This film is grossly overrated and boring, hence my one star review

Rating: 1/10 (24 July 2017)

I would typically rate a film like this 4 stars, which is what it deserves, given that it lacks a plot, any sense of coherency and development, while also failing to get beyond the most superficial and basic summary of the story of Dunkrik. I am giving it one star because I am shocked at the high rating it currently enjoys, given its completely lazy script and disjointed direction. I am disappointed by C. Nolan, and I think he should stick to directing and stop writing scripts because they are awful. There is literally no meaningful dialogue in this film. If you like a contentless, dialogue-light, incredibly unintelligent film that has some nice shots of a dive bomber chasing and being chased on the beach in France, then this is for you. The film has such a severe shortage of dramatic content that it shows the same scene three times from different perspectives (the final scenes of the dive bomber chase) without really adding anything to the plot. Knowing a bit about the history of Dunkirk, after watching this film, it is safe to say that it tells the audience one thing about Dunkirk: there were 400,000+ soldiers trapped there by the Germans, and the British Navy rescued them with the help or requisitioned civilian vessels. I have watched an array of WWII films, from Saving Private Ryan, Letters From Iwo Jima, The Thin Red Line, Das Boot, Enemy At the Gates, and countless others. I have never felt the need to write a review for any of these films because I felt that their ratings were accurate reflections of their worth as films. I am writing this review, which is the first I have ever written on IMDb, because I am so outraged at the hype about this film, given that it was utterly vacuous and boring. As even the most generous reviewers have conceded, the film lacks characters, and thus lacks any real plot. Literally nothing seems to happen the entire film except for a few sailors and pilots being rescued--and one really long chase in the sky. There is absolutely no context given of why they were in Dunkrirk and how they were trapped. The entire drama surrounding Dunkirk, not to mention the massive military blunder made by Hitler at this front, was not only absent, but apparently actively ignored in this film. The film made a point of constantly switching from one scene to another and then back to the first (at certain points switching back and forth between four or five scenes that were only loosely connected to one another). Either people are getting more passive and sheep-like, simply following the lead of the critics who are undoubtedly invested in this film's success for reasons other than a genuine love of film, or they are becoming less intelligent, since this film is the definition of trash. I cannot believe that I read someone saying that this was the best film they saw in a decade. However, when the competition is the 6th installment of Spider-man, an overrated and overblown third installment of Planet of the Apes and other like-minded, mind-numbing agit-prop and trash. This entire review does not even get into the issue in the film surrounding its glorification of war, aesthetically, for the most part, but also dramatically (albeit at a very diminished level, given the lack of drama and character or plot development and depth in this film). The very origins of WWI and WWII lie in the callous and blind aestheticization of war, as in the proto-fascist futurist movement which produced poems glorifying war and modern machines of death. The scenes and feel of war are not adequately depicted in this film. It is far too much of a feel good flick to be realistic or even approach the boundary of realism. The entire film lacked the quality of feeling real, despite the director's desperate attempts to make it feel that way. Saving Private Ryan, despite some of its flaws, was far more gory and realistic than this film (I do not think you can make a realistic war film with battle scenes, especially of WWII without the level of violence that would warrant an R rating). In the end of the film, the soldiers go on a train the England and the train's interior looks like it is from the early 2000's or late 1990's at the earliest. It does not look like 1940's England. The film does not capture the audience through ideas or dialogue or history, but rather uses beautiful camera shots and crowd psychology to please and entertain. It lacks any critical attitude toward itself or the idea of representing war and destruction, and moreover, toward that of representing history in general. This film tells you just about what a knowledgeable four year old could say about Dunkirk: allies trapped by Nazis in Dunrkirk, and British RAF and Navy come to the rescue with the help of a few civilians. Really not compelling. How about showing the audience why Dunkirk even was part of the war? Or showing the local French population, or the Nazis who were invading? Or simply explaining the context in more than three lines at the beginning of the film. This script was lazy and amateur.