I wanted to watch the "Dunkirk" at a cinema, but somehow I couldn't get around to go. So when it appeared in streaming services, I was glad, that I'd see this hyped masterpiece at last. And now I'm grateful, that I haven't watched it in the cinema - I'd lost money and at least one hour, which was redundant in this film. Moreover, I'm wasting another hour to describe this fresh disappointment...

I think, that the director tried to create an "artsy" movie, but this is not the genre. Not every film with long scenes without much action nor dialogue, is by definition "artistic". It is risky to match an artistic movie and war movie - and in my opinion, the director didn't make it. For most of the time it was simply boring. Luckily, I had fast forward button... And for such budget, the film was quite austere. Many reviewers pointed out, that all we have seen were some five aircraft, a dozen of boats and several trucks, plus two warships.

What is worse, boring long takes are interspersed with unrealistic, simplified or just absurd scenes. Probably the author of the script tried to show the horror of war, but it does not start good, when the soldiers walk through a calm and deserted city, and suddenly there come shots out of nowhere. Have the Germans just enter Dunkirk?... If so, then there is only one French barricade, restraining them from the beach... Other reviewers or goof-pickers rightfully criticized scenes on a boat riddled by gunshots, or long gliding flight of an aircraft without working engine. It might be only added, that when it comes to air battles, the Spitfire pilot just follows the enemy fighter and shoots, while the victim flies in generally straight line, not trying to break a contact or attack... I understand, that the director did not want to use a CGI, but far more realistic battles were shot in the "Battle of Britain" in1969, which is, needless to say, also more entertaining movie to watch, with a proper pace. And if the enemy bomber is shot down, it obviously fells into a relatively small spillage of oil and sets it on fire, to add dramatic effect to a nearby boat. ...And what we see aboard the boat is not a particularly realistic acting either.

By accident, a few weeks ago I've watched "Their Finest", also a new film on a similar subject. In spite of being a lighter movie, described as a comedy-drama-romance, I found it more telling about the human nature, than the "Dunkirk", and more dramatic as well. And the script of a fictional movie about Dunkirk evacuation, that is being written by main characters in "Their Finest", seems to be no more silly and unrealistic, than of the "Dunkirk". Only the budget of that fictional movie is a fraction of the "Dunkirk", and it has to be shot in difficult wartime conditions. All in all, my thought was, that the fictional movie about creating a film about Dunkirk, was better and more worth to watch, than a blockbuster about Dunkirk...