Guys, please, that negative "review" on IMDB... That guy didn't watch the movie. He talk in general: "the background sounds--the "subtle" music that was playing while the characters talked, or sounds of walking, just any ambient noise--was so loud that it covered much of the dialogue", hahaha...

All right I went on and deleted most of the posts in this thread, because it was all unrelated stuff. Keep the discussions on topic from now on, please.£

Let's stay on topic boys. Official Reviews discussion.

Let's talk about that negative review shall we?

Master Virgo wrote:All right I went on and deleted most of the posts in this thread, because it was all unrelated stuff. Keep the discussions on topic from now on, please.£

You might as well delete that negative review in the Official Reviews thread. It shouldn’t have been there to begin with. It's not credible.

cooldude wrote:It's not credible.

I disagree. If it was positive it would have been credible regardless if it's from a "nobody". But since it's a negative we'll throw it under the rug. This is why outside of Nolanfans we're perceived as fanboys.

It's not an official review. It's a review by a random person off the street. Credibility aside, it shouldn't be in the official reviews thread.

RIFA wrote:

cooldude wrote:It's not credible.

I disagree. If it was positive it would have been credible regardless if it's from a "nobody". But since it's a negative we'll throw it under the rug. This is why outside of Nolanfans we're perceived as fanboys.

Agreed. The guy has a very interesting film taste as well, and I would personally take him more seriously than a number of "critics". Only thing I don't like is how he said he really wanted to like Dunkirk when his tweets basically said he wanted to destroy the film.

dunkirktrash wrote:It's not an official review. It's a review by a random person off the street. Credibility aside, it shouldn't be in the official reviews thread.

Considering he has seen it or claims to have seen it, I'd say that makes it pretty official. He may not be a "professional critic" (yet) but that doesn't make it less official.

I mean hey, Vader is not a professional critic yet you'd say the same about his review if that was him and not this "random" guy?

Not to mention most "official" aka professional reviews are pretty poorly written anyway and really say nothing of major interest. Most of them talk in very broad terms because they're aimed at a more casual audience. This guy actually went in deeper than most and gave some convincing arguments.

Whether he's lying or wrong, that's another discussion to be had after the movie comes out. Until then, he is as viable as the rest and is worthy of consideration.

RIFA wrote:
I mean hey, Vader is not a professional critic yet you'd say the same about his review if that was him and not this "random" guy?

-Vader

I obviously meant Roeper/Scott like stuff. People that get paid more than the average writer. But my point remains and your correction actually strengthens it.