• Warning: Spoilers
    I am sure that the critics that write the reviews are paid shills because anyone who considers that movie to be a masterpiece has either never seen a war movie or is just taking money to lie to the public.

    Dunkirk was more spectacular than 7 or so boats, 3 planes and less than 300 men in a line on a beach.

    And whose idea was it to pay Tom Hardy a ridiculous sum of the budget to once again hide his face and never actually do what he is paid to do which last I checked was acting? It's obvious he was used in this movie to give it some credibility just like they did with the Mad Max debacle where he spent 3 quarters of the movie with a face covering on preventing him from speaking.

    The noise was awful and apparently some of that noise was considered to be music! Dull bass throbbing in every scene.

    Story? Lets not even go there. I can sum up the Story in one paragraph although you cannot really consider it a spoiler because there's nothing in this to spoil.

    "Trapped on a beach awaiting rescue but the ships keep getting destroyed by dive bombers with only 3 planes to protect those ships. Ends with Hardy finally revealing his face when he is captured after landing his plane which has run out of fuel."

    That's it. Everything else in between is just noise.

    To the people who consider themselves to be critics I say this: If you want the movie industry to become like the gaming industry where the main goal is most profit in shortest time regardless of the content then keep spouting the BS otherwise you need to start telling the truth for once.

    Two hours of noise and it cost them $100 million to make? It's obvious where that money went because these so called movie creators couldn't even be bothered to use CGI to expand the number of men, ships and planes to really set the scene.

    There was nothing in this movie and Tom Hardy was thick or corrupt enough to be used as the marketing tool.

    Don't waste your money.