Could someone remind me how old President Donald Trump was at the time of the real life evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940? Oh, he still wouldn't be born for another six years? Really? However, this did not prevent Rolling Stone movie reviewer Peter Travers from invoking his name in a negative way from out of nowhere in the middle of a review of what looks to be an outstanding film, "Dunkirk."
First let us look at the positive aspect of Travers' review when he focused strictly on the movie before taking his cheap shot at Trump. Before he came to that completely unneccessary jarring moment, Traver's provided us with a glowing review to the extent that "Christopher Nolan's WWII Epic May Be the Greatest War Film Ever":
From first frame to last, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is a monumental achievement, a World War II epic of staggering visual spectacle (see it in IMAX if you can) that hits you like a shot in the heart. Leave it to a filmmaking virtuoso at the peak of his powers to break both new ground and all the rules – who else would make a triumphant war film about a crushing Allied defeat? And who but Nolan, born in London to a British father and an American mother, would tackle WWII without America in it?
The time is 1940, and the Yanks haven't yet entered the hostilities. There are 400,000 British, French, Canadian and Belgian soldiers trapped on the beaches of a small French town called Dunkirk, all waiting to be evacuated before they're wiped out by the might of Hitler on land, sea and air. The Allied troops are sitting ducks, caught in a vise of tension that the director makes throat-catchingly palpable on screen. It's a brutal irony that the English Channel, a 26-mile stretch of water, is so close the British soldiers can squint and see home. But the water is too shallow for large rescue ships; only small boats and private yachts can get in. A miracle is needed in the form of a mini-armada manned by civilians. A miracle is what they get.
Okay, so far so good and your humble correspondent plans to take the reviewer's advice and watch it in IMAX. The following few paragraphs are equally enlightening until we reach Travers' obvious obsession that he can't get out of his mind resulting in this cheap shot out of nowhere:
So it's impossible to overstate the importance of this battle, especially to the people of Great Britain. To outsiders, especially here in Trump's America, the significance might be lost – or even be counted as a spoiler.
Of course, this had nothing at all to do with the movie. This cheap shot was so obvious that it was commented upon by several Rolling Stone commenters:
Stop sniffing glue before you grab your computer. Feel free to insult Americans while acting like your knowledge of history extends beyond anything you've seen in a movie theater. You are such an utter tool.
RS just couldn't write a story without a swipe at Trump. Whether it's music, film, art or some made up BS about a campus horror, you just can't help your self. Pathetic. As the original liberal rage machine said, "move on."
Dunkirk has nothing to do with with Trump. Please go and double your SRI medication along with Travers. He has managed to bring up Trump in Boss Baby, Fantastic Beasts, The Founder, Spider Man just to name a few.
Exit question: If a movie is made about false accusations of rape on a college campus, would it be a cheap shot or reality to mention Rolling Stone in a film review?
