[Sicon]

I appreciate this man and I am sure the moving was incredibly moving for him, emotionally. But for my part, as a movie, it isn't that good. Zero character development, almost no dialog, at times rather slow, and Hans Zimmer"s interminably long, drawn out, constant bass chords (primarily cellos and pipe organs). If you saw Interstellar, then you're familiar with his "music" - blaring, ponderous, and for the most part, lacking any discernible melody. And maybe it was just the poor balance of the sound system in the theater, but much of what dialog there was, was drowned out by the score half of the time.

And while director Christopher Nolan does a good job of conveying the sense of dread, and of feeling like a hunted animal, the film does very little to really explain why Dunkirk happened. For example, if Germany's idea was to destroy the British Expeditionary force on the beach with the Luftwaffe, why do we see only a single Henkel bomber, three Stukka's, and two or three Messerschmitt 109"s? Where was the might of the Luftwaffe, and why wasn't it brought to bear? The film doesn't bother to explain. Nolan also spends far too much time on the Spitfire pilot and the aerial combat, though it is well done.

Not saying it was terrible, but it is hardly "the greatest WWII movie ever made", as a review in Rolling Stone suggested.

[TalonDJ]

“Where was the might of the Luftwaffe, and why wasn’t it brought to bear?”

It was.

The sky is vast. A few hundred planes spread out over hundreds of cubic miles (the whole region) and not all flying at once.... well you don’t need to much to show that. There weren’t as many planes involved that early in the war. Most of the real aerial fighting wasn’t near the beach.

“Zero character development,”
“he film does very little to really explain why Dunkirk “

You wanted them to tack on artificial character development and a history lesson? And you don’t like Zimmer? Sorry dude but you now have zero credibility as far as movie critique.