Ok, Mr. exocet#. You’re entitled to your opinion but calling it ‘pretty fucking bad’ is just laughable. Are you Foch’s cousin or something? (just kidding lol)
The pacing is bad, the premise is just a let down, the character design is downright disappointing, some of the scenes are just trying way too hard to make Batman look cool and just end up falling flat.
The only good part of the movie was the ending.
Well, no. Let me rephrase.
The only good part was the ending of the ending. That was genuinely clever.
But the rest of the movie?
Dreadful.
It would have been almost excusable had it been his first try at a Batman movie, but he made two good batman movies right before that.
It’s just not a good movie.
And you know what? That’s alright.
Nolan isn’t a golden goose, squirting out golden eggs every time he releases a movie.
I agree that saying that it’s probably going to be bad because it’s a Nolan movie is a bold claim, considering he has a good track record.
Still, it’s more than possible for Nolan to make bad movies. And to be honest, every trailer for this movie I’ve seen so far is telling of a very narrow point of view on the events at Dunkirk.
Holy crap are you wrong. I’d agree that it’s the worst of the trilogy, and is not Nolan’s best, but it in no way is a bad movie. You want a bad movie, go watch almost anything Michael Bay, any George Lucas prequel, any Gozilla, nearly 1/2 of all Spielberg movies (looking at you Warhorse) – then try and tell me Dark Knight Rises belongs in the same category. Hell even with this being the weakest of Nolan’s offerings is far far better then most blockbuster movies – simply based on structure, story telling, and acting!
Now onto Dunkirk – my heart sunk when I saw this headline – Fury is NOT a good movie, and that’s the last WG colab I saw.
The fact that it’s not a retarded Transformer Michael Bay’splosion movie doesn’t mean that it’s good.
It’s objectively not a good movie.
The art design is not good, the characters are just not good, the plot is weak, and it’s riddled with pointless scenes that try to look artistic but end up looking utterly moronic from both a visual and plot point of view.
And you can have good actors acting well, but still have a shit movie.
TL;DR : you can’t just show the bottom of the barrel and say “see, it’s not that bad, so it’s good!”
Moronic? Not even close, the movie provides the same level of timely social commentary as the rest of the series. Bad art design? Hardly – it is both consistent with Nolan’s universe and batman’s. Characters…now I’m starting to question if you’ve actually seen the film – Nolan writes a flawed humanity very well, realistically and believably. Visually the movie is AMAZING: Nolan actually builds real set/props whenever possible/practical. And yes, there are several plot holes, but pretending that relegates the movie to ‘moronic’ or ‘awful’, when it’s clear a great deal of careful thought as gone into the work is simply juvenile. You’re accusing me justifying the film by comparing it to the bottom of the barrel when that’s were you place it without due cause or merit or comparison. The movie is stands up, your criticism does not.
“There is a nuke in the city and I jsut came back after having my back broken, but first let me make a dramatic entrance by lighting a building on fire in the pattern of a bat, so a handful of random people will see it”
It was stupid.
It tried to look good, it tried to be symbolic, but it just looked idiotic.
The character design was simply subpar compared to the other movies.
Bane was just bad. Undefendably so.
Catwoman was visually bad. No way to differentiate her from random movie female catburglar number 7835.
The characters were weak, and the movie’s plot was weak.
Hell, even professional critics praising the movie do it with a backhanded slap.
It was not a good movie.
Trying to make it seem like it by saying “it’s not Transformer” is disingenuous and fanboyish.
Hell, your FIRST reflex was to tell me “It’s not a bad movie, if you want a bad movie, go watch Transformers”
You’re literally lowering the bar as the first thing you do.
No wonder you think it’s a good movie.
You raise and lower that bar according to your own wants.
looks bad, considering most of the trailer was an advertisment for their games, I don’t consider watching it.
LikeLike
Ignore the WoT part is alright. Is Christopher Nolan after all.
LikeLike
From the director of:
Interstellar
The Dark Knight Rises
Inception
The Dark Knight
The Prestige
Batman Begins
Insomnia
Memento
Sure, bud. Whatever you say.
LikeLike
Now now, every director makes bad movies.
Dark Knight Rises was pretty fucking bad, for example.
I have my concerns the movie will be exclusively from the English point of view (not even British, just English).
LikeLike
Ok, Mr. exocet#. You’re entitled to your opinion but calling it ‘pretty fucking bad’ is just laughable. Are you Foch’s cousin or something? (just kidding lol)
LikeLike
It is in my opinion pretty fucking bad.
The pacing is bad, the premise is just a let down, the character design is downright disappointing, some of the scenes are just trying way too hard to make Batman look cool and just end up falling flat.
The only good part of the movie was the ending.
Well, no. Let me rephrase.
The only good part was the ending of the ending. That was genuinely clever.
But the rest of the movie?
Dreadful.
It would have been almost excusable had it been his first try at a Batman movie, but he made two good batman movies right before that.
It’s just not a good movie.
And you know what? That’s alright.
Nolan isn’t a golden goose, squirting out golden eggs every time he releases a movie.
I agree that saying that it’s probably going to be bad because it’s a Nolan movie is a bold claim, considering he has a good track record.
Still, it’s more than possible for Nolan to make bad movies. And to be honest, every trailer for this movie I’ve seen so far is telling of a very narrow point of view on the events at Dunkirk.
LikeLike
Holy crap are you wrong. I’d agree that it’s the worst of the trilogy, and is not Nolan’s best, but it in no way is a bad movie. You want a bad movie, go watch almost anything Michael Bay, any George Lucas prequel, any Gozilla, nearly 1/2 of all Spielberg movies (looking at you Warhorse) – then try and tell me Dark Knight Rises belongs in the same category. Hell even with this being the weakest of Nolan’s offerings is far far better then most blockbuster movies – simply based on structure, story telling, and acting!
Now onto Dunkirk – my heart sunk when I saw this headline – Fury is NOT a good movie, and that’s the last WG colab I saw.
LikeLike
The fact that it’s not a retarded Transformer Michael Bay’splosion movie doesn’t mean that it’s good.
It’s objectively not a good movie.
The art design is not good, the characters are just not good, the plot is weak, and it’s riddled with pointless scenes that try to look artistic but end up looking utterly moronic from both a visual and plot point of view.
And you can have good actors acting well, but still have a shit movie.
TL;DR : you can’t just show the bottom of the barrel and say “see, it’s not that bad, so it’s good!”
LikeLike
Moronic? Not even close, the movie provides the same level of timely social commentary as the rest of the series. Bad art design? Hardly – it is both consistent with Nolan’s universe and batman’s. Characters…now I’m starting to question if you’ve actually seen the film – Nolan writes a flawed humanity very well, realistically and believably. Visually the movie is AMAZING: Nolan actually builds real set/props whenever possible/practical. And yes, there are several plot holes, but pretending that relegates the movie to ‘moronic’ or ‘awful’, when it’s clear a great deal of careful thought as gone into the work is simply juvenile. You’re accusing me justifying the film by comparing it to the bottom of the barrel when that’s were you place it without due cause or merit or comparison. The movie is stands up, your criticism does not.
LikeLike
“There is a nuke in the city and I jsut came back after having my back broken, but first let me make a dramatic entrance by lighting a building on fire in the pattern of a bat, so a handful of random people will see it”
It was stupid.
It tried to look good, it tried to be symbolic, but it just looked idiotic.
The character design was simply subpar compared to the other movies.
Bane was just bad. Undefendably so.
Catwoman was visually bad. No way to differentiate her from random movie female catburglar number 7835.
The characters were weak, and the movie’s plot was weak.
Hell, even professional critics praising the movie do it with a backhanded slap.
It was not a good movie.
Trying to make it seem like it by saying “it’s not Transformer” is disingenuous and fanboyish.
LikeLike
Hell, your FIRST reflex was to tell me “It’s not a bad movie, if you want a bad movie, go watch Transformers”
You’re literally lowering the bar as the first thing you do.
No wonder you think it’s a good movie.
You raise and lower that bar according to your own wants.
LikeLike
So much better than Gaijin sponsoring that propaganda film Panfilov’s 28. Are you paying attention Gaijin?
LikeLike
i’ve wanted to see the film
but now that WG is helping promote it….all of a sudden i’m not so eager..its like someone dumped the cat’s litter box on your favorite meal…….
LikeLike
same…
LikeLike