Nolan and editor Lee Smith revealed that the film will be told through three perspectives and will feature “little dialogue.”

While Dunkirk's running time is yet to be confirmed, the official screenplay clocks in at 112 pages which, going by the popular held belief that one page equates to a minute of screen-time, suggests that Dunkirk could be Nolan's shortest film since his debut

AndyDursin wrote:I find it interesting, and maybe a little disconcerting, this hasn't screened well in advance for critics. Especially for a movie like this where reviews typically do help sell a movie to an adult audience, a studio will want to spread "the good word" and conduct screenings out in front of its debut. Instead, Warner is (apparently) lifting the embargo on DUNKIRK just a few days before release, like every other summer movie.

It's not atypical for most studio garbage out there today, no, but it gives me a bit of pause considering the project. That, and the very slender running time too. I know MJ is happy, but I'd rather have a 2.5 running time on DUNKIRK than the likes of WONDER WOMAN. One wonders how much you can cram into a movie like this that probably runs under 100 minutes minus credits (assuming the running time reports are accurate).

I mean, it's not like they need to keep the story under wraps, seeing as everyone knows how it turns out!

So what’s the word? Well, unsurprisingly, those who saw the film at the press day have high praise for Nolan’s craft. The guy is a master filmmaker, and with Dunkirk it sounds like he’s put together a non-stop, edge-of-your-seat thriller. The IMAX photography is also getting strong notices, as folks point out that experiencing this movie in full IMAX is the best way to do it.

But there seems to be a bit of an undercurrent of underwhelming notices for the characters and story. Nolan’s film sounds more experiential than anything, and there’s no individual standout character. Also, if you looking for movie stars, this ain’t the film—Tom Hardy apparently only has a handful of lines.

A USA Today review of “Dunkirk” is under increased scrutiny from industry peers for warning viewers that it lacks women and minorities.

Social media ridicule followed the publishing of writer Brian Truitt’s reaction to director Christopher Nolan’s latest film, a World War II tale about Allied soldiers attempting to survive while pinned down by German adversaries. The columnist gave the film a glowing review while saying its lack of diversity “may rub some the wrong way.”

“The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way,” Mr. Truitt wrote Monday. “Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.”

Conservatives like National Review Online Editor Charles C.W. Cooke reacted with sarcasm and mockery.

“It was highly problematic that the British Expeditionary Force and the French army stranded such a monochrome crew,” Mr. Cooke tweeted Tuesday.

“USA Today’s Dunkirk review is officially as absurd as conservative parodies of the social justice crowd,” added The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Grisworld.