Do filmmakers know how to make films about any wars that aren't WW1 or WW2 at this point?

It was good and a movie that actually needs to be experienced on the big screen. Some really exciting sequences, especially the night sequence. But I have to admit that the "one-shot" stuff did get a little tired and sort of gimmicky at times. This also maybe do to the fact that the movie gave me a slight case of motion sickness.

Also being a Nolan fan, I can't help see a similar style/characteristic to Dunkirk. Throws you right into the action of the war constantly for the most part, no real quiet, pensive scenes of dialogue. All about the race against the clock. It also has smaller roles played by bigger more famous Brit actors like Dunkirk.
I can't see how the criticism some people had of Dunkirk and then not having it to a degree for this movie. The people who said Dunkirk was all about the technical but cold, and we never cared about the characters because we never got to truly know them.

Batfan175 wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2020, 3:14 pm

Do filmmakers know how to make films about any wars that aren't WW1 or WW2 at this point?

Ah yes I cannot stand all of those World War 1 movies filmmakers just can’t stop not making

I liked it, it's entertaining and certainly worth seeing on a big screen, but it does feel more concerned with impressing you with technical feats then telling a grounded WW1 story. I really liked the first half; the second, the one-shot take started to wear on me a bit, and the believably starts to fade.

The movie ultimately feels like an action movie rather then a gritty war drama, which is my biggest issue with it. No it's not as good as Dunkirk; but it's still really well done, with some mind-blowing sets and cinematography.

Wasn't that good. Overall it's not as intense and engaging as I wanted it to be. Very anti-climatic. No build up or increase in tension. Was more chapter based narrative than a snowball building up. Felt quite sterile after no mans land.

There's too many films to compare it to which are far better. The Pianist, Dunkirk, Children of Men, Saving Private Ryan.

Movie 6/10

Deakins 10/10

1917>Dunkirk. Sorry Nolan. Both amazing films though.

Deakins Cinematography was top notch, no question.

The climax felt very Nolan. I'm guessing that Lee Smith's editing touch had something to do to evoke that familiarity.

Ultimately, it's a good flick, and enjoyable cinema experience but the 2 main characters/actors - are very bland.

PS: The jumping VFX was pants.

Z. Cobb wrote: ↑

January 12th, 2020, 9:50 am

Deakins Cinematography was top notch, no question.

The climax felt very Nolan. I'm guessing that Lee Smith's editing touch had something to do to evoke that familiarity.

Ultimately, it's a good flick, and enjoyable cinema experience but the 2 main characters/actors - are very bland.

PS: The jumping VFX was pants.

Couldn't disagree more on the actors, particularly George Mackay.

Spectacular achievement.

I wouldn't be mad if Mendes won his second Oscar alongside Deakins.

Mindheist wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2020, 9:24 pm

Wasn't that good. Overall it's not as intense and engaging as I wanted it to be. Very anti-climatic. No build up or increase in tension. Was more chapter based narrative than a snowball building up. Felt quite sterile after no mans land.

There's too many films to compare it to which are far better. The Pianist, Dunkirk, Children of Men, Saving Private Ryan.

Movie 6/10

Deakins 10/10

This is just as close as how I felt. I think I enjoyed it more than you but my comments mirror yours