Max Oxley’s review published on Letterboxd:
“See Dunkirk in IMAX or I will literally slit your throat and pour molten gold down the slit and take your remains out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean to make sure no one ever knows what happened to you” you say? Well buddy, no need, because with my first name, every single second of my life is an “I, Max” experience.
All joking a salad though, I am very sorry to announce that the nerds may have been correct. I saw this at Cineworld’s extremely innovative Literally The Exact Opposite of IMAX experience (film formatted horribly to the noticeably dust-caked, small screen, which flamboyantly rippled every time there was a loud noise (spoiler alert: there are several loud noises in Dunkirk)) and I didn’t come out feeling like I’d had the same experience others have been banging on about for the last couple of weeks. Didn’t feel the tension, didn’t feel much of anything. But if I grant this premise, that I primarily didn’t like this because I saw it in the “wrong” format, then surely another question is raised: if a film is incredible in one, very specific format but absolute dogshit when viewed in literally every other way, is it really a good film? Of course, that’s a dumb question because even if I saw it projected onto the world’s largest diamond through a projector constructed from unicorn tears, I still would have come away disappointed, as this quite simply is not a movie I liked, and no amount of giant speakers attempting to shatter my eardrums could have changed that.
But hey, I came for a good Harry Styles performance, I received a good Harry Styles performance. I got my money’s worth (I paid £0.00).