Whilst doing my ironing today I started to watch the 1958 film of “Dunkirk” with John Mills, Richard Attenborough, Robert Urquhart et al.
I know that this was a post-war semi-propaganda version, but it is far more believable, despite the clipped language, than the absolute rubbish perpetrated by Christopher Nolan in 2017,
It appears that the major claim to fame of the latest version appeared to be: “We did not use CG”. Nor did the earlier version (simply because they could not), and in their day they did not need to show huge cardboard cut-outs of queueing soldiers or very obvious buildings from the 1970s or later. But the 1958 producers could get a large quantity of extras who had actually been under fire in WW2.
It appears to me that the producers of the 2017 version were too carried away with filming at the location to notice that it has been rebuilt since 1940.
The earlier producers/directors also seemed to have researched the number of bombs that a JU88 “Stuka” could actually carry, unlike their later “let’s aim for maximum effect” counterparts.
My vote?: 1958 version: 4/5, 2017 version: 1/5.
General Whiskers' semi-historical wanderings 
Agreed.
Too many extras in the 2017 with hair long enough to have been ballet dancers as my old CSM might have remarked.