I saw both over the weekend and have to say that I highly enjoyed both.
Valerian has apparently "bombed" which on the one hand stinks as that's one more notch against quasi original IPs (it is based on some obscure French comic book but other than knowing that the Fifth Element was somewhat based on it). But, I really, really enjoyed it. The movie is not without its flaws which is why the critics have bagged on it as 1) the storyline is very simple, so simple a five year old can follow it but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing and 2) both of the lead actors are TERRIBLE especially the chick from Suicide Squad. But having complained about the actors and the simple storyline, it is still a great movie because 1) the special effects are mindblowingly good. Other than maybe Dr Strange or Guardians of the Galaxy, this is the best looking movie I've seen and the reality is I'm being generous to the two older movies. I think if I saw them head to head Valerian would win. And 2) the action sequences are top notch with stunningly bright and vivid details.
Of course the best indicator about whether you will love Valerian is whether you at least liked Fifth Element. They both are visual feast with great action although Valerian obviously surpasses it now but both have a "wink wink" sense of over the top fun and whimsy that some people simply do not like as it's not "realistic". But if you want an unrealistic but amazingly beautiful action flick and don't mind looking past some "actors" obviously trained in the George Lucas and Starship Troopers College of acting, then this is the best movie of the summer.
Dunkirk was also enjoyable but for different reasons and had its share of flaws. The acting was definitely better in Dunkirk than in Valerian but everything was one note. Characters were either stoic "stiff upper lip" Limey characters of British legend (the RAF pilots and civilian boat crews or cowards who spent their onscreen time running away (basically every army soldier who has more than two seconds of screentime). So it's not a particularly deep movie from a story perspective, it's a bunch of shallow one note characters in a simple straight line plot (and before people chime in and say that's all war movies, I would say both Fury and Saving Private Ryan have character arcs for numerous characters and not everyone is a simple cookie cutter cutout and some characters even grow). Some of the people who actually served in the military may even hate that at least half the movie if not more is devoted to cowards who desert their posts and lie and cheat their way to the front of the escape lines. I THINK we're supposed to side with the cowards and say "that's what I'd do", but even I found it disrespectful to the military men (obviously there ARE cowards and it would be unrealistic not to show one or two, but as I said half the movie is devoted to deserters who spend the entire movie running away selfishly while others die who could be helped. Only one character stops for even a couple of seconds to do a "heroic" act of opening a hatch on a sinking boat so his friend can escape.
Another major problem with Dunkirk is that the cowards don't look significantly different enough that under the smoke and grime makeup and wearing identical uniforms it was tough to tell who was who. It's this overlooked casting problem that made Band of Brothers great (where every character has a unique look and accent/voice and you can remember what each character is doing) and what severely hurt The Pacific (too many "Hollywood classically handsome" average height, thin/athletic runner types with medium brown hair and brown eyes running around with similar Midwestern/Classic American voices so that I had no clue who was doing what from week to week and confused everyone). Another major flaw in my mind is the unrealistic lack of gore. I don't mean gore on the level of a slasher horror film or even the overdone levels of gore during Hacksaw Ridge some of which bordered on slasher levels (the running around using a fellow soldier's blown up torso as a shield and the Evil Deadesque half dead soldiers coming alive and screaming in the face of other soldiers unexpectedly), I just mean it doesn't have the realistic gore of Fury, Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan. Everyone dies old school Hollywood propaganda war movie style either silently falling down when their shirt gets a bloodless hole in it or being thrown through the air intact to land without blood or whimper.
Finally another complaint I had was that there wasn't enough "downtime". Just like Blackhawk Down, there's no relief from the constant threats/suspense so after awhile you become numb to the bullets and threats of death. A great movie like Fury and Saving Private Ryan needs some quiet downtime for the audience to get to know the characters and for the actors to bring out whatever is happening below the surface. Just like Blackhawk Down, there's no getting to know characters or seeing them emote and no chance for the audience to decompress before new threats are thrown at you.
So what was good about Dunkirk? The acting was good for the most part. The half about the RAF and civilian boats are both very inspiring stories. And the air combat was nicely done, on par with some of the best. The editing was handled well.
Honestly they were both good movies and both well worth seeing. I think that Dunkirk had more flaws than Valerian despite the substantially higher critic scores for some reason and I personally enjoyed Valerian more. But having said that, if you don't like the Fifth Element you will not enjoy Valerian. And if you don't like war movies then Dunkirk is DEFINITELY not the one to make you change your mind.
Valerian has apparently "bombed" which on the one hand stinks as that's one more notch against quasi original IPs (it is based on some obscure French comic book but other than knowing that the Fifth Element was somewhat based on it). But, I really, really enjoyed it. The movie is not without its flaws which is why the critics have bagged on it as 1) the storyline is very simple, so simple a five year old can follow it but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing and 2) both of the lead actors are TERRIBLE especially the chick from Suicide Squad. But having complained about the actors and the simple storyline, it is still a great movie because 1) the special effects are mindblowingly good. Other than maybe Dr Strange or Guardians of the Galaxy, this is the best looking movie I've seen and the reality is I'm being generous to the two older movies. I think if I saw them head to head Valerian would win. And 2) the action sequences are top notch with stunningly bright and vivid details.
Of course the best indicator about whether you will love Valerian is whether you at least liked Fifth Element. They both are visual feast with great action although Valerian obviously surpasses it now but both have a "wink wink" sense of over the top fun and whimsy that some people simply do not like as it's not "realistic". But if you want an unrealistic but amazingly beautiful action flick and don't mind looking past some "actors" obviously trained in the George Lucas and Starship Troopers College of acting, then this is the best movie of the summer.
Dunkirk was also enjoyable but for different reasons and had its share of flaws. The acting was definitely better in Dunkirk than in Valerian but everything was one note. Characters were either stoic "stiff upper lip" Limey characters of British legend (the RAF pilots and civilian boat crews or cowards who spent their onscreen time running away (basically every army soldier who has more than two seconds of screentime). So it's not a particularly deep movie from a story perspective, it's a bunch of shallow one note characters in a simple straight line plot (and before people chime in and say that's all war movies, I would say both Fury and Saving Private Ryan have character arcs for numerous characters and not everyone is a simple cookie cutter cutout and some characters even grow). Some of the people who actually served in the military may even hate that at least half the movie if not more is devoted to cowards who desert their posts and lie and cheat their way to the front of the escape lines. I THINK we're supposed to side with the cowards and say "that's what I'd do", but even I found it disrespectful to the military men (obviously there ARE cowards and it would be unrealistic not to show one or two, but as I said half the movie is devoted to deserters who spend the entire movie running away selfishly while others die who could be helped. Only one character stops for even a couple of seconds to do a "heroic" act of opening a hatch on a sinking boat so his friend can escape.
Another major problem with Dunkirk is that the cowards don't look significantly different enough that under the smoke and grime makeup and wearing identical uniforms it was tough to tell who was who. It's this overlooked casting problem that made Band of Brothers great (where every character has a unique look and accent/voice and you can remember what each character is doing) and what severely hurt The Pacific (too many "Hollywood classically handsome" average height, thin/athletic runner types with medium brown hair and brown eyes running around with similar Midwestern/Classic American voices so that I had no clue who was doing what from week to week and confused everyone). Another major flaw in my mind is the unrealistic lack of gore. I don't mean gore on the level of a slasher horror film or even the overdone levels of gore during Hacksaw Ridge some of which bordered on slasher levels (the running around using a fellow soldier's blown up torso as a shield and the Evil Deadesque half dead soldiers coming alive and screaming in the face of other soldiers unexpectedly), I just mean it doesn't have the realistic gore of Fury, Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan. Everyone dies old school Hollywood propaganda war movie style either silently falling down when their shirt gets a bloodless hole in it or being thrown through the air intact to land without blood or whimper.
Finally another complaint I had was that there wasn't enough "downtime". Just like Blackhawk Down, there's no relief from the constant threats/suspense so after awhile you become numb to the bullets and threats of death. A great movie like Fury and Saving Private Ryan needs some quiet downtime for the audience to get to know the characters and for the actors to bring out whatever is happening below the surface. Just like Blackhawk Down, there's no getting to know characters or seeing them emote and no chance for the audience to decompress before new threats are thrown at you.
So what was good about Dunkirk? The acting was good for the most part. The half about the RAF and civilian boats are both very inspiring stories. And the air combat was nicely done, on par with some of the best. The editing was handled well.
Honestly they were both good movies and both well worth seeing. I think that Dunkirk had more flaws than Valerian despite the substantially higher critic scores for some reason and I personally enjoyed Valerian more. But having said that, if you don't like the Fifth Element you will not enjoy Valerian. And if you don't like war movies then Dunkirk is DEFINITELY not the one to make you change your mind.
