Look here is a post from MARCH, when you were already criticizing the movie because a "FILM IS ABOUT PEOPLE."

Your 03/10 Post, with more of your posts in the thread

quote:

Isn't that a problem in film making?

People care about people and their story...not just bodies.

Here is your post on 07/20 where you take ONE British review, and decide that is representative of ALL BRITs. It was almost universally acclaimed by British reviewers, but you found the ONE to make a long post about a movie you had yet to see.

Your 07/20 Post

quote:
The Brits don't seem too impressed...Two stars.

And this is their movie Saving Private Ryan made just for them.

Criminally under-represented in the annals of movie history, the wartime evacuation of Dunkirk has been crying out for a classic film interpretation to rank alongside genre leaders The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far and Saving Private Ryan.

Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, alas, just isn’t it. What it is, essentially, is 106 clamorous minutes of big-screen bombast that’s so concerned with its own spectacle and scale (shot on huge IMAX and 65mm cameras, for big frames and big action) that it neglects to deliver the most crucial element — drama...characters...drama, drama, drama.

- Times London

So the Brits are saying Nolan took a pivotal moment in their history and reduced those families and soldiers to comic-book characters...or worse...comic-book characters get a backstory...Nolan has taken this event and reduced it to a video-game. That's pissing on the memories of those who died and history just to appease teenagers and fanboys and shirk his duty as a film-maker.

Then here was your response to a WSJ criticism about "dumbing it down" on 07/30. Again before you saw it.

Your 07/30 Post

quote:
That's a damning article about how Nolan feels about the intellectual aptitude of his target audience.

"His audience is 90% fanboys who will have no clue about Churchill if he wasn't wearing a superhero mask."

Without history, why do we care? Without character development, why do we care? Without context, why do we care?

Without none of that - it's just CGI video game on film. I've never understood why people find that interesting...to take an important moment of the 20th century and reduce it to less of a story than Pacific Rim.

THEN FINALLY, we get your review on 07/31. And look, your criticisms conveniently match the criticisms made before you ever saw the movie, EVEN GOING BACK TO MARCH.

Your 07/31 Post--After you just got back from seeing it

quote:
Just saw it, suspicions confirmed.

First off, are people deaf these days?

Movie was absurdly loud like front row concert. The bullet FX was like a knife piercing your ear drum. Jesus we aren't 85 years old.

Second, beautifully filmed, great choreography, pretty good editing with the 3 stories.

But who cares? Movies are about people. The boat family is about the only part of the story I remotely cared about. Beyond pretty cool filmmaking.

It's story telling 101 from Homer to Harper Lee - you have to be made and in some instances be forced by the narrative to care about the characters beyond the general...death or war or whatever is bad.

You have to make it personal like Jaws or Das Boot, we got to know them and learn them and hope for them. It wasn't just some faceless unknowns who went out there to kill a shark or people who didn't say a word in Das Boot.

This is arcade mixed with great cinematography but I don't know if I like it. Great filmmaking might be sadly losing the human touch even in historical movies that aren't battle for L.A. or Batman.