By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Dunkirk Reviews - 94 Metacritic - 92% RottenTomatoes

Goodnightmoon said:
Mar1217 said:
Huuuuuuuhhh ... wow ?

Seriously, I never would have expect a Nolan movie having so much praise by the press ... unless .... conspiracy time :3

Nolan films are usually praised by the press though

While he is consistently reviewed positively, score wise he's never gotten anything close to this. His previous highest MC was an 82 for The Dark Knight.



Around the Network

Most overrated filmmaker of the past 30 years.



Goodnightmoon said:
Lawlight said:

It's not my logic but reviewers'. Just look at the best movies of 2016 - Manchester By the Sea is 3rd with 96. Such a boring, pedestrian movie but because it's got long still shots then it's art - 96/100. The character doesn't even make sense in that movie. Under The Shadow - 84/100. Another movie where not only not much happens but it's your typical horror movie with a stupid character.

At some point people have to realise that there's a clear bias towards movie that are considered art movies.

 is the problem, your taste, Manchester by the Sea was a wonderful movie, definitely top 3 movies of 2016 for me.

Yeah, it's a wonderful movie. Though... I have to agree partially with Lawlight in this subject. Which is, blockbusters are bound to have a hard time with reviews. 



I studied film for a time in college and from who I talked to who has studied it for years...yes. Oh goodness yes are there biases. Your "Oscar Bait" movies are long running staples that get doted on by critics, sometimes despite viewers bemoaning them. And yes, big blockbusters or mainstream stuff usually gets a harder time. Hell, you want clear evidence of biases, look no further than this: in the entire history of the award, only ONE speculative fiction film (horror, SciFi, or Fantasy) has ever received Best Picture, and that's Return of the King. Next to none have been nominated.



spurgeonryan said:
Lawlight said:

I wasn't posting an argument. Just pointing out a fact.

Your faqs just keep getting worse.

 

Not a blockbuster until it makes money.

 

Fact: Beets, Bears, Battlestar Galactica

Looks like you don't know the meaning of blockbuster.



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
I studied film for a time in college and from who I talked to who has studied it for years...yes. Oh goodness yes are there biases. Your "Oscar Bait" movies are long running staples that get doted on by critics, sometimes despite viewers bemoaning them. And yes, big blockbusters or mainstream stuff usually gets a harder time. Hell, you want clear evidence of biases, look no further than this: in the entire history of the award, only ONE speculative fiction film (horror, SciFi, or Fantasy) has ever received Best Picture, and that's Return of the King. Next to none have been nominated.

Thank you. Nolan finally gave in and did an Oscar bait movie but someone should have told him that WW2 movies aren't the in thing anymore - should have a movie about the struggle of black people to get a sure-fire nomination.



Volterra_90 said:
Goodnightmoon said:

 is the problem, your taste, Manchester by the Sea was a wonderful movie, definitely top 3 movies of 2016 for me.

Yeah, it's a wonderful movie. Though... I have to agree partially with Lawlight in this subject. Which is, blockbusters are bound to have a hard time with reviews. 

I can't agree with that, there are tons of blockbusters with high scores, including many mediocre superhero movies. Of course critics do value more films made with artistic purposes than movies made to be the equivalent of a theme park roller coaster, but that's because they do understand what cinema is about.



Lawlight said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Here is the problem, your taste, Manchester by the Sea was a wonderful movie, definitely top 3 movies of 2016 for me.

It was dull. The character was dull and unsympathetic. The pace was slow and they tried to show his grief but I can't keep watching a guy do mundane things just for the director to add minutes to his movie.

But you frequently show little sensibility and little understanding about what good cinema is, also you talk like only critics liked Manchester By the Sea which is far from reality. With a quick look I saw the movie has an 8 on Imdb from almost 150k votes, it also has a 8.2 of userscore in metacritic, a 4/5 from the users of Rottentomatoes and is included in the Top 10 favourite movies of 2016 by the users of Filmaffinity (Placed 4th on the list)



I like Nolan, especially Prestige, Dark Knight, and Inception, so I trust this will deliver what I want.



Goodnightmoon said:
Volterra_90 said:

Yeah, it's a wonderful movie. Though... I have to agree partially with Lawlight in this subject. Which is, blockbusters are bound to have a hard time with reviews. 

I can't agree with that, there are tons of blockbusters with high scores, including many mediocre superhero movies. Of course critics do value more films made with artistic purposes than movies made to be the equivalent of a theme park roller coaster, because they do understand what real cinema is about.

Problem is that I don't really think that's what cinema is. I mean, we need both. Films with artistic value, which I can surely appreciate, and films with no more purpose that entertain. And I feel that both are valid and they both have its merits. It's just that I feel that, for a movie to earn massive praise (and I mean similar praise to Boyhood, Moonlight, Godfather...), they have to be thoughtful, reflexive, realistic dramas XD. A blockbustery action movie, with no other purpose that entertain (and there are good and bad ways to do that), is never gonna get that level of praise. Even if characters, action, cinematography, etc... is spot on.