusion to Reeve's prequel Apes trilogy. It's also the most consistently good film trilogy we've gotten since The Dark Knight Trilogy.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) is directed by Matt Reeves and stars Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, and Amiah Miller. As a result of the events that took place in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the apes and humans are at war. The humans seem to be gaining the upper hand however, and the apes are on the defensive. Caesar, who at this point is a battle hardened warrior and a full fledged leader, knows that his kind won't last much longer if they are continually hunted. When a possible new settlement is found the apes are eager to leave, but preparations must be made first. Before they are able to leave however, a tragic act of war lead by the Colonel (which resulted from Caesar showing mercy) leads Caesar down a path of vengeance and anger. And as one might expect, this path has its consequences that Caesar will come to regret. To quote General Shepherd, "You know what they say about revenge: You better be ready to dig two graves." What ensues is yet another well crafted, intriguing, and thankfully smart blockbuster film.
I'll start by being brutally honest. There isn't a lot of war in this film, despite the title. So if you're expecting to see two hours of apes fighting humans in a super exciting, CGI-infested, gigantic battle, you will be disappointed. However if you were a fan of the previous two films and appreciate the intelligence behind them (especially for a blockbuster) and you love the characters, then you'll enjoy what is arguably the best film in the trilogy.
By far my favorite part of this film and trilogy as a whole is the themes and dilemmas that gives it a deeper and darker edge over other blockbusters. One element it had that I wasn't expecting was that it made references to Koba, the rebel ape from the previous film. He almost took the apes away from Caesar and was ultimately responsible for starting the war with the humans. While Koba has been dead for a while, his shadow still hangs over the apes.
The most interesting theme in the film though is probably the theme dealing with the decisions that one must make as a leader, even when those decisions border on the extreme. This comes to the forefront in the scenes shared between Caesar and The Colonel. I can't say too much because I don't want to reveal anything, but after Caesar is captured (this was in the trailer, so not counting that as a spoiler) there is a wonderful scene where The Colonel explains some of his methods and actions to Caesar. This isn't a war to just gain land or resources. It's a war for survival. Caesar says he fights only to protect apes, and had no intention of capturing or eliminating the humans. But as any sociologist would tell you, it wouldn't remain that simple in a world where its inhabitants are trying to reform themselves. The Colonel believes it's him or Caesar. The humans or the apes. Because of the apes newly found intelligence, the world is no longer big enough for both of them to coexist. So while The Colonel is the antagonist in this film, one must admit he has a point. Every creature from a human down to a cat has that feral, primitive survival gene. While these films are made so that Caesar and the apes are seen as the protagonists, in real life I know I'd probably be fighting with The Colonel. Not necessarily because I want to, but because it has become necessary for survival. This is where the intelligence behind these films come to light.
Now on to the acting and the characters. Andy Serkis as Caesar is once again fantastic. This film gives us an angrier Caesar and he's pretty sullen for most of it. As a result he either speaks pretty monotone or he's yelling. It might not seem like a lot of range as far as acting goes, but because of the events that take place it makes sense to see Caesar this way. And there are a few moments where he's more tender.
Woody Harrelson as The Colonel was also very good. The Colonel is a very hardened man, who feels that man as a species has their back against the wall. As a result, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to save them. I actually really liked his character because he was given enough depth to make him more than just the bad guy.
Then there's Steve Zahn as Bad Ape, an intelligent ape who escaped a zoo but never joined with Caesar. He is more of a comic relief character and adds some levity to the film. And I liked his character. He was also handled smartly, given just enough funny moments without him becoming an annoying character. He was an addition I enjoyed.
Lastly I want to applaud Amiah Miller for playing a little girl named Nova. Her character is unable to speak (which is an important tidbit, but I will explain no more than that), and she joins with Caesar and Maurice (the orangutan) after losing what I think was her father. Her character is actually also very interesting because she is kind of seen as a symbol of hope that the humans and apes could still coexist. However, there's actually a darker meaning behind her character and what it means for the future of humans.
Now for the technical aspects. First off, I love the way Matt Reeve's directed this film. He doesn't get as artsy or drawn out with his scenes like Terrence Malick or Inarritu, but he does show some restraint and allows some shots to carry on for a few seconds before making cuts. I also liked the way he would do slow horizontal camera sweeps or slow closeups.
The motion capture was also very good. While the apes still don't quite look real (actors in good costumes would still look better), it is still very impressive and I wasn't distracted by it at all.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino (he also did Dawn, while Patrick Doyle did Rise). I liked this score more than I remember liking the one for Dawn, and I think that's partially because I could actually hear it this time. There weren't any themes I could hum after only hearing them once, but there are a few passages that stood out like a theme played on brass when Caesar is with his family. I also remember something like a vibraphone or marimba (some percussive mallet instrument) playing a repeating rhythm during an escape sequence.
Once again, I felt War for the Planet of the Apes was a great conclusion to this prequel trilogy (how about that, a prequel trilogy that a lot of people love). There isn't as much war as one might expect, which will disappoint some. I knew going in that the "war" part would be lacking, but wasn't disappointed in the least. This was a very good movie and the best movie I've seen this year since Logan (sorry Spider-Man). We'll see if Dunkirk beats it later today. And after seeing these films, I am very excited to see what Matt Reeves does with the next solo Batman film. While Wonder Woman was pretty good, I'm putting my money on his Batman film to be the first great DCEU film."
Written July 24th, 2017: Dunkirk
""We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Now to talk about Christopher Nolan's first attempt at a war film and one of the very few British war films, Dunkirk. Once again, Nolan has proven himself as one of the best directors working today. And I can't quite make an official call, but I might have liked Dunkirk more than Hacksaw Ridge.
Dunkirk (2017) is an English war film directed and written by Christopher Nolan and stars Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard, Mark Rylance, Jack Lowden, Kenneth Branagh, Harry Styles (yes, that Harry Styles from One Direction), and Tom Hardy. It focuses on the evacuation at Dunkirk, France in late spring of 1940. The Germans have broken through the Maginot Line across France and Belgium and have pushed the British Expeditionary Force (with support from French troops) back to the French coastline. With about 400,000 men on the beach, the British are well aware of how disastrous it would be to have that many men captured, especially when they would have expected a German land invasion afterwards. It is also for this reason the British military is unwilling to commit a large number of war ships or planes from the Royal Air Force to assist with an evacuation, preferring to keep most of them to be able to mount a defense. Instead a large number of civilian ships were requisitioned for the evacuation, most of them with trained naval crews; though there were a few with civilian crews as portrayed in the film. What ensues is definitely one of the best war films I've ever seen. The tension is high as all of the characters in the film are racing against the clock. With the English Channel on one side and a valiant but outmatched French rearguard on the other, the situation is dire for the men on the beach.
Dunkirk is not a traditional war film, however. Whereas war films/productions like Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge, Band of Brothers, or American Sniper focus on the characters and give us more character driven scenes to help the audience connect with these characters, Dunkirk isn't really a film with a focus on a small number of characters. It focuses more on the situation at hand rather than building up its characters. There are no character driven scenes with men sitting in a circle asking questions like, "What did you do back home?", "You got a girl waiting for you?", or "So where are you from?" This is a film that takes you into the action within the first minute of the film (I'd guess between 40 to 60 seconds), and doesn't fully relax until the very end. What I mean by that is that this film doesn't let you forget the situation these men are in; Nolan is trying to put you into the shoes of the soldiers, not allowing you to fully relax until the soldiers are safe at home. Even when you aren't under attack, there's still the harsh reality that you might not make it home. For those of you that prefer to have in depth character development, this might deter you. This is understandable, and I certainly consider character development to be more important than mindless action scenes. But because this is more of a war film thriller and Nolan treats it respectfully, the lack of deep characters didn't bother me. It's kind of like Rogue One actually. It's about the mission at hand and what will result from it. While the characters in the story are important, the mission itself is the main focus. And it wasn't the actions of just a few select people that made the Dunkirk evacuation a success. It was the actions of many that resulted in a logistical marvel that saved the British Army.
And that's one thing I really liked about Dunkirk. Compared to other war films, Dunkirk actually has a very ambitious and large scale to it. It's actually split into three different parts, each with their own story that eventually meld together. Once again Nolan has gone for a non-traditional plot structure and yet is able to bring it together wonderfully. It's not nearly as disjointed as something like Memento, but still not your traditional A to B plot. And where other films will often get too ambitious (usually when it doesn't need to), Dunkirk is a film in which it's well warranted.
The three parts consist of one on land (The Mole), The Sea, and The Air. The Mole takes place over a week, The Sea over one day, and The Air over one hour. The Mole focuses on the men on the beach as they wait to be rescued, avoiding dive bombers and machine gun fire in the process. The Sea focuses on a civilian sailor and his two sons as he takes his yacht to help with the evacuation. And The Air focuses on three Spitfires providing what cover they can, shooting down Messerschmitt Me-109s and Heinkel bombers while keeping an eye on their fuel. While it is generally a bad idea to add too many subplots in a film, the way that Nolan handles them and connects them is actually very impressive. While these three storylines take place separately and even over different time periods, they are all very focused and concise. The characters in each storyline are all being affected by the same event, and they all have the sense of urgency that keeps the tension and excitement in the film going. And when these subplots do cross paths or even meld together, it feels like a natural progression. It doesn't feel forced. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm impressed with what Nolan did. The man knows how to tell a story, and I love the unique ways he goes about doing it.
Each one of these subplots had very memorable moments, but some of my favorites were definitely from The Air subplot. The dogfight scenes were spectacular, with the camera viewpoints taking you into the action. They also allowed for some beautiful visual shots of the English Channel and other overhead shots. This would have been fantastic to see in an IMAX.
The Mole subplot probably had the most tense moments in the film, especially the scenes where the men are trying to escape a sinking ship and swim out into the open. There's also another sequence where some soldiers are hiding out in an abandoned boat, only to be shot at through the hull.
And this is where I'll start getting into the technical aspects. One of the best parts about this film, and one of the most important for any war film, was the sound design. This is without a doubt the best sounding war film since Saving Private Ryan, and the guys on the sound design team deserve some awards for it. I've read stories where soldiers talked about how terrifying it was to hear Stuka dive-bombers bear down on you. And this film tries its hardest to have you experience that same fear. While I wasn't scared since my life wasn't in danger, if I was a British soldier on that beach back then I'd be hitting the deck when I heard the whining, descending plane engine. I smiled every time I heard it in the film because of how awesomely terrifying it was. The sound design in the dogfights was great as well. One thing I noticed is that when you are given a view from in the cockpit, you can still hear the rattling as the wind blows over the body of the plane. The reason this is so cool to me is because most films would probably mute all of that out in favor of allowing the audience to hear the pilot speak clearly. Actually, it wouldn't have been recorded in the first place because most films would have used CGI planes for the outside shots and green screen shots for the cockpit. It's little things like that where you can see how much care Nolan put into making this film immersive.
And that's another thing that was great about this film. It uses very little CGI and practical effects are EVERYWHERE. I loved it. It used actual Spitfires and Me-109s, over 60 ships (some of which were used in the actual evacuation, code-named Operation Dynamo) and 50 boats during filming, including destroyers, and 6,000 character extras.
As for Nolan's directing, once again I loved it. While his style doesn't feel quite as precise as Villeneuve, Nolan is great at making films for the big screen. There are a lot of great visuals and shots that were glorious, and it's a shame I probably won't get to see them on a screen of that size again. I especially loved the dogfight sequences, as he switched between Tom Hardy's face to a view looking through the aiming reticle.
As for the acting, I thought it was very good. When Nolan was doing research on Operation Dynamo, he learned that many of the soldiers were quite young and inexperienced. This inspired him to higher younger, unknown actors for many parts, particularly for The Mole. Consequently this was the first acting performance for Harry Styles and Fionn Whitehead. Again, no single character was meant to be the main focus of the film so no one actor really stands out. But they all seemed good.
The score was composed by Nolan's usual collaborator, Hans Zimmer. Because of the film's sense of urgency and thriller-like characteristics, Zimmer's score is usually pretty cold and tense. He reportedly used a recording of Nolan's pocket watch for the ticking heard in the music, and used other electronic elements. I find it interesting that out of all the war films I've seen, Zimmer chose the two (the other being The Thin Red Line) that didn't really need a more traditional, patriotic score. While a more organic and patriotic score could have worked, I can't deny Zimmer did well with helping to build the tension in the film. It might not be great for a solo listen, but it fits the film very well.
I remember being very excited when this film was first announced and couldn't wait to see what Nolan would do with a war film. And you know what, he's made yet another great film. I'm also very happy to see a World War II film displaying a British event. The only other war film I've seen with a major British influence was The Bridge on the River Kwai. While I will never tire of seeing good films from the American perspective, those aren't the only stories to tell. World War II was so expansive and there are many stories that could be put to film, fictional or non-fictional. I hope the success of this film leads to others. I'd love to see a film cover the Battle of El Alamein, the St. Nazaire raid, Cunningham chasing the Italians across the desert, the Battle of Arnhem, or the Battle of Caen.
There's also one more thing I want to touch on. Christopher Nolan will always have some very vocal haters (as any actor, singer, director, or whatever does). He's been criticized for having too much exposition, having pretentious screenplays, and for just being overrated in general. And if one was to compare him to the likes of Spielberg, Coppola, Martin Scorcese, or Alfred Hitchcock, they'd be asking to get torn apart. But the truth is, whether Nolan's detractors like it or not, Nolan will be remembered for his films and will someday be in that "greatest director ever" conversation. He redefined what a super hero film was capable of with The Dark Knight Trilogy, and many super hero films tried to follow suit by getting darker and grittier. And he's made blockbusters that not only can appeal to general audiences but also allow for more intellectual viewers to analyze it and go deeper (Inception). Nolan isn't without his flaws, I agree. But I've watched his movies to see if any of the complaints against him bother me personally. And they don't. I've loved every film he's directed so far, and he probably has the most consistently good filmography since the year 2000 out of any other director in that same time. But for anyone that says, "Show me his Oscars then" I'm automatically not going to value their opinion. That's because I've finally learned that awards mean nothing. If the academy can completely snub Saving Private Ryan in favor of a British comedy, choose Chicago over Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or consider Avatar to be in the same league as District 9, then I just can't always trust their judgement. And for anyone that doesn't share this love, it's kind of a shame. Not because I think I'm better than them or that I think they're stupid. I just feel bad they don't share the same joy or excitement I do when I see his films. And I've felt this myself. A lot of people loved Mad Max: Fury Road and consider it an action movie masterpiece. I didn't even come close to loving it, and all I can do is sit here and wonder what I was missing. But that's art for you."
Written July 23rd, 2017: War for the Planet of the Apes
""Apes. Together. Strong." Finally got to see War for the Planet of the Apes, and I'd say it was a satisfying and appropriate conclusion to Reeve's prequel Apes trilogy. It's also the most consistently good film trilogy we've gotten since The Dark Knight Trilogy.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) is directed by Matt Reeves and stars Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, and Amiah Miller. As a result of the events that took place in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the apes and humans are at war. The humans seem to be gaining the upper hand however, and the apes are on the defensive. Caesar, who at this point is a battle hardened warrior and a full fledged leader, knows that his kind won't last much longer if they are continually hunted. When a possible new settlement is found the apes are eager to leave, but preparations must be made first. Before they are able to leave however, a tragic act of war lead by the Colonel (which resulted from Caesar showing mercy) leads Caesar down a path of vengeance and anger. And as one might expect, this path has its consequences that Caesar will come to regret. To quote General Shepherd, "You know what they say about revenge: You better be ready to dig two graves." What ensues is yet another well crafted, intriguing, and thankfully smart blockbuster film.
I'll start by being brutally honest. There isn't a lot of war in this film, despite the title. So if you're expecting to see two hours of apes fighting humans in a super exciting, CGI-infested, gigantic battle, you will be disappointed. However if you were a fan of the previous two films and appreciate the intelligence behind them (especially for a blockbuster) and you love the characters, then you'll enjoy what is arguably the best film in the trilogy.
By far my favorite part of this film and trilogy as a whole is the themes and dilemmas that gives it a deeper and darker edge over other blockbusters. One element it had that I wasn't expecting was that it made references to Koba, the rebel ape from the previous film. He almost took the apes away from Caesar and was ultimately responsible for starting the war with the humans. While Koba has been dead for a while, his shadow still hangs over the apes.
The most interesting theme in the film though is probably the theme dealing with the decisions that one must make as a leader, even when those decisions border on the extreme. This comes to the forefront in the scenes shared between Caesar and The Colonel. I can't say too much because I don't want to reveal anything, but after Caesar is captured (this was in the trailer, so not counting that as a spoiler) there is a wonderful scene where The Colonel explains some of his methods and actions to Caesar. This isn't a war to just gain land or resources. It's a war for survival. Caesar says he fights only to protect apes, and had no intention of capturing or eliminating the humans. But as any sociologist would tell you, it wouldn't remain that simple in a world where its inhabitants are trying to reform themselves. The Colonel believes it's him or Caesar. The humans or the apes. Because of the apes newly found intelligence, the world is no longer big enough for both of them to coexist. So while The Colonel is the antagonist in this film, one must admit he has a point. Every creature from a human down to a cat has that feral, primitive survival gene. While these films are made so that Caesar and the apes are seen as the protagonists, in real life I know I'd probably be fighting with The Colonel. Not necessarily because I want to, but because it has become necessary for survival. This is where the intelligence behind these films come to light.
Now on to the acting and the characters. Andy Serkis as Caesar is once again fantastic. This film gives us an angrier Caesar and he's pretty sullen for most of it. As a result he either speaks pretty monotone or he's yelling. It might not seem like a lot of range as far as acting goes, but because of the events that take place it makes sense to see Caesar this way. And there are a few moments where he's more tender.
Woody Harrelson as The Colonel was also very good. The Colonel is a very hardened man, who feels that man as a species has their back against the wall. As a result, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to save them. I actually really liked his character because he was given enough depth to make him more than just the bad guy.
Then there's Steve Zahn as Bad Ape, an intelligent ape who escaped a zoo but never joined with Caesar. He is more of a comic relief character and adds some levity to the film. And I liked his character. He was also handled smartly, given just enough funny moments without him becoming an annoying character. He was an addition I enjoyed.
Lastly I want to applaud Amiah Miller for playing a little girl named Nova. Her character is unable to speak (which is an important tidbit, but I will explain no more than that), and she joins with Caesar and Maurice (the orangutan) after losing what I think was her father. Her character is actually also very interesting because she is kind of seen as a symbol of hope that the humans and apes could still coexist. However, there's actually a darker meaning behind her character and what it means for the future of humans.
Now for the technical aspects. First off, I love the way Matt Reeve's directed this film. He doesn't get as artsy or drawn out with his scenes like Terrence Malick or Inarritu, but he does show some restraint and allows some shots to carry on for a few seconds before making cuts. I also liked the way he would do slow horizontal camera sweeps or slow closeups.
The motion capture was also very good. While the apes still don't quite look real (actors in good costumes would still look better), it is still very impressive and I wasn't distracted by it at all.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino (he also did Dawn, while Patrick Doyle did Rise). I liked this score more than I remember liking the one for Dawn, and I think that's partially because I could actually hear it this time. There weren't any themes I could hum after only hearing them once, but there are a few passages that stood out like a theme played on brass when Caesar is with his family. I also remember something like a vibraphone or marimba (some percussive mallet instrument) playing a repeating rhythm during an escape sequence.
Once again, I felt War for the Planet of the Apes was a great conclusion to this prequel trilogy (how about that, a prequel trilogy that a lot of people love). There isn't as much war as one might expect, which will disappoint some. I knew going in that the "war" part would be lacking, but wasn't disappointed in the least. This was a very good movie and the best movie I've seen this year since Logan (sorry Spider-Man). We'll see if Dunkirk beats it later today. And after seeing these films, I am very excited to see what Matt Reeves does with the next solo Batman film. While Wonder Woman was pretty good, I'm putting my money on his Batman film to be the first great DCEU film."
Written July 24th, 2017: Dunkirk
""We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Now to talk about Christopher Nolan's first attempt at a war film and one of the very few British war films, Dunkirk. Once again, Nolan has proven himself as one of the best directors working today. And I can't quite make an official call, but I might have liked Dunkirk more than Hacksaw Ridge.
Dunkirk (2017) is an English war film directed and written by Christopher Nolan and stars Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard, Mark Rylance, Jack Lowden, Kenneth Branagh, Harry Styles (yes, that Harry Styles from One Direction), and Tom Hardy. It focuses on the evacuation at Dunkirk, France in late spring of 1940. The Germans have broken through the Maginot Line across France and Belgium and have pushed the British Expeditionary Force (with support from French troops) back to the French coastline. With about 400,000 men on the beach, the British are well aware of how disastrous it would be to have that many men captured, especially when they would have expected a German land invasion afterwards. It is also for this reason the British military is unwilling to commit a large number of war ships or planes from the Royal Air Force to assist with an evacuation, preferring to keep most of them to be able to mount a defense. Instead a large number of civilian ships were requisitioned for the evacuation, most of them with trained naval crews; though there were a few with civilian crews as portrayed in the film. What ensues is definitely one of the best war films I've ever seen. The tension is high as all of the characters in the film are racing against the clock. With the English Channel on one side and a valiant but outmatched French rearguard on the other, the situation is dire for the men on the beach.
Dunkirk is not a traditional war film, however. Whereas war films/productions like Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge, Band of Brothers, or American Sniper focus on the characters and give us more character driven scenes to help the audience connect with these characters, Dunkirk isn't really a film with a focus on a small number of characters. It focuses more on the situation at hand rather than building up its characters. There are no character driven scenes with men sitting in a circle asking questions like, "What did you do back home?", "You got a girl waiting for you?", or "So where are you from?" This is a film that takes you into the action within the first minute of the film (I'd guess between 40 to 60 seconds), and doesn't fully relax until the very end. What I mean by that is that this film doesn't let you forget the situation these men are in; Nolan is trying to put you into the shoes of the soldiers, not allowing you to fully relax until the soldiers are safe at home. Even when you aren't under attack, there's still the harsh reality that you might not make it home. For those of you that prefer to have in depth character development, this might deter you. This is understandable, and I certainly consider character development to be more important than mindless action scenes. But because this is more of a war film thriller and Nolan treats it respectfully, the lack of deep characters didn't bother me. It's kind of like Rogue One actually. It's about the mission at hand and what will result from it. While the characters in the story are important, the mission itself is the main focus. And it wasn't the actions of just a few select people that made the Dunkirk evacuation a success. It was the actions of many that resulted in a logistical marvel that saved the British Army.
And that's one thing I really liked about Dunkirk. Compared to other war films, Dunkirk actually has a very ambitious and large scale to it. It's actually split into three different parts, each with their own story that eventually meld together. Once again Nolan has gone for a non-traditional plot structure and yet is able to bring it together wonderfully. It's not nearly as disjointed as something like Memento, but still not your traditional A to B plot. And where other films will often get too ambitious (usually when it doesn't need to), Dunkirk is a film in which it's well warranted.
The three parts consist of one on land (The Mole), The Sea, and The Air. The Mole takes place over a week, The Sea over one day, and The Air over one hour. The Mole focuses on the men on the beach as they wait to be rescued, avoiding dive bombers and machine gun fire in the process. The Sea focuses on a civilian sailor and his two sons as he takes his yacht to help with the evacuation. And The Air focuses on three Spitfires providing what cover they can, shooting down Messerschmitt Me-109s and Heinkel bombers while keeping an eye on their fuel. While it is generally a bad idea to add too many subplots in a film, the way that Nolan handles them and connects them is actually very impressive. While these three storylines take place separately and even over different time periods, they are all very focused and concise. The characters in each storyline are all being affected by the same event, and they all have the sense of urgency that keeps the tension and excitement in the film going. And when these subplots do cross paths or even meld together, it feels like a natural progression. It doesn't feel forced. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm impressed with what Nolan did. The man knows how to tell a story, and I love the unique ways he goes about doing it.
Each one of these subplots had very memorable moments, but some of my favorites were definitely from The Air subplot. The dogfight scenes were spectacular, with the camera viewpoints taking you into the action. They also allowed for some beautiful visual shots of the English Channel and other overhead shots. This would have been fantastic to see in an IMAX.
The Mole subplot probably had the most tense moments in the film, especially the scenes where the men are trying to escape a sinking ship and swim out into the open. There's also another sequence where some soldiers are hiding out in an abandoned boat, only to be shot at through the hull.
And this is where I'll start getting into the technical aspects. One of the best parts about this film, and one of the most important for any war film, was the sound design. This is without a doubt the best sounding war film since Saving Private Ryan, and the guys on the sound design team deserve some awards for it. I've read stories where soldiers talked about how terrifying it was to hear Stuka dive-bombers bear down on you. And this film tries its hardest to have you experience that same fear. While I wasn't scared since my life wasn't in danger, if I was a British soldier on that beach back then I'd be hitting the deck when I heard the whining, descending plane engine. I smiled every time I heard it in the film because of how awesomely terrifying it was. The sound design in the dogfights was great as well. One thing I noticed is that when you are given a view from in the cockpit, you can still hear the rattling as the wind blows over the body of the plane. The reason this is so cool to me is because most films would probably mute all of that out in favor of allowing the audience to hear the pilot speak clearly. Actually, it wouldn't have been recorded in the first place because most films would have used CGI planes for the outside shots and green screen shots for the cockpit. It's little things like that where you can see how much care Nolan put into making this film immersive.
And that's another thing that was great about this film. It uses very little CGI and practical effects are EVERYWHERE. I loved it. It used actual Spitfires and Me-109s, over 60 ships (some of which were used in the actual evacuation, code-named Operation Dynamo) and 50 boats during filming, including destroyers, and 6,000 character extras.
As for Nolan's directing, once again I loved it. While his style doesn't feel quite as precise as Villeneuve, Nolan is great at making films for the big screen. There are a lot of great visuals and shots that were glorious, and it's a shame I probably won't get to see them on a screen of that size again. I especially loved the dogfight sequences, as he switched between Tom Hardy's face to a view looking through the aiming reticle.
As for the acting, I thought it was very good. When Nolan was doing research on Operation Dynamo, he learned that many of the soldiers were quite young and inexperienced. This inspired him to higher younger, unknown actors for many parts, particularly for The Mole. Consequently this was the first acting performance for Harry Styles and Fionn Whitehead. Again, no single character was meant to be the main focus of the film so no one actor really stands out. But they all seemed good.
The score was composed by Nolan's usual collaborator, Hans Zimmer. Because of the film's sense of urgency and thriller-like characteristics, Zimmer's score is usually pretty cold and tense. He reportedly used a recording of Nolan's pocket watch for the ticking heard in the music, and used other electronic elements. I find it interesting that out of all the war films I've seen, Zimmer chose the two (the other being The Thin Red Line) that didn't really need a more traditional, patriotic score. While a more organic and patriotic score could have worked, I can't deny Zimmer did well with helping to build the tension in the film. It might not be great for a solo listen, but it fits the film very well.
I remember being very excited when this film was first announced and couldn't wait to see what Nolan would do with a war film. And you know what, he's made yet another great film. I'm also very happy to see a World War II film displaying a British event. The only other war film I've seen with a major British influence was The Bridge on the River Kwai. While I will never tire of seeing good films from the American perspective, those aren't the only stories to tell. World War II was so expansive and there are many stories that could be put to film, fictional or non-fictional. I hope the success of this film leads to others. I'd love to see a film cover the Battle of El Alamein, the St. Nazaire raid, Cunningham chasing the Italians across the desert, the Battle of Arnhem, or the Battle of Caen.
There's also one more thing I want to touch on. Christopher Nolan will always have some very vocal haters (as any actor, singer, director, or whatever does). He's been criticized for having too much exposition, having pretentious screenplays, and for just being overrated in general. And if one was to compare him to the likes of Spielberg, Coppola, Martin Scorcese, or Alfred Hitchcock, they'd be asking to get torn apart. But the truth is, whether Nolan's detractors like it or not, Nolan will be remembered for his films and will someday be in that "greatest director ever" conversation. He redefined what a super hero film was capable of with The Dark Knight Trilogy, and many super hero films tried to follow suit by getting darker and grittier. And he's made blockbusters that not only can appeal to general audiences but also allow for more intellectual viewers to analyze it and go deeper (Inception). Nolan isn't without his flaws, I agree. But I've watched his movies to see if any of the complaints against him bother me personally. And they don't. I've loved every film he's directed so far, and he probably has the most consistently good filmography since the year 2000 out of any other director in that same time. But for anyone that says, "Show me his Oscars then" I'm automatically not going to value their opinion. That's because I've finally learned that awards mean nothing. If the academy can completely snub Saving Private Ryan in favor of a British comedy, choose Chicago over Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or consider Avatar to be in the same league as District 9, then I just can't always trust their judgement. And for anyone that doesn't share this love, it's kind of a shame. Not because I think I'm better than them or that I think they're stupid. I just feel bad they don't share the same joy or excitement I do when I see his films. And I've felt this myself. A lot of people loved Mad Max: Fury Road and consider it an action movie masterpiece. I didn't even come close to loving it, and all I can do is sit here and wonder what I was missing. But that's art for you."