Very poor

Rating: 1/10 (8 January 2018)

A series of noisy special effects does not make a movie. Excuses for the film try to pretend that the director deliberately did not build characters. In fact many efforts were made to create characters and all failed. Stereotypical cut outs waggled like a children's cardboard play. There were attempts to create story lines but all failed. The fact that the main one was clearly based on Norman Leslie's excellent Dunkirk portrayal demonstrates a hopeless lack of imagination. Why not at least choose a different small ship, a ferry, a sailing boat or something? As well as the many continuity errors there were constantly doubtful geographical and navigational scenes. Technical faults were many but most infuriating of all was the whole concept of the film. No historical insight was considered. Instead it was just a long, boring cliche. A decision was taken to show many spitfires shooting down German planes, just as they were bombing ships, with seaman cheering. While there were some such combats they would have been tiny in number compared with other combats such as fighter against fighter. The historical picture is therefore completely distorted even before one considers the role of French, non whites or anyone else. It was just a traditional attempt to glorify the spitfire which was not a superior fighter anyway. As regards the seaman who was rescued and murdered the boy on the boat, is that a true story? If not, it is in very bad taste. Best go back to the other films relating to Dunkirk which give a greater insight and are well constructed films. If you want decent acting, try The Snow Goose. Let's hope the next millions are spent on something worthwhile which is not about Britain's greatest hour but perhaps explores the darker side of England's past warring, in China, Africa or the Middle East for example. Plenty to choose from.