1917 (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
Insomniac wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 7:53 am
Kyle Buchanan @kylebuchanan

If 1917 wins Best Picture, Chris Nolan is gonna be pissed!! “You mean I got Harry Styles wet for nothing”
It has begun. Expect more of this shit.
How will we ever recover? lol

Anyway,
Katie Walsh @katiewalshstx
1917 is indeed astounding. But the best part about it is how often you forget about the long-take conceit because you’re absorbed in character and story. Anyone making a best of year list before seeing it is playing themselves!
There’s a lot of reactions like these so it seems like it is way more than just a technical achievement.

User avatar
Posts: 9466
Joined: December 2011
Yup, this is absolutely 😮😱 Believe the hype, Deakins is definitely coming for Oscar numero dos and Newman's score is utterly incredible...in so many ways it feels unashamedly like a response and contrast to DUNKIRK, similarly experiential and visceral and yet does everything that film chose not to do..more old-school in its structure and approach to character and ultimately, the boots on the ground POV just as immersive as the epic scope of IMAX there. Atmos + Dolby Vision really suck you in here - Dolby Cinema is the way to see this.

As easy it might be to get into arguments over which film is betrw they are ultimately, I'd say, companion pieces complementing each other almost perfectly. It's apples and oranges, different wars aside, they are ultimately different approaches to achieving this immersive experience.

Cast is as good as you'd expect but again, it's all about the overall experience, intensity and craft. Though Though it does fall into the same 'issue' of the big names ultimately being not much more than glorified cameos, but the story isn't about them, it's about MacKay and Chapman and they are brilliant.

A few other random thoughts:
- if it wasn't already obvious enough, Dolby Cinema / Atmos > IMAX
- if this isn't proof a DEATH STRANDING movie going all in on those fetch quests could kick serious arse..
- shades of Apocalypse Now
- again, Deakins and Newman just steal the show
- now we know why that second trailer was...like that
- Oh, and, there's an image (because you can't really say shot lol) in this that's gonna generate so many OMG CINEMATIC PARALLELS MENDES WAS CLEARLY INSPIRED BY MARVEL tweets 😝
Last edited by antovolk on November 25th, 2019, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 118
Joined: May 2014
Location: London/Italy
antovolk wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 6:58 pm
- shades of Apocalypse Now
- again, Deakins and Newman just steal the show
Thanks for that antovolk, I am now alot more hyped for this.

What kind of Newman score do we get? Shawshank/Road to Perdition? Or Skyfall? When Thomas Newman is on form there are not many better composers at stealing the movie their scoring.

User avatar
Posts: 2306
Joined: July 2009
Location: Norway
It got raves from The Guardian and Variety, but not across-the-board. Still early days people.

1917 review: Novelty quickly wears off in Sam Mendes' film that feels more like a video game - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/191 ... eels-like/
Review: Sam Mendes’ World War I drama ‘1917' is a technical triumph — and a half-successful experiment - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... sam-mendes
‘1917’ Film Review: Sam Mendes’ WWI Saga More Thrilling Than Thoughtful- https://www.thewrap.com/1917-film-revie ... ge-mackay/

User avatar
Posts: 13506
Joined: February 2011
Debuts with 90% (8.9/10) on RT and 86/100 on Metacritic. Seems pretty across the board to me.

User avatar
Posts: 20188
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Master Virgo wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 8:32 pm
Debuts with 90% (8.9/10) on RT and 86/100 on Metacritic. Seems pretty across the board to me.
A 90% with an 8.9 does indicate there's not unanimous "raves" but this reaction overall is outstanding.

2019 is turning into a solid year for cinema indeed.

EDIT: a critic i admire and often align with, Robbie Collin, appears to be among the dissenters. interesting.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 764
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 8:47 pm
Master Virgo wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 8:32 pm
Debuts with 90% (8.9/10) on RT and 86/100 on Metacritic. Seems pretty across the board to me.
A 90% with an 8.9 does indicate there's not unanimous "raves" but this reaction overall is outstanding.

2019 is turning into a solid year for cinema indeed.

EDIT: a critic i admire and often align with, Robbie Collin, appears to be among the dissenters. interesting.


-Vader
Is 2019 turning to be the new 1999? :think:

User avatar
Posts: 634
Joined: June 2017
Location: Holland


6 months of rehearsals, damn :wtf:

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3759
Joined: May 2012
As someone who has never understood all the hoopla over long takes (I mean, they're nice, don't get me wrong, but not that nice), this really nailed how I feel on it: https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/revi ... os-of-war/
In many ways, though, the most thrilling and haunting details of the production design are actively undermined by the chief technical gimmick of the film: that of being shot to look like one take. There’s a modern misconception that long takes aid the audience’s immersion into a film’s characters, when, in truth, unbroken, intensely planned shots are among the most visibly artificial affectations in all of cinema. Long, intricately moving takes inherently call attention not to anything inside the frame but the frame itself, and it’s why the best of them explicitly foreground their opulence and hyperreality. 1917 is never less immersive than when Roger Deakins’s camera has to execute some dizzying movement, such as transitioning from a tracking motion along the ground to a sudden floating up into the air for a bird’s-eye view of the action, or when staging a sudden, chaotic motion to disguise an edit.
Also this part:
Worse still is the detour in the middle of the outstanding sequence in the bombed-out town involving a young Frenchwoman (whose words, in direct violation of the subjective intent of the long takes, is subtitled) who offers a distracting dose of sentimentality in the midst of a holocaust consuming what remains of her hamlet.
Obviously not as unforgivably egregious as, say, having her speak English in a French accent, and obviously it's an inconsequential nitpick, but I get what he's saying here, even if I don't have the language prowess to translate why into words. :lol:

But overall, the positives that he wrote sound pretty good, and definitely makes me want to check the film out.

User avatar
Posts: 9466
Joined: December 2011

Post Reply