rbej wrote:

prescot wrote:The Atlantic - Masterpiece - Top RT Critic

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... lm/534252/

Not sure if this and Newyorker will be added to MC. Both are raves and should be 100

Newyorker and The Atlantic is MC critics and will be added for sure.

Atlantic isnt

hasanahmad wrote:There are way too many 10/10 to call this a divisive movie. 2 out of 10 just can't accept or know that no character development is a plot point so you feel that you were there not gazing at character. When you are in the middle of chaos the intent was to deliver the feeling of chaos as if you were there and if you were there you simply would not care if harry missed his mom or not

LOL, too right, mate.

I just wish reviewers could remove themselves from the review, if that makes sense. They can rate it low and they can say they didn't like it and it wasn't their type of film. That's all fair and it's normal. Not everything is for everyone. The film that pleases EVERYONE doesn't exist and never will. But I just wish they could say 'I don't like this type of film' instead of saying that the film is bad for not doing what they wanted it to do.

There are films that are objectively bad. Badly edited. Badly scripted. Badly conceived. Badly acted. This isn't one of those films. I haven't watched it yet (it hasn't premiered here yet), but I know Nolan and I know for a fact it isn't because that's just impossible. So if it's not objectively bad, then the problem is that it's not your cup of tea. And I just wish reviewers could own up to it and say that instead of acting like what they expected or what they like is what should go.

I don't like hip hop but I can recognise that Jay-Z is a good artist anyway. I'd probably rate his music low because I just have no desire to listen to it personally, but I can't say it's bad because it's not. Or, for instance, I used to really love Coldplay during their BritPop phase, but now that they've become a Pop act I just don't care for them any more. I would say I like A Rush of Blood to the Head more than their last three albums. I'd rate X&Y higher, but that doesn't mean I'll go out and say that their last albums are bad. I recognise the music is good, even if it's not my personal taste.

But obviously this isn't just a problem with Dunkirk. It's a problem with critics and reviewers in general. It's just really apparent when the subject matter is something that people aren't really used to.

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.

I think the movie will be divisive for the general crowd (at least more divisive than Nolans other blockbuster films)

"Humorless" is one of the complaints about this movie I will never understand. I can't believe how many critics actually expected this movie to make them laugh.

May be conditioned by Marvel trash looking for it in every freaking genre and theme. One thing I never understand is how some silly movie can get off with a 2 or 2.5 star but genuine movie attempts are rated 1 or 1.5. That clearly conveys trolling or preconceived biases. Case in point - A user pointed out to Jake Cole from Slant that he rated Mummy more stars than Dunkirk which was rated 1.5 out of 5. His reply - "I don't put that much into stars but yes Dunkirk is significantly better than the Mummy". Then what are stars for?! Does he not know that it translates into a pretty poor score for the film? Agreed that reviewers can dislike any film but to consciously underrate to the extremes when they clearly know it isn't is not right imho

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.

prescot wrote:

"Humorless" is one of the complaints about this movie I will never understand. I can't believe how many critics actually expected this movie to make them laugh.

May be conditioned by Marvel trash looking for it in every freaking genre and theme. One thing I never understand is how some silly movie can get off with a 2 or 2.5 star but genuine movie attempts are rated 1 or 1.5. That clearly conveys trolling or preconceived biases. Case in point - A user pointed out to Jake Cole from Slant that he rated Mummy more stars than Dunkirk which was rated 1.5 out of 5. His reply - "I don't put that much into stars but yes Dunkirk is significantly better than the Mummy". Then what are stars for?! Does he not know that it translates into a pretty poor score for the film? Agreed that reviewers can dislike any film but to consciously underrate to the extremes when they clearly know it isn't is not right imho

To be fair...I'm not sure if Cole subscribes to the Ebert system or not, but Ebert would rate movies based on their genre and not compared to anything else. So when he gave films like Batman Begins and TDK a 4/4 rating, he was rating them at the top of the superhero genre...not necessarily saying they are equal to the Godfather movies. Maybe Cole is rating Dunkirk next to other war movies he respects while he is only comparing the Mummy to CGI popcorn movies.

My biggest problem with his review is that he wrote a long piece about repeat viewings of The Prestige years ago. He said in the piece that he didn't think critics should have been forced to review that movie after a single viewing under tight deadlines with their editors. Then he turns around and pans Dunkirk, a movie that clearly demands repeat viewings no matter what you thought of it the first time you watched it. I haven't even attempted to rate this movie after my first viewing because I don't think it's going to be a completely fair assessment.

Yes, fair point on comparison and relative grading within a genre when rating but then some critics/bloggers are looking for comedy in a war thriller

i’m all for diverse thought, and while i don’t agree with them, i understand why some reviewers have given this low marks

but if they levy humorless as a criticism, they’re immediately discredited imo