Did the low raters even watch the same movie I did?

Rating: 9/10 (22 July 2017)

Just got out of what I'm sure will be the first of many viewings of Dunkirk. I'm a huge fan of Nolan's work and method of storytelling, and when I heard he was taking on a historical event for the first time I was incredibly excited but also a little apprehensive. Historical films are either fantastic or terrible, depending on how you approach them. I knew Nolan would take his usual methods for this one and I hoped they would work well but came in to the film open-minded. I was not disappointed, on any level.
This film was visually stunning, viscerally suspenseful, claustrophobic and compelling. The thing about World War 2 events is that most of us know how things play out. So the point of this film was not to fill us in on something we already know, but to give us a new perspective on it. This film gives us three. I thought the perspective-switching was a brilliant way to build tension and tell the story from angles we may not have thought of before.
I do not understand the complaints about poor editing, bad music, or boredom. I especially don't understand those who claim the film had no depth or that the characters weren't compelling enough. There are many ways to show an audience who someone is without giving their entire backstory, and I thought that Dunkirk in particular did a fantastic job of showing how human beings actually act under pressure. I wonder if those who rated this movie poorly even watched the same film I did, or if they are at all familiar with Nolan's filmmaking style. Dunkirk was different, but it was phenomenal.