|
1917.
Feb 3, 2020 11:27:59 GMT
Post by JangoB on Feb 3, 2020 11:27:59 GMT
Just rewatched on the small screen and yeah, predictably it does lose some magic. Still like it quite a bit though, and I think I like Newman's score even more than on my first viewing. Everyone talks about "The Night Window" (which is a great piece of music) but this moves me the most. They're two masterpieces from Newman. 'The Night Window' is the definition of awe-inspiring and stirring, and 'Come Back to Us' reaches straight inside the soul.
|
|
|
1917.
Feb 3, 2020 16:21:58 GMT
Post by DeepArcher on Feb 3, 2020 16:21:58 GMT
Just rewatched on the small screen and yeah, predictably it does lose some magic. Still like it quite a bit though, and I think I like Newman's score even more than on my first viewing. Everyone talks about "The Night Window" (which is a great piece of music) but this moves me the most. I'm gonna be so mad if when Newman loses. This score really just feels like a classic winner of the category.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Feb 8, 2020 18:50:30 GMT
6/10. Camerawork and production design impressive, but that’s not enough. Can’t even call it a total technical triumph - the one-shot gimmick has obvious cuts, the tone is bothered by imo a distracting score, which is often forcing the emotion and effect on you, like dropping out at precise moments, and there’s a hackneyed thriller theme used that sounds out of a cable procedural or something. This should be breathlessly paced but it isn’t - there are breaks that just feel obligatory and cliche. Acted fine - I liked the friend played by Dean-Charles Chapman, and Andrew Scott’s one-minute perf is his career best?
Between this and Dunkirk, maybe someone should make a war movie that has a script with character and doesn’t feel manipulated by its director’s vision. Also someone in the world has gotta know how to write an atmospheric score??
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Feb 8, 2020 21:02:47 GMT
Post by The-Havok on Feb 8, 2020 21:02:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Feb 9, 2020 20:35:37 GMT
I feel I have nothing to bring to the table that hasn't already been addressed by the common critiques, but it's all true. Yes, everything you've heard about the flashy but pointless one shot gimcrackery is accurate. It's just empty technical bravado that doesn't enhance our perspective of war or provide any distinct take on the genre. Strip it of this and you have nothing. What does this say about our characters? Their situation? The war itself? Again, nothing. The technique is restricting and suffocating (and not in an intentional way either), only included to superficially please rather than make thematic or formal sense. Yes, it's structurally video-gamey in the most mechanical way possible. Here's the objective, here's the supplies, briefly meet characters occasionally who'll help slightly progress the mission, come into threat and other obstacles on the way, rinse and repeat until finish. Films like this render the awe of the long take null and void. Gonna be pretty cringe if it beats Parasite tonight.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Feb 10, 2020 6:05:47 GMT
Relax, you'll always have a place in Walmarts $5 dollar bin
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Feb 11, 2020 17:40:09 GMT
The wonders of the "one-take" film! If Mendes thinks this automatically passes for a point of view, it doesn't. Say what you will about Dunkirk, at least that one put you in a constant state of anxiety, emotion deriving from the pulse of the movie itself. (The magic of editing!) 1917 has no ideas and no pulse. This rhythmless bore of a movie says nothing about its subject because it doesn't have one. And because of the nature of the film, it doesn't even have scenes you can go back to. There are a few notable images of the ruins at night courtesy of Roger Deakins--his only inspired moment. Even Mendes' Fragile Moments of Humanity™ are choreographically staged. Dean-Charles Chapman does save the film for a little while.
Oscar dodged a bullet here and I'm impressed. But after witnessing how fcking boring this is, I doubt this came even close to beating Parasite in BP...
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Feb 11, 2020 17:49:27 GMT
yeah, hard to imagine that the camerawork would be so dull/uninspired for this one-take gimmick, when that's supposed to be a main draw. I like this film less and less the more I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 11, 2020 20:15:19 GMT
Still love it, still think it would've made a sublime winner, but honestly, it's probably for the best it didn't win because of the backlash.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Feb 11, 2020 21:42:55 GMT
One take gimmick isn't even a strong selling point when it literally blacks out in the middle of the fucking movie. Worst cope out since mother!
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 12, 2020 0:16:20 GMT
This wasn’t remotely sold to the general public on the one-take aspect. Sure, there were some cool featurettes about it, but it wasn’t part of the general TV adversiement to the bulk of the theater going audience.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Feb 12, 2020 5:14:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Feb 12, 2020 5:14:54 GMT
This wasn’t remotely sold to the general public on the one-take aspect. Sure, there were some cool featurettes about it, but it wasn’t part of the general TV adversiement to the bulk of the theater going audience. It is the selling point though
|
|
Feesy
New Member
Posts: 178
Likes: 96
|
1917.
Feb 12, 2020 5:50:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by Feesy on Feb 12, 2020 5:50:26 GMT
This wasn’t remotely sold to the general public on the one-take aspect. Sure, there were some cool featurettes about it, but it wasn’t part of the general TV adversiement to the bulk of the theater going audience. It is the selling point though “It’s a war movie” is the selling point. The general audience wouldn’t know it was one take until they heard the word of mouth or read the reviews.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
1917.
Oct 17, 2020 16:15:40 GMT
Post by Pasquale on Oct 17, 2020 16:15:40 GMT
This film convinced me, warfare could be easy. thank you
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 30, 2021 23:23:19 GMT
All the worst aspects of video games are on full display in this soulless exercise. Terrible A-to-B plotting linking mediocre set pieces with exposition-filled breathers, several silly moments that are trying to be DRAMATIC (the hilarious running sequence at the end, the on-the-nose placement of "Wayfaring Stranger," that cringey "THE PLANE IS HEADING THIS WAY!" bit, the goofy band of brothers on the mud road), a CINEMATIC world of beautifully realized graphics that kind of forgets that the gameplay story is routine.
1917 is a bad videogame. It has the same problems of Dunkirk: It is so invested in creating an EXPERIENCE that it fails to succeed at the simple basics of storytelling... like giving us just one reason to give a damn. It's dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.
Just one BP nominee to go, but I'm way down the reservation list for The Irishman.
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Mar 31, 2021 1:09:44 GMT
1917 is a bad videogame. It has the same problems of Dunkirk: It is so invested in creating an EXPERIENCE that it fails to succeed at the simple basics of storytelling... like giving us just one reason to give a damn. It's dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. I had a very different experience watching both Dunkirk and 1917, was completely drawn in from the first minute till the last. The basics of storytelling were laid bare in its show don't tell form. No protagonist-being-shouted-at military camp scenes, no backstory expositions, no wife or girlfriend flashbacks. Simple storyline, simple character arc. All the tension and conflict are driven visually by the environment and characters' decisions. So I must respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Mar 31, 2021 1:24:47 GMT
1917 is a bad videogame. It has the same problems of Dunkirk: It is so invested in creating an EXPERIENCE that it fails to succeed at the simple basics of storytelling... like giving us just one reason to give a damn. It's dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. I had a very different experience watching both Dunkirk and 1917, was completely drawn in from the first minute till the last. The basics of storytelling were laid bare in its show don't tell form. No protagonist-being-shouted-at military camp scenes, no backstory expositions, no wife or girlfriend flashbacks. Simple storyline, simple character arc. All the tension and conflict are driven visually by the environment and characters' decisions. So I must respectfully disagree. Couldn't agree more. I always find it strange when people complain about those two films with shit like, "the characters weren't given a back story so why would I care about them and feel worried about their safety". Like they're young, innocent fellow human beings who are thrust into perilous situations that no one should ever have to go through. How is that not reason enough to care about their safety?? Like why does a character need to have a loving girlfriend back home, or a sick Mum, for us to be invested in their plight?? It's a little bit disconcerting tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 31, 2021 2:22:11 GMT
I had a very different experience watching both Dunkirk and 1917, was completely drawn in from the first minute till the last. The basics of storytelling were laid bare in its show don't tell form. No protagonist-being-shouted-at military camp scenes, no backstory expositions, no wife or girlfriend flashbacks. Simple storyline, simple character arc. All the tension and conflict are driven visually by the environment and characters' decisions. So I must respectfully disagree. Couldn't agree more. I always find it strange when people complain about those two films with shit like, "the characters weren't given a back story so why would I care about them and feel worried about their safety". Like they're young, innocent fellow human beings who are thrust into perilous situations that no one should ever have to go through. How is that not reason enough to care about their safety?? Like why does a character need to have a loving girlfriend back home, or a sick Mum, for us to be invested in their plight?? It's a little bit disconcerting tbh. I don't care about backstory. I care about the characters themselves getting my sympathy. A movie character is a character, not a real person. You can't just tell me "oh, people ARE DYING YOU SHOULD CARE!" because they aren't dying, and I don't care. Your movie is an imitation, and it is up to you to do the heavy lifting of bringing me into your world. Take a movie like Rosetta or Tyrannosaur or Wendy and Lucy, which are about poverty and hopelessness. I love those films because Rosetta and Wendy and Joseph develop over the course of the film and I learned to care about them. I didn't take it for granted that I had to feel deeply because their lives were miserable. I got to know Rosetta and why finding a job means so much to her. I got to see how Wendy's last grasp of normalcy was her dog and how losing Lucy destroyed her equilibrium. I got to see how Joseph's self-loathing manifested in hurting the people he loved even as he knew it was wrong. In Dunkirk, I was supposed to care about random people dying... but they weren't dying. It was based on a real event, but they were not real people, and Nolan never attempted to bridge the gap and make them seem like real people. In 1917, the two guys are given a little bit of backstory, but it serves no real purpose to the actual narrative: they must deliver the message. If they were literal robots, very little would have changed in a narrative, A-to-B-to-C sense.
|
|