Although this is only Nolan’s third movie that is set, at least partly...

>Although this is only Nolan’s third movie that is set, at least partly, in his homeland England — it depicts the evacuation of more than 300,000 British Expeditionary troops trapped in Dunkirk, France, at the start of World War II — he seems incapable of conveying a sense of cultural authenticity or patriotic feeling. (For that, see John Boorman’s WWII memoirs Hope & Glory and Queen & Country.) Preening for fanboys in 70mm, Nolan’s vast, clear views of dull-to-horrific killings, plus amped-up artillery sound effects, are no different from what he did in his Dark Knight trilogy. Like Michael Bay’s fantasy Pearl Harbor (1999), Dunkirk uses history as a pretext to show-off the director’s fascination for calamity.

How can one man be so based?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lG2dXobAXLI
nationalreview.com/article/449721/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-trivializes-wwii-valerian-sci-fi-future-dazzles
nypress.com/spielberg-climbs-another-mountain/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nolan BTFO lmao how the fuck can he recover

Someone post the king of Sup Forums pic

WTF I hate niggers now

Oh hey, Armond White didn't like a movie most other critics liked. How about that.

>king of Sup Forums released
>king of Sup Forums exposing the truth yet again
today was a good day

nigger has shit taste. color me suprised

>shit taste

he just recommended a John Boorman movie as a successful replacement for what Dunkirk tried to do, his taste is fantastic

>fantasize about becoming a director
>in my fantasies my films are universally panned and I'm blacklisted from hollywood after my third consecutive flop
>i go off the deep end and in a drug fueled haze, start looking at all of the reviews of my movies
>overwhelmingly negative, everyone accuses me of being a hack
>one positive review, it's from Armond
>start looking up Armond's reviews of my films
>they're all positive
>mfw

he is just trying to be a contrarian and snowflake
movie is fine

>a contrarian being a contrarian

HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE

Armond is probably the only critic I'd care about pleasing if I made films.

Well he's right about the Bay comparison.

Has Armond ever liked a widely praised film?

Is this faggot the ultimate contrarian or what? Every good movie he calls shit and every shit movie he calls good.

hes a spielberg fan i think so yeah

>Armond White
>he's black

this guy was born a contrarian

/ourguy/

But he's calling a shit movie shit this time

Go away Armond.

He was raised by white people too. the ultimate cuck

>Nolan misuses the big screen the same way Paul Thomas Anderson did in The Master — as a fanboy selling tool but not for aesthetic exploration.

imax, 70mm fags btfo

wew based fucking armond

youtu.be/lG2dXobAXLI
At about 2:31 this dude explains the appeal of being the ultimate contrarian, and how it fits into his voice.

>all war films have to convey a sense of patriotic feeling
What a fucking pleb.

Armond "The Honorary" White, does it again

Ahhh now I remember this is the guy that ruined Get Out's chance of a perfect 100% lol what a boss

Fuck off Sup Forumsaggot Dunkey doesn't know shit

I'm shocked I figured he'd like it. Still hating it for "lack of cultural authenticity" just reinforces my belief that he is Sup Forums the critic.

lol

these are the people calling armond a contrarian. underage reddit tourists.

just from this year he liked Baby Driver

he is

>In the Almost-Great Baby Driver, Hollywood Goes Asperger’s

>Lots of movies are manipulative, but Edgar Wright’s action-comedy Baby Driver defines the era by pampering its teenage audience.

That's how a "positive" review from him starts out.

He actually loves many very leftist movies. He gave a positive review to Hidden Figures. He also liked Being 17 and said that it's much better than Moonlight.

>The plot follows the romantic and sexual awakening of two seventeen year old boys as their initial animosity, expressed in violence, morphs into love.

guy is so contrarian he literally has the last name White, just so he can say 'actually I'm White' if people call him black.

>needing a dumb nigger to tell you that nolan and dunkirk is shit
Alright, legit, this is my final post on this shitskin nigger tier reddit meme board.

>trashes critically acclaimed Dunkirk
>LOVES the critical flop Valerian

What a flaming fucking contrarian.

t. someone who didn't see Dunkirk

That's nothing, his best review of the year went to Transformers The Last Knight

nah. you're just angry he doesn't like your reddit trash movies. you haven't even watched 1% of the movies he's reviewed

Nice try Armond.

euroshit infestation and black people hate ALWAYS starts in the middle of the night
baka senpai

At least this time Sup Forums isn't bitching that he didn't like their favorite kids movies like marvelshit, star wars, etc.

Armond on Valerian
>Imagine Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, etc. rolled up in one but corralled by a good director with impish humor.

And he even has the nerve to compare it to fucking Metropolis. Fucker get's paid to bait and shitpost

Truly he is the kang of Sup Forums

He's right in both lines

Based Arnold

He loved Hidden Niggers

One day, user. One day.

Armond is so brainwashed with the usual ameritard "we the best lets kill alll the nazis so heroic so victorious" propaganda narrative in ww2 films that he can't handle an actual historically accurate film for once.

Wait, where's the fucking review?

nationalreview.com/article/449721/christopher-nolan-dunkirk-trivializes-wwii-valerian-sci-fi-future-dazzles

And he praises the complete mess of Valerian lmao

Then all you had to do would be make generic action films that would most likely are going to flop and shallowly explore some as generic themes and you would be done, he would reference one or two decent but not critically acclaimed movies that explore the same themes and call it a masterpiece.

The guy always follows a formula and is ready to contradict himself in every review he makes.

>complete mess
why do people keep repeating this exact phrase

based ex-poster

Honestly he likes a lot of wisely praised films. He liked mission impossible, he liked fantastic mr fox, he liked Kubu and the two strings...He'll definitely praise a movie if it matches his taste. He's just really good at seeing the artistic/moral shortcomings in mainstream films than other critics

You know what an Armond White Review really is? A must watch list of other better movies you may not have heard of.

>boo hoo someone made a realistic film about the horrors of war that isn't a chest-thumping jingoistic piece of agitprop
Cry me a fucking river, Yank idiot

they're being paid the same exact amount

Baby Driver is as Marmite as Scott Pilgrim was

If you guys haven't I would read his review of Munich, its a masterpiece

nypress.com/spielberg-climbs-another-mountain/

Who cares? Based Ben likes it and that's enough reason to watch it.

>or patriotic feeling
what about the civies rescuing the soldiers with their boats or Tom Hardy fighting to save his countrymen(and the French) from bombers despite being low on fuel and eventually running out, which resulted in him getting captured by Nazis.

Based black man

No Coutry for Old Men

christopher please stfu and go back to making capeshit

>He's just really good at seeing the artistic/moral shortcomings in mainstream films than other critics

I agree that he talks about morals more than most other critics, but he thinks he has the ultimate moral perspective. His critique of Dunkirk is that it's not patriotic enough, probably because of the portrayal of the scared brits and everyone fighting for their own life. But that's how it literally happened, soldiers like Doss in Hacksaw Ridge are one in a million, most of them were 18 year old scared shitless kids who just wanted to get the fuck out of there by any means possible.
Also he can't talk about morals or politics without mentioning millenials/Obama/post 9/11 america etc

Can Nolan not think of anything more original than yet another WW2 movie? Such a stale and cliche genre, equally as bad as capeshit (which surprise surprise he's best known for). No one seems to care about originality anymore, everything has to be part of an overdone genre that is guaranteed to get good reviews with no risk involved.

Fbpb
Based

>this is the type of filth that enjoys n*lans "films"
and just when i thought nolanites couldnt possibly be anymore leddit

But it's not a yet another ww2 movie, you clearly haven't seen it. It's a movie about transporting a fuckload of people from point A to point B under heavy fire, not the usual "lets kill all the nazis so heroic" shootout fest.
It's more like a suspensful thriller set in a ww2 setting.

So... like Based Mel's Hacksaw Ridge?

What is 75th anniversary?

You are either braindead or trolling.

Hacksaw Ridge IS the usual "we the best so victorious so heroic slaughter the satanic nazis/gooks" shootout fest.
Dunkirk is nothing like it.

...
...
...

Put more effort in your trolling next time.

whos the king of Sup Forums?

He's 100% right though. Hacksaw was shit.

You have no taste and it wasn't my point. It wasn't muh heroic slaugther. Did you guys even watch the movie?

>but he thinks he has the ultimate moral perspective

In my experience, most people do. Including the ones making movies.

...and that's been the British presentation of Dunkirk since it happened. He's still toeing a line of propaganda that was written in 1940. There's no insight to be had in repeating old propaganda verbatim, and it's not a better movie because it's not doing the same thing as Fury. If he'd made a movie about Edith Cavill, I'd be saying the same exact thing.

Especially now, when we're getting close to WWII becoming ancient history, with the last people who directly experienced it dying out, there is a moral imperative to give the conflict a proper treatment. Instead, we get propaganda. Nolan deserves to be called out on that, even if his portrayal of the soldiers' emotions could be mistaken for genuine.

In reality the "miracle at Dunkirk" was a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and would have knocked Britain out of the war if they hadn't been an island. I'd rather watch a movie about the exasperated propaganda boys who had to turn their nation's failing into something palatable for the people. Call it "Selling Dunkirk" or something.

I saw part of a trailer. I think.

>captcha: pics of cats in hats

do you think armond is aware of his reputation on Sup Forums?

>In reality the "miracle at Dunkirk" was a clusterfuck of epic proportions
And that's exactly how it's portrayed in the film. Watch the film before trying to critique it please.

Who knows about Sup Forums? Apart from Old Bill and The Witt.

>It wasn't muh heroic slaugther.
Wounded Vince Vaughn hip firing hundreds of gooks all by himself while being dragged on the ground by the ultimate hero Doss wasn't muh heroic slaughter? It was almost like a comical patriotic dream where the director projects himself onto the character being the ultimate unstoppable "badass" hero who headshots everyone in sight with ease.

a cuck asking someone else did they watch an overbloated, overzealous, emotionally manipulative shitfest of cgi with nothing of substance underneath it is quite ironic, because if that same cuck saw this supposed "film" he should not have the gall to call it a "suspensful thriller, since there was nothing suspensful or thrilling in this thing

That was the T-Cut. That scene was a reshoot. The director's cut is great.

Way to ignore the rest of the post, user.

>Armond white
>a nigger
TOP KEK

>Armond White
>pose with is arm on a white guy's shoulder for a pic

What did he mean by this?

But what does the real /ourguy/ think of it?

How is it emotionally manipulative? How is it a "a shitfest of CGI" with thousands of extras, real Stukas/Spitfires and warships? Why are you obsessed with the word "cuck"?

This man liked Hacksaw Ridge so in my book he can't go wrong.

Unironically, he probably dislikes it for the all white male cast.

I like most of Ben's politics, but his taste in movies has always been shit. When he started out as a movie critic during the Breitbart's Big Hollywood days, his "lists" were terrible.

>But that's how it literally happened

Sorry hoss, but unless you're between 90 and 105 years old, you're going to need to show your work. Not you, not me, no anyone else here knows what it was like at Dunkirk in 1940. The film is beautifully shot, but it's largely an exercise in sadistic voyeurism.

>what will a reddit-tier fedora-tipper think of a Nolan movie
Gee I wonder

1940 was not a thousand years ago, there are numerous reports of all kinds from that event. There were 400 thousand men on that beach so there is no shortage of witnesses.
Nolan had numerous talks with a lot of Dunkirk veterans and had a whole team of historical experts on set at all times.
You can even find the interviews of Dunkirk veterans praising the Nolans work and saying how it's frighteningly accurate, though you can say that's just marketing but since it release "historical accuracy" was not questioned by a single expert on the subject.

Nolan even used 12 of the Dunkirk Little Ships in the movie. Some of those ships on-set were actually at Dunkirk evacuating soldiers.

What a bunch of horseshit