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

1917 [Sam Mendes]

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    salonfire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Unbelievable nonsense.

    They must have had great paper at that time, when he had a crispy dry letter and photographs after his run through the river.

    The likes of Fair City would be bashed for such unrealistic clutches.

    It is a war movie, they surely had enough to stories to tell without reaching for unrealism


  • Options
    #93
    1o059k7ewrqj3n
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭1o059k7ewrqj3n


    salonfire wrote: »
    Unbelievable nonsense.

    They must have had great paper at that time, when he had a crispy dry letter and photographs after his run through the river.

    The likes of Fair City would be bashed for such unrealistic clutches.

    It is a war movie, they surely had enough to stories to tell without reaching for unrealism

    Was that what really ruined it for you?

    He had a tin box of some kind with his families photo in it, he could have easily put the letter in there. Pressed between his chest and his uniform it could have remained closed tight.


  • Options
    #94
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    galloppy!


  • Options
    #95
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Yes, there were a couple of shots where we saw McKay's character take photos from a tin case; very deliberate ones too, presumably to head off that very complaint when the river sequence happened :rolleyes: :D

    I notice there's often a certain greater level of pedantry when it comes to military / war movies of this stripe: wonder why that is? You'll rarely see (say) a police thriller being criticised for poor procedure, yet the tut-tutting will commence because of snipers or that kind of thing. The "armchair general" effect maybe? Not judging BTW, just find it curious this genre attracts it so much, second only to nerd/geek properties.


  • Options
    #96
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 7,802 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Never noticed that about the photos but it didn't matter. Odd stuff can happen even in extreme situations like the passport of the suicide pilot being found in tact on the street after 9/11! If that happened in a film plot people wouldn't believe it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    AdamD
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Hes delivering a message across no-mans land, hardly outrageous that they'd given him a tin container to protect the contents.


  • Options
    #98
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,166 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    silverharp wrote: »
    Re the comments about the “sniper” being bad shot, we aren’t told he is a sniper, I don’t think his gun had a telescopic sight on it and he didn’t go out of his way to hide himself, it was just a soldier in a building, might not have even been there under orders , could have been sobering up for all we know

    It was an 1898, just a regular issue rifle. The start of that firefight he seemed a bit like a sharpshooter but they weren't inaccurate rifles.

    They were issued with Grenades at the command foxhole though, would have been a perfect use for them all things considered.


  • Options
    #99
    salonfire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Steyr 556 wrote: »
    Was that what really ruined it for you?

    He had a tin box of some kind with his families photo in it, he could have easily put the letter in there. Pressed between his chest and his uniform it could have remained closed tight.

    Yes, it is very distracting and I actually rolled my eyes at time.

    Write an essay for your Leaving Cert with sloppy, lazy conveniences to see how it would go down.

    The barn and all around it for miles is blown to pieces, yet there is standing perfectly straight
    a pail of milk
    seemingly undisturbed by the destruction and the other men passing through.

    A convey of army lorries crammed with armed soldiers
    are stopped by a fallen bridge. They don't hang about to see your man gets across the river? Or when the shots start to ring out, they don't provide some covering fire or help?


  • Options
    #100
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    Thought this was quite average to be honest. One big meh really when it finished. Fair enough the "one shot" technically appealing... transitions aside. But felt the story just didn't grab me and there were too.many conveniences for my liking. Surprised to see it get the rave reviews it's getting to be honest. It looks great but scratch the surface and theres very little, if anything, underneath.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pixelburp wrote: »
    The "armchair general" effect maybe? .

    :D:D:D

    I remember being pedantic with little things like this when I was a teenager watching films, and it was really taking away from the quality of it. Now I try to let these kinds of things go and just immerse myself instead in the fiction. I find its a much more enjoyable way to take in a film. If you are looking out for stuff like that and getting hung up on it it ruins the viewing experience and probably theres no point watching it then in the first place.

    Overall I'd give this a 7 or 7.5. Good film but a thin cut steak.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    funkey_monkey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭funkey_monkey


    Watched this last night. I liked the continuous shot concept although I did find it a bit intense to follow.

    The movie itself although a decent idea had some failings for me which made it a bit meh plotwise:
    1. The plane had about 50 acres to crash into and ended up in their shed
    2. When he was in the town with the girl and child it was night when he was being chased. Just outside the town it was bright daylight
    3. Jumped off a large bridge into a fortuitously deep river with no rocks and then swam downstream instead of to the bank
    4. When crossing the river on top of the bridge the army trucks would not have been turned around in time not to see him being fired at. Poor - major plot fail.
    5. How did the cattle last so long - the Germans would have killed and butchered them themselves.
    6. Hollywood style last second finish. Meh, but I can accept this.
    7. Ridiculously poor aim from the Germans in the village.
    8. His futtering about with the girl and child cost many soldiers their life/limbs.

    Although having said the above, it was still an entertaining movie and I never stopped to think about the time. 6.5/10


  • Options
    #103
    Raoul Duke
    Registered Users Posts: 915 ✭✭✭Raoul Duke


    Anyone else watch it in the Imax in Cineworld and get blown away by the explosion when they were in the bunkers? Honestly, I've never been shocked (in real life or the cinema) by anything as loud.

    The cinema was basically empty, so I couldn't gauge other people's reactions. I'm curious though, if the volume has been turned up to the same level in other cinemas?


  • Options
    #104
    El Duda
    Registered Users Posts: 868 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Kermode said he jumped out of skin at least 3 times, so i guess the answer to your question is yes.

    My mrs also pooped her pants during the bunker scene.


  • Options
    #105
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Raoul Duke wrote: »
    Anyone else watch it in the Imax in Cineworld and get blown away by the explosion when they were in the bunkers? Honestly, I've never been shocked (in real life or the cinema) by anything as loud.

    The cinema was basically empty, so I couldn't gauge other people's reactions. I'm curious though, if the volume has been turned up to the same level in other cinemas?
    I was at the showing there on Tuesday evening and I definitely jumped at that point. The sound system there really added to the experience.


  • Options
    #106
    delly
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 7,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭delly


    Raoul Duke wrote: »
    Anyone else watch it in the Imax in Cineworld and get blown away by the explosion when they were in the bunkers? Honestly, I've never been shocked (in real life or the cinema) by anything as loud.

    The cinema was basically empty, so I couldn't gauge other people's reactions. I'm curious though, if the volume has been turned up to the same level in other cinemas?

    I jumped in my seat at that scene as well at the iMax, I was actually shocked at having actually done the metaphorical jumping out of my seat, it was a pretty incredible experience.

    I don't live anywhere near Cineworld, but had three hours to kill while family members where at the Board Gais theatre, but I'd actually go out of my way to go back there for my next big Hollywood movie.


  • Options
    #107
    1o059k7ewrqj3n
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭1o059k7ewrqj3n


    salonfire wrote: »
    Yes, it is very distracting and I actually rolled my eyes at time.

    Write an essay for your Leaving Cert with sloppy, lazy conveniences to see how it would go down.

    The barn and all around it for miles is blown to pieces, yet there is standing perfectly straight
    a pail of milk
    seemingly undisturbed by the destruction and the other men passing through.

    A convey of army lorries crammed with armed soldiers
    are stopped by a fallen bridge. They don't hang about to see your man gets across the river? Or when the shots start to ring out, they don't provide some covering fire or help?

    Here's the thing: the Germans have retreated. it is typical of armies to leave covering forces in place while a retreat is in place -phased withdrawal. It would also have been common, very common in fact for WW1, for discipline to break down and units to lose focus, to lose sight of purpose and for the chain of command to become ineffective.

    This is actually a theme of the film: the breakdown of command and communications.

    Many soldiers would fall behind, especially in an era which lacked mass transport. Especially in terrain that hindered movement on foot.

    All the soldiers in the Belgian town are the same - lacking discipline, drunk or stragglers.

    For the one soldier positioned on the other side of the canal: really, why open fire on a convoy of soldiers? Is that a firefight you are going to win? But presume you think the one soldier that gets out is reconnaissance/scouting - absolutely fire on him. Especially when you observe him on your own.


  • Options
    #108
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    Steyr 556 wrote: »
    For the one soldier positioned on the other side of the canal: really, why open fire on a convoy of soldiers? Is that a firefight you are going to win? But presume you think the one soldier that gets out is reconnaissance/scouting - absolutely fire on him. Especially when you observe him on your own.

    I think salonfire wasn't suggesting that the 'sniper' open fire on a convoy - it was that the convoy had just dropped off the lone soldier and within one minute he was being shot at. No sign of the convoy reacting to one of their own being shot at. Just drove off and disappeared into the distance seemingly.
    Small bit of suspension of disbelief required i suppose (which was needed a good few times in movie)


  • Options
    #109
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,160 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I enjoyed this as a movie but it really felt like there was a better film in this with a little judicious editing out of some of the big moments and a little more focus on dialogue in the quieter walking scenes. The story of a message runner in WWI is one worth telling but the hero in this tale blazes through an entire war's worth of encounters and anecdotes from a messenger's story in a single day...


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wow absolutely loved it. Grabbed me from start to finish. Moved me to tears more than once. A few minor quibbles with the single shot style leading to conveniences.


  • Options
    #111
    ToddDameron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 381 ✭✭ToddDameron


    Can't stop listening to the music from 'The Night Window' scene. Absolutely stunning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Robb Stark shedding a tear over Tomen Baratheon was quite the twist


  • Options
    #113
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    p to the e wrote: »
    Actually a question popped into my head during the film. We see a lot of black soldiers interspersed with white soldiers throughout the film. Did this actually occur in WW1 or were they segregated units? I'm sure I could find it online but I'm supposed to be working.
    pixelburp wrote: »
    I know there was a huge non-white presence in the ranks of British & French soldiers, mostly taken from the various colonies that still existed then (well, technically French Algeria was mainland France, but it was a colony in all but name), don't have the numbers but it's certainly something either forgotten or ignored in history. Presumably Britain doesn't like to be reminded of its colonial past so its popular history just ignores the thousands of non-white soldiers.

    As to the mixing, I'm not sure. Given WW1 was a war that highlighted the deep divisions of class within society (specifically, British), I imagine black & Indian soldiers likely served under white officers and staff. So maybe they were mixed in that sense, as opposed to the film where ordinary grunts appeared to be mixed.

    There were large numbers of Empire troops used in WWI. The biggest users of colonial troops were the French. However they, probably, wouldn't have been mixed in with the white British troops in the fashion that we see in the film, as far as I know. Unless there were unusual circumstances involved.

    Troops drawn from the colonies tended to stay within their regiments and, often, were used as second line. But coming across west Indian, African or or, especially, Indian people (the British Army had been using Indian troops since the 19th Century) was certainly possible and for many a Tommy it would have been an eye opener as they wouldn't have had any opportunity to see such people before.

    However, it would also have been quite a rare and noteworthy thing too, despite the fact the 100,000's of colonial troops were employed on various fronts during the war.


  • Options
    #114
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 7,802 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I read that there were 10,000 or so black or coloured troops of UK origin serving in the british army in ww1. One won a VC and was quite famous. Some of the units from bigger cities were bound to have a good few.


  • Options
    #115
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,139 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Enjoyable, was kept interested for vast majority of it.

    Thought a few parts were a little slow though.

    Some excellent camera work though, and loved how it moved in one line whilst the actors moved away from it then back to it.

    Some of the large scale scenes really worked. The guys going over the top on the 1st way as he ran across them.

    But maybe not as good as the hype has made it out to be, but very good all the same.


  • Options
    #116
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,901 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    I enjoyed it, some plot holes alright, it amazes me how they don't consider these during all that is involved in movie production.
    I haven't seen that level of not being cold after falling into a river since The Grey.


  • Options
    #117
    El Duda
    Registered Users Posts: 868 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Some thoughts I had on this the other day...

    Given that the film is bookended by the main character sleeping by a tree, and getting knocked unconscious mid way through to awaken to a surrealist sequence in the town, could the 'absurdity' of the plot be explained away by the fact that the whole thing is supposed to be some kind of fever dream that condenses a soldiers overall war experience?


  • Options
    #118
    vriesmays
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    Sleepy wrote: »
    I enjoyed this as a movie but it really felt like there was a better film in this with a little judicious editing out of some of the big moments and a little more focus on dialogue in the quieter walking scenes.

    It's called Gallipoli, Mel Gibson was in it.


  • Options
    #119
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    Saw it last night brilliant movie,

    now when they say it was filmed in one take...surely that's not the entire movie?


  • Options
    #120
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    fryup wrote: »
    Saw it last night brilliant movie,

    now when they say it was filmed in one take...surely that's not the entire movie?

    there is a day a night and a day again, so its not even trying to suggest it is

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,541 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    Someone mentioned the scene with the child, it was night, and quickly turned to day being unrealistic.
    In the film she mentions, as the bells are pealing, that it is morning and how dangerous it is for him to emerge from hiding.
    And the sun comes up over the following sequence.

    The poor shot of the troops as he is running?

    Shooting a standing target at that distance is hard enough, these guys are just awake, possibly drunk/hungover and are running, trying to hit a moving target, it's perfectly possible no one could hit the hero as he ran.

    I really enjoyed the film, only the aircraft impact site was beyond belief for me, but that was for "dramatic effect" as they say!


Advertisement