Dunkirk 2017 123movies

Watch: Dunkirk 2017 123movies, Full Movie Online – May/June 1940. Four hundred thousand British and French soldiers are hole up in the French port town of Dunkirk. The only way out is via sea, and the Germans have air superiority, bombing the British soldiers and ships without much opposition. The situation looks dire and, in desperation, Britain sends civilian boats in addition to its hard-pressed Navy to try to evacuate the beleaguered forces. This is that story, seen through the eyes of a soldier amongst those trapped forces, two Royal Air Force fighter pilots, and a group of civilians on their boat, part of the evacuation fleet..
Plot: The story of the miraculous evacuation of Allied soldiers from Belgium, Britain, Canada and France, who were cut off and surrounded by the German army from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk between May 26th and June 4th 1940 during World War II.
Smart Tags: #world_war_two #1940s #soldier #beach #evacuation #military #spitfire #world_war_two_in_france #air_attack #yacht #sinking_ship #survival #shell_shock #england #army #france #rescue_mission #year_1940 #airforce_pilot #military_officer #royal_air_force

Find Alternative – Dunkirk 2017, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.8/10 Votes: 656,402
	92% | RottenTomatoes
	94/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 14579 Popularity: 35.909 | TMDB

Reviews:

Dunkirk is a beautiful and unconventional World War 2 epic that is undoubtedly captivating, but it takes risks that may alienate some viewers.

When people talk about a film they think it’s about the setting, but it’s actually about the characters. Saving Private Ryan isn’t about World War 2. It tells a story about a squad of soldiers tasked with finding a young Private Ryan and getting him back safely to his family. Saying Dunkirk is a film about the Battle of Dunkirk however, is not inaccurate. The setting and characters are one. The choppy waters of the English Channel are equally as important, if not more so than the people who fought and died in them. As much as this makes for an interesting way to make a mainstream war film, it’s also the reason why I wouldn’t care to sit through it again. In some ways, it feels like watching a documentary with the narration turned off.

I walked away impressed, and at the same time emotionally and intellectually unfulfilled.

I have put off viewing this film for quite a while. The main reason for this is that I am somewhat reluctant watching a movie where the story is pretty well known before you sit down to watch it. However a few days ago I finally did and, given all the hype, I have to say that I expected more, a lot more.

Sure the movie is a cinematically very well down movie. Acting, camera and all that is excellent. Unfortunately that is all there is.

First of all, where the hell did the over-inflated budget go? Dunkirk was a major undertaking with almost 400 000 soldiers involved and hundreds and hundreds of boats. We get to see what? A few columns of soldiers, a handful of boats and three pitiful spitfires against a bomber and two Fock Wulfes. To add to this insult we pretty much get to see the same bloody event over and over from different angles. This is an insult to all the brave men that made this rescue possible.

There are a few likable people in the movie. Like the Navy commander and the elderly guy on the pleasure boat steaming to rescue. The rest are either psychotic or morons.

Realism? Not so much. Like the scene where a bunch of soldiers are trapped in a boat being shot to pieces. Would any one in their right mind really have thought they could plug dozens and dozens of holes with their hands and then sail across the channel?

Then we have the spitfire which runs out of fuel and glides around forever over the beach so the director can get some scenic shots done. Other times fairly large boats gets damaged and flips over in seconds.

I would also have expected some pre-story. Some build up. But no, the story starts right away with these measly handful of boats and planes taking for bloody ever to drag themselves over to where they are supposed to go.

Quite a disappointment indeed.

A short review with a longer explanation of why its OK that this movie didn’t have any “characters”
Dunkirk is, in my opinion, yet another masterpiece from mastermind Christopher Nolan. Since everything that is brilliant about the film has already been said I will briefly write what I think of the film and also touch on a topic that some people are criticizing the movie for.

The fantastically directed film is told from 3 perspectives non chronologically. It superbly tackles the narrative and the non linear story doesn’t at all pull you away from the intensity of the events happening on screen that don’t stop from 00:00 to the last scene. Hans Zimmer most likely gives one of the most fitting scores for a war film ever. Sometimes there is only one note playing followed by heartbeat sounds and a ticking clock while other times a massive orchestra is interpreting what is going on on screen. The movie brilliantly projects the feeling of each and every soldier on the beach to the audience. Confusion, turmoil and fear. The cinematography was breathtaking and I felt anxious throughout most of the run time. There is no lead in this film and I can’t really say anyone stuck out as giving a brilliant performance because it wasn’t needed and I’ll explain why.

The biggest criticisms of Dunkirk that I’ve heard of so far are that the characters are lacking in depth and that we aren’t given anything to be invested in them. I feel like Nolan was trying (successfully) to make the audience care for each and every one of the men on the beach. He needed to have some form of “main characters” to be in the story so that we can see the events unfold from the direct perspective of all of the soldiers. Usually in war films (I’ll use saving private Ryan as an example) the plot revolves around certain soldiers (like Cpt. Miller and Ryan) being in a war and doing things in the war but its still about THEM not THE WAR as much. In my opinion Dunkirk is a telling the STORY OF DUNKIRK. Not of Harry Style’s character or Tom Hardy’s character but of Dunkirk. What any of the “main characters” felt, every other soldier felt. Nolan resorted more to film-making techniques to tell the story rather than dialogue and that is why some people might have had a problem with the lack of character depth but realistically this type of terrible event wouldn’t be a place for someone to “develop” as a character but rather a event where MEN WANTED ONLY SURVIVAL, and Nolan showed that perfectly. As for what the top review of Dunkirk on IMDb says about ‘lack of emotion’ in the film, I believe this to be a completely incorrect statement. Maybe he was referring to the lack of ‘brotherhood amongst men’ or the feeling of moral or something epic like that. Again the longing for the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ format of war films. What the reviewer fails to see is that realistically there was NO emotion on that beach besides fear and confusion. And I can safely say that Nolan and Zimmer and the DP all successfully gave us those feelings.

9.5/10

A short review with a longer explanation of why its OK that this movie didn’t have any “characters”
Dunkirk is, in my opinion, yet another masterpiece from mastermind Christopher Nolan. Since everything that is brilliant about the film has already been said I will briefly write what I think of the film and also touch on a topic that some people are criticizing the movie for.

The fantastically directed film is told from 3 perspectives non chronologically. It superbly tackles the narrative and the non linear story doesn’t at all pull you away from the intensity of the events happening on screen that don’t stop from 00:00 to the last scene. Hans Zimmer most likely gives one of the most fitting scores for a war film ever. Sometimes there is only one note playing followed by heartbeat sounds and a ticking clock while other times a massive orchestra is interpreting what is going on on screen. The movie brilliantly projects the feeling of each and every soldier on the beach to the audience. Confusion, turmoil and fear. The cinematography was breathtaking and I felt anxious throughout most of the run time. There is no lead in this film and I can’t really say anyone stuck out as giving a brilliant performance because it wasn’t needed and I’ll explain why.

The biggest criticisms of Dunkirk that I’ve heard of so far are that the characters are lacking in depth and that we aren’t given anything to be invested in them. I feel like Nolan was trying (successfully) to make the audience care for each and every one of the men on the beach. He needed to have some form of “main characters” to be in the story so that we can see the events unfold from the direct perspective of all of the soldiers. Usually in war films (I’ll use saving private Ryan as an example) the plot revolves around certain soldiers (like Cpt. Miller and Ryan) being in a war and doing things in the war but its still about THEM not THE WAR as much. In my opinion Dunkirk is a telling the STORY OF DUNKIRK. Not of Harry Style’s character or Tom Hardy’s character but of Dunkirk. What any of the “main characters” felt, every other soldier felt. Nolan resorted more to film-making techniques to tell the story rather than dialogue and that is why some people might have had a problem with the lack of character depth but realistically this type of terrible event wouldn’t be a place for someone to “develop” as a character but rather a event where MEN WANTED ONLY SURVIVAL, and Nolan showed that perfectly. As for what the top review of Dunkirk on IMDb says about ‘lack of emotion’ in the film, I believe this to be a completely incorrect statement. Maybe he was referring to the lack of ‘brotherhood amongst men’ or the feeling of moral or something epic like that. Again the longing for the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ format of war films. What the reviewer fails to see is that realistically there was NO emotion on that beach besides fear and confusion. And I can safely say that Nolan and Zimmer and the DP all successfully gave us those feelings.

9.5/10

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 46 min (106 min)
Budget 100000000
Revenue 527000000
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Action, Drama, History
Director Christopher Nolan
Writer Christopher Nolan
Actors Fionn Whitehead, Barry Keoghan, Mark Rylance
Country United Kingdom, Netherlands, France, United States
Awards Won 3 Oscars. 66 wins & 235 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Dolby (5.1), Sonics-DDP, Dolby Digital
Aspect Ratio 1.43 : 1 (IMAX 70mm and Laser: most scenes), 1.78 : 1 (IMAX Blu-ray and 4K UHD – most scenes), 1.90 : 1 (Digital IMAX: most scenes), 2.20 : 1, 2.20 : 1 (70mm and Digital), 2.39 : 1 (35mm)
Camera IMAX MKIV, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses, IMAX MSM 9802, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses, Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses, Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses
Laboratory FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (prints)
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 65 mm (also horizontal) (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (2017 remaster), IMAX, Panavision Super 70
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383), 70 mm (also horizontal) (also IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383), D-Cinema