Robin wrote:
Critics Choice is like CinemaScore. I look at it, but it don't matter as much as IMdb, Meta and Rotten. For awards Meta is everything. For legacy I'd say Imdb matters the most..

Actually that's not quite true; I followed the Oscar game for many years and a somewhat strange but reliable indicator of whether a film was in contention for Best Picture or not was the "85 or better rule" when it came to CriticsChoice/BFCA.

In fact the ONLY year that has not held true in the past decade was the bizarre year of 2012 where not just one but THREE sub-par films inexplicably were nominated for Best Pic while Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 at 93 BFCA, 96%RT (100% Top Critics), and 87 Metascore was snubbed!

I'm still scratching my head over this year...

The Descendants - 92
The Artist - 91
Moneyball - 91
The Help - 89
Hugo - 87
Midnight in Paris - 85

War Horse - 80
Exteremely Loud & Incredibly Close - 78
Tree of Life - 78

Personally I like Critics Choice because they are like a happy medium between the high brow critics and the bloggers, general public, etc. What this means though is an 85 or higher is by no means a guarantee for Oscar noms just more like a prerequisite; for instance the majority of the Harry Potter films were 85+ but sadly the Academy didn't cast much favor. Anyways I wouldn't worry too much about the BFCA/CC score for now; they often put up scores early when only a few critics have weighed in and so a few negatives can heavily sway it...

tommyjon400 wrote:The 3-4 critics that I really love have given Dunkirk stellar reviews. McCarthy, Roeper, Travers and Phillips. They are the real deal when it comes to movie criticism. These guys have been in the trenches for a very long time.

Agreed, these are the guys I tend to look towards as well.

Also Kenneth Turan, Richard Corliss, and Roger Ebert obviously back in the day. All of those guys are Top Critics and tend to be posted on Metacritic as well so it's an easy way to get a general critic consensus while filtering the fluff of RT and the snobbery amongst the others on MC, particularly the NY critics, don't really give a shit what they think. Generally for me if the the majority of that handful of guys mentioned like the film I'm also sure to as well

New positive posted to RT.
Now 61/64 positive, 8.9 avg. rating and 95%.
Now plz keep climbing up.... keep going up.....

nightfury93 wrote:New positive posted to RT.
Now 61/64 positive, 8.9 avg. rating and 95%.
Now plz keep climbing up.... keep going up.....

Again, is there a blowjob or something waiting at the top of this mountain?

Chrolan wrote:

nightfury93 wrote:New positive posted to RT.
Now 61/64 positive, 8.9 avg. rating and 95%.
Now plz keep climbing up.... keep going up.....

Again, is there a blowjob or something waiting at the top of this mountain?

Yes.

More and more this appears to be the type of film that will be remembered for all time. And, considering Nolan's career arc, it augurs more great things to come.

Another positive on RT

I see a lot of people getting irked at negative reviews because they don't consider them fair (I agree with some of them). When you're a fan of someone popular, you kinda need to accept it. It comes with the territory. Certain reviewers sneer at what's popular, sometimes to stand out and draw attention to themselves, sometimes because they believe they're too special to fall for it. Lots of you sneered at Harry when he was cast (lots of you still do). His album has buzz of being nominated for a Grammy and it got a positive review from Pitchfork (one of the snobbiest music websites) and several positive reviews from sites like Rolling Stone, LA Times and the NY Times. Do you know what the single negative review is? A 30 in Metacritic from a website that's in the 80,000s Alexa Ranking and that has a sign that says 'save our site' in its home page. It is what it is. I was talking to someone about this in the past day, how similar my experiences as a Nolan and as a Harry fan are. Obviously there are differences (I don't believe Harry's album is even half as good as Dunkirk is, in their different fields, it's his first one, after all), but at the end of the day, for some people popular is popular.

I think the approach that people like My Cocaine have taken to it (laughing) is the best one. Getting seriously worked up over them is useless, not to mention trying to attack the reviewers on social media.

dunkirktrash wrote:I see a lot of people getting irked at negative reviews because they don't consider them fair (I agree with some of them). When you're a fan of someone popular, you kinda need to accept it. It comes with the territory. Certain reviewers sneer at what's popular, sometimes to stand out and draw attention to themselves, sometimes because they believe they're too special to fall for it. Lots of you sneered at Harry when he was cast (lots of you still do). His album has buzz of being nominated for a Grammy and it got a positive review from Pitchfork (one of the snobbiest music websites) and several positive reviews from sites like Rolling Stone, LA Times and the NY Times. Do you know what the single negative review is? A 30 in Metacritic from a website that's in the 80,000s Alexa Ranking and that has a sign that says 'save our site' in its home page. It is what it is. I was talking to someone about this in the past day, how similar my experiences as a Nolan and as a Harry fan are. Obviously there are differences (I don't believe Harry's album is even half as good as Dunkirk is, in their different fields, it's his first one, after all), but at the end of the day, for some people popular is popular.

I think the approach that people like My Cocaine have taken to it (laughing) is the best one. Getting seriously worked up over them is useless, not to mention trying to attack the reviewers on social media.

Where are you guys getting that there's a 30 score on Metacritic?

DUNKIRK
WARNER BROS. | RELEASE DATE: JULY 21, 2017 CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION
97
METASCORE
Universal acclaim
based on 33 Critics
POSITIVE:33
MIXED:0
NEGATIVE:0

Oh btw, I forgot in addition to that list of critics mentioned I also like to look at the scores from the two British film mags; Total Film and Empire, although it's never consistent which of their critics writes the review in this case it looks like both gave a 100!

I still don't understand why we don't have a mag like those here in the United States...closest thing is like Entertainment Weekly and that's shit. I hate having to pay $10 for Empire or Total Film since they are imports.