A Spielberg, Kubrick or Stone, Nolan is not.

Rating: 3/10 (24 July 2017)

The last truly bad WWII film I ever saw was The Thin Red Line. Dunkirk seems to want to compete for that spot, but still comes in slightly ahead.
I like Nolan, I really do. Interstellar was one of my favorite movies, Inception was great and I loved his recreation of Batman. I also love WWII movies, Band of Brothers being one of the best stories ever to grace the screen, in my opinion. The entire time watching this movie, though, there was one nagging question I had: What if Spielberg directed this?
Chris Nolan really isn't suited to take on a film like this. Dunkirk is a historical drama, about one of the greatest feats in WWII. This has two strikes against Nolan; one is that it's a historical drama, unlike the rest of his portfolio. The second is that WWII is, by its very nature an "R" rated period (so to speak) and Nolan seems to thrive in semi-tame PG-13 violence.
"War is Hell"... yet nowhere in this movie do we ever sense that. There's a huge difference between gratuitous violence and realism, mind you and I am not promoting the former. Steven Spielberg is the master of understanding this. Some of his movies are rather violent, yet they use that to drive home the plot and atmosphere of the film. Chris Nolan really, really, desperately needs to take some notes from Spielberg in this area if he wants to be a true master of his art. The desire to stick to this catch-all, watered down PG-13 cash- cow rating, almost seems forced, considering the time period and the topic covered.
Realistic "R" rating aside, the tedium of the movie sets in rather quickly. Had I not paid money to see it, and waited for its TV release, I would have changed the channel about 15 minutes in.
This story sets itself up for about half of the film. It takes that long just to understand the characters, their motivations, their situations even their names. Once that's done, the movie starts to show us some promise and hopes to drops us into action, but ends up easing us down gently. Critics may commend Nolan for keeping an even momentum, not letting one part overpower the next - unfortunately it carries the momentum of a brick wall.
The history of Dunkirk is a fine example of human will and strength, it just doesn't make for a gripping story. The events that this movie cover, can be summed up in about 2 pages of a text book, not an entire novel nevermind a 2 hour movie!
A book editor once told me that you should always focus on telling the most interesting moment of a character's life. While the evacuation is interesting, in this movie, it seems the most interesting moments took place just before the events it covers. How did 400,000 soldiers end up getting pushed back to the sea? What battles were fought that drove them so far? What tactics failed so catastrophically?
Dunkirk tells half a story, with the more interesting half taking place before the movie starts. The two hours of this movie could have easily been compressed into 1 hour, with another 2 hours telling the larger story of how the events transpired that led to this point.
Acting wise it's hard to tell. Mark Rylance almost revisits his role as the Russian spy, Rudolf Able in (a much better film) Bridge of Spies. It works. His calm demeanor, yet screen presence is felt and you do make some connection with his character. Of course, that may also be because his character has one of the larger speaking roles throughout the entire film.
The rest of the actors are wasted, especially Kenneth Branagh, who has proved himself, time and time again, to be an "actor's actor", but has been almost sidelined for the duration of this movie.
I would recommend waiting for this film to reach a cable channel before you fork out the $12+ for a ticket if I would recommend this movie at all. As it stands, do yourself a favor and binge watch Band of Brothers in order to get a much more rewarding WWII experience.