5,197 posts
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 16:10:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by Being Alive on Jan 11, 2020 16:10:53 GMT
Well, just out from catching this on its opening weekend.
It's quite an achievement really, and Sam Mendes really does deserve all the praise he is getting for this.
It's almost disorientating to watch a continual shot (even though it is) for two hours, but it perfectly displayed the horrors and the truth of war.
I thought the screenplay could have been a little tighter, but that's just me. Good performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and particularly George McKay.
And there is a moment in the middle of the film that I will visually remember for the rest of my cinema-going life.
The race for best picture is well and truly on!
|
|
|
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 16:28:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by sparky5000 on Jan 11, 2020 16:28:19 GMT
Well, just out from catching this on its opening weekend. It's quite an achievement really, and Sam Mendes really does deserve all the praise he is getting for this. It's almost disorientating to watch a continual shot (even though it is) for two hours, but it perfectly displayed the horrors and the truth of war. I thought the screenplay could have been a little tighter, but that's just me. Good performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and particularly George McKay. And there is a moment in the middle of the film that I will visually remember for the rest of my cinema-going life. The race for best picture is well and truly on! I’m reluctantly seeing this tomorrow with my bro because he flat out refused to watch Little Women 😐 |
|
2,061 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 11, 2020 17:45:20 GMT
Saw it this afternoon and I did (like some of the other reviews I’ve read) think it was a bit like watching someone playing a video game: lots of the protagonists constantly walking onwards, with the camerawork taking priority to dialogue, with some A list British movie star cameos every few minutes to break things up, and characterisation kept to a minimum (I still couldn’t tell you the name of any of the characters to be honest) An impressive technical achievement, for sure (although I spotted quite a few cuts, apart from the obvious one) but I don’t know if I’d want to watch it again (see it on a BIG screen if you can)
|
|
656 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Jan 11, 2020 18:52:02 GMT
I did enjoy this, and thought Dean-Charles Chapman (who was the first Billy Elliot I saw 9 years ago) and George McKay were very good. Some of the cameo appearances were good too. I was a bit distracted by the long continual shots and tried to find where they had cut - and it was a couple of cases it was obvious. Very impressive technically and I thought it showed the horrors of war well. It was tense throughout, and I think the score contributed to this effectively.
|
|
7,192 posts
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 18:55:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jon on Jan 11, 2020 18:55:01 GMT
Didn’t know Dean Charles Chapman was in Billy Elliot. That show has managed to produce many big names like Tom Holland and Layton Williams
|
|
736 posts
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 19:17:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by dippy on Jan 11, 2020 19:17:39 GMT
I really can't be bothered to watch this but I know someone who worked on it and I know she wants my thoughts on it. For someone who has no interest in war films should I just avoid it? Or shall I just watch it for the technical side of things?
|
|
2,061 posts
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 19:30:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by Marwood on Jan 11, 2020 19:30:48 GMT
I really can't be bothered to watch this but I know someone who worked on it and I know she wants my thoughts on it. For someone who has no interest in war films should I just avoid it? Or shall I just watch it for the technical side of things? Just tell her it was a thought provoking masterpiece and deserves every award it gets (most of the British media have the same level of imagination when it comes to reviews and just go with the flow) |
|
736 posts
|
1917
Jan 11, 2020 21:11:04 GMT
Post by dippy on Jan 11, 2020 21:11:04 GMT
Just tell her it was a thought provoking masterpiece and deserves every award it gets (most of the British media have the same level of imagination when it comes to reviews and just go with the flow) If only! That's not the kind of response she'd expect from me, she knows me too well, better to say I'm not watching it than pretend I did. If I see it we'll be talking about cut points, things that I don't think worked that well, did I correctly figure out exactly when they went to different locations (and was it obvious what was Salisbury or Scotland...), stuff about details really. |
|
|
|
1917
Jan 13, 2020 1:27:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by sparky5000 on Jan 13, 2020 1:27:41 GMT
Super glad I went to see this, I thought it was excellent! Showed the horrors and futility of war, but was never gratuitous with it, which some war movies are! The cinematography and the spectacle itself of the continuous film (even if it wasn’t actually filmed continuously) was amazing, although like others have said, I think it did take away from the dialogue a bit, and you never really get inside any of the characters. The 2 leads were great, George McKay especially. I’m surprised he hasn’t been getting awards buzz for this performance.
The who’s who of British thespian talent popping up here and there for a brief cameo got a bit distracting lol, but fun all the same! Andrew Scott almost stealing the show again with his 3 mins of screentime!
I’d definitely recommend this, and it’s not too long either! But needs to be seen on the big screen I think for full effect!
|
|
879 posts
|
1917
Jan 13, 2020 9:32:01 GMT
Post by daisy24601 on Jan 13, 2020 9:32:01 GMT
I loved this, when I saw it I didn't know it was filmed in one sequence and to be honest I didn't notice... It's not quite as good as Dunkirk for me, which I went to see twice, but loved how realistic it is (the dead bodies  ) and it was thoroughly gripping and at times quite frightening. Well, just out from catching this on its opening weekend. It's quite an achievement really, and Sam Mendes really does deserve all the praise he is getting for this. It's almost disorientating to watch a continual shot (even though it is) for two hours, but it perfectly displayed the horrors and the truth of war. I thought the screenplay could have been a little tighter, but that's just me. Good performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and particularly George McKay. And there is a moment in the middle of the film that I will visually remember for the rest of my cinema-going life. The race for best picture is well and truly on! Curious which bit? |
|
|
|
1917
Jan 13, 2020 22:04:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by justfran on Jan 13, 2020 22:04:45 GMT
I saw this on the weekend and thought it was excellent, definitely needs to be seen in the cinema for the spectacle. The one-shot style I didn’t find distracting at all and thought it was such a well made film, deserving of all the awards nominations it’s received. I’ve seen George MacKay in quite a films now and he’s a very reliably consistent actor. Andrew Scott was a scene stealer and Mark Strong is one of our best actors, I wasn’t too impressed with Benedict Cumberbatch though. 5 stars from me.
|
|
837 posts
Member is Online
|
1917
Jan 17, 2020 11:48:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 17, 2020 11:48:53 GMT
Has anyone had a glimpse of Jamie Parker? Wondering if it’s just a passer-by part or a fully developed character.
|
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Jan 17, 2020 12:57:20 GMT
Has anyone had a glimpse of Jamie Parker? Wondering if it’s just a passer-by part or a fully developed character. Yes I spotted Jamie Parker but he’s only in it for a few minutes. He plays a sergeant I think in one of the trenches. |
|
|
|
Post by lightinthedarkness on Jan 17, 2020 15:04:25 GMT
Has anyone had a glimpse of Jamie Parker? Wondering if it’s just a passer-by part or a fully developed character. Yes I spotted Jamie Parker but he’s only in it for a few minutes. He plays a sergeant I think in one of the trenches. It has some great actors in there but only the two main characters are in it for any significant amount of time, others have a few lines in single scenes. I had no idea Jamie was in it so it was nice to see him |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 17, 2020 18:59:09 GMT
Has anyone had a glimpse of Jamie Parker? Wondering if it’s just a passer-by part or a fully developed character. I think I remember him tweeting that he'd made the poster but barely the film. |
|
|
|
1917
Jan 17, 2020 22:34:07 GMT
via mobile
justfran likes this
Post by xanady on Jan 17, 2020 22:34:07 GMT
An elegiac,profoundly emotional and deeply-moving story which carried great conviction and sincerity with it.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
1917
Jan 23, 2020 11:44:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 11:44:46 GMT
Its just so hard. I know this film was done with best intentions. But it just did not work for me. It did for many others. It happens.
|
|
|
|
1917
Jan 23, 2020 22:56:32 GMT
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 23, 2020 22:56:32 GMT
Its just so hard. I know this film was done with best intentions. But it just did not work for me. It did for many others. It happens. Yeah I agree. I'm not the biggest fan of war films, but I just didn't get the point of this. I have worked on a couple of documentaries about WW1 and I don't think it is possible to even comprehend how utterly awful it was because of the crudeness of the war technology of the times. It really was just absolutely horrendous. Why they always choose to make WW1 films about people doing everything on foot surprises me. Maybe they think of it it is just too terrible for people to sit through. |
|
|
|
1917
Jan 24, 2020 0:24:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 0:24:38 GMT
Is it better or worse than Dunkirk? I found that to be quite cold and lacking in emotion. Technically very well made but I just didnt feel engaged with any of the characters.
|
|
|
|
1917
Jan 24, 2020 0:29:31 GMT
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 24, 2020 0:29:31 GMT
Is it better or worse than Dunkirk? I found that to be quite cold and lacking in emotion. Technically very well made but I just didnt feel engaged with any of the characters. I really liked Dunkirk and thought the way it told it's story was clever. I didn't connect with this at all and I don't think the whole '1 shot' thing actually added anything to the film. |
|
|
|
1917
Jan 24, 2020 8:11:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 8:11:36 GMT
Is it better or worse than Dunkirk? I found that to be quite cold and lacking in emotion. Technically very well made but I just didnt feel engaged with any of the characters. I preferred it to Dunkirk and it was very emotionally involving. |
|
) and it was thoroughly gripping and at times quite frightening. 
