1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#51 Post by nitin » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:22 am

This is basically TwitchTv: the movie. And it is as boring as that sounds (sorry if you like TwitchTv).

All of the award noms are incomprehensible (even the technical ones as while I am sure the one shot visuals were a technical obstacle course, this is far from the best cinematography of the year) but getting one for screenplay is fucking outrageous!

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#52 Post by Nasir007 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:26 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:54 pm
dvining wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:56 pm
The long takes probably made the editing very simple.
There must be very little in terms of CGI. I assume that there was a whole lot done practically.
The CGI is required at the very least to stitch takes together to make it all seem like a single take. CGI would also be needed to make sure everything is matched between the two takes being stitched together and that the lighting is adjusted and the positions of anything that might have changed etc. etc. So CGI would definitely be needed even with the long takes just due to the format of the movie.
I somehow missed this during the initial nomination announcement but I heard a podcast and just realized this received a VFX oscar nomination. Not that I predicted it but still interesting and shows lots of support for this film - (along with the surprise (and unwarranted) screenplay nomination).

User avatar
Toland's Mitchell
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:42 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#53 Post by Toland's Mitchell » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:28 pm

I saw 1917 earlier this week. It was solid, but over-hyped. The camera work, the sound, the acting, the pacing, the suspense...all good stuff. But there's nothing that elevates it to the best of its genre, nor the best of 2019. It's a simple film. It had straightforward story that was easy to follow. There wasn't much characterization. And for a war film, there wasn't that much action. Furthermore, the film wasn't trying to make us think deeply about the nature of war, nor was it trying to educate us about this particular one. The story could have been set during any conflict in human history. And if people watch 1917 to learn something about WWI history, they're not gonna come away with much, except an accurate idea of what the uniforms, weapons, and trenches looked like.

Anyway, I think my main gripe with 1917 was its lack of originality. It seems the filmmakers went down the checklist of common tropes in war films:
SpoilerShow
Dangerous mission behind enemy lines, check. One soldier says the mission is suicidal and wants to turn around, check. Helpless woman with a child, check. Somber death scene, check. Gunfight against an enemy sniper, check. Soldier who seemed cowardly and apprehensive rises to the occasion, check.
Basically I felt like I had seen this movie before, just not set in WWI.

Nevertheless, 1917 was a solid film. But I think it's overrated. Let's just call it what it is...Oscar Bait.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#54 Post by nitin » Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:51 pm

I called it TwitchTv: the movie above and while that may sound flippant it really did feel like that time when I saw my friend play COD all those years ago. It was extremely uninteresting.

Gallipoli did the basic premise of this entire film’s narrative in its last 5 minutes but you know actually had a great film and characters around it.

Post Reply