1917 [Sam Mendes]

pixelburp

Looks like Mendes is using some of his James Bond, studio clout to make a WW1 epic with a 'high concept' pitch: two British soldiers have to race across enemy territory to deliver a message to cancel an attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcmZN0Mbl04

cdgalwegian

Gallipoli!

cdgalwegian

Just duckduckgo'd it; that was 1915-1916. But still, Gallipoli!.

Slydice

Felt like they were trying to copy the Dunkirk trailer time ticking sound effect.

otnomart

Thanks for heads up
I am partial to War movies, so will watch it

LoughNeagh2017

My great grandfathers brother was killed in Gallipoli, he had 3 brothers who died within 6 months of each other. They were more travelled than me, one had been in the Boer war in South Africa too.

cdgalwegian

Gallipoli was the first video I ever saw, on a friend's classic piano-key style Betamax player. From Rotten Tomatoes:
"Peter Weir's devastating anti-war film features a low-key but emotionally wrenching performance from Mel Gibson as a young soldier fighting in one of World War I's most deadly and horrifying battles."

The clip in the first post had me gripped. With Sam Mendes at the helm this looks like a cinema trip for me.

Agent Coulson

Yes a total Gallipoli story.

branie2

I'd like to see it.

p to the e

Good old Tommen getting some work post GOT

Homelander

Looks really good. So good in fact I'm not going to watch the trailer properly and go in blind. Trailer these days are often on a mission to spoil as much of the plotline as possible, they're like mini-synopsis rather than classic trailers most of the time.

cdgalwegian

"1917 will also mark the Mendes’ screen-writing debut on the big-screen"

https://dankanator.com/22657/all-you-need-know-sam-mendes-upcoming-war-movie-1917/

bnt

A new behind-the-scenes featurette is out. The action will take place in real time, always following the lead actors. They aren't claiming it was shot that way, of course, but there are some very long tracking shots where the camera is handed off from e.g. crane to handheld to Jeep. Come Oscar time, I won't be surprised to see Roger Deakins nominated again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94

El Duda

This does look great, but it raises a question for me...

Is it a good thing to put 'making of' featurette material in the promotional material?

Its almost saying that they aren't confident that the film will stand up by itself, we have to be told how difficult and complex the shoot was to further intrigue us. Can we not sit in the cinema wondering how on earth they managed to film this? Then 6 months later we buy the DVD and see the making of and have our minds blown.

The Revenant is a great recent example;

"Did you see The Revenant?"

"Yeah, I thought it was a bit long and boring in places. Bit dissapointed tbh"

"Did you know that they only shot in natural light? Did you know that they had to move the entire shoot of the film from Canada to Argentina cos the snow melted? Did you know that Leo actually suffered in those conditions and ate raw Bison meat?"

"Oh, I didn't know any of that. Allow me to revise my review to 5 stars. What a masterpiece!"

bnt

I don't mind admitting that the process is part of the attraction for me. I just listened to this podcast interview with Werner Herzog, who is one of those directors who has been known for going to extremes for his art, and that is part of what attracts viewers to his films. Fitzcarraldo (1982) wasn't just about a mad man so determined to build an opera house in the jungle that he had a ship ported over a steep hill. It was also about a director so determined to tell the story that he had a ship ported over a steep hill during filming, in the jungle, while the leading man (Klaus Kinski) clashed so violently with the director that an extra offered to kill him. :eek:

PS Just to be clear, I don't want to be focused on the production while watching the movie. If done correctly, the story transcends the techniques involved. An example is Michael Mann's Heat, which got a lot of upfront attention for scenes like the Downtown LA shootout with its impressively realistic weapons and tactics, as well as the sound design. None of that mattered while I was watching it: all that attention to detail served the story and the characters.

pixelburp

bnt wrote: »

A new behind-the-scenes featurette is out. The action will take place in real time, always following the lead actors. They aren't claiming it was shot that way, of course, but there are some very long tracking shots where the camera is handed off from e.g. crane to handheld to Jeep. Come Oscar time, I won't be surprised to see Roger Deakins nominated again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94

Hmm, that feature left me a little confused, if curious: Deakins saying this was shot in "story order" (which aside from being rare, is kinda insane), then mentions of it being a "one shot" movie. But a lot of those locations look quite disparate so presumably there'll be some digital tricky with transitions - in which case why bother with story-order shooting at all?

JP Liz V1

Benedict Cumberbatch and Andrew Scott are in the cast (Sherlock reunion )

Mr Crispy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg

silverharp

a positive review here, sounds interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5aAcMMSqVs

otnomart

1917 just got some nominations at the Golden Globes.
Looking forward to see it now.

bnt

Another longer featurette:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQfybDxplPw

It's clearly not a "one take" movie, since the actors talk about multiple takes, but there are long takes with a single camera, shot in story order and mostly outdoors in natural lighting. Roger Deakins talks about being unable to shoot at times because the weather didn't match, e.g if one shot ends in sunlight they can't resume shooting the next day if it's cloudy - so they would rehearse until the Sun came out.

p to the e

I took "one shot" to mean it was shot like "Birdman" where it's supposed to look like it was shot in one take and no cuts

expectationlost

why isn't this coming out till the tenth surely put it on after xmas when people like me are bored and looking for something to spend an afternoon

NIMAN

p to the e wrote: »

I took "one shot" to mean it was shot like "Birdman" where it's supposed to look like it was shot in one take and no cuts

That's how I think it is meant to look.

Will be interesting to see.

ZuluDawn2020

The trailer looks absurd.

The soldier minus helmet kit and rifle running parallel to the parapet of the forward trench as attacking troops pass him and shells land and machine gun and rifle bullets fly.
In reality he would dive on the ground using a fold or depression for cover or jump into a crater or simply leap back into the trench.
Someone would grab him and send him to the rear or shoot him or a German watching from the opposite trench would pick him off.

I saw a clip where the two soldiers are watching a dogfight when a crippled and burning German plane heads to earth RIGHT at them.

The plots seems to revolve around what looks like a General played by what looks like Colin Firth summoning the two soldiers one whose brother is in the battalion out of contact to make contact and stop an attack before they are wiped out.
A General has thousands of men under his command and could direct any other men to do what they are told.
Disobeying a direct order would be a court martial offence so any soldier would do.
A General could give the orders down the chain of command from Colonel to Major to Captain to Lieutenant to Sergeant to the two privates.

So right away this movie is preposterous

Saruwatari

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

The trailer looks absurd.

The soldier minus helmet kit and rifle running parallel to the parapet of the forward trench as attacking troops pass him and shells land and machine gun and rifle bullets fly.
In reality he would dive on the ground using a fold or depression for cover or jump into a crater or simply leap back into the trench.
Someone would grab him and send him to the rear or shoot him or a German watching from the opposite trench would pick him off.

I saw a clip where the two soldiers are watching a dogfight when a crippled and burning German plane heads to earth RIGHT at them.

The plots seems to revolve around what looks like a General played by what looks like Colin Firth summoning the two soldiers one whose brother is in the battalion out of contact to make contact and stop an attack before they are wiped out.
A General has thousands of men under his command and could direct any other men to do what they are told.
Disobeying a direct order would be a court martial offence so any soldier would do.
A General could give the orders down the chain of command from Colonel to Major to Captain to Lieutenant to Sergeant to the two privates.

So right away this movie is preposterous

Good thing a movie's quality doesn't hinge exclusively on historical accuracy then. That's not to say it should stray liberally, but if it serves the story and emotional beats better than I'm okay with a discrepancy here or there.

Dades

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

So right away this movie is preposterous

Preposterous is thinking you know every nuance from a trailer. You may well be right, but there may also be any number of factors at play in the story to explain it all.

Optimalprimerib

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

The trailer looks absurd.

The soldier minus helmet kit and rifle running parallel to the parapet of the forward trench as attacking troops pass him and shells land and machine gun and rifle bullets fly.
In reality he would dive on the ground using a fold or depression for cover or jump into a crater or simply leap back into the trench.
Someone would grab him and send him to the rear or shoot him or a German watching from the opposite trench would pick him off.

I saw a clip where the two soldiers are watching a dogfight when a crippled and burning German plane heads to earth RIGHT at them.

The plots seems to revolve around what looks like a General played by what looks like Colin Firth summoning the two soldiers one whose brother is in the battalion out of contact to make contact and stop an attack before they are wiped out.
A General has thousands of men under his command and could direct any other men to do what they are told.
Disobeying a direct order would be a court martial offence so any soldier would do.
A General could give the orders down the chain of command from Colonel to Major to Captain to Lieutenant to Sergeant to the two privates.

So right away this movie is preposterous

Thanks for making this point. I am now going to see this on my own now. One of my friends thinks he is a military guru, so he will point out all of these inaccuracies and fcuk it up for the rest of us.

siblers

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

The trailer looks absurd.

The soldier minus helmet kit and rifle running parallel to the parapet of the forward trench as attacking troops pass him and shells land and machine gun and rifle bullets fly.
In reality he would dive on the ground using a fold or depression for cover or jump into a crater or simply leap back into the trench.
Someone would grab him and send him to the rear or shoot him or a German watching from the opposite trench would pick him off.

I saw a clip where the two soldiers are watching a dogfight when a crippled and burning German plane heads to earth RIGHT at them.

The plots seems to revolve around what looks like a General played by what looks like Colin Firth summoning the two soldiers one whose brother is in the battalion out of contact to make contact and stop an attack before they are wiped out.
A General has thousands of men under his command and could direct any other men to do what they are told.
Disobeying a direct order would be a court martial offence so any soldier would do.
A General could give the orders down the chain of command from Colonel to Major to Captain to Lieutenant to Sergeant to the two privates.

So right away this movie is preposterous

The film isn't going for historical accuracy. Would say its fairly obvious that it's not trying to be historically accurate

ZuluDawn2020

siblers wrote: »

The film isn't going for historical accuracy. Would say its fairly obvious that it's not trying to be either

The movie is being pitched as historically accurate - showing a day in the life at the front line. It looks like it is modelled on movies like '71 and Dunkirk that show the realities for the average soldier. Those movies did not sacrifice plausibility by having ludicrous combat scenes that I already described.
World War I has been depicted far better already. e.g. Gallipoli, The Trench, All Quiet On The Western Front, Paths To Glory, The Blue Max and Testament of Youth to name a few

pixelburp

Wild idea, how about waiting til the movies out and seen before we go down the "historical accuracy" rabbit hole. Context is important, as is pausing from kneejerk criticism sight unseen.

Not sure it's been modelled on accuracy either, seems like it has been more of a technical exercise in "one shot" cinema, mixed with a standard ticking clock thriller. This looks a big boisterous action film, not Sigfried Sassoon lurking in the trenches writing poetry.

silverharp

i hope its not to sterile like the Dunkirk movie , it looked good watching it but can barely remember a thing about it now nor want to rewatch it

Dades

Likewise. Dunkirk was impressive but all that reality meant a lack of something else to make it memorable.

Decuc500

Well that was very impressive. The 'one shot' look was technically brilliant and totally immersive. The cinematography, particularly the night time scenes, was stunning. I'd be giving Roger Deakins his second Oscar.

I don't know if it was historically accurate. I couldn't care. It was pure cinema.

branie2

I saw it this evening, and I thought it was very good

silverharp

branie2 wrote: »

I saw it this evening, and I thought it was very good

for some reason I thought it was only out next week, cool!

ISOP

Thought it dragged a bit, a bit over hyped. Saw JoJO Rabbit last night and it was miles superior

santana75

Definitely overhyped. Saw it tonight after reading universally glowing reviews. The critics are falling over themselves to hail this as a masterpiece. It's not though. Not even close. Its decent enough, but not the film it's being made out to be. If you're comparing it to another fairly recent war movie then I'd have to say it's not in the same league as Dunkirk. Nolan's movie was tighter, had more heart and just better executed.
There was some clunky dialogue here, an effort to build character but it just didn't ring true. It'll be nominated for a load of Oscar's, for sure it that kind of movie. But I hope Tarantino wins best director over sam Mendes because once upon a time in Hollywood was the better directed film.

Banjaxed82

Yeah. Overhyped. Didn't engage on emotional level and I didn't feel there was much tension more often than not. Was this cause they were hamstrung by the one shot technique?

Some nice work by Deakins but thin on story and just a bit meh overall.

cdgalwegian

santana75 wrote: »

Definitely overhyped. Saw it tonight after reading universally glowing reviews. The critics are falling over themselves to hail this as a masterpiece. It's not though. Not even close. Its decent enough, but not the film it's being made out to be. If you're comparing it to another fairly recent war movie then I'd have to say it's not in the same league as Dunkirk. Nolan's movie was tighter, had more heart and just better executed.
There was some clunky dialogue here, an effort to build character but it just didn't ring true. It'll be nominated for a load of Oscar's, for sure it that kind of movie.

Thanks. I've been really looking forward to this, so it's good sometimes to get the mood and expectations adjusted before seeing a film. I listened to the Empire podcast and they said similar things; that it is more of 'an experience' film than anything else. With that in mind, still really looking forward to it.

Rothmans

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Yeah. Overhyped. Didn't engage on emotional level and I didn't feel there was much tension more often than not. Was this cause they were hamstrung by the one shot technique?

Some nice work by Deakins but thin on story and just a bit meh overall.

Maybe it's because I have a particular interest in the First World War, but it really got to me on an emotional level. I found it to be really visceral. I found there was great tension in it. I found myself jumping back in my seat a few times.

I have to say, it's the best film I've seen in a long long time. The cinematography was outstanding, as was the acting. I couldn't fault it, and would highly recommend it. I don't go to the cinema an awful lot, but this film was well worth it, and I think needs to be seen on the big screen. It's a ten out of ten from me.

gmisk

Just home from seeing it this morning
Personally I loved it, the story is simple but it is so well done, honestly no idea how they got some of the shots. George MacKay is a fantastic actor. I found the cameos of the other bigger names a distraction. It's got to be seen on a big screen for me, wouldn't have half the effect at home. I also found it pretty blooming moving.
My expectations were a tad dampened down as truth and movies gave it a very average review,so that might have helped a bit.
8/10

silverharp

a very immersive movie , the average person should like it. they seemed to put a lot of effort into making the front lines seem true to life , trenches, bombed out town etc. some amazing night time use of flares

overall plot hole? we were wondering after the movie why didn't they just send a plane to deliver the orders? even if there wanst an airfield it still would have been possible to land in a field or they could have dropped the orders from the plane?

joe_99

Exactly. A plane would have done the job easily. Plus the British army was quite mobile beyond the abandoned German line so there must have been another way round

gmisk

silverharp wrote: »

a very immersive movie , the average person should like it. they seemed to put a lot of effort into making the front lines seem true to life , trenches, bombed out town etc. some amazing night time use of flares

overall plot hole? we were wondering after the movie why didn't they just send a plane to deliver the orders? even if there wanst an airfield it still would have been possible to land in a field or they could have dropped the orders from the plane?

I don't think the drop thing would have worked, it would need to be pretty precise to drop a letter so it went to the correct person from a plane? And not exactly a printing press to do a leaflet drop... Also the time thing was crucial, by the time they got in contact with airforce etc it would likely have been too late. I am not sure there was a place to land either, they were in woods before pushing forward

silverharp

gmisk wrote: »

I don't think the drop thing would have worked, it would need to be pretty precise to drop a letter so it went to the correct person from a plane? And not exactly a printing press to do a leaflet drop... Also the time thing was crucial, by the time they got in contact with airforce etc it would likely have been too late. I am not sure there was a place to land either, they were in woods before pushing forward

ok! them in the forest works for me cheers!

Akabusi

It's decent enough, couple of things i didn't like though

Who milked the cow? I thought this was pointless, if you were going to do this then do it right

Having the two lads go through no-mans land and the German trenches seemed a bit ridiculous when other parts of the British Army where able to drive around the country side with only a tree and some mud to hinder them

The crossing of the bridge, where the German solider couldn't shoot straight, then our hero fires a few shots and is able to easily advance and enter the building where the German hasn't moved and still misses him from point blank range

silverharp

Akabusi wrote: »

It's decent enough, couple of things i didn't like though

Who milked the cow? I thought this was pointless, if you were going to do this then do it right

Having the two lads go through no-mans land and the German trenches seemed a bit ridiculous when other parts of the British Army where able to drive around the country side with only a tree and some mud to hinder them

The crossing of the bridge, where the German solider couldn't shoot straight, then our hero fires a few shots and is able to easily advance and enter the building where the German hasn't moved and still misses him from point blank range

I’d assume a German did and it was left when they retreated, but it was lucky eh? He got to save the baby, what are the chances?

Meeting the other British , It seemed a little odd but fog of war and all that. You could argue that 2 soldiers slinking through the line would draw less attention than a convoy of trucks.

The German soldier had been badly injured, he was slumped back against the wall so I guess would justify his aim being off. It did seem though that the Germans in general didn’t have good aim, the one chasing him down the street should have got him easy enough

Went to see it yesterday myself. Its definitely a cinema film and wouldn't be half as enjoyable/effective watching on the TV. The cinematography was excellent even though the story wasn't.

johnny_ultimate

Comfortably the worst of this year's awards-contenders - and I really didn't like JoJo Rabbit much at all.

Since pseudo 'one-take' films have been done before, filmmakers need a really good reason to utilise it now - to make it feel fresh and different. Here, it comes across as little more than Mendes showing off. Given the seams are so obvious, IMO the decision to fake one take emerges as a crippling creative limitation. Rather than proving a more immersive experience, the choreography and artificial nature of events only draw attention to themselves. Some weak digital effects don't help. Ultimately, for me it was like those opening sequences to games where you're led down a corridor or something as the credits play and you see stuff happening behind glass. That, but two hours long and a mediocre war film. At least with something like Victoria or Russia Ark you can marvel at the logistics of maintaining the choreography for an entire running time - this doesn't even have that, so frequent are the cuts.

Deakins is a good enough cinematographer that there are a few moments of awe - well, specifically the pretty spectacular sequence where we track through a ruined village as flares ominously illuminate the sky and cast eerily beautiful shadows. In fact, that sequence works so well one wonders how well individual scenes could have been shot without the self-imposed limitation of mimicking a single shot (one long and overt cut to black aside).

Sadly, though, that one sequence sticks out in what otherwise is a bland, unfulfilling war film that makes one big bad decision that has a knock-on effect on everything else (although jarringly Thomas Newman's score is one of the worst I've seen in any recent major release). Even as a tense, high-risk thriller it pales in comparison to Uncut Gems, which just happened to be released on the same day and is infinitely more suspenseful.

PTH2009

Saw it today

Decent film with a lot of jumpy moments. Great acting by all in it

WW1 was brutal, I was always amazed how well most British treat the older folk over there and now I get why. The stuff they must of lived through during the world wars must of been tough. I doubt theres many WW1 veterans army/civilians around today