"Dunkirk" is not a bad film, but it does not at all deserve the lavish praise that has been bestowed upon it by critics. Its chief problem is that it has no truly strong characters. Now, some people have said that this is a result of the nonlinear narrative, and they're wrong. The problem, rather, is simply inadequate character writing on Nolan's part. The narrative structure is arguably a strength, as it truly does cause us to feel – for a short while – the silliness and arbitrariness of war. The film's lack of strong character development, however, unsurprisingly becomes a more glaring fault as the film unfolds. Its best scenes are mostly in the last third, though the speech sequence at the very end is overly preachy and heavy-handed.

"Dunkirk", ultimately, is an example of how realism to a film's subject does not make that film a masterpiece. Depth is needed; excellent characters are needed. I truly suspect that if you were to show any reasonably good film critic the first 40-50 minutes of this film and not tell them that Christopher Nolan directed it, they would likely see little difference between it and most blockbusters that they are forced to review every summer. Yes, Zimmer's score is strong, and there are moments of excellent camera-work. Nevertheless, the fact that this film is actually being lauded by not only audiences but even a fair number of critics as one of the greatest war films ever made makes me somewhat concerned about the future of film criticism in the United States. What makes "Dunkirk" as significant a work of art as "All Quiet on the Western Front", "Paths of Glory", or "Apocalypse Now"? Nothing, because it is nowhere near those films artistically and intellectually.