Author Topic: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)  (Read 6516 times)

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2020, 11:37:13 AM »
I wouldn’t have gone to all that trouble and distance to relay a message ether. I’d have just sent a text.

THANK YOU!

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2020, 05:05:16 PM »
You know, I could enjoy this film if I imagined it to be taking place in the same cinematic universe as Block-Heads by Laurel and Hardy.

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1223278288275148801

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2020, 06:39:07 PM »
The posters who said this film felt like a video game hit the nail on the head. It was like the main objective was to deliver a message to the Devons, with extra achievement points available for contacting Blake's brother, delivering milk, and highest dive.

The whole thing felt like it was on rails, which was the major effect of the Birdman-style single-shot look rather than the ceaseless action a la Dunkirk I suspect they hoped for. Begin, receive mission, guest appearance from Colin Firth, guest appearance from Andrew Scott, No Man's Land level, bunker level, field level, boss #1 - plane, guest appearance from Mark Strong, side quest #1 - rescue truck, sniper level, night level, boss #2 - shooty German, side quest #2 - milk, boss #3 - drunks, night level part II, water level, trench level #2, No Man's Land level #2, guest appearance from Cumberbatch.

I'm honestly surprised he didn't have to collect some rivets to repair that bridge.

That said, while not an especially good film it was a superb bit of cinematography. But there were many moments where I felt myself gripped much more by the camera and lighting work than by the action itself. It looked the absolute tits, which saved me from being bored throughout or laughing out loud at certain bits.

MiddleRabbit

  • Whatever it is you're selling, I don't want it.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2020, 08:00:40 PM »
It was alright even if it was, basically,  WWI's greatest hits.  Grotty trenches, booby traps, sniper in ruined building, nefarious German, arrogant general, Gor blimey, apples 'n' pears cockney foot soldiers, all that.  No surprises.  Maybe I expect too much from a pretty straight war film that seemed to think it was relatively highbrow.  Maybe it didn't, and it was just a bit sombre.

By about halfway through I just didn't care anymore.  Tommen out of Game of Thrones is, and has always been, fairly crap.  The kid out of Private Peaceful was being the kid out of Private Peaceful again.  It looked good, I'll give it that.

I'd seen The Lighthouse on Friday night and I think my brain's still dealing with that.

Boring, mainly.  I wouldn't bother again.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2020, 09:13:05 PM by MiddleRabbit »

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2020, 08:41:13 PM »
I spent a lot of the film wondering how the lad managed to remove so much dust from his eyes so thoroughly and in so little time. Impressive.

Al Tha Funkee Homosapien

  • Nothing is ever as good or bad as you think.
    • http://www.last.fm/user/georgethebadger/
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #65 on: February 03, 2020, 02:42:08 PM »
I spent a lot of the film wondering how the lad managed to remove so much dust from his eyes so thoroughly and in so little time. Impressive.

And not be totally deaf for the rest of the film.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #66 on: February 03, 2020, 04:54:00 PM »
DEAF SOON

Puce Moment

  • Member
  • **
  • Hi guys
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #67 on: February 03, 2020, 06:03:56 PM »
Is there a bit where a bomb explodes and everything goes silent except for a high-pitched ringing, and then the muffled sound of shouting and screaming and the sounds of war can slowly be heard as the main character's hearing miraculously comes back?

Because if not, I have no intention of seeing this.

Al Tha Funkee Homosapien

  • Nothing is ever as good or bad as you think.
    • http://www.last.fm/user/georgethebadger/
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2020, 08:08:26 PM »
WHAT'S THAT DEAR!?

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #69 on: February 03, 2020, 09:06:58 PM »
Is there a bit where a bomb explodes and everything goes silent except for a high-pitched ringing, and then the muffled sound of shouting and screaming and the sounds of war can slowly be heard as the main character's hearing miraculously comes back?

Because if not, I have no intention of seeing this.

It has all the hits from war films.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2020, 11:53:29 AM »
Worst wharf film ever.

Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2020, 09:36:49 PM »
I saw it this evening at the cinema and thought it was good. Not great, but good.

It was gripping and brilliantly shot, and had an excellent balance of tense action and eerie stillness. This was sometimes achieved with weird continuity, most notably the convoy of trucks seemingly arriving and leaving through portals, but it was very effective and made the plot unpredictable.

The acting was a mixed bag, but the old pros all did good jobs (I started rolling my eyes when Andrew Scott turned up but suddenly that scene was over and I'd found it gripping), and though I didn't always like the narrative choices (I thought they should have just gone with the "bad" ending and had Schofield fail to stop the attack) they steered away from too much cliché and silliness[1] and it was interesting to see that they didn't just go the easy road of making all the officers incompetent toffs or making the two leads noble heroes: they were instead bland everymen who got by (or didn't, in Blake's case: again, an effective move) on instinct, luck and happenstance, and at the end of it all Schofield is not basking in glory or mowing down the enemy, he's just relieved to have got through it all and dreading whatever's next.

Definitely one to see at the cinema, as others have mentioned: like the inevitably compared Dunkirk, it is mostly about the big spectacle in all its detail and strange beauty. The horrors-of-war stuff has been done better elsewhere, but this is more of a dark rollercoaster, and the one-shot thing (which isn't really a thing given that there's at least one blackout and a few other moments where you can see the editing seams) works fine.
 1. though there still was some: opening with a field of flowers, a load of mockney accents, the stunningly-shot scenes in the destroyed town made less effective by the James Bond bullet dodging and hiding in a cellar with a young woman and baby.

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2020, 09:48:16 PM »
For me the eye rolling really kicked in when fucking Cumberbatch turned up.. fucking CUMBERBATCH! Fuck off Cumberbatch! But tbf the film itself was decent enough, some good individual scenes in it although in the end really didn't feel like it added up to all that much unfortunately.

Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2020, 10:34:09 PM »
I think the name guys were fine in their roles but it is distracting when a Big Star like Cumblebum turns up for 30 seconds.
Mark Strong got this weird introduction where you only saw his boots and then his silhouette, and it was as if there was going to be a reveal LOOK IT’S DAMIEN LEWIS or some other star but then it’s Mark Strong and yeah, good actor, seen him in this that and the other but what was that about?

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2020, 11:58:37 PM »
But yeah that's exactly it, I don't really mind any of the name stars, even a Cumberbatch (well I do mind him a bit) it's just totally distracting and misjudged to have people like that pop up in a film youre meant to be taking semi seriously

Twit 2

  • No half measures.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2020, 12:49:12 AM »
I thought it was more impressive on a technical level than a narrative or emotional one. Still better than Dunkirk though.

Just seen it in IMAX and thought almost the opposite. Went in expecting some well-shot cheese and was surprised how subtly integrated and non-showy the technical aspects were, whilst being impressed by the emotional power and (most of) the acting.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 01:09:50 AM by Twit 2 »

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2020, 01:33:36 AM »
Schofield is not basking in glory or mowing down the enemy, he's just relieved to have got through it all and dreading whatever's next.

Septicemia and tetanus, I imagine, given the state his hand must be in. I was wincing all through that first part from the barbed wire on.

Head Gardener

  • weed specialist
    • Gardening mixes
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2020, 10:03:10 AM »
the SpongeBob version

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2020, 10:11:01 PM »
What was the deal with the bright white lights in the town at night? It looked good, but what were they?

Twit 2

  • No half measures.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #79 on: February 05, 2020, 10:35:17 PM »

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2020, 02:19:44 AM »
What was the deal with the bright white lights in the town at night? It looked good, but what were they?

Flares, I thought.

EDIT: Yep, flares. Interview with Roger Deakin: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-01-16/roger-deakins-sam-mendes-1917-key-scene

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2020, 09:08:45 AM »
What was the deal with the bright white lights in the town at night? It looked good, but what were they?
As Mister Six said, they were flares. I posted an article on the previous page about the VFX work on the film:
https://beforesandafters.com/2020/01/17/the-big-effects-moments-in-the-one-shot-1917/
It includes this behind-the-scenes video of the lighting setup for that scene:
https://youtu.be/-0Gb93T4fes
It was a combination of flares being winched up on a flying rig suspended on 4 cranes that could repeat the same trajectory each time, and lights running on giant tracks over the set.

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2020, 10:56:22 AM »
(I thought they should have just gone with the "bad" ending and had Schofield fail to stop the attack)

Why, for fucks sake

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2020, 11:33:03 AM »
More realistic comment on the ww1? ie it was all a big waste of millions of lives and for every positive act that saved people's lives there were prob a thousand that led to death. Don't hate the ending but it was a total sugarcoat of reality obviously.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 12:48:12 PM by Armin Meiwes »

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2020, 11:48:46 AM »
i disagree. it was good and turned out fine

Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #85 on: February 06, 2020, 12:11:24 PM »
Good piont.

Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #86 on: February 06, 2020, 12:43:16 PM »

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #87 on: February 06, 2020, 12:44:15 PM »
War is bad

Doesn't mean films have to be, embrace the fun side of things. It's The Great War, not The Disappointing War

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

  • National program director of the chum group
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #88 on: February 06, 2020, 12:50:27 PM »
Oh, what a lovely war!

Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: 1917 (2019 1917 war film)
« Reply #89 on: February 06, 2020, 12:51:39 PM »
Doesn't mean films have to be, embrace the fun side of things. It's The Great War, not The Disappointing War

It can't be disappointing if loads of people die, if that happens it's done pretty much exactly what a war is supposed to do.

Tags: