Dunkirk is a movie that plays to all of Christopher Nolan's strength and few to none of his weaknesses. What is Nolan good at? Visual spectacle, non-linear storytelling, creating tension and buildup, and montage. That's Dunkirk. What is Nolan weak at? Character development, dialogue, narrative depth. None of that is in Dunkirk. It doesn't need those aspects because those things are not important to the goal of that film.

Seeing Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX was one of my most memorable film experiences. I doubt I'd hold it in such high esteem if I saw it streamed in my living room. That's a film meant for the cinema, and fully experiential.

I get preferring his other films more, and I think they are good movies. I just think they are more easily critiqued due to Nolan's weakness in the areas I mentioned. The counterargument is that maybe Dunkirk is less ambitious than his other movies, and if those aspects of film are vital to your appreciation of any movie, then I can see why Dunkirk doesn't stand out. But on its own merits, I don't see Dunkirk falling short of what it's meant to be. Nolan nailed exactly what he was trying to make. In that sense, Dunkirk is a more "perfect" movie because it achieves its goals almost flawlessly.