Watch Dunkirk For Free

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

World War II was a difficult time obviously for the Americans, but the British and French forces also had an extremely difficult time as well. After the events of the German forces invading Poland in 1939, the British Empire and the French were pushed back to evacuate on Dunkirk in Belgium. Christopher Nolan, who directed the Dark Knight Trilogy and many other amazing movies, takes another dark turn in film-making by introducing the new 2017 movie Dunkirk.Dunkirk is a 2017 War film written and directed by Christopher Nolan. Based on a true battle during World War II, this complex War film involves around a British soldier named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) who is one of the 400,000 British soldiers to evacuate. He is focused in the first setting called the Mole. There are three settings to this movie. The second setting takes place in the sea and the third setting takes place in the air. There are also other certain characters, like Farrier (Tom Hardy) in the air and Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance) in the sea, who save as many soldiers as they can in certain places. This specific War film is also famous for its IMAX filming in 35mm and 70mm.If I had to guess what word I would say to describe this movie, the word would probably be complex. Many people would say that a War movie would take place in only one setting or occasion. With Christopher Nolan's work, I don't think so. As I said, there are three settings in this movie. Some situations occur later than others, but they occur before scenes that you probably realized you already saw. It is extremely complex, because I would still understand what is going on with many different settings I could watch in this movie. I can't forget to mention all of the peril in this single movie throughout all that. Death is everywhere in this movie alone. It's not even funny. On the other hand, this movie was still brilliant! It teaches another history story about a certain (and important) event during World War II. After watching Dunkirk, I even went online to do some research on the Dunkirk evacuation. I give credit to Christopher Nolan for another amazing job on his new movie. I've always loved his directing work and it always stunned me for some reason. I also give credit to the moving cinematography, editing, and casting for this movie. It was a truly brilliant and accurate War film.Dunkirk won three Oscars for Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. I actually thought Christopher Nolan might win for Best Director finally, but I guess he didn't in the 90th Academy Awards. Dunkirk was also nominated for Best Picture as well. However, the movie was still brilliant and amazing! I give Dunkirk a 10/10 for its absolutely stunning performances in acting, directing (by Nolan himself), editing, and filming! Christopher Nolan's War film has truly succeeded in my personal opinion. Also, I'm starting my IMDB account and I would like to welcome you to my ratings and reviews for Movies, TV Shows, and more! Check them all out! I hope I can help in convincing everybody to watch more movies! :)

If you like war films, never watch this film. This is film is nothing. No worth to watch. It's like a documentary, but very bad documentary. Don't waste your time and money. I like Nolan's movies but not this one. Very Disappointed Overrated movie.

I am somewhat surprised to see how many people gave low ratings to this move lately, on grounds of it being "devoid of emotion", "lack of compelling characters", or just "plain boring".I guess one reason why this movie is divisive is the fact that we may have been house-trained by the good old simplistic good vs evil story lines. (And I am not even an artsy movie lover, I tend to prefer my action blockbuster.)I suspect another reason is if people were not entirely clear on the importance of the Dunkirk evacuation (Operation Dynamo) - and yes, this movie sort of failed to give that context. I warmly recommend watching Darkest Hour (2017) first, an entirely watchable movie itself with its 7.4 ratings and Gary Oldman superbly portraying Winston Churchill. I actually happened to watch it just before watching Dunkirk, and it may have put me into a receptive state of mind. I would go as far as to say that these two movies from 2017 are twin movies, best to be enjoyed together.(So the significance of the Dunkirk evacuation, if I didn't get it all wrong, please bear with me, is that it salvaged "whole root and core and brain of the British Army, on which [..] we [..] are to build, the great British Armies in the later years of the war" - Churchill. Without his army Churchill might have been forced to ask for terms, perhaps even by his own war cabinet. Without her army, Britain would have been open for a Nazi invasion. And without the defiant British Isles, Continental Europe would have suffered horribly, for a very long time probably. "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free [..]. But if we fail, then the whole world [..] will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age" - again Churchill.)As a person from Continental Europe, I certainly think that the events of Dunkirk are important enough to be told and re-told. Except these particular events do not lend themselves to conventional story telling.First of all, Allied forces were soundly beaten. The 338 thousand troops evacuated did not achieve military (or naval) victory in any sense, they merely escaped, leaving tens of thousands of prisoners and immense quantities of materiel behind. At a first look, the Nazi propaganda seems to have been right to present it to the German public as overwhelming and decisive German victory. Even though Churchill was much relieved to have them troops back, he was also quick to point out that "wars are not won by evacuations".So my first point is that no amount of artistic liberty can, or should put a spin of a victory on this tale, not in the usual sense.My other point is that the topic of this movie cannot even be connected to a single person (or even a well-defined team of persons). The movie is about "Dunkirk Spirit" - I just learned about this term myself, go look it up. It is, by definition, not something one person had, it's something the British people had, at least enough of them, therefore it can only be understood by listening to fragmented personal reports. The makers of this movie set out to show hope for humankind, to show how a number of individuals, mostly insignificant by themselves, made the evacuation possible by choosing to go the extra mile, even though not one of them could ever be blamed afterwards for taking the safer and saner path.So this story is neither about a (clear) victory, nor about a single person (or group of persons), so there goes the usual single good vs evil story line.If one expects a heroic tale of the troops themselves, and most war movies do tend to focus on fighting troops, then I can see how one feels sorely let down by this movie. Perhaps it's the tagline, with the temporal clause "When 400,000 men couldn't get home ..." preceding the main clause "... home came for them" that somehow misdirects the emphasis. Or perhaps it's the poster showing one of the troops, instead of showing the "little boats" that came for the rescue. The wrong exposition can build up the wrong expectations. I thought the fragmented nature and the editing made it clear enough.Anyway, this movie shook me to my very core: the point it makes with its courageous non-linear structure and its story line unattached to a single person was not only invigorating, it felt somehow right, it seemed the only right way to tell this story. Its cinematography, acting and the soundtrack were all awesome. I didn't find myself bored, not for a second.The only reason I won't score this movie 10 is that it forced me to go on about WWII here. I wonder if that historical context, the importance of the evacuation could have been made more clear. Still a masterpiece, 9/10.

Only watched his because of Harry Styles. The movie was boring but harry was good to look at. He is a beautiful person and deserves the world. Goodbye