|
Post by stephen on Jan 14, 2020 0:29:30 GMT
You see, pacinoyes? This is how you criticize 1917.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 6:25:32 GMT
Really visually impressive and some of the emotional beats were well executed (people are really resilient, we don't give ourselves enough credit for that), but man, those video game comparisons are spot on. This didn't even feel like I was watching a film at some points.
Solid to strong 6/10 for me. Honestly better than I expected, but nothing to write home about.
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 14, 2020 7:19:58 GMT
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 14, 2020 7:19:58 GMT
I will never understand how Dunkirk with its time-jumpy shenanigans, incessant cuts and flat characterizations could ever been described as "immersive," especially in contrast with this film which maintains focus on the single human character at its center for the entire runtime (and reveals gradually the significance of his journey by revealing at long last all he had to lose), but then the praise for Dunkirk outside the sound design and cinematography has always confused me.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 14, 2020 8:41:19 GMT
This film is an impressive technical feat... but that's really all I can say about it because the artifice of its construction kept me at a distance from beginning to end. People are calling this immersive, but the film had pretty much the opposite effect on me where I was constantly aware of the visual and narrative calculation at work, sitting and admiring the technical bravado while feeling disconnected from it. Ultimately it's structured around a series of set pieces with quieter sequences as connective tissue before we proceed to the next set piece, and it can't help but feel inorganic in the way it's strung together spatially and temporally. Since everyone is comparing this to Dunkirk, I'll say that the two films have different goals... but I think Mendes's film has way less interesting goals. Both utilize a type of formal "gimmick," but in Nolan's film I think it's both more narratively motivated and it actually succeeds at achieving the immersion that Mendes attempts in spite of the jumps in time. I keep reading that this has more "heart," and while that may be true in a more conventional sense, it doesn't inherently make it better imo. The emotional beats of this film are pretty familiar and are nothing I haven't seen in dozens of other war films, and honestly, the Nimrod scene in Dunkirk and the ending are more emotionally impactful to me than anything here. Two other things that bugged me: - When Mackay met up with the platoon commanded by Mark Strong, wouldn’t Strong have ordered at least one of his men to accompany Mackay knowing how important the mission was? - When Mackay climbs out of the river and reaches the 2nd Battalion just before the British attack begins, you can't tell me that literally no one in that whole group turns to notice Mackay approaching in the woods while the dude is singing.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 14, 2020 19:23:59 GMT
I think Deakins, Gassman, and Newman may all win Oscars, would certainly probably all deserve them, and yet... First there was the cherry blossom trees, then the peacefully grazing animal (thank lucifer it was not a fucking horse), then the burning church, then the pretty, lonely french girl. I can only take so many god damn cliches in succession, and following Dunkirk's god damn hellscape nightmare creation (and damn this movie for making me into someone who champions Chris effing Nolan) shit like this just looks even stupider than it would have done 3 years ago. Nolan has sort of Unforgiven'd the war movie in that way. Clearly I am not in the majority with this, but this film had far too few genuinely visceral moments, and did nothing to justify it's photography gimmick. It's not any more immersive than it would have been with regular editing, it isn't some build, and build, and build and release experience like Victoria. Everything about this movies aesthetic accomplishment is just calling attention to itself at the expense of what they're capturing. I'm seeing the comparisons to The Revenant, and the comparison to me is a joke. That movie had the aesthetic magic that this movie has but that movie captured the ugliness of its world disgustingly well, and this movie got nowhere close. I also think The Thin Red Line comparison was way off too. I get the idea that it's the more graceful movie compared to Dunkirk's more gritty experience, but Malick's pic probed deep, deep into people, and this movies magical artistry just covers very little. It had its moments here and there for sure, some occasional moments of great writing whether verbally or physically conveyed, and I think Sherlock and Moriarty gave two awesome, awesome single scene performances, but meh.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 17, 2020 5:39:49 GMT
This film is an impressive technical feat... but that's really all I can say about it because the artifice of its construction kept me at a distance from beginning to end. People are calling this immersive, but the film had pretty much the opposite effect on me where I was constantly aware of the visual and narrative calculation at work, sitting and admiring the technical bravado while feeling disconnected from it. Ultimately it's structured around a series of set pieces with quieter sequences as connective tissue before we proceed to the next set piece, and it can't help but feel inorganic in the way it's strung together spatially and temporally. Since everyone is comparing this to Dunkirk, I'll say that the two films have different goals... but I think Mendes's film has way less interesting goals. Both utilize a type of formal "gimmick," but in Nolan's film I think it's both more narratively motivated and it actually succeeds at achieving the immersion that Mendes attempts in spite of the jumps in time. I keep reading that this has more "heart," and while that may be true in a more conventional sense, it doesn't inherently make it better imo. The emotional beats of this film are pretty familiar and are nothing I haven't seen in dozens of other war films, and honestly, the Nimrod scene in Dunkirk and the ending are more emotionally impactful to me than anything here. Two other things that bugged me: - When Mackay met up with the platoon commanded by Mark Strong, wouldn’t Strong have ordered at least one of his men to accompany Mackay knowing how important the mission was? - When Mackay climbs out of the river and reaches the 2nd Battalion just before the British attack begins, you can't tell me that literally no one in that whole group turns to notice Mackay approaching in the woods while the dude is singing. I think I liked it a bit more than you, but it also bugged me that Schofield just walks up behind a bunch of soldiers without them doing anything. I was like, "okay, I guess they're not very good soldiers, lol." I mean I get that a lot of them were tired, but someone would have noticed him walking behind them and done something in reaction to that. I think Deakins, Gassman, and Newman may all win Oscars, would certainly probably all deserve them, and yet... First there was the cherry blossom trees, then the peacefully grazing animal (thank lucifer it was not a fucking horse), then the burning church, then the pretty, lonely french girl. I can only take so many god damn cliches in succession, and following Dunkirk's god damn hellscape nightmare creation (and damn this movie for making me into someone who champions Chris effing Nolan) shit like this just looks even stupider than it would have done 3 years ago. Nolan has sort of Unforgiven'd the war movie in that way. Clearly I am not in the majority with this, but this film had far too few genuinely visceral moments, and did nothing to justify it's photography gimmick. It's not any more immersive than it would have been with regular editing, it isn't some build, and build, and build and release experience like Victoria. Everything about this movies aesthetic accomplishment is just calling attention to itself at the expense of what they're capturing. I'm seeing the comparisons to The Revenant, and the comparison to me is a joke. That movie had the aesthetic magic that this movie has but that movie captured the ugliness of its world disgustingly well, and this movie got nowhere close. I also think The Thin Red Line comparison was way off too. I get the idea that it's the more graceful movie compared to Dunkirk's more gritty experience, but Malick's pic probed deep, deep into people, and this movies magical artistry just covers very little. It had its moments here and there for sure, some occasional moments of great writing whether verbally or physically conveyed, and I think Sherlock and Moriarty gave two awesome, awesome single scene performances, but meh. Yeah, it did seem like they went down the old war movie checklist. Like the first German soldier thing, and then later the fight with the other German solider made me think about Saving Private Ryan a lot. Of course, the other stuff was just from almost any WWI/WWII movie. Again I still enjoyed it, but I don't know if it's something that will stick with me other than the incredible techs. As far as Best Picture, it would be a worthy winner considering the past few years, imo, but I'd put it around the same level as Ford v Ferrari, Joker, and OUATIH. I generally like them and appreciate the techs involved, but they're not my absolute favorites out of the nominees.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 18, 2020 0:47:35 GMT
As others have said the direction and cinematography are a powerhouse and it deserves wins for both. Very intense and thrilling. Quite a good score too. Probably my favorite of the year along with The Irishman. Better than Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, or The Revenant. Not surprised by the lack of an editing nomination since there isn't very much actual editing. I also could have lived without a screenplay nod. Nothing has all that much dramatic heft outside the scene with the girl and maybe some of the bureaucratic nonsense at the end. It's a visual movie. The ending would have been better if- He gets there and they ignore him and call the attack anyway. The whole thing would have been a pointless mission trying to call of a pointless attack. It would have been a poignant statement about how futile war often is. I think an 8/10 for me. I haven't been 100% blown away by anything this year but this is as well crafted as it gets. is this near to apocalypse now's perfection? LOL, no. Hold your horses.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 18, 2020 1:45:12 GMT
via mobile
morton likes this
Post by The-Havok on Jan 18, 2020 1:45:12 GMT
Meh, other than the Directing I really didn't see why is everyone Gaga for it in terms of awards. It's very compelling but it suffers from horrendous writing. Deakins work was nearly underwhelming if you ask me. He has deserved the win for better work before. I also don't think it is winning Best Picture, it is way too hollow. 77/100
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jan 18, 2020 7:10:28 GMT
If cinema was part of the olympic games, this one will win everything, and rightfully so.
Most of the time, when a movie is driven by admiration to a person or event and the purpose is to pay tribute to that it's always a double-edged weapon. In 1917 that's its greatest strenght but also where the conversation ends. The spectacle calls too much attention to itself, the graphic representation of violence is solemn and feels just off that is used as entertainment, and because of that there's barely ( if any ) any kind of reflection on war here ( A Hidden Life has a similar treatment actually ), the structure takes away what are the strongest qualities in a Mendes production -the contradictory, happy/unhappy characters -, even in Road to Perdition, also an style over substance movie but still there's a reflection in many things, including violence. Victoria is a good point of comparison, because even though its trapped in genre cliches, the characters feel free and at one point one wonders if they're really acting. For all its visual spectacle, comes at least 5 years too late, when Iñarritu's Revenant and his VR Carne y Arena or video games lik Call of Duty /Battleship create similar experiences with better payoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jan 18, 2020 11:40:50 GMT
Best Sam Mendes film since American Beauty and perhaps his best as a director. "War is hell" theme is well dealt through it's astounding technical feats like the seemingly one shot take cinematography, the realistic production design and an emotional score but i was more impressed by Mendes' portrayal of "act of valor". This is where George Mackay comes and he does a very commendable job in showcasing Schofield's determination and his place in the war. Lubezki did this seemingly one shot take in Birdman but Deakins did here was more impressive considering the logistics involved. Deakins outdid himself. It was sublime watching his trademark silhouette shots on big screen but my favorite shot is the one where Schofield swims across the river with the help of a log while flower petals falling over him. I can't be the only one who thought of the 'Ophelia' painting, right? The constant moving camera did irked me a bit at the start due to the motion blur but once i adjusted to it the ride became more thrilling. This is also where the movie fell short of total greatness as this one shot thing feels a bit video game-y but i blame the script for that more than cinematography. The script is thin on plot but it's not a bad one. It has some great things going on for it like Schofield's character and the ultimate theme it was trying to portray but the set piece driven writing felt more like a checklist to further it's run time before it reaches it's conclusion. Hence it feels a bit unnatural. But it does have the necessary emotional quotient. So can't dismiss it's merits over a few cliches- 8.5/10
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jan 18, 2020 16:11:17 GMT
Undoubtedly the best film of 2019. What a masterpiece. And I will go so far and say its the best war movie since "Saving Private Ryan" or AT LEAST in the Top 3 of the best ones those past 20 years. Sam Mendes gave us a realistic impression of what it must have felt like for a soldier of that time in this traumatic environment. The atmosphere he creates is just calling. As an audience you feel like you would be in the middle of this battlefield. Absolutely authentic. It even gave me teary eyes at the end what I did not expect. The acting is good as well. George MacKey perfectly handles this movie on his own shoulders and will shoot right to stardom with this film. His face constantly mirrored the horror of his surroundings, and this is just one attribute that made his performance so great. Another great performance that is mostly underrated was the one by Dean-Charles Chapman. What made him almost better but at least just as good as MacKay that he developed his character better and there is one particular scene in which he just perfect. (But so is MacKay). Generally you can see both actors are incredibly underrated for their performances - almost criminally. The most prominent cast members Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong had more of cameos but memorable ones to say the least. The score was fantastic and so versatile. Sam Mendes direction is flawless. The decision to make this film look like it was done in one take (or two takes) just adds to the realism. Kudos also to Roger Deakins for his great cinematography and Lee Smith for his editing, to make this effect as great as it turned out. Its a winner piece. And a film that will be remembered for a long time.
Current nominations for:
Best Picture* Best Director: Sam Mendes* Best Editing Best Cinematography Best Production Design* Best Original Score* Best Make-Up Best Sound Best Sound Editing*
Rating: 10/10
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Jan 18, 2020 18:21:41 GMT
I really, really loved this. Gonna paste my Letterboxd review here:
A riveting, enthralling epic, with great acting (George MacKay's performance is among 2019's most underrated performances), fantastic direction, amazing cinematography, engrossing sound design, brilliant score and remarkable storytelling. Beyond being an incredible technical achievement, it's also an eerie and atmospheric depiction of war and an emotionally overwhelming experience. Not gonna lie, I wasn't prepared to be emotionally moved; I came damn close to crying at points. All the grievances about Dunkirk being lifeless and lacking heart were unwarranted then; they're even more so for this one. It's going to be hard to shake off the impact this film left me.
I'm always elated when a film I was reasonably excited for goes far above and beyond my expectations. Even though I still prefer Parasite, I'll be super happy if this ends up winning Best Picture instead.
P.S.: This film is actually rated UA in India, meaning children and teenagers can go watch it in theatres as opposed to being an adults-only affair (though my screening was filled with adults). Moreover, apart from the F-bombs and a few more slurs being bleeped, they cut absolutely nothing out. Kind of weird, but cool.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 19, 2020 6:58:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 19, 2020 6:58:07 GMT
Worst BP winner since The King's Speech
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 19, 2020 7:47:33 GMT
Worst BP winner since The King's Speech at least that had acting nods. Lmao.
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 19, 2020 7:59:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by Miles Morales on Jan 19, 2020 7:59:58 GMT
Worst BP winner since The King's Speech I thought you disliked The Shape of Water and liked 1917?
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 19, 2020 14:50:50 GMT
It's good. Techs are all very well-done (some wonky VFX shots aside), MacKay does a great job, and the Écoust-Saint-Mein sequence is one of the best examples of Deakins' trademark silhouettes and a career highlight. And yet, I found myself feeling like the film wasn't really doing anything that I haven't seen in dozens of war films before.
Sure, it has the one-shot thing going for it, but it didn't involve or engross me but actually kept me at an emotional distance like a passive observer. I chalk that up probably to the screenplay as much as anything else, which tries to engineer as many roller coaster moments of thrills and tension as it can to keep the camera moving frenetically when the movie is at its best during quieter moments. The best thing a long take can do for you is force you to live with the characters in real-time, but I personally want those characters to be doing more than running from one obstacle to the next. Long takes work wonders for matters of tension, but when you are inundated with those moments every other scene it soon wears thin.
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 19, 2020 20:14:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by DanQuixote on Jan 19, 2020 20:14:38 GMT
It’s fine! It’ll be one of the better Best Picture winners of the decade which is kinda depressing. Sound Design, Production Design and Cinematography are all good. The Écoust-Saint-Mein sequence up until the French woman is pretty brilliant though. George MacKay carries the whole thing admirably and certainly makes the film more emotionally investing. I wish it was just more interesting lol. Where’s the nihilism?!
The Screenplay nomination? Give me a break.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 19, 2020 20:15:59 GMT
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 19, 2020 21:50:40 GMT
via mobile
ibbi likes this
Post by DanQuixote on Jan 19, 2020 21:50:40 GMT
Agreed. Joker is a prime example this year. 1917 was just too sanitised for my liking. If the film is supposed to be make you feel like you’re there with the soldiers, you have to capture the true brutality of war or you don’t succeed at what you’re aiming for.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Jan 20, 2020 10:06:15 GMT
I'm surprised so many people loved Dunkirk so much. I hated it. *hides* Well I think 1917 is nihilistic in regards to its viewpoint on war in the sense that the mission it follows, while obviously personally extraordinary for the soldiers to experience and achieve is in context ordinary too & ultimately achieves only minor reprieve for a few men... very little really. Where 1917 is not nihilistic is in its view on humanity. While the tense feeling it gives from following the two soldiers so directly, so you feel you're experiencing it as close as could be to with them is impressive & encompassing to be part of in the cinema, I also loved the poetry in the film myself. I loved that the film conveyed both something poetic as well as following the horror of war. Cherry blossom, echoing the barbed wire at the front lines, falling like snow & hope. Blake speaking of the cherry-trees not being dead - the stones one day creating even more trees. The fact that these young soldiers instinctively seek to connect with other humans, not kill - humanity's instinct (Blake dies for it. The gorgeous night scene when the two soldiers walk towards each other & you want them to be approaching friend, not foe. The baby...) Even though there is no real back story to any character, you get some essence of every (even the essentially cameo roles) character's nature. I loved the care and love for each other in the film. Not a thing a war film I think too often gets at. And I loved all the nature & the idea of humanity as kind of a part of that. Rather than merely following the (oft sentimental) story of some character & thus manipulating emotion from you, I felt I was feeling something truer here. And 1917 allowed me space so I was able to think on all those who were lost in WW1 - those from my family, those from all families & to imagine how many of us are alive today directly because they lived. Like those cherry trees. I kept crying at cherry blossom. Yes to the Ophelia comparison. Roger Deakins is the absolute master. Beauty then horror, beauty, then horror. Such a shame George MacKay isn't at least nominated. But then, I've not seen many of the Oscar nominees this year. I've found him such an exciting actor for some years now, and it's so happy a thing to witness him at the helm here and being so great. Feels good to know we have our whole lives to watch his work. Impressed by Dean-Charles Chapman too, who also looks so young! Those rosy cheeks. I couldn't stop thinking how much older he is though than many, many soldiers would have been back then. For me, the film has a lot of heart. I felt it. And going back to nihilism, while I think it is in the film, for me this film was about human nature & endurance even in the most hopeless & inhuman & indeed, ultimately fairly meaningless situations. I loved it.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 21, 2020 8:00:16 GMT
Rewatched this today and that whole nighttime sequence after he wakes up from getting knocked out is the most spectacularly directed thing I've seen in the past couple years and a reminder of why movies always need to be shown theatrically on the big screen. Both gorgeous and incredible tense, with a real sense of cinematic scope. It's also got the best piece of score I've heard all year. The two sequences of him running through the town at night with it being lit up by the explosions in the distance and the quiet scene with the girl sandwiched in between is the absolute high point of the movie. Maybe doesn't top Leo's trailer meltdown, but it's up there with the best scenes/sequences of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 22, 2020 22:34:07 GMT
Yeah. Put me in the camp who’d have no problem with this winning Best Picture.
And put me in the camp who’ll be pissed off again to see Tommy Newman go home empty-handed, when he should be winning the damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jan 25, 2020 1:24:53 GMT
Imagine how good this would've been if it had a halfway decent script and didn't go all in on the worthless one-shot gimmick... Ten minutes of monotony and then something exciting happens... on repeat for two hours. You'd think Mendes would've given his grandfather... some sliver of personality instead of just making him a video game pawn. And maybe his friend's death would've had an impact if they appeared to actually be friends. And jesus, so many goddam cheesy moments. But it wasn't horrible or anything... the action scenes are somewhat visceral (even though Will must have had a bulletproof forcefield around him at all times), and there were a few gripping sequences. And Deakins' cinematography during the nighttime fire scene was jawdropping. 6/10me when they pulled the German guy out of the plane:
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 25, 2020 2:10:32 GMT
even though Will must have had a bulletproof forcefield around him at all times
Yeah, the Germans in this were exemplars of the so-called "stormtrooper aim" for bad guys in movies.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2020 2:14:53 GMT
even though Will must have had a bulletproof forcefield around him at all times
Yeah, the Germans in this were exemplars of the so-called "stormtrooper aim" for bad guys in movies. To be fair, it's extremely hard to aim properly while either you or your targets are running, and it was dark besides for much of the time he was being shot at. The only time you can argue that the bullet should have hit Will was when the sniper drew his bead on the broken bridgework, but even then, not every shot hits its target.
|
|