|
Post by kevin on Jul 18, 2017 18:54:26 GMT
This review was actually pretty interesting and really explains what makes this movie great. I saw a few of their other reviews and they normally think Nolan's movies are good/great, but not absolute masterpieces. However, they loved Dunkirk. It's a non-spoiler review.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 18, 2017 19:10:56 GMT
So with the stellar reviews right now, what are its Oscar chances? I haven't seen it yet, but from what I've heard it has the best chances of getting nominated for: Best Picture Best Director Best Original Score Best Sound Editing Best Sound Mixing Best Production Design Best Cinematography Best Film Editing Best Visual Effects It could also get nominated for Makeup and Hairstyling. It almost certainly won't get screenplay, because it's almost a silent film. I also don't expect it to get an acting nomination, because it's more about the experience. From what I've heard the acting is phenomenal, but it's more an ensemble performance. Maybe a supporting actor nod, but with all the great movies this year it will be hard. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 18, 2017 19:24:34 GMT
So with the stellar reviews right now, what are its Oscar chances? I haven't seen it yet, but from what I've heard it has the best chances of getting nominated for: Best Picture Best Director Best Original Score Best Sound Editing Best Sound Mixing Best Production Design Best Cinematography Best Film Editing Best Visual Effects It could also get nominated for Makeup and Hairstyling. It almost certainly won't get screenplay, because it's almost a silent film. I also don't expect it to get an acting nomination, because it's more about the experience. From what I've heard the acting is phenomenal, but it's more an ensemble performance. Maybe a supporting actor nod, but with all the great movies this year it will be hard. What do you think? I think that the Academy will feel bad for not nominating The Dark Knight and give this a Best Picture nomination no matter what. I doubt that it has any chance to win, but they'll probably nominate it. Nolan will probably also be nominated for Best Director and I think he may actually have a small chance there. As far as what I think is a virtual lock for a win (from what I've heard from critics and such), it seems that Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Best Score are the only categories there. I could see Best Cinematography as well, because just from the trailer I can tell that Hoyte Van Hoytema did a splendid job. I really hope I like this. I just don't agree with the critics that much anymore. We'll see this weekend I guess!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 18, 2017 20:02:02 GMT
Whatever happens to the Metacritic ratings when more reviews show up, it has already cemented itself in a very interesting list. These are the movies with the most 100/100 ratings on Metacritic.
Boyhood (41) 12 Years a Slave - Moonlight (39) The Social Network (28) Gravity - Zero Dark Thirty (26) Carol - Spotlight (24) Mad Max: Fury Road (21)
And now Dunkirk (21). That's verry impressive since Dunkirk only has 33 reviews so far and most of the other movies listed above have around 50.
Edit: Dunkirk now has 28 100/100 scores tying it with The Social Network.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 22:00:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 18, 2017 23:00:17 GMT
I'm not trying to be a blind follower of Nolan, because I have not seen it yet, but there is one critique that I keep seeing that has never made sense to me.
I've seen that every critic that doesn't think it's a perfect 100 (which is obviously understandable) has a main beef that the characterization is lacking. They say that there was never a scene where they learned of their past or anything. That's fine, but there used to be a time when the characters were just who we saw on screen.
For instance, take some of the classic movies of the mid 1900's. The Good the Bad and the Ugly, The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, Lawrence of Arabia, and even later 1900's efforts like Full Metal Jacket didn't have to explain the past of every character to make us care about them. We just did. The writing and acting made us care about them. They made them interesting through the current movie, not flashbacks or exposition.
Don't get me wrong, I love Saving Private Ryan and Hacksaw Ridge, which have extensive characterization. Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite movies of all time. I just think that sometimes the modern audience has to be spoon-fed everything. Old audiences used to be able to tell who someone was by how they acted and spoke in the smallest of scenes. They didn't need a speech by the campfire.
The same goes for one of the biggest complaints of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Apparently he seems to be "all knowing" and for his plan to work he must have some kind of supernatural abilities. People that said this also wanted to know why he was talented in strategic warfare. They wanted a backstory for the Joker. It just doesn't work that way. That would've ruined the character.
The ambiguous past and life "back home" is left to the viewer. That can backfire or really help a movie. I know how over-characterizations works out and how corny that can be (look at Super 8, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Man of Steel, War for the Planet of the Apes, etc).
Again, I'm not trying to defend Dunkirk before I even see it. Maybe it'll be a beef I have myself. It's just a common negative aspect in today's criticizing that I hardly ever think is warranted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 23:40:20 GMT
I'm not trying to be a blind follower of Nolan, because I have not seen it yet, but there is one critique that I keep seeing that has never made sense to me. I've seen that every critic that doesn't think it's a perfect 100 (which is obviously understandable) has a main beef that the characterization is lacking. They say that there was never a scene where they learned of their past or anything. That's fine, but there used to be a time when the characters were just who we saw on screen. For instance, take some of the classic movies of the mid 1900's. The Good the Bad and the Ugly, The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, Lawrence of Arabia, and even later 1900's efforts like Full Metal Jacket didn't have to explain the past of every character to make us care about them. We just did. The writing and acting made us care about them. They made them interesting through the current movie, not flashbacks or exposition. Don't get me wrong, I love Saving Private Ryan and Hacksaw Ridge, which have extensive characterization. Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite movies of all time. I just think that sometimes the modern audience has to be spoon-fed everything. Old audiences used to be able to tell who someone was by how they acted and spoke in the smallest of scenes. They didn't need a speech by the campfire. The same goes for one of the biggest complaints of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Apparently he seems to be "all knowing" and for his plan to work he must have some kind of supernatural abilities. People that said this also wanted to know why he was talented in strategic warfare. They wanted a backstory for the Joker. It just doesn't work that way. That would've ruined the character. The ambiguous past and life "back home" is left to the viewer. That can backfire or really help a movie. I know how over-characterizations works out and how corny that can be (look at Super 8, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Man of Steel, War for the Planet of the Apes, etc). Again, I'm not trying to defend Dunkirk before I even see it. Maybe it'll be a beef I have myself. It's just a common negative aspect in today's criticizing that I hardly ever think is warranted. Yeah, I see that criticism as well. Look at Jeremy Jahn's review. The guy literally likes every blockbuster but from the sound of it, he really did not like Dunkirk at all. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS0K_dwdZU0
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 19, 2017 6:28:44 GMT
Top 15 highest-rated live-action blockbusters of the century (Metacritic). It already has 3 movies from 2017 and with movies like Blade Runner 2049 and Star Wars still coming the year isn't over yet.
1. Dunkirk - 2017 - 97 2. Gravity - 2013 - 96 3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 2003 - 94 4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001- 92 5. Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015 - 90 6. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - 2002 - 88 7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - 2011 - 87 8. Baby Driver - 2017 - 86 9. The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007 - 85 10. Avatar - 2009 - 83 11. Spider-Man 2 - 2004 - 83 12. War for the Planet of the Apes - 2017 - 82 13. Star Trek - 2009 - 82 14. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 2004 - 82 15. The Dark Knight - 2008 - 82
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 6:58:31 GMT
Top 15 highest-rated live-action blockbusters of the century (Metacritic). It already has 3 movies from 2017 and with movies like Blade Runner 2049 and Star Wars still coming the year isn't over yet. 1. Dunkirk - 2017 - 972. Gravity - 2013 - 96 3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 2003 - 94 4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001- 92 5. Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015 - 90 6. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - 2002 - 88 7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - 2011 - 87 8. Baby Driver - 2017 - 869. The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007 - 85 10. Avatar - 2009 - 83 11. Spider-Man 2 - 2004 - 83 12. War for the Planet of the Apes - 2017 - 8213. Star Trek - 2009 - 82 14. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 2004 - 82 15. The Dark Knight - 2008 - 82 I have to say, this is a odd list. Gravity was alright, Star Trek was ok, Avatar is decent but certainly not top blockbuster of the 21st century good.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 19, 2017 7:03:54 GMT
Top 15 highest-rated live-action blockbusters of the century (Metacritic). It already has 3 movies from 2017 and with movies like Blade Runner 2049 and Star Wars still coming the year isn't over yet. 1. Dunkirk - 2017 - 972. Gravity - 2013 - 96 3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 2003 - 94 4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001- 92 5. Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015 - 90 6. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - 2002 - 88 7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - 2011 - 87 8. Baby Driver - 2017 - 869. The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007 - 85 10. Avatar - 2009 - 83 11. Spider-Man 2 - 2004 - 83 12. War for the Planet of the Apes - 2017 - 8213. Star Trek - 2009 - 82 14. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 2004 - 82 15. The Dark Knight - 2008 - 82 I have to say, this is a odd list. Gravity was alright, Star Trek was ok, Avatar is decent but certainly not top blockbuster of the 21st century good. Yeah critics list always tend to feel a bit off when it comes to greatest ever or greatest of the decade lists, because the initial reception of a movie isn't always the same as its eventual impact. Star Trek is at #13 here above The Dark Knight making it seem like some sort of incredible movie. I thought Star Trek was just a fun movie, but nothing more than that. There are more than enough blockbusters I would place above Star Trek.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 7:20:58 GMT
The critics that hated it really hated it. Here is my fav:
Indeed, “Transformers: The Last Knight” had more emotional impact than this film does… and that movie was wretched.
God bless them!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 19, 2017 12:30:36 GMT
Slant Magazine's 38/100 review made the Metacritic score go down from 97 to 96, but there's a real possibility for its eventual rating to be 95 or 96.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 20, 2017 17:13:05 GMT
I'm almost scared how close my 'prediction' (left) of Rotten Tomatoes is to the actual rating right now (right). I predicted 95% and 8.9/10 average and it's now exactly 8.9/10 and 95%.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 20, 2017 18:11:39 GMT
Sometimes I don't get Metacritic. I was just eyeballing all the reviews and thought to myself that there is no way it actually averages out to be a 97.
I did the math, it's almost an exact 94. Why don't they just change it? A 94 is still damn good.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 20, 2017 18:13:20 GMT
Sometimes I don't get Metacritic. I was just eyeballing all the reviews and thought to myself that there is no way it actually averages out to be a 97. I did the math, it's almost an exact 94. Why don't they just change it? A 94 is still damn good. Metacritic uses a weighted average. From the site: "Creating our proprietary Metascores is a complicated process. We carefully curate a large group of the world’s most respected critics, assign scores to their reviews, and apply a weighted average to summarize the range of their opinions. The result is a single number that captures the essence of critical opinion in one Metascore. Each movie, game, television show and album featured on Metacritic gets a Metascore when we've collected at least four critics' reviews. Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together."
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 20, 2017 18:16:47 GMT
Not that it has anything to do with Dunkirk, but sometimes I also don't get Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. For example Game of Thrones' seventh season has 0 rotten reviews, but still has a 97% rating and not 100% rating.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 20, 2017 18:44:04 GMT
Sometimes I don't get Metacritic. I was just eyeballing all the reviews and thought to myself that there is no way it actually averages out to be a 97. I did the math, it's almost an exact 94. Why don't they just change it? A 94 is still damn good. Metacritic uses a weighted average. From the site: "Creating our proprietary Metascores is a complicated process. We carefully curate a large group of the world’s most respected critics, assign scores to their reviews, and apply a weighted average to summarize the range of their opinions. The result is a single number that captures the essence of critical opinion in one Metascore. Each movie, game, television show and album featured on Metacritic gets a Metascore when we've collected at least four critics' reviews. Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together." Ah, that makes sense. Thank you, I should've researched a bit more. I guess that means that Slant Magazine's review wasn't given much weight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 18:48:45 GMT
Not that it has anything to do with Dunkirk, but sometimes I also don't get Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. For example Game of Thrones' seventh season has 0 rotten reviews, but still has a 97% rating and not 100% rating. I noticed that earlier. I think it's because there's one negative review for the premiere, "Dragonstone"
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 21, 2017 1:32:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 5:58:15 GMT
Has anyone seen it yet? If so what were your thoughts? I'm watching it tomorrow in IMAX with my mum
|
|