Truth is, it’s a bit late to be serving up hot takes on  Christopher Nolan’s World War II film, “Dunkirk,” which was released last weekend.

Before the movie even opened, critic Brian Truitt had called it “pretty freaking amazing,” though he warned in USA Today, “the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.”

Now we know not only that Truitt was correct; Mehera Bonna in Marie Claire on Friday described in detail why the film rubbed her the wrong way. Not only were there only a couple of women featured in the film; to Bonna, the entire movie seemed “so clearly designed for men to man-out over.”

Bonna’s main criticism of the movie appears to be that it’s not the World War II movie she would have made:

… to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough. Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II?

So, was Nolan supposed to tell the story of the battle of Dunkirk but swap out historical accuracy to make the cast more diverse, or should he have just made an entirely different movie that wasn’t so hung up on portraying white men as heroes, since we’ve all seen that before?

* * *