I would guess there is little truth to it then.

"loosely based on a tale the director's grandfather - Alfred H. Mendes, who served with the British Army during the First World War - told him as a child", is all I've found about it.

Is this based on any actual specific event like Dunkirk was? That was what made Dunkirk compelling in my opinion.

This message has been deleted.

There's definitely a severe lack of actual film discussion here, considering the name of the website.
Cheers.

This message has been deleted.

I was often brought out of the experience, in Dunkirk, when there'd be changes in the cameras/aspect ratios used. It was quite jarring for me and ruined immersion. The cinematography in 1917 was far more immersive, in my experience.
Maybe I need to rewatch the movie, because I remember not caring much about the characters in Dunkirk because they were never really fleshed out enough. There were too many characters, and a lot of them didn't have that much depth. The conversations between Schofield and Blake (and some other characters) in 1917 felt more realistic, and made me care about the characters a bit more.
Dunkirk - 6/10
1917 - 7/10

This message has been deleted.

Not saying you're wrong, but what are your reasons for it being better than 1917.
I preferred 1917. The only element that stood out to me in Dunkirk was the great depiction of the hopelessness of war. It's just one hopeless event after another. But otherwise, it wasn't that interesting to me.

This message has been deleted.

Dunkirk and 1917 are nothing alike.
Dunkirk (D-)
1917 (B+)

Sadly, I was right again. Was just a flat movie with no real purpose.
Homo No Homo
MAGA
4
L1F3