I’m afraid I thought it was awful, and I generally agree with most of the negative comments above.

I really enjoyed it. No plot which suits me cos I’m thick & can’t cope with plots as such, I’m still trying to work out who Kaiser Soze is!

I don’t think there needed to be a ‘story’, it was what it was.

Definitely a “cinema” film watching it at home just wouldn’t be the same.

Cant really understand all the hate for the historical and architectural inaccuracies though… did I miss the bit about it being a documentary?

Certainly seems to be polarising in here, though IMDB has it up at 8.1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/
Certainly says more people enjoyed it than didn’t.

On the “cinema” feel big tv, full surround sound and lights off did the trick for me

I’m with the “ok, but no epic” team.

There just wasn’t enough scale or sense of relentless attack.

Got it on DVD for Christmas.

Thought it was OK, but some niggles really bugged me.

– Ships that were supposed to be moving were straining against their anchors.

– Modern buildings in the background.

– The burning spitfire at the end that was clearly a hollow shell.

– Fake BF109s that weren’t right.

– Only about 200 people on the beach and never more than a dozen boats.

A bit of subtle CGI could have tidied the lot of that up.

Which one has Harry Stiles BTW?

I think the way the film depicts the French Army is more than a little unfair.

Nearly a third of soldiers evacuated off the beach were French, and somewhere between 60-90,000 French troops were killed or captured defending Dunkirk and the surrounding villages from the German army so that the Evacuation could actually take place. You can argue that Nolan wanted to concentrate on a couple of stories and sea/beach/air battles, but IMO missing this part, and the way the film depicts French soldiers and then the Navy’s “heroism” to rescue them at the end, does history (and the French) a dis-service.

The technical errors of the Spanish 109s are annoying but mleh, seen those before, and it’s unfair to lob that at Nolan, 109’s are pretty hard to get hold off!

Weirdly, it is a film that lends itself to a bit of subtle CGI, I’m all for real effects (and the beaches themselves were routinely empty-seeming as the evacuation over 10-12 days was pretty organised and not rushed) so there weren’t masses of troops hanging about, but Dunkirk was smashed to pieces, and the air was filled with planes…

I prefer this edit of it:

[video]https://youtu.be/DbIbchSteCI[/video]

Christopher Nolan is one of my favourite directors of the moment – Momento, Batman, and Inception are great films. But he’s really starting to piss me off with his slap-dash attitude to historical facts that should be easy to get right.

Interstellar was a joke because Matthew McConaughey’s character was supposed to be an Apollo astronaut but the youngest Apollo astronaut was Charlie Duke and he would have been 79 when Interstellar came out let alone set in any future time. Why didn’t Nolan make him a Shuttle pilot? Because he wanted to get a stupid dig in about the Moon missions being a fake.

Similarly all the simple historical inacurracies he’s built into this film just spoilt it for me. Nolan should stick to fiction as he just doesn’t do fact.

Watched it on a laptop on a plane. Music score was really annoying. Had some excellent scenes, but I would have preferred a conventional linear narrative, probably focusing on the Cillian Murphy character until he ends up in the water, then handing over to Mark Rylance until the bomber appears, then switching to Tom Hardy for the air battle. As above, it didn’t seem to capture the real scale of the battle, with hundreds of planes and boats and hundreds of thousands of troops.