Dunkirk: a story of survival

The battle of Dunkirk was not really a battle but more of a tale of survival, an evacuation mission. It exposes you to the fruitlessness and the ravages of war. 

The movie by Christopher Nolan tells the story from three point of view, occurring at three separate timelines, each culminating to the same event. So you have the point of view of a soldier on the beach, who are trying to make it to the boats without getting killed, taking place over a period of a week. The second is the tale of a civilian and his son who are heading out to rescue as many soldiers as possible, taking place over a day. The last being a fighter pilot trying to buy some time for the evacuation, which takes place over the period of an hour. 

Each of their point view is compelling and gripping, sucking you in, or maybe it was watching the movie in IMAX. The tension cuts like a knife. You feel their anguish, smell their fear. On the beach these soldiers are a sitting ducks for attacks from enemies you never truly see (except for the air attack). Every bullet, torpedo, every shelling, bombing, reverberate through you, making you feel like you are with them. Never truly safe. Leaving them fearful and broken, what they only want is to make their way home, to safety.

At times the scene may seem repeated that's because it is told from a different perspective, in the end trying up the story.

In the end the movie leaves you a bit shaken, without being bloody, highlighting the futility of war. With minimalistic dialogue, the movie is a case in point of how a story can be so captivating and moving. The movie is also bolstered by some good performances. All in all the movie is a must watch, especially if you can catch it IMAX. 

Slumdog Millionaire

Ever since it swept the 81st annual Accademy Awards, also know as the Oscars, on the 22nd of February, there has been plenty of debate on whether the film actually deserved all the accolades. Well they was always going to be a debate about that from the very first. Firstly because it wasn't you typical Oscar type movie, at heart it was a much better version of a Bollywood movie. And secondly it was an outsider's view of a situations. So there was definetely going to be a debate.

Many scoff movie as an attempt to further stereotype the nation's poverty, to the extent of glorifying it. True we are known as a 3rd world country and for poverty, but we can't deny that it isn't present. for those who say this haven't much been to these places let alone seen these. What you got to admire about the director is that he had the guts to film the movie on real location. Where Indian directors like the Chopras and the Johar constantly use foreign locales and sound stages as a stand in for actual locations, here you had a foreign director actual filming the movie in actual locvation with people from those areas. You got to commend Danny Boyle for that.

Many say that the movie earned these awards based on sympathy votes because of the attacks on Mumbai. Others believe that movie was marketed well for it to earn these awards. Well firstly I wouldn't say that these were sympathy awards and don't think promotion of the movie had anything to do with it. Then we need to remember that movie swept all the major awards like the Golden Globe, the Critic Choice, The BAFTAs, the SAG, before the Oscars. So that does count in favor of the movie. Secondly the movie's message of hope against all odds was was pretty uplifting and boded well for time when all the major economy is in the state of depression.

Many say that this wasn't A R Rahman best work, he's done better before. I would say "so what if this isn't is best work, it did earn him two Oscars, that does stand for something. Plus it is the first time that an Indian music director was given such a platform and succeeded in winning alot of admiration.

On the whole everyone is entitled to their own views, but then its not right to put down the picture so badly. I did watch the movie and I truely loved it.