Structurally flawed

Rating: 4/10 (24 July 2017)

I am a huge military history buff and was very excited to see Dunkirk in Imax format on the first weekend it was available in the U.S. The cinematography of the movie was impressive, but there were several things about how the movie was portrayed which were very disappointing to me.
Asynchronous Timing - The movie tells the story in subplots taking place over a week, another in a day, and another in one hour. This was a creative way of telling the story from several perspectives, but not effective to me, and in many ways a waste of time. Instead of seeing 3-4 scenes shot from different 3-4 different angles, it seemed 75% of the time in the movie would have been better spent telling other story lines - the closing of the pocket around Dunkirk, the Germans decision to eliminate the British with air power vs. infantry, the French people feeling abandoned, the perspective of the civilians, the decisions by leaders on both sides, who gets left behind, etc.
Very little character development - The movie was about the characters doing, not being. Again, this was a stylistic choice by the director, but it left me with the feeling that no character - with the exception of the Mark Rylance role - was very likable. Even Tom Hardy, who was featured flying a Spitfire for much of the film, was behind a mask 99% of the time - I could have done as much acting as he had to do in this role.
Not enough lift - The real Dunkirk was a disaster for the Allies, but it also was a miracle that so many people were saved. The movie addressed this, but not adequately to my reckoning. The tone of the movie was death and despair, and for a brief moment, there were 4-5 merchant boats which appeared and momentary hope. It seems like for all of the grief the audience had endured to that point that suddenly the horizon would be filled with little boats coming to the rescue of the British infantry - which is what I suspect happened in reality.
Tom Hardy's Spitfire - Tom Hardy flew around in a Spitfire for 2/3rd of the movie on low fuel, and eventually had to land it in German- occupied area and be captured. It seems like it would have been just as easy for him to land where his countrymen were instead of becoming a POW, but this isn't my biggest complaint. A Spitfire of this era had only about 16 seconds of ammunition firing time, but Hardy's plane took out more of the enemy than I could count (4-5 fighters and one bomber?). Granted, many of the scenes were repeats of other scenes given the time-bending approach, but Hardy's plane must have shot for 30 minutes or so of theater time. It would have been more effective, for instance, if he had been reduced to ramming the bomber to take it down. I know it is common to take liberties with ammunition in war movies, but this was such an overreach that it became frustrating.
Over-ambitious score - For most of the movie the musical overlay featured unrelenting, screeching violins. No doubt, the intent was to add tension, but this was way overdone.
I am glad films such as Dunkirk are being made, and I will watch it again when it is free on cable, but it seems like with a few changes, it could have been much better. Instead of dealing with the topic in a thoughtful way, a lot of the movie was overproduced to the point of distraction.