A few Dunkirk comments

Saw Dunkirk today and was suitably impressed.

I tried not to "over review" myself about this movie before I saw it, but I did see enough from them to agree with these observations that have already been made:

*  it's very Nolan, with its use of different narrative time lines cut together;

*  If comparing it to the work of another director, Kubrick does come to mind, partly because of the very innovative score (as with Kubrick's crucial use of music in 2001), but also because of a certain emotional coolness that comes with how they both handle character.  I think in both directors there is always something of an awareness that the characters are mainly to serve a story, rather than to be an emotional anchor for the viewer.  (Some critics somewhere will have explained this clearer, but that will do for now.)   This is not necessarily a bad thing in a movie, although I would say it is entirely the reason I thought Full Metal Jacket was terrible.  It's more of an observation - a Kubrick movie can be fantastic and memorable regardless (2001, The Shining.)

* Perhaps the very best thing about it is that which attracted everyone's attention as soon as the first trailer appeared - the realism that comes with using real boats, ships and planes.  It looks for all the world like a film made with nearly no CGI effects, and it's a great reminder of how that be can be a fantastic thing in a movie. 

I was also pleased to read the Slate article about its historical accuracy after I saw it, and found that there is very little that is objectionable from a historical perspective.     (There was one minor detail that I found jarring, but I won't mention it here just in case it bothers someone reading who hasn't seen it yet.)

But, yeah, a pretty great film, and I hope it gets rewarded with generous box office success.