John Carpenter's The Thing movie review

Here's what you need to know; in the vast, inhospitable wastes of Antarctica, an American research station seemingly find themselves under attack from a nearby Norwegian camp, on closer inspection however, they realise the Norwegians weren't after them, but instead on the hunt for something truly sinister, an alien life form that can assimilate and create perfect copies of its victims, and that has now made itself at home among them. Not knowing who they can trust, and with the tensions rising rapidly, it becomes a battle of wits between the crew, and an enemy that can hide in human skin.
I really liked that line from the summery of my review of the 2011 The Thing, another film I might revisit, so of course I'd use it again. And I did review this film once before on this blog, 2 years ago, but that was back when I put no effort at all into things like presentation, or grammar and spelling, and as such it's really not that good, and I like to think that since then my reviews have improved in quality, so let's go for a second round on what many people, including myself, consider to be one of the best films ever made.

The Thing's opening is beautifully creepy, and one of the most immediate signifiers that this film is something else, as the opening titles play over a silent, black background, and the ominous and outstanding music begins to rise slowly. What follows is our introduction to the setting, Antarctica, and the film very effectively establishes the loneliness of that setting, with the huge mountains and desolate snowy stretches. What this intro also establishes is the film's marvellous cinematography, as we are shown the Norwegians hunting down a dog, a deliberately confusing action. Rather than an introduction to the characters, we are first introduced to the base itself, with a simple but effective wide shot of the base, surrounded by snow and mountains, and to the seemingly mundane life of its crew, as they play table tennis in the rec room. I could probably go through this film shot by shot and explain the effectiveness of each one, and maybe I will one day, but let's keep it simple here. Like a film I may make a few references to; Alien, The Thing does a great job of setting up its characters, while Kurt Russell's MacReady is a more pronounced main character than Ripley was in Alien, it does a fine job of making its other characters compelling as possible suspects in this mystery, no one character is less relevant than the rest, and each one has the spotlight thrust on them at one point or another, as the paranoia sets in. This actually serves the film better than it did in Alien, as the audience, like the crew in the film, have no idea who is the imposter, and the films cleverly throws clues to incriminate people, only for the Thing to be someone else entirely, this misdirection keeps the audience constantly on their toes. It's this sense of paranoia that makes the film so creepy, as anyone could be monsters in hiding, waiting for their chance to eat and copy you, that paranoia is the kind of shit that can really mess with people, and in a way it's the scariest part of the film; The Thing completely destroys your sense of trust, the feeling of knowing someone, and knowing you're safe with them, out the window, replaced by a constant, oppressive and self destructive feeling of dread, it's some of the best horror you're going to find in movies. Adding to that feeling of dread is the setting, like Alien, the film puts its characters in a claustrophobic, isolated environment, where there is no hope of rescue, and that hopelessness of Antarctica builds the horror perfectly, as like Alien, there's nowhere to go, the film traps its characters, and its audience in this environment, where they and you know a monster lurks. The Thing also does a perfect job of pacing its horror; near the beginning of the film, we are shown the ruins of the Norwegian camp, some not so subtle foreshadowing, we are also given some foreshadowing for the creature itself, but the film really takes it's time in revealing the monster, not giving us a really good look at the Thing until a good way into the film. Where The Thing couldn't be more different to Alien however is in its portrayal of the monster, where the Alien lurked in the shadows, and was rarely shown, and never shown in its entirety, The Thing holds nothing back, we, on several occasions, are shown the Thing in its full glory, and it's nasty.

That brings us onto the special effects, something The Thing is known for. The film's most dated effect is, weirdly, the first Thing it shows, an immobile, slimy mess on an operating table, maybe it's the fact that we never see it move, and it is a very creatively designed thing, but it doesn't look as good as, say every other Thing in the film. the first live Thing we are shown is one of the film's most memorable scenes, and it shows all, as a seemingly normal looking animal transforms into a monster, one with multiple heads, and insect limbs and tentacles, it's not only some of the weirdest and most creative creature design I've seen, but it's fucking freaky. The gore is a nice icing on this film's cake, as while you leave with the paranoia, what you either look forward to or dread, depending on your perspective, is the Thing scenes, when the imposter is revealed, and when the film shows off its frightening effects, which, since this was the 1980's, are entirely practical. And when those effects are used, it's brutal; earthly forms mutate and distort into nightmarish perversions, the creativity in their designs and the skill in their making cannot be understated, when the effects are at their best, it's hard to believe that what you're looking at is real, and it masterfully adds to the otherworldliness of the Thing, and to its evil, as it takes things we're familiar with, like the human body, and perverts it. Adding to the terror of The Thing is that the Thing isn't the only monster, metaphorically speaking; through the paranoia we see a pretty comprehensive breakdown of these characters, as the distrust starts to drive a few of them mad. Whereas the ideal action in such a situation would be to band together and defeat the enemy, the crew in this film instead turn on each other, suspecting everyone else to be the Thing, with some characters even taking drastic action to ensure the Thing doesn't get them or escape the camp. As bleak as it is, this is probably how it would go down, I love a film that looks at our humanity, and The Thing beautifully explores our darker side. There are very few notable flaws in this film, and the vast majority of which, that I've found, are technical, and understandable, mistakes happen, they're barely noticeable. The film's ambiguity could be seen as a flaw if you want all the answers, if you want to know who got to the blood, or what the ending meant, The Thing will leave you disappointed, but these decisions are deliberate, never finding out who the blood saboteur was adds to the paranoia. And the ending is amazing; if you've read my Life review, you'll know I adore films that nail the unhappy ending, but while Life educed in me a feeling of pure terror, The Thing's ending instead lingers on the unknown, it's ambiguous, and up for interpretation, you never get given all the answers before you leave, the film let's those questions get into your head, and it's beautifully bleak.

John Carpenter's The Thing is a film that I love, it's one of my favourite films, and I regard it as one of the best films ever made, and it's certainly up there with Alien as one of the finest horror films you can find. Sure the practical effects are superb, even after 35 years, and the creature designs are horrific, but what truly makes this film a masterpiece is the antitrust element with its characters, and its exploration into the isolation and paranoia besetting these characters. The Thing certainly doesn't have any jump scares, thank god, but what it offers instead is an intense, psychological sense of dread, one that stays with you long after the film ends, and is bolstered by its wonderfully ambiguous ending, The Thing is a masterpiece of science fiction horror, and is an absolute must watch.

Star gazing, very slowly

 Yes, I returned from my holiday in Wales, but not without catching a cold, in August, somehow. On the plus side, I took a stupid amount of photos while I was away, like 7000, even narrowing them down to the ones I deem to be the best, they're still numbering in the hundreds, so there's a lot to go through. But I decided to change my Blog's look, having not done that in a while, and below are the original photo and the edit I used in my banner, a personal favourite, taken with my 55-200mm lens, a shot of Tenby Harbour taken from about a mile away. As well as a badass busker, a hungry pterosaur, some trees, which are also my new background, and a photo of St. Catherine's. And above is something I'm actually proud of, and probably the first night photo I've ever taken that wasn't complete crap, taken with my 18-55mm, and with the shutter speed down and the ISO up, I actually got pictures of stars, something I've never done before, but will definitely do again.

Bring on the Meteor VII: The Diversifying

This edition of Bring on the Meteor is coming on a month old, which does make the stories involved out of date, the reason is simple, I was too bone idle to get it finished before taking off to Wales for two weeks where I had no internet, just wanted to be honest and bring this little point up, to hopefully clear up any incoherence in this Meteor, that being said, I wanted to talk about these stories, so here it is, enjoy.
Fortunately this time it won't be all doom and gloom, just some good old ideological cancer, which will make this very fun, one of our cases today is about a Call of Duty game, as well as another that could very well be Ghostbusters 2.0, and a whiny bitch whining about a racist movie about CGI apes, it is nice to not have any serious overtones bearing down on the proceedings, like I said earlier, just good old fashioned cancer. Maybe there is hope for us all yet, or maybe the ideological rot is too bad, and we truly are beyond saving, I suppose none of it will matter when the Meteor arrives, but until then, let's laugh at some of the finest stupidity, that's a few weeks out of date.

Let's start with perhaps the least consequential piece of stupid, a BLM activist getting upset at the new Planet of the Apes. I've actually seen War for the Planet of the Apes, and really should have reviewed it when I had the chance, but for now, apparently that film; a film about a race of super intelligent apes going to war with the last remnants of a dying human race, is actually like super racist, and it's actually like, specifically targeting one individual, who like totally isn't a self obsessed race obsessed moron, that moron would be DeRay McKesson. On the surface you'd think this to be quite simple, it's a film about apes, and we all know how racist that is, after all, if King Kong is racist, Planet of the Apes is almost certainly more racist. Never mind that to think a film about apes is racist you first have to be a massive racist yourself, I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would watch a trailer for Planet of the Apes and think of black people, apart from the kind of idiot that thinks King Kong is an allegory for black hysteria, IE a race obsessed hysterical racist. The sad thing is that that's only part of the problem here, enter McKesson, someone Wikipedia calls a 'civil rights activist', we have truly failed MLK's dream now haven't we, because he's a key figure in BLM, and if you're familiar with the Meteor series, you know how much I despise BLM. Where this story truly begins is with that moron's Twitter, where on the 10th of June he tweeted about a "lack of consciousness" in Hollywood, and showed a poster for Planet of the Apes with the character Bad Ape circled, who wears a blue jacket in the film, much like the one usually worn by McKesson, as well as a picture of a collector's toy of the character. Now this whole situation has taken on a whole new context; suddenly this isn't Planet of the Apes being racist, it's Planet of the Apes targeting a specific individual, and taking the piss out of him by making him an ape. Do I really need to say why that's insane? Again, someone unfamiliar with McKesson would think he's just being a lunatic for thinking a major Hollywood production is specifically targeting him, but here's his damning evidence of the evil racism, ready? Bad ape wears a blue jacket, and you know who else wears a blue jacket, that's right, McKesson... Boom huge Hollywood racist conspiracy exposed. Honestly that's his evidence, an ape wears a blue jacket, and he also wears a blue jacket. Hey McKesson, you know who else wears a blue jacket, the Apes in the original Planet of the Apes which came out 20 years before you were even born you fucking idiot, my guess is that Bad Ape's coat is a homage to that film, and not to some nobody progressive twitter activist who genuinely seems to think he's the next MLK. I'm sure there are some people in the world who aren't terribly familiar with BLM, and would probably incorrectly assume that 'Black lives Matter' is a statement, when in reality it's a movement, and would therefore stand in agreement with the statement, unaware of all the riots and attacks on police that BLM is behind, but tell me something DeRay, when people see you calling out a multimillion dollar production for its racism, on such superficial and downright delusional grounds as a choice in wardrobe, what are they going to think? It really reminds me of Feminists complaining about things like man spreading and sexist air conditioning, you destroy your own movement's credibility, and make it a joke, like feminism, BLM is a bigoted supremacist movement, and people know it, what with all the calls for dead cops, and the cries of "white lives don't matter", and then you go and make yourself look like a paranoid, self obsessed freak, and not only does your movement have no moral leg to stand on, it now has no credibility. Since BLM is such a misleading title, let me preface, I do not think black lives don't matter, because unlike BLM, I'm not a raging racist, but while I believe that all lives have inherent value, I also believe that BLM is a cancerous, dangerous, and deluded movement that needs to die, so their bullshit can be left behind and the problems they claim to want to fix, like police brutality and mass incarceration, can actually be looked at without being obscured by the cries of "what do we want, dead cops," and racist monkeys in movies. DeRay McKesson is stupid, BLM is stupid, and Planet of the Apes will be loved in spite of that stupidity, because ironically, Planet of the Apes says more about the failings of our species than McKesson and BLM could ever even dream of, they'll be too busy obsessing over the dumb shit like a coat.

And now for the story that would piss me off the most if it wasn't for Sledgehammer, but it does really piss me off, and I in fact reckon it's Ghostbusters 2.0, for a reason I will now explain, a female Doctor Who. My love of Doctor Who can be traced back to March 25th 2005, more than 12 years ago, when I was a wee 8 year old. My dad showed me Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 AD, the 1966 movie starring Peter Cushing, because Doctor Who, the famous British Sci fi series, was coming back to TV, and I fell in love with it, I just thought the Daleks were so cool, and I really liked the movie, and probably still would if I watched it again now, so the next day, when Doctor Who's first episode, Rose aired, I was completely on board, and stayed madly in love with the show for a full five years. My love for the show effectively died however when Russell T Davies left, and was replaced by Steven Moffat, and by the end of series 9 I had just had enough, and wasn't even interested in watched it any more, despite enjoying some of the newer episodes like Mummy on the Orient Express, and thinking Peter Capaldi was great casting. But Moffat has a habit of writing stories that trick you into thinking they're good, just look at Sherlock for proof of that, and a lot of Doctor Who's newer episodes have either downright sucked, or really not been that great upon reflection. Which leads us to this point, a point that I honestly think is the moment Doctor Who, as a series, dies, because after years of Moffat seeming trying to run the show into the ground, new show runner Chris Chibnall, who did Broadchurch, a show I hear is great from my mum, gives me hope, or at least he did, until Jodie Whittaker was cast as the Doctor. That's right, the Doctor is a woman now, and it pisses me off to no end, but not for the reasons you'd think. In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind a woman being cast as the Doctor, but this is not a perfect world, this is in fact a world where the BBC is infested with deluded ideologues who want to force arbitrary diversity quotas for their staff, fire people who don't conform, and who are more than happy to force their cultish obsession for diversity on their TV programs, just take a look at Bill Potts for instance. Now they're committed the ultimate vandalism on Doctor Who and gender swapped the character, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, just like Ghostbusters, it's not the female recast that's the problem, it's the reason for the female recast. And it's a reason we all know; because it's [current year] and making the Doctor a woman is the progressive thing to do, it's a statement to challenge the outdated and patriarchal conceptions of the character of the Doctor, and take the character in a 'bold' and 'brave' new direction. In other words, this is purely ideological, and that's why I hate it, that's why this recasting has killed this show for me, it's a commitment to the ideology, and not to the show itself. But wait, you ask, how do I know this is ideological, how do I know I'm not just being a cry baby about this recasting, oh that's easy, that's real easy, first, common sense, and knowledge of the progressive agenda currently infecting every facet of the BBC, that too nebulous for you? how about an interview with the new Doctor herself, Jodie Whittaker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/633b5583-f0b1-4917-baf5-eb02ca44552a
This interview to be specific.

Let's cut to the meat and get straight to question 6, "What does it feel like to be the first woman Doctor?" Whittaker's answer is what convinced me to never want to watch Doctor Who again, and now you'll see. Her Answer: It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be. It feels incredible. Lets pull this shit apart shall we; first of all, what the fuck is she on about being boxed in, like there's some social stigma to being a woman in a lead role. How about fuck you, movies and video games have had female leads for decades; Alien, Tomb Raider, Hunger Games, Labyrinth, more recently shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, two of the biggest shows in TV history, not to mention the last two Star Wars films, and the recent Wonder Woman, which probably isn't going to hit that sweet $1 Billion, but has still come three quarters of the way, and is definitely going to hit $800 million by the end of its run, the idea that there's some kind of stigma when it comes to female leads is something I've debunked before, but I'll repeat it, there isn't one. There's a stigma against bad writing and blatant agenda pushing, which is one of the many, many reasons Ghostbusters failed, and will inevitably be one of the reasons this fails. But the most telling part by far, "as a feminist", notice the order those words come in, feminist first, woman second, that makes it very clear that to her, in this situation, being a feminist comes before being a woman, which just confirms my biggest fear, this is Ghostbusters all over again, which puts the BBC in a very, very dangerous position. The BBC now has a decision to make, it might be unfair to assume her character will be crap, but I have no hope at this point, but the BBC could get this right; they could listen to the fans, they could reassure the fans and ask them to not be overly concerned and just give it a try, that would be very reasonable to do, and then even if the next series sucks, people would still give it a chance. The sad truth though is the BBC's power in this mess is limited, a lot of that power is in the hands of all the feminist journos, and we all already know what they'll say, it'll be all talk about how progressive and right this is, and how everyone who hates this is just a sexist man baby, and never once will they learn from their mistakes. It's entirely possible that the ratings could tank for this, and they'll inevitably say it's all just sexism, because obsessing over identity is how they hide their lack of merit, making the gender or the race the thing to celebrate and not the actual quality, they tried it with Ghostbusters and it failed, and I don't know if the next Doctor's going to be good, in fact I don't care, my love for Doctor Who died in 2010, and this blatant, unapologetic agenda pushing has made me never want to watch it again. Just like Ghostbusters, there is still a love I have for the franchise, and part of me wants it to go well, if only for the sake of the franchise, but at the same time there's a part of me that really wants this to fail, because I hate this shit, I hate franchises I love being turned into mouth pieces for political agendas, most notably cancerous political agendas like feminism, in their desperate efforts to belittle and pathologise men and masculinity, just think about Kevin and Rowan, and think, if they could make a character like Bill Potts, or like Vastra and Jenny, ones that tick all the progressive boxes, just how bad is this going to get. Also remember the Master is a woman now too, I'm sure that the relationship between the Doctor and the Master won't be 'expanded on' at all here, just to tick one more progressive box. And finally we must look at this from a historical perspective, in ten years, assuming Doctor Who is somehow still running, how is Jodie Whittaker going to be remembered, will she be remembered for being a really great Doctor, or will she be remembered for being a woman, that's the ultimate failure of pedestalising identities, when history remembers them, they won't be remembered for who they are or what they did, you can see it right now, no one's saying, 'Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor,' they're all saying 'The new Doctor is a woman,' because that's what really matters here, and it's not me saying that, it's the media, it's the BBC, it's Jodie Whittaker herself. So when the agenda is finally defeated, and we can start rebuilding our society, or at least our entertainment, no one's going to remember Jodie Whittaker like they remember Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant, in fact no one's really going to care, and that's just so indicative of the problem with this whole mess, because pedestalising someone's identity belittles the person in a way feminists and SJWs will never understand.

So, BLM's credibility is dead, the BBC's most internationally successful show alongside Top Gear is dead, what's next, ah yes, history is on the march, or more accurately in this case, historical revisionism. Do you remember that really great Call of Duty WWII reveal trailer, that one that was dark and violent and atmospheric, and looked like they were actually trying to be historically accurate, well for the multiplayer at least they seemingly decided 'fuck that, let's be PC,' because this shit just never stops. From what I hear this shit only applies to multiplayer, so at least there's that, but it doesn't take a genius to see the problem. Let's start with the least sickening part, Sledgehammer are removing the Swastika from multiplayer, given that the game will have Nazis in it, you'd think that's a bit weird, but to be honest this is the change they made I can most understand, since there are parts of the world where you're not allowed to show the symbol, but that still doesn't apply to the majority of markets, it's like torching a house to fix a mouse problem. What I find weird however is the Swastika has become a symbol of evil and hate, for 70 years the Nazis have been an excellent guide line on how to be the ultimate evil, and everyone already knows how evil they were, no one likes the Nazis, apart from neo-Nazis, which the vast, vast majority of people aren't. So why sensor the symbol of that evil, is it to avoid offending people, because removing that symbol of hate disembodies that hate, and why would they want to do that, to make the Nazis look less evil? It's not like Wolfenstein was going for historical accuracy, but they still didn't shy away from portraying the Nazis as honestly, and therefore as brutally as they could, yet here you're censoring some of that imagery, while also trying to be historically accurate, it's really dumb. Sadly though ,while I find that weird, there is one element to this that I just straight up hate, and that is their push for diversity in the multiplayer, oh yes, we're talking about black Nazis. The reason they've given for this is that in the single player they want to be historically accurate, but they want to make the multiplayer as social as possible, and as marketable to as many demographics as possible, but you know what, Sledgehammer, I for one am not letting you get away with this, because you can't hide the real reason. I'm sure you've noticed that picture, the one of a Sledgehammer dev with Anita Sarkeesian, and isn't that picture just so revealing. Anita Sarkeesian, in addition to being a liar, a bully, and a charlatan, is also someone who doesn't care one bit about video games, which is something she has said in the past, not liking video games because they're gross for example, for her it's been about two things, herself, and the agenda, she wants to get influence, and she wants to push her ideology wherever she can, and it would appear that, like Sledgehammer, she doesn't mind revisionist re-interpretation of history, something I find utterly sickening. When it comes to Anita having influence in video game development, things could get seriously bad very fast, as her desire isn't to make a good game, it never is, and when you have her getting friendly with video game developers, that could ruin a game. What pisses me off isn't that though, since WWII is actually shaping up pretty good, my issue is of course the historical revisionism, the Black Nazis.

This is something I've heard from the devs themselves, which really makes me question their motives even more, but World War II isn't as popular a setting as it used to be, the last Call of Duty game set in the war came out in 2008, and there hasn't really been a high profile World War II shooter since then, so for a lot of gamers, particularly younger ones, this will be their first high profile exposure to the war, undeniably a massively important part of history, alongside maybe films like Hacksaw Ridge and Dunkirk, both of which are phenomenal films I'd highly recommend. To that end, shouldn't being historically faithful be a top priority, to represent the conflict as honestly and accurately as possible. I know it's just a game, but this game has a responsibility, bestowed upon it by the devs themselves, to introduce a new audience to one of the most significant moments in human history, and shit like that has to be done right, I for one am pissed off by the disconnect a lot of people today have with history. Which is why Historical Revisionism pisses me off so fucking much, it sickens me to my very core. Because nothing shits on history quite like a black woman Nazi, nothing ruins a game's authenticity like this PC agenda that we know is behind this. Because it doesn't matter how they explain this away, they can say it's about 'creating an inclusive social space' and 'making the game appeal to a wider audience' but that's bullshit, it's political, it's ideological, it's Anita and other Social Justice Paragons whispering in their ears saying, 'you know what's cool, diversity, I mean, you don't want to be a racist misogynist do you.' And that's assuming they're doing this out of fear of those Paragons, in their ideologue infested industry, and not all on their own. Make no mistake, this is historical revisionism for the sake of a narrative, this is trying to rewrite history so it's 'inclusive' and 'diverse' and 'representative', but that's what truly matters to these people; race, gender, not making a good game or doing history justice, but doing social justice. And since this is going to be how a lot of younger gamers are introduced to the war, the historical revisionism could destroy their interpretation of history, all for the sake of a narrative. And this does a complete disservice to both the men and women of the War, the men who fought and died defending freedom, and the women who kept society from falling apart back home, not to mention the downright stupidity of a black Nazi. Never mind the whole master race thing, the whole killing non-Aryans, including black people, in the gas chambers, how does doing this pay respect to them. Seriously, in what way does making the Nazis ethnically diverse pay respect to all the ethnic minorities who the Nazis slaughtered, it doesn't, it's disgusting, how does it pay respect to the men who fought to save the world from their racially pure authoritarianism to force in women, it doesn't, it's disgusting. Again, don't be fooled by their excuses, they can try to sell this however they want, but at the heart of this is an ideology, one that seeks to change people's perception of the world itself, in this case by reinterpreting history. And even if it's only the multiplayer, again, bullshit, because why do people buy Call of Duty, this answer has been known for years, it's for the multiplayer, the only part of the game this cancer has infected, and certainly the only part of the game the typical teenage n00bs will bother with, the teenage n00bs who have lived in a world slowly being taken over by the PC agenda, and not getting thought about this history when they really should be. But Politics is a pendulum, and eventually it will swing again, so idiots like the devs at Sledgehammer really must consider how those teenage n00bs will be looking at this, events like the 2016 election and the Great Meme War prove times are changing, the pendulum is beginning to swing already, and rather poetically, in their effort to rewrite history, they've just ended up on the wrong side of it.

It was fun while it lasted, no world ending, freedom revoking topic, but I'm sure Theresa May and her minions are hard at work somewhere, but the enemy must be fought wherever it's found, and people must be given the information the enemy wishes to deprive them of. That is something I want for everybody, to not simply believe, but to look at this shit for themselves, to have the facts, and to come to their own conclusions, and to be free to share those conclusions, whether they're right or wrong. Hating Doctor Who's recasting doesn't make you a misogynist by default, hating the forced diversity in WWII doesn't make you a racist by default, these are the simple answers, and things are never that simple. As ever, if you think I'm wrong, I have no problem with that, I'd prefer it if we could all think for ourselves. I also wish Doctor Who never went to shit, so we can't all get what we want, but if you'll pardon the hyperbolic quote, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, better to make your voice heard, no matter how small it is, than to live a life of silence, and to take the slings and arrows your voice may bring.

Dunkirk movie review

Here's what you need to know, it's 1940, and the Nazis have pushed British and French forces to the brink, literally; trapping them in Dunkirk, where hundreds of thousands of men await their inevitable demise. With time running out, and the threat of imminent death hanging over the beach, a miracle is their only hope, and fortunately, one is on its way, if only there is enough time left.
Hi, it's nice to get back to having internet and going to the cinemas, after two weeks with neither in Wales, and because I'm lazy, the next meteor was never even put up, but I do need to do a movie review, to diversify my material, and hey, I saw Dunkirk again yesterday, so let's do that.

Dunkirk is a rare kind of film; it wastes no time at all in its introduction, putting you right there at Dunkirk, with the Germans picking off Brits in the streets and the Luftwaffe raining hell on the beach, it's a remarkably effective opening that sets the scene very nicely, as it establishes a sense of omnipresent tension, and one of abject terror, as the German dive bombers scream over the beach, having heard that siren sound in cartoons for my entire life, I didn't think it could be scary, until I saw this film, it's loud, it's frightening, and it's fantastic sound design. Speaking of fantastic sound, Hans Zimmer did the music for this film, naturally, and it's some of the best music I've ever heard from him, seriously, Dunkirk has some of the most effective music I've ever heard, in keeping with the film, it's loud, intense, and in Hans Zimmer fashion, it's epic. A genius touch is the ticking, which accompanies the film's most effective tracks, and is an incredibly subtle yet chilling way of building the tension, as time ticks by, and the enemy gets closer and closer, that ticking is more than a simple mechanical sound in Dunkirk, it's a constant, foreboding presence, a reminder of the impending doom hanging over Dunkirk. So it's got a great soundtrack and some scary dive bombers, but what else does Dunkirk have to offer, how about being pretty brutal for a 12A, because it is. It being a 12A, it's obviously no Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge, in that there is no intense graphic imagery, Shit, Wonder Woman was more graphic than this in its depiction of World War 1. Where Dunkirk is every bit as brutal as a film like Hacksaw Ridge however is in the psychological aspect; as explored in the Sea story line with Cillian Murphy and Mark Rylance, and in the utter desperation of the soldiers in the Mole story line, as they try again and again to get off the beach. The film also never gives you a chance to relax, as the stories move at such a good pace, and the tension is never eased, leaving you constantly on edge for the next dive bombing or torpedo, it's literally an a hour and 40 minutes of non-stop anxiety, and despite wanting to scamper away and hide for that entire runtime, you don't want it to end either, because the film is so good at what it does. What else the film does well is tell its stories in a non conventional manner; with three stories, The Mole, taking place over a week, The Sea, taking place over a day, and The Air, taking place over an hour, these stories all weave into each other at several points, but are told non-linearly, as the film cuts from story to story, sometimes showing the same events from multiple perspectives, this could go really wrong, but in Dunkirk it doesn't, if you're paying attention, the narrative isn't hard to piece together, and that's all the film wants, because when you're paying attention, it can really let you have it with the anxiety, knowing it has your full attention, it feeds into the tension wonderfully. The three stories also vary in their atmosphere, with The Mole and The Sea feeding on foreboding and drama, while The Air is perhaps the most exciting story, giving us some excellent dogfights. Those dogfights however aren't fun, in fact the film treats them almost like games of chess, they're slow, but as the upper hand goes back and forth constantly, it's completely gripping, and the film isn't excessive, there are no big fiery explosions, explosions are meaty and powerful, when planes get taken out, far from becoming fire balls, they smoke and smoulder, slamming into the ocean with a concussive thud, it's beautiful stuff.

Adding to the beauty is that those planes are real; it's clear a lot of effort was taken to make Dunkirk as authentic as possible, and as such, for the production they used real boats, and for the dogfights, real planes, it's remarkable that so much effort was put into it really, when CG exists, but the film is so much better for it, as with the real boats and planes comes a realism that you simply can't get even with the best CG effects, it makes those dogfights so much more enjoyable because it's not fake. Where CG has been used, it's so well hidden that you can't see it over the real Spitfires, and the in air filming of Tom Hardy and Jack Lowden as those Spitfire's pilots, there's just an integrity to it that only a master director could achieve. The Dogfights are badass, and fortunately, the film has more badassery to offer, The Mole delivers the most intense scenes in the film, with the dive bombers over the beach, an oxygen depriving nightmare with a torpedo, and an arsehole clenching sequence in a grounded fishing boat, while The Sea ramps up the drama, as disaster hits a mariner and his son. There is however something I've seen a few people call a problem in this film, and that's characterisation. The apparent issue is that the film doesn't give any of its characters any significant development, and that much is true, but I don't think it's a flaw, and here's why. Something I adore is the film's opening, no build up at all, putting you right in the middle of it, to do character development before that would compromise the effectiveness of the opening, if The Mole's main guy first had a scene talking about a nice girl back home, or if he did at any point in the film, that would have dragged out the film, and Dunkirk, narrative and pacing wise, is bloody perfect, adding in an exposition scene to build a character would have slowed this film down. The same applies to the rest of the cast, if Tom Hardy was chatting about his life at home, would that really have been better than him taking down German fighters like he's Poe Dameron or something, especially when The Air is the most time sensitive story in the film. What characterisation the film does have is largely limited to The Sea, as we learn more about Mark Rylance's motivations for going to Dunkirk, and there's a great scene with Barry Keoghan talking about being in the paper. But Dunkirk knows what it's doing, it's not a film about any one or two people, it's a film about Dunkirk first and foremost, and that's where it commits itself; focusing on the event, the spectacle, rather than needlessly bogging itself down with character development when the characters are not the point. It reminds me of Godzilla in that respect, that film was criticised for a lack of Godzilla, when that was very much the intention, Dunkirk is a film about the event, rather than the characters, much as Godzilla was about the event more than it was about Ford Brody or Godzilla particularly. This sets Dunkirk apart from other films like it, it's not conventional; it tells multiple stories non-linearly, it's has very little character development, because rather than it being a story about a guy like Hacksaw Ridge for example, it's a story about an event, and it's a great story.

Dunkirk is special to me, yes the film's characters are weak, but I can look past that, I'm too busy being consumed by how good the rest of the film is. Dunkirk is beautiful, vicious, tense, and psychologically distressing, it has some of the best music and sound design I've ever heard, and some stunningly intense moments that get your heart racing like few other films can. Dunkirk is not as psychological or philosophical as some of Nolan's other films, but it doesn't need to be, it just needs to be what it is, which is one of the most anxious hour and 40 minutes I've ever experienced in a cinema, and like I said earlier, despite being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and the runtime being perfect, you don't want it to end, because it's so good. Dunkirk is one of my favourite films so far this year, and it's an absolute must watch.