My problem is that I'm seeing a lot of the "La La Land response" where people who just "like" the film and don't "love" it begin to rant and hate on it verbally due to how critically acclaimed the film is and how passionate its fans are, and I honestly don't understand their initial criticisms. This isn't be criticizing them, this is me wondering why so many people seem to have such a big problem with the character development whenever everyone I talk to (including myself) is thoroughly invested.
Maybe I need to go read some of the stellar reviews or something, I just hate searching "Dunkirk" on websites and half of the videos or articles that come up are people saying the film is boring (yes, I've actually seen that criticism several places).
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Bacon wrote:My problem is that I'm seeing a lot of the "La La Land response" where people who just "like" the film and don't "love" it begin to rant and hate on it verbally due to how critically acclaimed the film is and how passionate its fans are, and I honestly don't understand their initial criticisms. This isn't be criticizing them, this is me wondering why so many people seem to have such a big problem with the character development whenever everyone I talk to (including myself) is thoroughly invested.
Maybe I need to go read some of the stellar reviews or something, I just hate searching "Dunkirk" on websites and half of the videos or articles that come up are people saying the film is boring (yes, I've actually seen that criticism several places).
Because compared to other war films and especially other Nolan films it does have higher chances of being boring for the casual viewer. The common moviegoer doesn't really think in terms of structure, context or execution. I had a lot of people in my theater talking during the film next to me saying "yeah come on we already know what's going to happen". And because the movie has the structure of a roller-coaster, then it's going to become a bit ridiculous and over the top for them. You need some sort of decent film knowledge in order to really appreciate what the film is trying to do here. Or at least become somewhat easily emotionally invested in what's going on. If you're not emotionally in and you're just looking for a typical war film then you're not going to be intrigued by what's happening on the screen.
Other people came out of the theater saying that this is a fantastic cinematic experience which they enjoyed but they'll never watch again unless they'll find themselves in a special circumstance. And I kind of understand this as I do agree the replay value for this is really minimal when compared to all the other Nolan films.
Also, I think it has to do with the "chill down" effect where people that like a film that's loved by so many will talk about it's issues more than it's strengths in order to balance things out. Because the good stuff is talked by everyone but the bad stuff is only talked by a few. So obviously the few will try harder to bring attention to their points. We've all done this at one point if we're fair. It's normal.
Bacon wrote:My problem is that I'm seeing a lot of the "La La Land response" where people who just "like" the film and don't "love" it begin to rant and hate on it verbally due to how critically acclaimed the film is and how passionate its fans are, and I honestly don't understand their initial criticisms. This isn't be criticizing them, this is me wondering why so many people seem to have such a big problem with the character development whenever everyone I talk to (including myself) is thoroughly invested.
Maybe I need to go read some of the stellar reviews or something, I just hate searching "Dunkirk" on websites and half of the videos or articles that come up are people saying the film is boring (yes, I've actually seen that criticism several places).
Probably because there is no character development in the movie?
Some examples - out of the most recent 7 audience reviews at RT, 5 are 1 to 2.5 stars.
---
1 star
Just saw Dunkirk. If it wasn't for the spitfires, I would've fallen asleep. No characterization. I didn't care about any of them. Saving Private Ryan had the same amount of time, and you cared about every single one of those guys. No excuse for a bad screenplay. And man, what a fucked up time element! I know that is Nolan's thing but come on.
And how do you cast Kenneth Branagh and leave him on a pier the entire movie? He didn't even have an argument with anyone, or an encouraging speech, or even any emotion. Just a small tear, which could've been salt spray in his eye.
Many critics call it a masterpiece. Sorry, the emperor has no clothes.
---
1 star
Disgusting disgrace to every aspect of what really happened!! No character development, nothing about the real people involved. A total miss.
---
2.5 stars
Movie was hard to follow. The accuracy of how fast ships sank seems off and the time a plane can glide endlessly is way off.
It was a true story twisted by Hollywood to sell more tickets.
---
2 stars
On a scale of 1 to any Nolan movie, this is a 4 for me. I didn't quite get emotional on the way heroism was portrayed in the movie even though I think all the actual characters were super heroic.
---
2.5 stars
Nolan directs a very good film, but I guess I didn't enjoy the action as much as I thought I would.
My enjoyment was muted by my questioning of whether the British made the right decision to evacuate at Dunkirk. Yes, the Nazis outnumbered the British but the equipment abandoned was considered very good and sophisticated by the Nazis. And not fighting the Nazis to the end helped perpetuate the War for another 5 years, while giving the Nazis a Major foothold in France and a launching pad for all of Europe.
Was running away so heroic? I'm not sure.
Some will say it was the right move, but it also caused a lot of pain and destruction for the French Jews.
None of that even remotely entered into this film.
It was basically shot in a vacuum, without regard for the big picture of the War.
dormouse7 wrote:Some examples - out of the most recent 7 audience reviews at RT, 5 are 1 to 2.5 stars.
---
1 star
Just saw Dunkirk. If it wasn't for the spitfires, I would've fallen asleep. No characterization. I didn't care about any of them. Saving Private Ryan had the same amount of time, and you cared about every single one of those guys. No excuse for a bad screenplay. And man, what a fucked up time element! I know that is Nolan's thing but come on.
And how do you cast Kenneth Branagh and leave him on a pier the entire movie? He didn't even have an argument with anyone, or an encouraging speech, or even any emotion. Just a small tear, which could've been salt spray in his eye.
Many critics call it a masterpiece. Sorry, the emperor has no clothes.
---
1 star
Disgusting disgrace to every aspect of what really happened!! No character development, nothing about the real people involved. A total miss.
---
2.5 stars
Movie was hard to follow. The accuracy of how fast ships sank seems off and the time a plane can glide endlessly is way off.
It was a true story twisted by Hollywood to sell more tickets.
---
2 stars
On a scale of 1 to any Nolan movie, this is a 4 for me. I didn't quite get emotional on the way heroism was portrayed in the movie even though I think all the actual characters were super heroic.
---
2.5 stars
Nolan directs a very good film, but I guess I didn't enjoy the action as much as I thought I would.
My enjoyment was muted by my questioning of whether the British made the right decision to evacuate at Dunkirk. Yes, the Nazis outnumbered the British but the equipment abandoned was considered very good and sophisticated by the Nazis. And not fighting the Nazis to the end helped perpetuate the War for another 5 years, while giving the Nazis a Major foothold in France and a launching pad for all of Europe.
Was running away so heroic? I'm not sure.
Some will say it was the right move, but it also caused a lot of pain and destruction for the French Jews.
None of that even remotely entered into this film.
It was basically shot in a vacuum, without regard for the big picture of the War.
These reviews are kind of terrible but it's the kind of stuff I'm seeing a lot more general audience members agree with them than I would have expected.
@RIFA: Good post. I agree with what you said and I imagine it makes sense (although I feel like this film has a possibility to be one of his most re-watchable films for me. Could be wrong.)
Last edited by Bacon on July 23rd, 2017, 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
NotoriousWolf wrote:Looks like it'll keep on dropping. Probably end up at 75% when its all said and done.
Talking about the RT audience score btw.
^It's stuff like this. Nolan's other films haven't dropped past like 80%. Dunno why there's a sudden backlash. In all other instances (Interstellar/TDKR), the audiences were the ones rallying around the film against the very vocal critics.
NotoriousWolf wrote:Looks like it'll keep on dropping. Probably end up at 75% when its all said and done.
Talking about the RT audience score btw.
^It's stuff like this. Nolan's other films haven't dropped past like 80%. Dunno why there's a sudden backlash. In all other instances (Interstellar/TDKR), the audiences were the ones rallying around the film against the very vocal critics.
I really don't know dude. Seems as if the General Audience don't dig this as much. Hop it stays in the 80's
