Surprising is how many people claim that this movie has good visuals or even transports well the conditions of battle - imo everything just looks wrong, most of the ships and the architecture of the houses at the beach looks way too modern to be authentic to the times around 1940. That such movies are still possible to make without zillions of dollars proof such fine movies like The Book Thief or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.

Also, where are the tanks, artillery, trucks, and other equipment etc. of the allies!? Everything just looks underachieving, bad, cheap. Compare Saving Private Ryan - you see that this movie is almost a joke, without all those extras standing around I would say it is a movie made by some students of movie-making or one of those projects of those guys who "reenact" battles. Alone the landing and fighting on Omaha Beach in Spielberg's epic war movie beat easy a thousand times everything of Dunkirk's boredom.

This movie is everything but epic, and this movie is for certain no example for good movie making, maybe good enough for the fanboys of over-praised Mr. Nolan. For me, Dunkirk is a total fail regarding entertainment, suspense or in telling the "true" story of Dunkirk. Also all the techniques like cam, setting etc. are at most just mediocre. Where all the money for producing this movie was spent, I can't imagine, but maybe Karl Lagerfeld or some other fashion designer did the job himself to make all the uniforms with his very own hands. A movie like Enemy at the Gates must have cost at least a billion dollars, of such dimension is the difference in the quality of the production of both movies.

Mr. Nolan did a very good job with Inception, but war movies ain't his business for sure - compared with the mentioned movies and other good to ueber-good movies about WW II Dunkirk is a true work of a dilettante.

Saving Private Ryan got a rating of 8 from me, compared I can give Dunkirk only a 1. Zero I would give if I only could.