Another fresh one added.MuffinMcFluffin wrote:Another rotten tomato.
I definitely disagree, there's so much to catch on a second viewing that you miss on the first viewing because everything passes by so fast.RIFA wrote:
I think this is the only positive review that is actually ironic. Because Dunkirk is not that type of movie.
Non-linear storytelling aside, it's simple, raw and straight-to-the-point filmmaking. The more unique thing about this film given that it's a Nolan work. What you get on the first view is pretty much all.
Maybe they were one of those guys that got confused and instead of slamming it they found the positive in it lol. Halo Reach.
What is Lunch?RIFA wrote:You get sites like this one and then you ask yourself how the fuck do they get 50k traffic per month. I'm not talking about the quality of content but the site itself. What a puke lol.hasanahmad wrote:2 negative reviews added both from the same website and both are separate RT reviews
Both have the same complaint that they didn't get to see Harry Styles tell Joe how the jam toast reminds him of his mom so we care for his character
I mean I achieved this on Lunch and other websites and in total I got like 600.000 hits in one year. So even if you average that it would be slightly above 50.000 per month. But to have the same amount of views on your own website is way harder than by using popular platforms.
nightfury93 wrote:Miles wrote:95%
So with how many drags he's taken with every new fresh rating....how high is Mr. Murphy in your pic now?
You haven't seen the film yet, right??redfirebird2008 wrote:It looks like on their website they do have multiple reviews for a lot of movies. Calvin Wilson is the person who gave it 4/4. His review was included on MetaCritic for Valerian (2/4 or 50/100), so it kinda seems like Calvin's review will be the one on MC for Dunkirk as well.Spert wrote:STL Post Dispatch reviewed it again? And gave it a 4/4
I guess another 100 on MC? Lol
It sure seems Dunkirk might end up with 60 reviews or so on MetaCritic, which is nuts considering the biggest Oscar bait last year landed in the low 50's in review count (Moonlight, La La Land).
Hmm, that does sound strange, what is up with that?Jesus of Suburbia wrote:There are a couple of more that will be added St Louis Dispatch needs to be added. And There is old RT from the Minneapolis Star Tribune who has not reviewed a film in decade who wrote a review. Since it been a long time I am not sure if his review will get added to RTmclovin wrote:one more fresh for 96%Miles wrote:95%
Only 5 more fresh to get back to 96% I believe. Though I'm sure another rotten is right around the corner. I think 95% is where it'll end. Something like 200/10 with an 8.9 avg.
He gave positive reviews to Spider-Man: Homecoming and Valerian, and negative reviews to War for the Planet of the Apes and Dunkirk.nightfury93 wrote:GamingFreak wrote:Edelstein is a top critic so the perfect score is gone now.
Ah well, it was bound to happen.
What kinda films does Edelstein like? He a good critic or a pretentious a-hole critic? Just wondering haha.
I wouldn't jinx it.nightfury93 wrote:So is it pretty safe to say the score *knocks on wood* probably will stay at least 93/94% and 8.5/8.6 avg. rating at this point?MuffinMcFluffin wrote:Another rotten tomato.
*knocks on wood harder*
Oh, well in that case if any Top Critic had to give it poor markings, I'm glad it was him.okungnyo wrote:
From that, I gather that he is more favorable towards fun blockbusters than serious ones.