I think there must be a syndrome whereby the impact and quality of a movie (or other artistic creation) can be given something of a critical 'free ride' simply because of the reputations of those associated with its production. To put this another way, were I - with absolutely no artistic talent - to pick up a handful of mud and throw it at a canvas, the resulting mess would certainly qualify as vandalism. If, however, an artist with a significant reputation was to do the same thing, I'm quite certain 'appreciators of art' would soon be queuing up to buy the resulting masterpiece. And so it is with Nolan, whose bleak and soulless take on Dunkirk seems to work best the less you actually know about the evacuation; and certainly the more the viewer reads into the film what he/she believes were Nolan's motivations and messages. Some of the reviews given by critics are deferential to a degree approaching fawning. Bearing in mind that this purports to be the story of a major wartime event, the lack of attention to historical detail is frankly unforgivable, especially considering the movie's huge cost. If you are interested in finding out about what actually happened at Dunkirk, this vague and depressing (on so many levels) take on history should never grace your list of source material. Thank God my 8th Army uncle, who was on the Dunkirk beach until the last day, was not around to see his story so debased.