I saw it yesterday and I am sad to say that it did not live up to my expectations. It was a movie that I expected to like and wanted to like but it just came up short.

There was a lot to like but there was much that was superfluous and too many ways that I believe it could have been made better. I believe that more context would have useful. A few lines of introduction as to how the situation developed was not enough. Somehow there should have been some way to convey more vividly what a disaster it would have been had things turned out differently. Only passing mention was made to the decision by Hitler to halt his tanks. The possibility of a reversal of that decision, by all accounts, created a sense of impending doom over those who were aware of the situation. This could have been used for more dramatic effect, of which there was otherwise not much.

Another facet of the story of Dunkirk which I think got extremely short shrift was the assembling of the flotilla of small boats which crossed the Channel for the rescue. To many people this was THE main story of Dunkirk. It almost appeared that the side story about this was inserted so that the acting talents of Mark Rylance could be put to use. It seemed to add nothing to the main story.

The battle scenes were great cinematography but I don't think there would have been lost if there had been fewer of them.

I often feel guilty when I am critical of a movie like this but I don't think that simply making a movie about a serious topic does not always make for a good one.