Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, July 21st 2017) Movie • Page 15

These reviews have me really intrigued... the different timelines are an interesting touch for a movie like this.

 

It's stunning to me that a guy who made films like Memento (my personal favorite of all-time), The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. is now making a movie that is universally received as the best film he's ever made.

Hype-meter is at unfathomable levels right now.

 

Brand New - Dunkirk (July 21st, 2017)

whyamilikethis

 

It's great that WB just basically gives him full control because of the weight behind his name. I imagine it would be really tough to get a major studio to back this otherwise.

 

Absolutely. I feel like he's one of the few directors who can get a blank check to make a blockbuster and not have any studio interference. Like, he wants to build replica WWII fighter planes and attach IMAX cameras to them, and WB is just like "Yeah, go ahead and do it. Here's several dumpsters full of cash." He really does have that kind of clout with mainstream audiences, where his name alone is a draw. And he clearly has an amazing relationship with WB because it's basically his home studio. He's definitely earned it, though.

 

I cannot wait to watch this, even if I have to reserve a sticky spot on the floor to sit cross legged.

 

Still at 98%. Damn.

 

This is driving my hype through the roof.

 

Just for context... 11 movies since the start of this decade have Metacritic scores higher than 95. If the score holds, this would be one of them. (As you can probably tell I take Metascore as a better indicator than RT typically lol)

 

IMAX tickets procured for Sunday. Reserved seats because they're the best.

 

And now those attention seeking negative reviews seep in.

I find the compuserve forum review to be especially hilarious.

 

Not every negative review is going to be attention seeking.

 

Counter point: All reviews are attention seeking.

 

I wish I had a closer IMAX theater. Driving two hours AND spending 20+ bucks a ticket just ain't worth it. I was lucky enough to catch Interstellar in true IMAX and that was something else. Maybe I can put a fishbowl on my head and get the same effect.

 

fair. sometimes some people don't like a movie though. even when a lot of other people do.

 

I'm not claiming all of them will disingenuous.

 

Slant was pretty harsh. Generally Slant and Reverse Shot can be trusted most of the time.

 

So why single them out? "Attention seeking negative reviews" posits negative reviews, of which there are very, very few, as not as legitimate as the positive reviews, intentionally or not.

Rotten Tomatoes is dumb anyway, as many have pointed out one of the reviews was pulled from some forum post, and a high RT score is in no way correlated to a movie being higher quality. Why let it drive discussion?

 

Because it's normal for critically acclaimed films to have reviewers who intentionally write negatively for more clicks. In all entertainment mediums.

That's the only observation I was making.

 

Other than sometimes Armond White, who does this?

 

I've worked with publications that pay staff writers to take the opposite argument on entertainment than the mainstream for clicks. It's very common at almost every large internet publication. The dueling op ed model is as old as time.

 

I generally don't read any reviews before I've seen a film. I'll check them out after, but I'll catch myself looking out for criticisms and taking myself out of the film if I read up too much on it before hand.

 

Wait until ya'll realize why Pitchfork comes up with some of their scores.

 

Ugh, I'm gonna be traveling this weekend. Hopefully I can convince my friends to catch IMAX 70mm Thursday evening or Friday. Otherwise I'll probably have to wait until Sunday.

Ultimately I guess I don't care whether some publication I've never heard of likes or dislikes a piece of art. In the end, even if they are being disingenuously contrarian or going for clicks, they still have to make an argument. Maybe it's nonsense. Maybe I can see where someone is coming from. The case they present is what matters. Though it's unlikely I'll ever read it, since I have no idea who they are. I have the field of critics I like. If Rotten Tomatoes wanted to be useful, they could let me select a field of my preferred critics and give me an easy place to access links to all their reviews in one place. As they operate now, it's just an empty score that measures accessibility, not level of quality.

 

I feel like the usefulness of Rotten Tomatoes gets discussed in every movie thread. At this point it might as well have it's own thread.