Who is the hottest / most handsome Boy in Dunkirk?

View Poll

I want to like Dunkirk. Seriously, I really do. I just finished watching it for the second time, and honestly, I had to rewatch it because I barely remembered anything from the first time around. What I did remember was that it felt… boring. I thought maybe I missed something, so I gave it another shot.

For context, I happened to watch Interstellar for the first time right before this rewatch. And holy shit, that movie blew me away. I'm wondering why I waited so long to see it. With Dunkirk, though, it’s a completely different story.

Before I start picking it apart, let me talk about what the movie does right—because there are things I genuinely like about it.

1. The Visuals Are Insane:

Like every Nolan movie, the set pieces are absolutely stunning. The planes, the ships, the beach—all of it looks so real. If you told me Nolan actually sank ships in the English Channel to make this movie, I’d believe you.

2. It’s Mostly Accurate to History:

Nolan does a good job sticking to historical accuracy. Sure, there are small creative liberties—like the German planes having yellow noses or Dunkirk looking way too intact—but overall, it feels like he respects the story and the people involved.

Where It Falls Apart (For Me)

Now, here’s where things get tricky. These are just my opinions, but they’re the reasons I didn’t connect with the film the way I wanted to.

1. What’s the Point?

I mean, I kinda get it. The goal was to make us feel like we’re there, in the moment, experiencing Dunkirk as it happened. But it just didn’t work for me. We already know how the story ends: Dunkirk’s evacuation was a success, and 330,000 some odd men made it home. However, if I wanted a true historically accurate account, there are plenty of books with firsthand stories that likely do a better job at capturing the chaos and emotion. For me, the movie doesn’t add anything new or make me feel like I’m experiencing it firsthand. Emotionally or otherwise.

2. The Lack of Scale:

This is probably my biggest issue. The scale of Dunkirk in the film feels drastically understated. The real Dunkirk was absolute chaos. The beach was packed with nearly 400,000 soldiers, equipment was scattered everywhere, the city was in ruins, and fires were raging. But in the movie? The beach looks way too empty. You can see the sand between the soldiers!

To put it into perspective: there were nearly 400,000 British and French troops stranded on that beach. If every single one of them had been lost, that would have been roughly equivalent to the total number of U.S. military deaths in all of World War II. Or for a more British comparison: if every man on that beach had died, it would have been roughly 50,000 fewer than all British military losses in the entire war. The scale of Dunkirk I feel is one of the most important parts of its story, and the movie just doesn’t capture that.

3. Who Are These Characters Supposed to Be?

The movie follows three main storylines—one on land, one at sea, and one in the air. The air storyline is my favorite, hands down. It’s intense, and I was hooked. The sea storyline? Solid. But the land storyline? It’s just… boring. There’s barely any dialogue, and I couldn’t even tell the two main characters apart half the time. Am I supposed to care about them? Were they even supposed to be memorable? I found myself wanting to skip though to the other two atories because they actually felt like they had some weight and personality. Like, Cillian Murphy's portrayal of a shell shocked soldier is brilliant. I feel bad for that character. And I feel the disdain that the son of the old man has for him.

Let me say this: when I watch a movie about a historical event or time perioid, accurate or not, I want to feel something. I don’t care if it’s dread, awe, suspense, excitement, or even discomfort—I want to walk away thinking about it.

Take Oppenheimer, for example. Every time I watch it, I can’t shake the dread it leaves me with. It’s terrifying to think about how one person could destroy the world. That movie sticks with me because it taps into something deeper. But Dunkirk? It doesn’t leave me with anything. It’s a beautiful movie, but it doesn’t make me feel anything beyond, “Huh, that looked cool.”

Final Thoughts

I feel like Dunkirk had so much potential, but it just missed the mark for me. Maybe it’s the kind of film you have to see in a theater to fully appreciate. Maybe I’m just not the right audience for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I can respect the craft: the practical effects, the insane visuals, the attention to detail. But it lacks the emotional depth that I look for in a historical film. I don’t feel awe. I don’t feel dread. I don't feel for the characters. I just feel… bored.

Am I looking at this the wrong way? Is there something I’m missing? I’d love to hear other perspectives because, right now, I feel like Dunkirk is a film I want to love but just can’t.

How did the french solider know to go under the pier before the boat got bombed and then why did they dunk their heads (im assuming to look like they evacuated the ship) but why

I have done much better in the past but I made this because I was bored.

https://preview.redd.it/qtellcwio0ec1.png?width=3840&format=png&auto=webp&s=46ef8787efb43cb6fb4db57769a244c40d5bbb36

Not a historical person at all, so I am 99.9% missing a lot of important context here. But it looked like the troops were sitting ducks for many hours before more boats started to come. This seemed like a golden opportunity for Germany to just bomb the whole area, right? Can someone explain why they didn't? Wouldn't it have effectively decimated their enemies' troops?

When the capsized boat tips and spills oil people are either rescued or saved. It's a chaotic scene and I can't keep track of what characters become victims or survivors.

What characters are saved and are victims to the sea Oil Fire?

The entire cast did a fantastic job but Rylance’s performance takes the cake. He really portrays the pain of what he’s experienced and lost while not showing it outwardly.

I mean, that's better than being caught by the enemy and tortured for information, right?

I’ve read on the internet that Point Vicente, Palos Verdes CA was used as a filming location for this film. Some sources state that they shot scenes for 2 weeks at this location. I live close by to Point Vincente and have been there many times but I never can spot a scene that looks close to the scenery at Point Vicente.

Would really appreciate it if someone could point out a scene or sequence that could have been shot at Point Vicente. Thanks.

Obviously I know these events actually happened in real life but are the specific characters based on actual people as well? Like was there a British soldier and French soldier who were trying to get out together and the French soldier didn't make it? Was there actually a pilot who ended up getting captured after literally saving everyone? I suppose the British and French soldier is fairly generic so it's more possible that it happened but what about the pilot? And if it is based off an actual person did the pilot ever get rescued or did he die in captivity?

i watched this movie for the first time after it left theaters. i wish i had been lucky enough to see it in IMAX :( maybe one day they will re-release it!