Even professional critics have been blinded

Rating: 7/10 (27 July 2017)

We all know how good Christopher Nolan is, but this time he failed. How critics can overlook this is beyond me because it is not subjective. Objectively the film is missing essential tools of storytelling that are established for hundreds of years. Everyone who actually learned script writing would tell you the same.
The movie is lacking two major things: 1. characters 2. conflict
1. The movie has NO characters. I don't mean thin ones I mean NO characters. We never even get names of the main protagonists. We get no backstory, no mannerisms, nothing. Another review said the film concentrates on the "event" Dunkirk rather than characters and on other filmmaking techniques. Even if that is the case and a conscious choice by Nolan you can't do that and expect people to be invested in your movie. It is like saying "a film needed no story, visuals where more important". You can't just ignore essential elements like story or characters.
2. The movie has no conflict. And I don't mean conflict as in allies against Germany which by the way is also not really there because you never really get to see the enemy in form of a person. I mean conflict in dialog. There is almost no dialog in the movie therefore no conflicting views that make interesting dialog which is mind boggling since Nolan is usually very good in exact that field.
Since there are no characters in the movie just faces you never get invested. Nolan has been criticized in the past for his films being cold. This is the coldest one. That being said I am sure next time he will deliver again but I guarantee that in 10 years this is the movie from Nolan nobody will remember, because there is just nothing memorable in it. Even if you are that gifted you can't just ignore basic storytelling foundations.