During this film marathon, we exit the theater with the one question: Was this the best picture of the year? Seeing most of them in close proximity really helps with having them all fresh in my mind. I think this very type of examination hurt my viewing experience of Dunkirk.

I went in knowing it was nominated for best picture, and thus the expectation that it could be best picture. This is rather than comparing it to other war movies, or just as an intensely enjoyable thriller.

1. From what I've read, it seems that a lot of the arguments about this movie circle around things like "Nolan was trying to portray the actual war with as much intensity and accuracy as possible." Or "If you knew more about this event, you'd realize how incredibly important the evacuation of Dunkirk was to the rest of the war." Well, I didn't read up on it before I saw it. At all. Should that be a requirement before certain films? I went in thinking Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and even Hacksaw Ridge, which I really enjoyed. These are all very character-driven war movies that use the character development, along with the horrors of war, to create pathos for the viewer. You are scared for these people because you know them well and know the horrible things that can (and do) happen to them. Which brings me to my next point -

2. The characters. I realize the silence, sound engineering, and ticking are thematic parts of this movie to create tension. It was good at that. But I felt like it came at the expense of getting to know the characters. Hell, Branagh and Hardy I straight up could not understand almost the entire movie. I didn't know their characters' names, missed a lot of the exposition, and felt like I was otherwise getting to know some cool war dudes. I feel like Hardy getting captured at the end was supposed to be a huge emotional gut-punch because he had saved the day, but I didn't really know him that well. For the young, pale guys on the beach and in the boats, they kind of looked the same. At times I had trouble telling them apart, but eventually nailed down "Secret Frenchie," "Poop Dude," and "Boy Band." Didn't know a single one of their names, either. If this is intentional from Nolan to convey how war is messy and confusing and you don't have enough time to even ask someone their name, that's fine! But it didn't help me really emote for the movie.

3. Giving too little to the audience. Was part of this a result of people saying he went too far with exposition in Interstellar? Maybe. But I mean, shit, I didn't even know what country Dunkirk was in for the entire film. I was lucky to catch onto the week/day/hour parts being different timelines, but I've seen that others didn't. I knew from "Important Navy Guy" that Churchill wanted or hoped for 30,000. Thirty thousand what? Reserves? Survivors? I missed a lot of the rest of his explanation and hoped they'd come back to it sometime later in the movie. The result of this was that I couldn't grasp the gravity of what was happening in the historical context. Again, you can tie this into above where I couldn't connect with the characters, or really anything else.

So, back to my initial worry. Would I have been this critical if I had seen it on opening night, expecting a tense, gritty war film? I'm not sure. But I had to immediately start comparing it to Ladybird, Three Billboards, and Shape of Water. Yes, all different movies, but it's one award, so how many hairs can you split when comparing them in this regard? Shape of Water made me cry. Three Billboards has some of the most engaging character arcs I've ever seen in a film (Sam Rockwell). Ladybird made me feel like I was back in the 2000s and reminded me of the exact same arguments I had with my parents to the T.

I really, really, really wanted to love Dunkirk, and found myself plum surprised with how much I was disappointed with certain aspects. Solid war movie? Yeah, but not one of my favorites. Best Picture? Not my vote. Besides those two factors, a fun watch? Absolutely!