Author Topic: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)  (Read 6212 times)

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2020, 02:12:52 PM »
All the people who've watched it have said there isn't a plot - even people who've liked it.

I've seen the trailer.

Bad Ambassador

  • Sit down, Mario!
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2020, 02:27:16 PM »
All the people who've watched it have said there isn't a plot - even people who've liked it.

I've seen the trailer.

There is a progressive sequence of events that connect to form an overall story.

Well done on watching a commercial.

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2020, 03:24:39 PM »
I'll bet they get there in time to save the day, don't they?

Or perhaps only one of them does. Yes - I'm going for 'one of them does, and then he looks sad.'

magval

  • Magnum Valentino
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2020, 06:09:08 PM »
Youse seem to be approaching this, as so many people do these days, from a position of expectation. Maybe that translates to entitlement.

You want it to tick these boxes. It must do things this way. Marvel audiences are conditioned for this, but people going to see a film set during a period of real-world history shouldn't be measuring its success on whether or not it does anything other than what it sets out to do, which it does.

Whether it does or doesn't satisfy your craving for a number of cinematic techniques or tropes or archetypes or whatever does not define its success, what defines its success is its satisfaction of its author's intent in telling a story - story, mind you, regardless of the mechanics of plotting - in the relatively novel way in which it is designed.

It can only be considered successful by its own design. It's quite fucking brilliant. Stop going on about Dunkirk, and stop going on about this if you haven't seen it and intend to pursue your ignorance aggressively.

No one ought to give a fuck about anything said about a film they've not seen. Both sides. We don't care if you haven't, and you shouldn't either. Youse aren't on Twitter now lads. This isn't a trailer reaction club.


Mark Steels Stockbroker

  • Lost in the former West
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2020, 08:19:36 PM »
(spam)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 12:58:34 AM by Barry Admin »

Mark Steels Stockbroker

  • Lost in the former West
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2020, 09:01:48 PM »
I haven't seen this, and I'm not going to, frankly.

Is there a map of where this bloke goes during the film? Because as far as I can work out, the entire premise - that he has to run from one point on the front to another with a message by running ALONG the front - is stupid and would never have needed to happen.

Tell me a real story about something that really happened, or fuck off, Sam Mendes. Fuck off.

The Germans really did withdraw along part of the front in Spring 1917.

Mark Strong mentions he has come from Bapaume, which is consistent with his unit recalling the Somme campaign of the previous year. They are moving through territory mentioned in that article.


Mark Steels Stockbroker

  • Lost in the former West
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2020, 09:06:06 PM »
So far I'm with you. And I've read articles outlining the same precis. And I know that tactical withdrawals are a thing.

But who is it that knows about the potential ambush?

A unit adjacent to the victims? Or some centralized command?

Aerial reconnaisance has shown that the Germans have finally retreated to the Hindenburg Line, which is very well defended, not the temporary spot that Benedict Cumberbatch thinks it is. Communication with Colonel Cumberbatch has broken down because the phone lines were cut by the retreating army and the pursuers are in rapid pursuit, outpacing their supply lines. Radio is not used for communication because of secutity.

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2020, 09:28:05 PM »
Aerial reconnaisance has shown that the Germans have finally retreated to the Hindenburg Line, which is very well defended, not the temporary spot that Benedict Cumberbatch thinks it is. Communication with Colonel Cumberbatch has broken down because the phone lines were cut by the retreating army and the pursuers are in rapid pursuit, outpacing their supply lines. Radio is not used for communication because of secutity.
He knows all that, apparently, but still asked the questions for some reason.:
In the brief clip they played on Kermode & Mayo last week Colin Firth's General character tells the two main characters that aerial reconnaissance has revealed the German forces are retreating to prepared positions, and with the field telephone lines cut to the advancing British battalion, they have to hand-deliver the order to call off the attack to the battalion commander so they don't advance into the German trap.
Yes. I KNOW.

Sebastian Cobb

  • bad opinion haver
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2020, 09:35:27 PM »
In the brief clip they played on Kermode & Mayo last week

I listened to that as it went out and can't remember it. Safe to say war films don't leave much impression on me.

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2020, 09:51:45 AM »
Saw this last night thought it was good. Some nice easy proper film symbolism stuff so I can feel clever. Impressive spectacle throughout it. War was bad wasn't it.

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2020, 10:03:59 AM »

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2020, 10:26:50 AM »
Ever so bad.

I hope theres no more war. Huge waste of time.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2020, 05:04:30 PM »
Saw it yesterday. Don't think it had any deep meaning, it was an action film, but it was a gripping action film tbf. Cinema seemed full for a weekday so seems like it is doing well. At various moments I thought "that's Salisbury Plain"- pleased to be proved right after looking up where it was filmed.

That bit in the woods with a singing soldier seems familiar but whether from another film or something I've read I don't know.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2020, 05:12:13 PM »
I remember watching a Swedish prog in the 70's, think it was Kafka (Metamorphosis?) where someone turned into a huge spider or insect (a spider is not an insect, it's an arachnid so stuff you, stuff your Blockbusters....), that ate rotten apples, weird af, wish I could see it again.....

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2020, 08:25:49 PM »
I remember watching a Swedish prog in the 70's, think it was Kafka (Metamorphosis?) where someone turned into a huge spider or insect (a spider is not an insect, it's an arachnid so stuff you, stuff your Blockbusters....), that ate rotten apples, weird af, wish I could see it again.....

Alright mate

Beagle 2

  • Silver Member
  • ****
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2020, 10:57:11 PM »
Like playing the world's most depressing first person shooter with slightly worse acting than Duke Nukem.

The jump scare made me absolutely shit myself, but mostly because I was distracted by the carry on slapstick if it.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

  • High in the running for laziest worldwide.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2020, 12:27:23 AM »
I just saw it at the Imax and it was bloody riveting. Whether it would be as good on a smaller screen (with quieter speakers) is a fair enough question, but I saw Dunkirk and the Star Wars sequels in Imax and this was better than those. Whether the one-take thing is a gimmick or not is a more pertinent question. The walk over no man's land and the action scenes were unbearably tense, but I don't think the quieter scenes benefited from the format.

My main criticism after one viewing is that the characterisation didn't seem that strong, but maybe there are hidden depths that I didn't notice due to all the spectacle. The main arc (the only arc, really) was Schofield going from reluctantly dragged along on the mission to being determined to see it through, but that felt like it was introduced and completed in the space of about 15 minutes.

The most unbelievable part was that Blake was supposed to look like a younger Richard Madden. That's pushing credulity a bit too far.

That aside, I thought it was a fine film.

Wet Blanket

  • I am the Colour Blind Dog-Thief
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2020, 09:00:51 AM »

I liked it too. I thought it was especially effective, despite those criticisms from the people who haven't seen it, how it swerved the usual cliches of war films - the top brass were not all Melchetts; the exciting parts didn't involve deeds of daring do so much as desperate acts of instinct, which is probably closer to the reality, and the soldiers all looked like teenagers and very young men, rather than 30-odd year old film stars.

Minor criticisms: it's a strangely underpopulated portrayal of WW1, and sometimes the supporting characters arrive and vanish in occasionally implausible ways. For instance he crosses the road from Mark Strong's convoy, starts to cross that bridge, where he is immediately shot at, but the trucks filled with Allied soldiers that are about five metres behind him do nowt, as if they've vanished into thin air. In this respect it's a bit video gamey. 

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

  • High in the running for laziest worldwide.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2020, 03:55:49 PM »
I liked it too. I thought it was especially effective, despite those criticisms from the people who haven't seen it, how it swerved the usual cliches of war films - the top brass were not all Melchetts
Yes, I was expecting/dreading that Colonel Cumberbatch would refuse the orders and press on with the attack out of some crazed mix of valour and bloodlust. Instead, he proved to be reasonable, albeit stubborn and jaded

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2020, 06:45:36 PM »
DVD Screener available magnet DL dot com

magval

  • Magnum Valentino
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2020, 07:39:00 PM »
Fuck that. See this on a big screen. If you miss it in cinemas miss it forever.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2020, 07:48:28 PM »
Liked it alot, in large due to the cinematography master Deakins behind the lense, the scene of the ruined town all lit up at night made me shoot my load into someone's already salty popcorn.

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2020, 11:42:01 PM »
It can only be considered successful by its own design. It's quite fucking brilliant. Stop going on about Dunkirk, and stop going on about this if you haven't seen it and intend to pursue your ignorance aggressively.

Aye. It's a spectacular Boy's Own action-adventure yarn with a bit of the maudlin WWI tone that's inevitable in something set in this conflict. Complaining that it's a bit thin, or episodic, or that it will look shit if you watch it on your telly is like complaining that your fish fingers don't have chicken in them.

Watch it in the cinema and marvel at the spectacle - Mendes' use of colour is peerless, Deakins' cinematography gorgeous and the sense of place is palpable. When it's exciting it's absolutely thrilling. Don't piss and moan that it's not Atonement, or watch it on your iPad and wonder why it doesn't look as amazing as your cinemagoing friends said it was.

It's not perfect. Occasionally time and space seem to warp a bit, and the constant series of set-pieces get a little wearying towards the end. And the video game vibe even extends to NPCs seemingly appearing in previously unpopulated areas (thinking of the Brits at the farmhouse, or the Germans after yer lad gets knocked out) - feels like stuff being "loaded in" from the ether rather than diagetically emerging from the wider environment. But on the whole, it succeeds enormously at what it sets out to do.

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2020, 08:45:27 AM »
Liked it alot, in large due to the cinematography master Deakins behind the lense, the scene of the ruined town all lit up at night made me shoot my load into someone's already salty popcorn.
Saw it at the weekend and loved it. That scene in the ruined town lit up by the flares in particular was spellbindingly beautiful. It reminded me a lot visually of BR2049, which isn't surprising - as well as Deakins, Mendes used the same production designer (Dennis Gassner) and MPC handled all the digital VFX (for which they have been nominated for the Oscars, alongside Mendes, Deakins and Gassner). There's a good article on their effects work on the film here

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2020, 04:32:06 PM »
I didn't really like it tbh.  One thing i've noticed with Sam Mendes films (particularly the bond films) is this kind of slap-bass sound in vairuous parts of the soundtack which has a budget BBC Drama vibe to it.  It's weird and immersion breaking for me.  Anyone else notice this, or is it just me?

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2020, 05:47:01 PM »
I haven't seen this, and I'm not going to, frankly.

Is there a map of where this bloke goes during the film? Because as far as I can work out, the entire premise - that he has to run from one point on the front to another with a message by running ALONG the front - is stupid and would never have needed to happen.

Tell me a real story about something that really happened, or fuck off, Sam Mendes. Fuck off.

Where were you stationed on the front?

Crabwalk

  • Member
  • **
  • I hope you enjoy drinking dirty toilet water.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2020, 07:47:39 PM »
I saw it on imax and it was an amazing experience. The single take format is incredibly effective at creating tension, and the way it reveals horrors, beauty and surprises for the viewer simultaneously with the protagonists really makes you feel inside the film.

I also loved the way it drifts between the viscerally immediate and the dreamlike, keeping repetition at bay - a big risk with the parameters the filmmakers set themselves. Mendes and Deakins orchestrated the whole thing brilliantly, I think, when it could have easily been either a one note survival horror, or too much of a Homeric odyssey. The balance is perfect as it keeps you guessing what’s coming next.

It may be above all else a triumph of technique and choreography, with the writing and performances adequate at best, but as a cinematic experience I thought it was astonishing.

Don’t wait to see it on a small screen. 5 bags of partially decomposed horse.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2020, 12:19:55 AM »
When the lead actor is this tedious and incompetent I just start actively, imaginatively wishing them to die. I start repeating everything they say in my head directly after they've said it, only with actual feelings and emotions, just to prove I am not going insane.

Neither of these mental techniques improved this film.

I really wanted to enjoy the spectacle but I also really wanted the lead actor to die. This film has ruined WWI for me. 

rue the polywhirl

  • eight lives left
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2020, 10:35:22 AM »
Watched it. Didn’t like it. The constantly tracking, one-take thing felt completely unreal and is basically a big, long tedious fairground gimmick. Like a really lame, pedestrian House Of Horrors ride but for war movies. ‘Ooh they go over the top. Oh he sticks his hand in a corpse. Gross! Oh a plane is in the sky but then it crashes towards them in really cliched way. Ooh, there’s lot of bravery and valour! It’s like being in First World War, ma!’ The lead actor, the one who doesn’t die, is also a boring plank. I wouldn’t have gone to all that trouble and distance to relay a message ether. I’d have just sent a text.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2020, 10:10:33 PM »
I thought it was a fantastic film, but unwittingly purchased a ticket to see it in 4DX. Save gimmicks like that for shit films that need it, it was a fucking distraction being jostled around in my seat and having cold air blown at me. Not to mention the water pissing out of the ceiling. IMAX would have been better, Dunkirk was amazing in that format.

One thing that struck me was the look of the film - it reminded me a lot of the colourised Peter Jackson doc last year. Ever so slightly unreal but not in a way that drew me out of the story.

Tags: