1917 [Sam Mendes]

and the leading actor wasn't even nominated ?? shameful

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

I endorse this review completely.

When the main tension of the movie is being so heavily signposted by the music, it always leaves me cold.

Much like someone else a few posts back I am far from a film expert and I am not into the technicalities of a film or special effects or whatever.

Only saw this last night and thought it was one of the best films I have seen now that I have had time to think it through. I am not sure I have ever seen a film where I felt suspense from almost one end to the next, my heart was in my mouth for so much of it. I actually think that the word immersive is appropriate to describe it, the film makers have actually managed to pick the viewer up and drop them right into the film alongside the characters. I felt a constant fear for them. I will say that I was left kind of empty at the end though, such a tense time for the character and then it was over, with no fanfare or much of a congratulations for his efforts, but, I suppose that is probably how the character of schofield might have felt anyway.

I looked up this thread because I wanted to read reviews of people that felt the same way I did, reviews from people who just wanted a night in the cinema and not necessarily a breakdown of how the film was made etc. I definitely came to the wrong place for that because the contributors in the thread are a different league of cinema goer to me though. I feel happy for myself that I didn't feel the need to seek out flaws or areas that didn't make sense because if I had watched it with a more critical eye instead of just sitting back and allowing myself to be drawn in I would have definitely had a lesser experience. It kind of makes you think about the balance a film maker needs to have, either make a perfectly formed film with no technical or storyline flaws to suit a critical audience who enjoy the breakdown such as that on this thread, or not complicate a film in an attempt to do that so that a more generic audience (like me) can enjoy themselves. it has certainly made me think anyway!

So, for anyone who just likes the cinema experience and a film worth paying to see, this is definitely a top rated film for me, has been put into my top films of all time I think! wish i had seen it in the IMAX now though!

partyjungle wrote: »

Hmmmm. I don't equate cleaning up plot holes or inconsistencies as making a film more complicated. Either a film has problems or it doesn't. I enjoy a film more when it's fully coherent. I tried to ignore the issues with the latest Star Wars but it's just too messy. Although if a film grips me start to finish, like 1917 did, then it's doing a fantastic job.

no, doesn't always mean its more complicated but the plot holes in this film were so minor that if they had to add in pieces about justifying how they sent the message this way over another way or about the presence of milk pails it probably would have taken away from the main thrust of the film. There will always be something to pick it so I am not sure they are worth the consideration of the film crew in cases like this.

greenttc wrote: »

Much like someone else a few posts back I am far from a film expert and I am not into the technicalities of a film or special effects or whatever.

Only saw this last night and thought it was one of the best films I have seen now that I have had time to think it through. I am not sure I have ever seen a film where I felt suspense from almost one end to the next, my heart was in my mouth for so much of it. I actually think that the word immersive is appropriate to describe it, the film makers have actually managed to pick the viewer up and drop them right into the film alongside the characters. I felt a constant fear for them. I will say that I was left kind of empty at the end though, such a tense time for the character and then it was over, with no fanfare or much of a congratulations for his efforts, but, I suppose that is probably how the character of schofield might have felt anyway.

I looked up this thread because I wanted to read reviews of people that felt the same way I did, reviews from people who just wanted a night in the cinema and not necessarily a breakdown of how the film was made etc. I definitely came to the wrong place for that because the contributors in the thread are a different league of cinema goer to me though. I feel happy for myself that I didn't feel the need to seek out flaws or areas that didn't make sense because if I had watched it with a more critical eye instead of just sitting back and allowing myself to be drawn in I would have definitely had a lesser experience. It kind of makes you think about the balance a film maker needs to have, either make a perfectly formed film with no technical or storyline flaws to suit a critical audience who enjoy the breakdown such as that on this thread, or not complicate a film in an attempt to do that so that a more generic audience (like me) can enjoy themselves. it has certainly made me think anyway!

So, for anyone who just likes the cinema experience and a film worth paying to see, this is definitely a top rated film for me, has been put into my top films of all time I think! wish i had seen it in the IMAX now though!

The best way to look at any film is to just watch the story. If you are entertained, then you are entertained and that's all that matters.

Now, in saying that, I do tend to watch films with a critical eye myself. It's just the way I am now, after decades of movie watching. I think it becomes almost inevitable when you viewed and read about how movies are made over the years. Unfortunately, with a film like 1917, I will also tend to be critical of the subject matter, too, because of my other reading material.

But my own particular starting point is "am I being entertained by this?". If the answer's yes, even if there are little issues here and there, then the film's a winner. If the answer's no, then I'm going to start asking why.

In the case of '1917', once I got past the unrealistic central conceit of the story, it was a perfectly fine and well made film, with a great attention to period detail, albeit with a low key story. But one that is serviceably laid out in a relatively satisfying way.

Dunkirk is so far ahead of 1917 imo. Amazed that people think 1917 is better.

Reference quality picture and sound plus a Roger Deakins commentary................ yes please

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/1917-4K-Blu-ray/259242/#Review

otnomart wrote: »

Agree with you.
Dunkirk left me so cold.
When I think about what happened in Dunkirk, the only movie I think about is Atonement and that amazing scene. You only have to watch that scene to get what happened in Dunkirk.
1917 had some haunting characters that are unforgettable even if they are on the screen the matter of minutes. Not just the two leads. Andrew Scott's character for instance, Colin Firth's character. And so on.

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 thought 1917 was fantastic but I suspect like Dunkirk it is a cinematic experience, and not necessarily one for home viewing.

I got Dunkirk on DVD when it came out, and I'll admit I actually only watched to about the halfway point. It was just missing... something. It was the same with Avatar.

and 1917 doesn't have modern day bungalows in the background :cool: