|
Post by stephen on Dec 29, 2019 5:11:03 GMT
Or rather, the Thin Red Line to Dunkirk's Saving Private Ryan. This film was an absolute gobsmacker across the board, hauntingly ethereal and evocative in equal measure. Mendes came in with a career-topper on this one. Deakins should and will rightly nab his second Oscar for this one, and Newman will likely be getting ready to collect his first win, but it's really criminal that George Mackay isn't scooping up nods left and right for this. Makes the likely nominees in his category look like pikers, really.
This was, by the way, a very fine double-feature with A Hidden Life, which I also saw tonight and am still contemplating upon. But yeah. 1917 was a fucking experience.
|
|
|
1917.
Dec 29, 2019 5:18:27 GMT
Post by theycallmemrfish on Dec 29, 2019 5:18:27 GMT
I do like the Dunkirk comparison... I don't like the Thin Red Line comparison (unless you mean the ensemble, which is fabulous)...
I'm definitely looking forward to this badboy either way.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 29, 2019 5:19:34 GMT
I do like the Dunkirk comparison... I don't like the Thin Red Line comparison (unless you mean the ensemble, which is fabulous)... I'm definitely looking forward to this badboy either way. I mean that while Dunkirk is the more technically ambitious film (what with Nolan's timeline-jumping), 1917 is the more soulful, ruminative experience . . . but it is no less dazzling and thrilling.
|
|
|
1917.
Dec 29, 2019 6:42:41 GMT
Post by Pavan on Dec 29, 2019 6:42:41 GMT
Dunkirk or 1917?
|
|
|
1917.
Dec 29, 2019 14:10:16 GMT
Post by jimmalone on Dec 29, 2019 14:10:16 GMT
I'm soo looking forward to this. The Thin Red Line is my Best Picture Winner in 1998, Dunkirk is it in 2017. Both are probably among my Top 50 of all time. So yeah, really anticipating how 1917 compares along them.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 29, 2019 15:02:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 29, 2019 17:07:43 GMT
I also wanna add that I think it's criminal that people have dismissed it as being more of a director's showcase than a script-based one, because I think that the script for this film is pretty damn ironclad. Some very strong scenes with excellent dialogue, which wonderfully shades some of the background characters (i.e. Andrew Scott's drunken lieutenant at the start of the film). Some of the dialogue sounds straight out of a Harold Pinter play. Really deserves some consideration in this category, especially considering some of the competition.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 30, 2019 2:27:56 GMT
7.5+/10
Yet another stunt film - it's like the 10th one of the year, including both good and bad. There isn't much bad here and the good is quite good - immersive, elegiac and frantic, not an easy combination to pull off. Gorgeous looking and sounding too in every way, musically and on sonic boom level.
To me this film evoked Chariots of Fire in a way more than anything else (weirdly) and the very last scene particularly evokes Malick and his nature digressions. The seams show at times particularly on characters or movement on the side of the frame margins which often seems static or in service of what Mendes chooses to focus on for you - that is and feels unnatural.
Still a well-made film is nothing to dismiss .....in this year especially.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Dec 31, 2019 6:34:49 GMT
Went for my second viewing tonight. This really is Sam Mendes doing his best impression of Saving Private Ryan, Skyfall and Dunkirk, with a splash of Road to Perdition in one fell swoop. No one can ever accuse Mendes of not infusing genuine humanity in anything he's ever done; it's a staple of his movies. But with '1917' he's shown a huge leap in execution, all down to the smallest details, in undoubtedly his most vaulting project to date. But then you're also working alongside Roger Deakins, who remains loyal to his personal style which still allows the main actors (particularly George MacKay who has a HUGE future ahead) to not get bogged down by the prodigious methodological mastery on display. Topped with Newman's score and it assimilates into a wonderful cacophony of beauty, emotion and ordeal. So, Sam.....
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 10, 2020 4:07:55 GMT
So annoying that MacKay isn’t getting any attention for this. What the hell did Leo do in The Revenant that George didn’t do here?
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jan 11, 2020 1:07:29 GMT
I needed a cigarette after seeing this film! lol WOW what a cinematic experience that NEEDS to be seen on the biggest screen possible. I felt like I was right there with the soldiers along for the nightmarish ride. I don't even know how Mendes fucking pulled this off. The way it was edited made it look like one looooooong tracking shot. It was brilliant from start to finish .
9/10
Also while I love Dunkirk , IMO 1917 is superior in pretty much every way. Oh and its not watered down at all (hard R to show the brutality of war)
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 11, 2020 8:06:12 GMT
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 11, 2020 8:06:12 GMT
I'm probably one of the Top 3 biggest Nolan fans on here but yeah, 1917 beats it in every conceivable category.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Jan 11, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
This was very good, and at times brilliant, but I couldn't help but find it a little lacking. I'm not even really sure why, perhaps I had the wrong expectations. I guess I was hoping for something more harrowing. I don't want to compare this to Dunkirk because they're actually very different films - this being, despite its technical ambition, a very traditional war movie whereas Dunkirk is an abstract horror movie disguised as a war movie. That said, I was hoping that 1917 would have the relentless feeling of dread that Dunkirk had. I think part of the problem may be that the great WWI movies ( All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and Gallipoli) are all incredibly bleak and really showcase the futility of the war. 1917 touches on this here and there, but it ultimately ends on a more bittersweet note, showing the triumph of heroics. That feels a little off for a movie about this particular war. One part in particular stuck out to me. Captain Smith (Mark Strong) suggests to Schofield (George MacKay) that Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) may disregard the order and attack anyways. That was an intriguing development, but the movie never followed up on it. As a result, the climax ended up being a bit limp.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 11, 2020 11:07:04 GMT
This was very good, and at times brilliant, but I couldn't help but find it a little lacking. I'm not even really sure why, perhaps I had the wrong expectations. I guess I was hoping for something more harrowing. I don't want to compare this to Dunkirk because they're actually very different films - this being, despite its technical ambition, a very traditional war movie whereas Dunkirk is an abstract horror movie disguised as a war movie. That said, I was hoping that 1917 would have the relentless feeling of dread that Dunkirk had. I think part of the problem may be that the great WWI movies ( All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and Gallipoli) are all incredibly bleak and really showcase the futility of the war. 1917 touches on this here and there, but it ultimately ends on a more bittersweet note, showing the triumph of heroics. That feels a little off for a movie about this particular war. One part in particular stuck out to me. Captain Smith (Mark Strong) suggests to Schofield (George MacKay) that Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) may disregard the order and attack anyways. That was an intriguing development, but the movie never followed up on it. As a result, the climax ended up being a bit limp. Yeah, agree, it's overpraised imo (I rated it a 7.5+, it's certainly good) but to me it's because its strengths are its weakness too - it does very well in showing what war feels like without providing context for British involvement or an insightful POV on the war itself. It's a war film that ignores the why ........so it doesn't really hold up beyond that- it lacks depth and feels like an exciting exhibition.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 11, 2020 17:51:29 GMT
Captain Smith (Mark Strong) suggests to Schofield (George MacKay) that Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) may disregard the order and attack anyways. That was an intriguing development, but the movie never followed up on it. As a result, the climax ended up being a bit limp. The key moment of that scene is that Smith tells Schofield to make sure there are witnesses, because MacKenzie may very well push the attack for his own glory. When Schofield relays the message, there are witnesses, and even then, MacKenzie hesitates and you think he's going to push the attack anyway, but if he does, there's nothing Schofield can do to stop it, so what's the end result? Massive carnage. But in that one instance, reason prevailed, which showed that there was hope for humanity. In the end, you expect MacKenzie to ignore the attack and push on because of Smith's warning, but if he had, then the whole mission would've been for nothing. Which, sure, might have been in line with the bleak cynicism of World War I, a war that was largely fought for nothing, but narratively would have felt unsatisfying.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 11, 2020 20:13:47 GMT
Wow, this was absolutely phenomenal. Enthralling, immersive, and engaging. I hopes this wins as many Oscars as possible and Mendes certainly deserves a Best Director win. Hopefully momentum continues to build for him. This should also clean up on the tech side. Truly a shame that MacKay isn’t even in the discussion for a Best Actor nom.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Jan 12, 2020 3:31:26 GMT
Captain Smith (Mark Strong) suggests to Schofield (George MacKay) that Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) may disregard the order and attack anyways. That was an intriguing development, but the movie never followed up on it. As a result, the climax ended up being a bit limp. The key moment of that scene is that Smith tells Schofield to make sure there are witnesses, because MacKenzie may very well push the attack for his own glory. When Schofield relays the message, there are witnesses, and even then, MacKenzie hesitates and you think he's going to push the attack anyway, but if he does, there's nothing Schofield can do to stop it, so what's the end result? Massive carnage. But in that one instance, reason prevailed, which showed that there was hope for humanity. In the end, you expect MacKenzie to ignore the attack and push on because of Smith's warning, but if he had, then the whole mission would've been for nothing. Which, sure, might have been in line with the bleak cynicism of World War I, a war that was largely fought for nothing, but narratively would have felt unsatisfying. Sure, but then why even bring it up in the first place if it's not going to matter?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 12, 2020 3:46:11 GMT
The key moment of that scene is that Smith tells Schofield to make sure there are witnesses, because MacKenzie may very well push the attack for his own glory. When Schofield relays the message, there are witnesses, and even then, MacKenzie hesitates and you think he's going to push the attack anyway, but if he does, there's nothing Schofield can do to stop it, so what's the end result? Massive carnage. But in that one instance, reason prevailed, which showed that there was hope for humanity. In the end, you expect MacKenzie to ignore the attack and push on because of Smith's warning, but if he had, then the whole mission would've been for nothing. Which, sure, might have been in line with the bleak cynicism of World War I, a war that was largely fought for nothing, but narratively would have felt unsatisfying. Sure, but then why even bring it up in the first place if it's not going to matter? It did matter. It was Schofield's biggest fear: that even after all he went through, everything he and Blake sacrificed, all would be for naught because some uptight prig decided to go for the glory. It was an added risk on top of everything: not that he wouldn't get there in time, but even if he did, he might not be heeded. But in that crucial moment, Mackenzie's humanity outweighed his desire for personal accomplishment. It thematically resonated far more than if he hadn't heeded the warning because we've seen that play out in other WWI movies like Gallipoli and so we're conditioned to expect it here.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 12, 2020 17:24:33 GMT
this looks like Ass but i hope it opens near my dad cuz he wants 2 go see it
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 12, 2020 20:30:02 GMT
so I still need to collect my thoughts but this was tremendous
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jan 12, 2020 22:56:10 GMT
Mendes really did pull off that one-shot trick - in spectacular fashion. This is a gripping, harrowing war movie that also a big brain and even bigger heart (the latter giving it the edge over Dunkirk for me). Some of the sequences here are amongst the most intensely watchable I've seen all year, thanks mainly to Mendes' flashy-but-superb direction, beautiful cinematography and a great performance from MacKay. I do wish the characters had been given a little more depth (though the script really is strong and does give its leads some layers with just a few dialogue exchanges), and I have a nagging feeling this will be more of an in-the-moment thrill rather than something that stays in my mind for ages. Still, it's a remarkable movie. 8/10
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jan 13, 2020 6:11:24 GMT
100% on board with any editing love this gets. Dozens of cuts masked to perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jan 13, 2020 10:35:12 GMT
Immediately hits as one of my favourite war films, although being that it isn't a genre I particularly enjoy, it probably isn't as nice a compliment as it sounds.
I was totally unaware going in that it was a 'one-shot' film, so that was a lovely and beautifully executed surprise for me. This was fiercely well made, and carried off near flawlessly on most technical levels. The cinematography and editing are magisterial. Conversely, it lacked a bit for me on an emotional level, at times needed a Revenant level of disbelief suspension and most of the performances outside of the great work of George MacKay (should be a nominee today ) didn't rock my world at all; but a very fine film nonetheless. If this is our Best Picture winner for 2019, we could do a lot worse. 8.5/10
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 14, 2020 0:14:47 GMT
Coming four to five years after the long-take trend was already becoming tiresome, Sam Mendes's 1917 marks the latest entry into everyone's lists of "the best cinematic tracking shots," bound to be brought up as one of cinema's greatest photographic achievements ad nauseam for years to come. I've heard 1917 described as Deakins' response to Chivo's Birdman, and I can't argue that. Surely, the best cinematographer of all-time is destined to win his second Oscar for his achievement here, reaching out of his usual comfort zone to create something with far more motion and frenetic energy than we've seen in anything he's shot before. The film is designed to be a showcase of the man's unmatched talents, as much as it is designed to be a showcase for the technical achievements of all involved. And indeed, those individual achievements all deserve their praise, from Thomas Newman's propulsive score, Deakins' scorchingly triumphant cinematography, right down to the detailed sound and production design, and all the other things that films like this are always so good at showcasing. 1917 is a film that really makes you feel all of the effort that went into it, a surely laborious and tiresome feat from all involved where everyone's conducting the same high-stakes tightrope act as George MacKay's protagonist being ruthlessly thrown about the Western Front all day long.
It's appropriate that Mendes take such an approach that simulates the sort of pressure and conditions faced by his main character to be experienced in a different form by the artists involved in the making of the film. But even still, a stunt is a stunt, and 1917's is one that's all too easy to see-through, where so many of its cuts are conveniently cloaked in darkness, and where it even cheats itself out of a "perfect landing" by a cut-to-black midway through. And when its low-key moments of humanity hit, they don't always feel sincere and empathetic, but they rather seem like the film taking a break from the elaborate staging and effects required for the set-pieces. (Basically, the film consists of the same two scenes: MacKay running towards his destination and away from some type of danger, and MacKay explaining to people what he's doing and where he has to go before realizing he's going to run out of time, and then it's back to running.) 1917 has seemed like the WWI response to Dunkirk since its very first trailer dropped, and while many have noted this as the more emotional and character-based achievement than Nolan's film, for me, there is more undervalued emotional resonance in the minimalism of Dunkirk's screenplay than there is in the video game campaign storyline of 1917. While Dunkirk is able to add personality to its side characters with little dialogue or even just a few physical responses, 1917 takes far more time to illustrate the two characters at the core, while they interact with one recognizable Brit in a one-scene cameo after another, with no attention paid to detailing anyone or anything outside of its own subjective POV.
And yes, that's of course the point, and the arc for MacKay's character is ultimately gratifying in the end, however, there's a lot of emotional stagnancy it takes to get there. It's another feat of technical showmanship at the expense of a truly human tone or themes, and one where even the cinematic flourishes don't feel like they're doing as much for the film as they do in a film like Dunkirk, which is far more immersive and more thrilling. That's not to say that 1917 isn't immersive and thrilling -- it absolutely is, and in its best stretches (particularly towards the beginning and towards the ending), it's easy to forget the machinations of what you're watching, the stunt becomes convincing and the cuts just disappear as you let the film flow from one scenario to the next. And those set-pieces really are spectacular, not least of all the melodramatic sensationalism of the film's climax, which is so capital-M "Movie" that I find it almost silly how much this has been praised for its "realism" (and other than scenes like that, I'm sure much of it is authentic), but for me, that's the sort of thing that worked best. 1917 has the mark of a film that seems great at the time, but probably won't so much five to ten years down the line -- a classic history class movie, or Dad movie, or Oscar movie, or whatever dismissive label you want to put on it. I do question the staying power of something like 1917 -- but this is a review that, much like the film itself, is in-the-moment, and in-the-moment, it's hard to not be impressed. Well done, Sam.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 14, 2020 0:23:23 GMT
|
|