No need to evacuate the theater, when watching this film. For the most part, Dunkirk was somewhat interesting and honest depiction of war. It was watchable

Rating: 8/10 (26 July 2017)

Set during the Second World War, the film directed by Christopher Nolan portrays the Dunkirk evacuation, through three perspectives—the land, sea, and air. Each one of them, contain little dialogue, in order to create suspense solely through visuals by cinematographer, Hoyte Van Hoytema. For the most part, the film somewhat does a good job. However, maybe, the film could had spill a little more exposition, on the land part, as I really did get, who these fictional characters, were and why they were there. I felt that, the main three characters, Alex (Harry Styles) & Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) & Gibson (Aneurin Barnard) at the beach, were, a bit, disappointing. Yes, I know, that Nolan didn't want tell the backstory of these characters, only to focus on them, surviving, but it's hard to invest, the time, rooting for these guys to survive, if we know, barely anything, about them. Because of that, those sequences were really hard to watch, as the only thing, we see, as an audience member; is them, cowardly finding ways to escape by hiding, or lying to their superior. That's hardly heroic. Thank Goodness, for the sea and air sequences, because the land parts, was a bit, too cynical for my taste. At least, we got to know, a little more good things about those fictional characters on the boat, than the three nearly unlikeable soldiers, at the beaches. Plus, it was lot more suspenseful, rather than the repetitive cycle of the soldiers entering a ship, only for minutes, later, it to sink. The tension between the shell-shocked unnamed trooper, played by Cillian Murphy and Peter (Tom Glynn Carney) the son of the captain of the civil boat, Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), whom sailing to rescue British soldiers from the surrounded city of Dunkirk on the boat was a lot better. It made for an interesting watch, with both actors, giving it, all. Don't get me wrong, the actors playing soldiers in the beaches, weren't bad; it's just that the boat characters at least, had more to work with. Also, despite, getting little information on who the two RAF pilots, Farrier (Tom Hardy) & Collins (Jack Lowden) were in the air sequence; I still found myself, rooting for them, even if the acting is limited, because of the intense dogfights. At least, they were fighting, instead of cowardly around. Those aerial shots, really did make it seem like two planes were really going at it. I just wish, the movie would use more visuals sights and sounds. I was really disappointing by the lack of large epic music by composer, Hans Zimmer in this film. Yes, I know, Nolan was really, trying to fight against, the system, not using cheap tactics like having emotional driven music and flashy or gory effects to get the audience to feel more, but I found, most of the film to be, somewhat dry and emotionless. Maybe, it's just me, use to the Hollywood formula, but I kinda like to be, move; not bored. Parts of the film was somewhat boring. It's just doesn't seem emotional. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes were filmed, wonderfully on locations with the German Army & Air Forces, being mostly seen as an invisible tour de force of nature, and I love that Nolan and his crew didn't use, much or any CGI, in favor, for more practical, traditional special effects. I also, dig, how, Nolan use, three different styles of camera shots for each sequence, with crane & steady cam for the land, hand-held for the sea, and a mixed of both, for the air. However, there were a few others things, I didn't like, about this film. One is the non-linear narrative. It was somewhat jarring. Yes, I know that Nolan use this same tactic in better films like 2000's 'Memento' & 2010's 'Inception'. However, the gimmick with 'time', but really, come off, confusing, here, when watching it. A good example is, how it became night for the land sequence, and yet, in the sea parts, it was still day in some scenes. It wasn't until later, after, I got out of the theater, I figure out, that the film was covering different periods of time: one beginning on land and covering one week, one on the sea and covering one day, and one in the air covering one hour. Maybe, editor, Lee Smith, could had interwoven it, a lot better, or better yet, give texts on what the time and date, is. It was really hard to follow. The other thing, I dislike about this film is, the fact, that, all of the characters were made up. There was hardly any characters based on, actual real people that went through those events. 1958's 'Dunkirk' film, has more real-life characters, than this movie, does, and that's highly dramatization. I just wish, Nolan, when writing this, use more of historian Joshua Levine's 2011 book, 'Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk', which is a collection of firsthand accounts that are both humorous and tragic, a lot better. Overall: Christopher Nolan's first history movie is bold, visceral, and powerful, with many moving sequences -- though some of his filmmaking choices was a little too challenging to follow. While, most of these tactics didn't work for this film. I still, 'Dunkirk' was a good movie that still highly recommended. Just not the experience, I was hoping for.