Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

1917 [Sam Mendes]

124»

Comments

  • #152
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Except nothing like that scene happened in Dunkirk in reality.

    Nolan's version is far closer to the facts in depicting what the beaches looked like. The men were actually spaced out in small groups and lined up in an orderly fashion to await transport.

    I don't really get Dunkirk. Everything feels out of context. A bit surreal. Looks great etc. Doesn't tell the story well or give me any appreciation of being there. Maybe it's not meant to. There's no real story either. I preferred the scope and context of the 1958 movie I think it tells the story better.

    1917 I think is also is a bit surreal. Its more cohesive than Dunkirk. But 1917 isn't really trying to tell us anything either. It's just a simple story with WW1 in the background. I liked the acting in it.

    I enjoyed the craftmanship that created both movies. A movie doesn't have to educate or tell a traditional story, or even give a sense of being their. But I think I was more invested in the 1917 characters than those in Nolan's Dunkirk.


  • #153
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    glasso wrote: »
    The aim of Dunkirk was not to be about the characters first and foremost - it is more about a dramatisation of a discrete and climatic event - and how bold was it to pick a military retreat as something to go for in that regard? The historic event is front and centre here.

    The names of the characters are not laboured over at all for example.

    So bringing to life the tension, worry and despair of the situation was the primary objective and I felt that that was excellently achieved.

    Other than the soundtrack there's no real context of whats happening to feel any impending doom.


  • #154
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,554 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    beauf wrote: »
    I don't really get Dunkirk. Everything feels out of context. A bit surreal. Looks great etc. Doesn't tell the story well or give me any appreciation of being there. Maybe it's not meant to. There's no real story either. I preferred the scope and context of the 1958 movie I think it tells the story better.

    1917 I think is also is a bit surreal. Its more cohesive than Dunkirk. But 1917 isn't really trying to tell us anything either. It's just a simple story with WW1 in the background. I liked the acting in it.

    I enjoyed the craftmanship that created both movies. A movie doesn't have to educate or tell a traditional story, or even give a sense of being their. But I think I was more invested in the 1917 characters than those in Nolan's Dunkirk.

    I like both, but they each have their flaws. The '58 version suffers from its period trappings and the Nolan one loses its way in the aerial sequences, which were the most unrealistic thing about it. A shame really, as elsewhere it made real efforts to get most things right.
    beauf wrote: »
    Other than the soundtrack there's no real context of whats happening to feel any impending doom.

    The "problem" with Dunkirk is that it was largely a propaganda exercise after the fact. The reality of the situation is that Hitler had stopped his advance and the Luftwaffe were only carrying out piecemeal harassment attacks on the beaches. The vast majority of British troops simply waited for transport, boarded it and sailed for home.

    The worst they felt was the humiliation of having their arses kicked.

    When the dust settled, it was Churchill who trumped up the whole thing and made it into some sort of "miracle escape".


  • #155
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I like both, but they each have their flaws. The '58 version suffers from its period trappings and the Nolan one loses its way in the aerial sequences, which were the most unrealistic thing about it. A shame really, as elsewhere it made real efforts to get most things right.

    Period Trappings I think you mean Jingoism. Which is fair point, but it is of its time. As you say.

    Nolan might be accurate. But its not really cohesive.


  • #156
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,554 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    beauf wrote: »
    Period Trappings I think you mean Jingoism. Which is fair point, but it is of its time. As you say.

    More film style, than jingoism. It suffers from what most war movies of the time did. It has a kind of "cheerio chaps" feel to it. Although British war films were less flag wavy than American ones, that's for sure.

    On the whole though, it's a very good film.

    But, probably, the best British war film of the 50's was 'The Cruel Sea'. There's no nonsense in that and it's all a very straightforward story that sticks as close to reality as it can. In fact, it's probably one of the best war films, full stop.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I picked up the BluRay of "The Cruel Sea" a while back. Yeah its a classic.


  • #158
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,479 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    All I knew of this film before I watched it last night was that it was directed by Sam Mendes. I had a hope I might find it more engaging than Dunkirk.

    The short of it is I found this film to be completely ridiculous. While it started off promising this 'one scene' style became a distraction once realized where I tried to spot at what points the takes were sewn together by cgi and editing trickery, which wasn't that hard to spot either.

    Despite all the rats and decaying dead bodies it spectacularly failed to capture the true horrors of WW1 if you ever read or saw a documentary about it.

    The point at which lance corporal Schofield recovered from under a pile of rocks only to dust himself off and continues on his merry was the point of my realization that this film is a bit of a joke which was confirmed shortly after when the German pilot after being rescued from his crashed aircraft stabbed and killed his rescuer.

    The solders death scene didn't illicit an ounce of emotion from me. His demeanour was all wrong; I don't know if it was bad acting or what. I don't know what his rescuing of the German pilot was meant to convey, maybe that the Brits were the good guys, but it just didn't work, just looked dumb and ridiculous.

    Schofield then goes from 'why the fck did you select me for this mission' to 'I'm going to get this message to it's destination if it's the last thing I ever do' mode. From there one minute he's dodging every bullet fired at him to feeding milk to a baby to chocking to death a drunk German solider and from there is swept along in a river down waterfalls Laura Croft Tomb Raider style.

    That's about as much as I care to recall. I watched up until he delivered the order by which point I turned off as I didn't think I could cope with some mushy emotional scene when he eventually I presume finds the brother to give him the bad news.

    Any marks out of 10 I'd give this movie would only be for the visuals and nothing else because the acting was as poor as the overall film as well.

    4/10.



Advertisement