Comments by "Itinerant Patriot" (@itinerantpatriot1196) on "History Buffs: Dunkirk" video.

  1. I guess if you just like the way this guy makes movies you will like this one. I saw it in the theater and thought it sucked. I saw it again when it showed up on cable, thinking maybe I was too harsh on the first go round and the verdict was the same. Why? Because the director seemed more interested in staying true to his style of movie making than actually telling a compelling story. It is crap storytelling. It's disjointed and if someone with no prior knowledge of the event was to watch it they wouldn't be able to give you any insight into what happened, why it happened, and who was making the decisions, aspects of war movies that are kind of important. I mean, they are in every war movie I have ever seen, even the off-color ones like Catch 22 and MASH. Sure, this guy uses real planes and such but who cares. Where is Churchill? Where is Halifax? Where are the pitched battles to give these guys time to escape? Basically, where's the beef? The director lays no foundation for the story and assumes that everyone coming to see this already knows the history so he's going to focus on actors who give terrible, uninspired performances of people...🤔...um...doing stuff I guess. Like I say, the guy was so concerned about making an artsy style movie that he neglected to tell a story, and that is what history is, storytelling. Honestly, if you were to read a book on Dunkirk put together like this movie was, tell me you wouldn't put it down less than halfway through. Sorry History Buff. I have agreed with most of your reviews but you missed the bigger picture here. This director should stick to faux film-noir Batman flicks and stay the hell away from history. But that's me. Dunkirk is a terrible film.
    2