I don’t know what I think of Dunkirk. It’s reasonably well executed, but it is not compelling—I’m not going to chase you down the street to encourage you to see this movie. Okay, I wouldn’t do that for any movie, but if I were the kind of person who did that ever, I still wouldn’t for this one, while I might do that for Christopher Nolan’s 2017 version.

The basic story of Operation Dynamo is gripping, but the movie doesn’t have a compelling story, or at least the characters aren’t compelling. And now I know what bothers me about this movie. The characters are flatter than pancakes attacked by Stukas; if a character changes or grows (two of them do), it is in a manner that is entirely predictable.

Director Leslie Norman wants to argue that the United Kingdom was not united and many did not take the war seriously before Dunkirk. These events bring the nation together, which will lead to the eventual victory. This is a perfectly good theme and historical movies can and probably should be forgiven or even lauded for making these kinds of arguments.

One half of the movie could have told that story, but this movie has two halves; the other half, about soldiers on the beach instead of the civilians at home, is more interesting and informative, but it isn’t moving or compelling.

I’m saying ‘compelling’ too much, particularly to say something lacks that quality.

Most scenes either present the stories of two civilian boat owners, played by Bernard Lee and Richard Attenborough (The Great Escape, Sea of Sand), or of a small group of soldiers separated from their unit led by a corporal played by John Mills (Ice Cold in Alex, Operation Crossbow). There are only three scenes that don’t feature at least one of these three, but they are pivotal ones featuring high command. These help us understand the flow of the battle; they’re useful historic information if we came here to learn more about Dunkirk.

The story featuring Lee and Attenborough is so straightforward as to be nearly entirely predictable—one twist may not be obvious, but it probably is. Lee (who played ‘M’ in eleven James Bond movies, so even though this was made before Dr. No, I already see no one but M) is a civilian boat owner who already has the proper attitude about the war. Coincidentally he is a reporter, which handily gives us access to some military press briefings where army spokesmen become less and less responsive as the Allied campaign in France begins to fail.

Attenborough’s character, M and a wounded sailor angrily inform us, has the wrong attitude about the war—he isn’t willing to sacrifice enough, and people like him are the problem. So he is going to change his attitude before the end of the movie, we are already sure.

An example of film making that is not subtle.

Meanwhile, Corporal “Tubby” Binns (Mills) leads a small group of men separated from their unit in France. This group wanders the countryside and beach, acting as our eyes as we witness a number of facets of the battle. They also face nearly constant obstacles.

Tubby and his men end up on a road with evacuees who the Germans strafe, so we can know that Germans are bad. They fight Germans in a farmhouse. Then they support an artillery emplacement for a while; our heroes are just bystanders and pick up some more people when ordered to retreat because the Stukas are coming (silence equals Stukas coming). This scene is reasonably well done, as all the scenes are.

They also meet up with someone from the RAF, so someone in the RAF can be in the movie. They have a number of small adventures and finally end up on the beach at Dunkirk, where they, predictably, meet up with M. They take a wounded man to an aid station, so we can see doctors drawing lots to see who stays behind to be captured by the Germans along with the wounded—a doctor named Levy is chosen; we are certainly meant to think he is Jewish.

Everything Tubby and his men do shows us another part of the big story, but their story is lost. The tragedies they witness feel like parables instead of things that happened to people. You’re beaten over the head thematically.

Perhaps in 1958 this movie would have had considerably more emotional impact on audiences, particularly in the UK. It does have some scenes with emotional impact, or one at least. On the beach at Dunkirk after the German artillery stops to give the German planes a chance to attack, the men on the beach lie, helpless, some making piteous, despairing cries.

The scenes on the beach look impressive and seem authentic and are similar to the beaches Nolan shows, except Norman shows more of the dunes.

The script that the cast and crew are given is well executed, but any depth a character may have comes from the performance, not the script. The movie has significant breadth in an effort to show us the whole story, but we end up invested in little of it. It is stronger as an historical document of Dunkirk and British attitudes about it. It performs that function without being wildly entertaining. It is interesting; it instructs, but it does not delight.

Recommendation

 I wouldn’t particularly recommend paying money for this movie, but it’s part of this five-movie set, Their Finest Hour: 5 British WWII Classics, that I do recommend. Ice Cold in Alex and Went the Day Well? are very good, and many people who are not me think The Dam Busters is a classic. The Colditz Story and Dunkirk are at least okay.

There’s a fancy limited edition of the 2017 version of Dunkirk. I wouldn’t chase you down the street to recommend it, but while you’re here . . .

You can also watch it for free with ads on Amazon Prime and on Tubi, which shows a great many World War II movies. I would recommend watching it for free.