Spert wrote:

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:

Spert wrote:Very interesting that new yorker and reverse shot were positive

New Yorker might get the film up to 95 on MC

It was Anthony Lane for the New Yorker and not Richard Brody; disaster averted.

Quite interesting is that Reverse Shot published a positive review for Dunkirk when I would wager most of their writers hate Nolan

I will be honest, I've always wanted to see a pro Nolan article from them because their writing and thoughts are articulated so well and really provides very interesting analysis on the films they review. I really thought the bit the author had on Nolans style being about the need to answer the impossible was really interesting.

To be honest I wasn't really surprised about the positive review. When you consider the acclaim of the movie and the fact that the more knowledgeable critics liked it more (very high metascore and top critic tomatometer + average rating) and that it was also different from his previous movies; there had to be a good chance of some of them (ReverseShot critics) liking it and for the review to be written by one among that group. Personally, I don't think that Nolan's realistic approach to answer the impossible is the problem but the fact that he sometimes strains to do so (partly because maybe he doesn't trust his audience) so his movies gets bogged down by exposition for instance and also because his ambition can sometimes get the better of him. Some people are expecting Dunkirk to be divisive among general audiences and the most outre influences on this movie are silent films and Bresson.

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:

Spert wrote:Very interesting that new yorker and reverse shot were positive

New Yorker might get the film up to 95 on MC

It was Anthony Lane for the New Yorker and not Richard Brody; disaster averted.
Quite interesting is that Reverse Shot published a positive review for Dunkirk when I would wager most of their writers hate Nolan

I will be honest, I've always wanted to see a pro Nolan article from them because their writing and thoughts are articulated so well and really provides very interesting analysis on the films they review. I really thought the bit the author had on Nolans style being about the need to answer the impossible was really interesting.

To be honest I wasn't really surprised about the positive review. When you consider the acclaim of the movie and the fact that the more knowledgeable critics liked it more (very high metascore and top critic tomatometer + average rating) and that it was also different from his previous movies; there had to be a good chance of some of them (ReverseShot critics) liking it and for the review to be written by one among that group. Personally, I don't think that Nolan's realistic approach to answer the impossible is the problem but the fact that he sometimes strains to do so (partly because maybe he doesn't trust his audience) so his movies gets bogged down by exposition for instance and also because his ambition can sometimes get the better of him. Some people are expecting Dunkirk to be divisive among general audiences and the most outre influences on this movie are silent films and Bresson.

Reverse Shot have shit on every Nolan film thus far and even some of their seasoned writers were shitting on dunkirk on their twitter

So it seems the guy writing this is in the minority of the sites writers who liked it. He also acknowledges the exposition problem in Nolans higher concept films, which a lot of people do anyway.

I dont mind the exposition too much in Interstellar besides little tid bits here and there (I think the exposition can also lend it self to characters who think they know what to do and can explain it and then they realize how wrong they are) but yeh its definitely a fault in films like Inception and his batman films too.

How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

Pissing me off too. As long as it stays above 90 at this point.

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

In comparison Valerian went from 78 to 58 in 24 hours so you should be thankful

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

And why does it always happen for Nolan movies? It's almost like people eager to go and post negative. Still remember inception at 100 after 30 reviews and then saw it plummet

bootsy wrote:

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

Pissing me off too. As long as it stays above 90 at this point.

Yo bootsy, did you see it yet?

prescot wrote:

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

And why does it always happen for Nolan movies? It's almost like people eager to go and post negative. Still remember inception at 100 after 30 reviews and then saw it plummet

Inception was a crowd pleaser. Dunkirk is going to be a lot more divisive with regular folks. I am actually stunned the top critics liked it so much. Would figure more of them want a more quiet experience with traditional storytelling. But I'm glad they appreciate what Nolan tried to do here.

redfirebird2008 wrote:

prescot wrote:

Bacon wrote:How did we go from 95% to 91% holy crap that's idiotic.

And why does it always happen for Nolan movies? It's almost like people eager to go and post negative. Still remember inception at 100 after 30 reviews and then saw it plummet

Inception was a crowd pleaser. Dunkirk is going to be a lot more divisive with regular folks. I am actually stunned the top critics liked it so much. Would figure more of them want a more quiet experience with traditional storytelling. But I'm glad they appreciate what Nolan tried to do here.

Not from the twitter reactions

Forbes and Slashfilm both just gave Dunkirk 100 not posted on RT yet both top critics