I'd just like to know who would be "rubbed the wrong way" in his mind. Racists?

Imagine saying that about a movie with a predominantly black or Latino cast.

Either way, history is history. There are people today who don't even want it told without social-justice revisionism.

Back in 1989, when Kathleen Turner was doing "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" on Broadway she literally told the producers that she wanted James Earl Jones to play Big Daddy. The producer took her aside and gently reminded her that this was a play set in the American South in the 1950s which meant you could not make this a play about a mixed race family.

Today I think that kind of gentle reminder of reality would get you branded as a "racist" by these morons.

Reminds me of how every one of these live-action Disney remakes of their classic animated movies have to shoehorn in as many black characters as possible into the background of crowd shots, even for time periods and geographical locations where black faces would be a very rare sight. See 2015's Cinderella and this year's Beauty & The Beast. Yeah, this is fantasy stuff aimed at kids, but come on.

Also reminded of how Peter Parker was one of two white kids apparently attending his high school in Spider-Man: Homecoming (and the other one had maybe five lines). Political correctness is all fine and dandy, but it's getting downright absurd.

Not sure who Harry Styles is but I'm guessing he's the reason there are a group of giggling teenage girls here at the 10pm show in the back row. Hope this movie is loud!

AndyDursin wrote:Not sure who Harry Styles is but I'm guessing he's the reason there are a group of giggling teenage girls here at the 10pm show in the back row. Hope this movie is loud!

Some douchebag boy band singer...I'm at a loss, too.

7/10

Christopher Nolan’s new film DUNKIRK is likely to divide viewers into two camps: those who feel the picture is a brilliant piece of cinema, and everybody else. Despite the mostly positive reviews, I regrettably found myself in the latter camp as this clinical “immersive viewing experience” played itself out.

There’s no denying “Dunkirk” is technically brilliant and beautifully shot -- like everything Nolan has made. Yet, the film is also emotionally empty, with no character development of any kind -- and I realize that may have been Nolan's point, to submerge the viewer (at times literally) into the mayhem of Dunkirk and the rescue mission of British troops surrounded by a faceless (and, here, nameless) enemy, yet I found the final product sterile and cold. Instead of feeling an emotion at the end of the journey, I just felt exhausted and worn out from the endless barrage of bullets and explosions, which left me with an ear-splitting headache from a subwoofer that must have been cranked up too much (ditto for Hans Zimmer's thankless score, which ventures into some Vangelis Lite territory at the end, to no discernible emotional effect).

A few lines intended to convey the scattershot nature of war and the conflict are thrown around here and there, but nothing is developed as Nolan spends most of the film showing an assault of near-misses and dire confrontations with "The Enemy," including aerial dogfights that are surprisingly disjointed in their editorial presentation. The "story", meanwhile, crosscuts between several characters -- Mark Rylance's pleasure boater, corralled into participating in the evacuation; Tom Hardy's ace fighter pilot; Kenneth Branagh's concerned admiral, and a young solider, played by Fionn Whitehead, whom most of the action revolves around -- but somehow never connects together, making for a film that manages to be tense without ever really being suspenseful. And then it just ends.

Although viewers were initially surprised by the thrifty running time (especially considering Nolan’s prior works), 107 minutes was ultimately more than enough for this kind of purely technical exercise -- and while it's still worthwhile to see on that level, and may enthrall some viewers on those grounds alone, "Dunkirk" sadly doesn't offer more than that.

AndyDursin wrote:7/10

Christopher Nolan’s new film DUNKIRK is likely to divide viewers into two camps: those who feel the picture is a brilliant piece of cinema, and everybody else. Despite the mostly positive reviews, I regrettably found myself in the latter camp as this clinical “immersive viewing experience” played itself out.

There’s no denying “Dunkirk” is technically brilliant and beautifully shot -- like everything Nolan has made. Yet, the film is also emotionally empty, with no character development of any kind -- and I realize that may have been Nolan's point, to submerge the viewer (at times literally) into the mayhem of Dunkirk and the rescue mission of British troops surrounded by a faceless (and, here, nameless) enemy, yet I found the final product sterile and cold. Instead of feeling an emotion at the end of the journey, I just felt exhausted and worn out from the endless barrage of bullets and explosions, which left me with an ear-splitting headache from a subwoofer that must have been cranked up too much (ditto for Hans Zimmer's thankless score, which ventures into some Vangelis Lite territory at the end, to no discernible emotional effect).

A few lines intended to convey the scattershot nature of war and the conflict are thrown around here and there, but nothing is developed as Nolan spends most of the film showing an assault of near-misses and dire confrontations with "The Enemy," including aerial dogfights that are surprisingly disjointed in their editorial presentation. The "story", meanwhile, crosscuts between several characters -- Mark Rylance's pleasure boater, corralled into participating in the evacuation; Tom Hardy's ace fighter pilot; Kenneth Branagh's concerned admiral, and a young solider, played by Fionn Whitehead, whom most of the action revolves around -- but somehow never connects together, making for a film that manages to be tense without ever really being suspenseful. And then it just ends.

Although viewers were initially surprised by the thrifty running time (especially considering Nolan’s prior works), 107 minutes was ultimately more than enough for this kind of purely technical exercise -- and while it's still worthwhile to see on that level, and may enthrall some viewers on those grounds alone, "Dunkirk" sadly doesn't offer more than that.

I think I'll stick with the Leslie Norman's 1958 version.

The score is awful even by his standards
. Unless you just like listening to a ticking clock!