'Celebrating Maleness' at Dunkirk

Unless you've been in hiding throughout the whole summer you would know the latest blockbusters have been dominated by Christopher Nolan's depiction of the Dunkirk evacuations. The vast majority of people I've heard from described it as essential viewing, and were moved by its graphic and honest depiction of war. This wasn't the attitude of some, with one reviewer proclaiming 'Dunkirk' was a film to celebrate maleness. Before we jump to conclusions let's give this woman a chance to explain her thoughts:
________________________________________________________________
http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a28515/dunkirk-movie-review/
________________________________________________________________

Imagine the horror when you discover that people have different opinions to yours. You may call me a hypocrite for criticising this woman's different opinions to mine, but I would like to clarify I have no problem with this woman having this opinion, but rather I have an issue with how fucking stupid her arguments are. In any case I would never partake in such a horrific generalisation by claiming that all women don't get this film because of one moron, as that's essentially this woman's central logic in this 'review'.

The key argument in this review is criticising war films for wanting to portray actual warfare. You can convince yourself you're not naive all you want, but it's dumb arguments like this that make me think otherwise. If you have to convince others you're not naive before even making a single argument then it probably indicates you actually are. This whole segment reeks of a reviewer who didn't even bother trying to relate to the film. All this reviewer wanted was to be catered for, and when that didn't happen started criticising the creators when fantasy romances and coming of age comedy elements weren't mindlessly shoehorned into a film where they don't belong. I just can't imagine why a serious war film would be full of serious war elements. And anyway, in what universe is one of the most risky military maneuvers in world history not a sufficient plot. Maybe this reviewer would have opted for a far more significant storyline, like a fictional New York businesswoman farcically trying to find her ideal man, but that's not her business to suggest, and should absolutely not cloud her judgement on this separate film. All this by the way comes from a person who's written articles falling over backwards for the not at all bland new Taylor Swift song, but I guess that's none of my business.

I get what you're saying, but I don't understand your point that just because a recognisable figure has a feature role it takes away any form of realism. When watching in amazement at the first scene of 'Saving Private Ryan' I never once got the overpowering thought that it was all complete fantasy thanks to the instantly recognisable Tom Hanks. Instead I just witnessed one of the most powerful scenes in cinema history. Turns out nearly ever single fucking actor is a household name, so what's the big deal with Harry Styles being cast?

There seems to be this huge shock when the reviewer finds out the film isn't real. I'm not sure why this is a shock, as unless you're under five years of age I thought understanding that films aren't real was just called common sense. You clearly have none of this sense as you then go on to criticise war for being catered to the male psyche. Obviously those fucking selfish soldiers only sacrificed their lives to fuel their male ego. Certainly when I was walking through the rows upon rows of graves I was struck not with a sense of remorse or gratitude, but that mutual male respect we get from doing things catered for our collective male ego. But then of course I would feel that because I'm just a 'pretentious man'. Say what you want, but I'd rather be a pretentious man than a stuck up, ignorant bigot who thinks the world should revolve around them.

Fucking hell. You literally have no sense of perspective. I can't begin to imagine being as arrogant and obnoxious as you're being right now. Dunkirk, a film about the heroic sacrifice of countless soldiers, is just so men can make films over it to celebrate their maleness. Fuck you. Just because your pathetic life means you've been left writing shit reviews in some Z list magazine doesn't mean you can start shitting all over those who sacrificed their own lives so you can have the freedom to try and tamper with their legacy. You ungrateful whore. This is one of the worst examples in recent memory where social justice issues are just mindlessly shoehorned into places they don't belong.

I just can't imagine why anyone would think this film is a celebration. Do you just assume all men are psychopathic, and therefore have to revel in the depiction of suffering? What will it take to finally get the fact that the events in this film really happened into your thick skull? This isn't a film that's manly for the sake of being manly, and merely suggesting that proves how painfully little knowledge of history you have. If you want to change this testosterone fest then I suggest you go back in time and convince the allied powers to sit down with the axis and decide the Normandy Invasion with a game of beach volleyball instead of a full blown invasion. Again, this all boils down to whining that Nolan didn't just cater for the reviewer. This is an attitude that I would be shocked if a spoiled child had, yet alone an adult writing a formal review. The thing about art is that if you have an idea you can express it instead of just whinging that the world doesn't revolve around your shit movie ideas. I know this might be a tough pill to swallow but lots of people have subjective opinions that aren't identical to yours. For example I personally feel the film 'Sex and the City' was a crime against humanity, but I would never claim that film was women celebrating themselves for the same brain dead reasons your mind decided to excrete.

If you were actually a half decent reviewer you would review the film for what it is rather than what you want it to be. It's perfectly fine not liking a film, but criticising people for not having the same opinion as you whilst simultaneously producing idiotic arguments certainly isn't fine. I do however agree with your opening statement; you're not some naive woman, but you're a complete fucking moron. I never thought the day would come when historically accurate films were criticised for being based on historical events, but it now turns out that feminists now don't like depictions of people winning wars and instigating social change. Maybe they just wanted the Nazis to win so they could cry over their supposedly oppressed livelihoods some more. In the fucked up world of social justice I guess we'll never know.