Sea for sure for me. The father was eminently likable and the stuff with Murphy's character was dramatic and tragic.
I'd rank them: Sea --> Air --> Land
Air was great too, WW2 dogfighting film is a thing of the past and it was a joy to watch.
Air, for the dogfighting.
shareI liked the Air and Sea portions of the film. The Land bit, not so much.
But that's understandable because no matter how much Nolan tried to make the Land parts exciting, that part of the story is really only about a mass of soldiers waiting on a beach and hoping they won't get strafed to death by the Luftwaffe.
I think Nolan should have showed more of the rear-guard who were fighting off the Germans and keeping them away from the beach. But oh wait, he might have had to show some French soldiers then, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
It would be a pretty boring story TBH since the Germans just stopped. They had 'em dead to rights and stopped. Perplexing.
shareYeah, I know, but I was thinking showing more of the bit that started the film, with the troops fighting their way TO the beach. Nolan could have taken a few limits with the time structure of the actual event, he didn't have to feel enslaved to being COMPLETELY accurate regarding the time table of events. Imo, it would have resulted in being a greater film, rather than just a very good docu-drama.
share1. Air
2. Land
3. Sea
For me, Sea was amazing, the spitfire battles were breathtaking.
shareLand felt a bit weak, I thought the beach was supposed to have horse's, ammuntions, vehicle's, body's, destroyed equipment, etc.
All I saw where some boats and soldiers waiting. In Atonement there is a 5 minute scene of Dunkirk at land at it showed the reality of war, something missing in the movie Dunkirk. Was atonement more accurate or less? Probably less.
Great question.
Land got off to a great start - our hero running for his life as all his buddies are shot down and him stumbling upon the Frenchie on the beach - but it started to drag when Styles showed up.
Air was my favorite. The guys just talking about fuel was interesting and the battles looked real.
Cillian Murphy really took me out of the sea. It was difficult watching such a dour man.
Oh, come on. The film never dragged one single time (for me,anything) and Styles was only a small but significant part of it. I liked all parts of the entire movie, period. All the parts added up very well together to form an extremely striking whole in and of itself.
shareMy answer wasn't particularly indicative of how much I liked the film overall. It was exceptional. My beefs with Styles and Murphy were only minor speedbumps on the way to a successful theater experience.
But I would like to restate that, although his part was small as you say, it stood out. He played the part of a douche well but it was a little one-dimensional.
I liked Sea best, more variety of human emotion...
Air & Land seemed like an interesting contrast... Self sacrifice vs. Self preservation... And it explored these themes well enough for an action oriented war movie...
Air --> Sea --> Land
Would love to see a Battle of Britain movie by Nolan...but first Tom Hardy would need to escape the Nazis, return to blighty and bash the boche! Huzzah!