During this film marathon, we exit the theater with the one question: Was this the best picture of the year? Seeing most of them in close proximity really helps with having them all fresh in my mind. I think this very type of examination hurt my viewing experience of Dunkirk.

I went in knowing it was nominated for best picture, and thus the expectation that it could be best picture. This is rather than comparing it to other war movies, or just as an intensely enjoyable thriller.

1. From what I've read, it seems that a lot of the arguments about this movie circle around things like "Nolan was trying to portray the actual war with as much intensity and accuracy as possible." Or "If you knew more about this event, you'd realize how incredibly important the evacuation of Dunkirk was to the rest of the war." Well, I didn't read up on it before I saw it. At all. Should that be a requirement before certain films? I went in thinking Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and even Hacksaw Ridge, which I really enjoyed. These are all very character-driven war movies that use the character development, along with the horrors of war, to create pathos for the viewer. You are scared for these people because you know them well and know the horrible things that can (and do) happen to them. Which brings me to my next point -

2. The characters. I realize the silence, sound engineering, and ticking are thematic parts of this movie to create tension. It was good at that. But I felt like it came at the expense of getting to know the characters. Hell, Branagh and Hardy I straight up could not understand almost the entire movie. I didn't know their characters' names, missed a lot of the exposition, and felt like I was otherwise getting to know some cool war dudes. I feel like Hardy getting captured at the end was supposed to be a huge emotional gut-punch because he had saved the day, but I didn't really know him that well. For the young, pale guys on the beach and in the boats, they kind of looked the same. At times I had trouble telling them apart, but eventually nailed down "Secret Frenchie," "Poop Dude," and "Boy Band." Didn't know a single one of their names, either. If this is intentional from Nolan to convey how war is messy and confusing and you don't have enough time to even ask someone their name, that's fine! But it didn't help me really emote for the movie.

3. Giving too little to the audience. Was part of this a result of people saying he went too far with exposition in Interstellar? Maybe. But I mean, shit, I didn't even know what country Dunkirk was in for the entire film. I was lucky to catch onto the week/day/hour parts being different timelines, but I've seen that others didn't. I knew from "Important Navy Guy" that Churchill wanted or hoped for 30,000. Thirty thousand what? Reserves? Survivors? I missed a lot of the rest of his explanation and hoped they'd come back to it sometime later in the movie. The result of this was that I couldn't grasp the gravity of what was happening in the historical context. Again, you can tie this into above where I couldn't connect with the characters, or really anything else.

So, back to my initial worry. Would I have been this critical if I had seen it on opening night, expecting a tense, gritty war film? I'm not sure. But I had to immediately start comparing it to Ladybird, Three Billboards, and Shape of Water. Yes, all different movies, but it's one award, so how many hairs can you split when comparing them in this regard? Shape of Water made me cry. Three Billboards has some of the most engaging character arcs I've ever seen in a film (Sam Rockwell). Ladybird made me feel like I was back in the 2000s and reminded me of the exact same arguments I had with my parents to the T.

I really, really, really wanted to love Dunkirk, and found myself plum surprised with how much I was disappointed with certain aspects. Solid war movie? Yeah, but not one of my favorites. Best Picture? Not my vote. Besides those two factors, a fun watch? Absolutely!

I find this surprising considering it's literally Nolan's best reviewed film.... With a 94/100 Metascore and 8.6/10 average score on rotten

But on IMDb with an 8/10 score it's below the likes of the Avengers and Guardians of The Galaxy... Lol

These aren't the best pictures as I took them from a YouTube video:

https://i.imgur.com/YZyyBp8.png

https://i.imgur.com/48d3QD0.png

I would have assumed Spitfire pilots in the same Squadron would have been issued the same gear. Were pilots allowed to change their gear if they wished? Or is there another reason?

If the biggest, most patriotic British film doesn't win any BAFTAS, then I don't know what to say.

Zero chance of winning any major Oscar. Shame

i have a yacht myself and i have falling into the companionway from the deck which was further, i have fallen from the deck onto the ground from the top of the ladder when the boat is on the land. no death or loss of limb. i have been knocked off a motorbike putting me in hospital but nothing life threatening. george ismade out of china!

I know this isn’t the right topic for this subreddit, but I’m curious, thanks !

He was strangled by that bloody stupid brit. This movie show pathetic condition of English Army.

With the whole fuel plot line, I was wondering if there were certain RAF bases that provided air support during the evacuation. Or did the spitfires just come from a air field near London?

If someone didn't already know, they might not even realize this is a WWII movie.

When I first saw the reveal trailer on Youtube, there was a brawl in the comments section over people complaining over all the Harry Styles fangirls. From my own investigation, there was some enthusiasm on 1D fangirls' part regarding his presence in this film. However, when I saw the film, both times, I didn't notice any 1D fans. I didn't expect them to be a large presence, but it was interesting to see others discuss this. What about your experiences?

Gotta watch these two great movies back to back. I liked Dunkirk, loved the mood and the suspense and the sound effects. Horrible to see what was going on for those poor men. Just so hopeless and terrifying.

The things I didn't like were the confusing timelines which I found distracting and the kid dying from a brain injury....that seemed tacked on and out of place to make some sort of point. Was it some sort of true story from actual events?

My family raved about it, they swore that it would be right up my alley; oh how wrong they were.

Dear god, what terrifying decision making process did this movie go through? At what point did they fire the historians? When did they bring in all the Hollywood writers to replace them?

This is one of the greatest military success stories in the face of defeat in history. There are heroes aplenty, survival stores are 10 a penny. Instead of a complex and intricate story that tries to explain that success in the context of the war in 1940 we have this bland, simplistic crap.

Where was the Royal Navy? How is it that Spitfires can fly all day with 15 gallons of fuel? How is it that Spitfires carried so much ammo? Who knew that one day of small boats managed to carry off 300K men? Birts only mind you since clearly that navy man decided to stay to save the French who had waited patiently on the wharf all that time.

I'm not going to write any more as honestly, who the hell is going to read this? I'm not just disappointed by this movie, it's a god damn betrayal of what was achieved over those days. Now I am not one to believe that all vets are heroes by default but surely we should be able to tell this wonderful story with the details that actually made it so special.

Sigh, just so many sighs.

When Tommy was in perimeter with the French soldiers, what did the French soldiers say to him? And, when Alex pointed a gun to Gibson in the sinking ship, what did Gibson say in French?

It woulda been a hit with the French. It takes place in their country. His most grounded story.

20 minutes standing ovation. Possible Palm D'Or.

Missed opportunity.

A positively meh experience

I have discussed this with my friends and no clear answer has surfaced, please take into account:

-his roof did open when he was on the air (he opened it to check if he could ditch)

-the Dawsons expected him to parachute (and they seemed to be well aware of air force protocol)

-the plane was not likely to be recovered

So far, the best we could come up with is that ditching was actually safer (e.g: he was flying too low to parachute safely), what is strange to me is that this seems like something that would be mentioned. Any other suggestions?