What a comeback for Mendes after Spectre 
1917 (2019)
it was lovely but i cannot stress how much better it would be without a score
The salt in this thread is beholding.
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
this forum will never get over this, but this movie is brilliant and nothing like dunkirk lmao
if anything it’s more [not spoilers but just in case you don’t want to know]
and that makes it all the more cool
if anything it’s more [not spoilers but just in case you don’t want to know]
I wouldn't compare it to so much as Gravity, even down to interweaving of visual metaphors. In Gravity you had motifs of wombs, birth, and rebirth, here there are the trees / family units and so on. Other than a few scenes here or there that indeed are very reminiscent of scenes in Dunkirk (the plane scene, the explosions around MacKay) the comparisons are slight.
I wish I liked it more. It has sadly little to add to the tradition of war films on a moral or thematic level, and the one the one thing it does have going for it, the "randomized chaos" of a war zone, is totally suffocated by the pre-determined, "walled-off" map the actors occupy. It's striving for hyper-immersion, but the "look at me, no hands" of the oner is vapid and a distraction.
Armand loved this btw, but he hasn't convinced me I'm wrong.
-Vader
I wish I liked it more. It has sadly little to add to the tradition of war films on a moral or thematic level, and the one the one thing it does have going for it, the "randomized chaos" of a war zone, is totally suffocated by the pre-determined, "walled-off" map the actors occupy. It's striving for hyper-immersion, but the "look at me, no hands" of the oner is vapid and a distraction.
Armand loved this btw, but he hasn't convinced me I'm wrong.
-Vader
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
Imo
I guess my point would be less “this movie IS like x!!!” and more like if people are that desperate to hold onto this idea that 1917 rips off Dunkirk, based on the most asinine shit like tricky marketing campaign and ticking sounds from the trailers, then i might as well grab a different movie and compare it to that using that same random perspective.
By the way, I agree the one take thing is definitely very showy and made me wonder a few times if the camera was “following” the story, or whether it was the other way around and the story was accomodating to pulling off a fake one take. I wasn’t overly bothered though. Also the film would have totally benefited from MORE silence, but I’m just overall allergic to very dramatic soundtracks, this one definitely had its moments of brilliance. George MacKay was incredible imo and very far from “bland” as noted by others. Also no overly saccharine sentimentality despite that one plot point everyone felt like would do this film in, which is always a bonus!
Tbh if Armand couldn’t convince you, then I also won’t be able to lol. But I found it achieving very well what (I felt like) it attempted to - a borderline anxiety inducing experience, and I got that. It’s not a completely faultless film, but it’ll (already was and is) be misjudged unfairly by some.
By the way, I agree the one take thing is definitely very showy and made me wonder a few times if the camera was “following” the story, or whether it was the other way around and the story was accomodating to pulling off a fake one take. I wasn’t overly bothered though. Also the film would have totally benefited from MORE silence, but I’m just overall allergic to very dramatic soundtracks, this one definitely had its moments of brilliance. George MacKay was incredible imo and very far from “bland” as noted by others. Also no overly saccharine sentimentality despite that one plot point everyone felt like would do this film in, which is always a bonus!
Tbh if Armand couldn’t convince you, then I also won’t be able to lol. But I found it achieving very well what (I felt like) it attempted to - a borderline anxiety inducing experience, and I got that. It’s not a completely faultless film, but it’ll (already was and is) be misjudged unfairly by some.
Seconding this. Can’t say it’s about the “arbitrariness of war” when everything feels so deliberately designed to crescendo then decrescendo, whereas Dunkirk succeeds because the tension literally never drops.Vader182 wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 4:16 pmI wouldn't compare it toso much as Gravity, even down to interweaving of visual metaphors. In Gravity you had motifs of wombs, birth, and rebirth, here there are the trees / family units and so on. Other than a few scenes here or there that indeed are very reminiscent of scenes in Dunkirk (the plane scene, the explosions around MacKay) the comparisons are slight.
I wish I liked it more. It has sadly little to add to the tradition of war films on a moral or thematic level, and the one the one thing it does have going for it, the "randomized chaos" of a war zone, is totally suffocated by the pre-determined, "walled-off" map the actors occupy. It's striving for hyper-immersion, but the "look at me, no hands" of the oner is vapid and a distraction.
Armand loved this btw, but he hasn't convinced me I'm wrong.
-Vader
Good film but definitely not on Dunkirk’s level. The story is very simple (which isn’t bad necessarily) but at the end it left me with the feeling: that was it?
I don’t really understand the early reactions saying it’s better than Dunkirk, hinting at the character development or what not. That to me is one of the things I didn’t like about the film. The first 10-20 minutes and the unnecessary dialogue and banter. To me the film didn’t feel like a reaction to Dunkirk in any sorts which good and bad at the same time. To me it’s Gravity mashed with The Revenant.
Roger Deakins carries the film and he deserves his second Oscar. The score was disappointing except for the cue “The Night Window” and its variations - so good.
I don’t really understand the early reactions saying it’s better than Dunkirk, hinting at the character development or what not. That to me is one of the things I didn’t like about the film. The first 10-20 minutes and the unnecessary dialogue and banter. To me the film didn’t feel like a reaction to Dunkirk in any sorts which good and bad at the same time. To me it’s Gravity mashed with The Revenant.
Roger Deakins carries the film and he deserves his second Oscar. The score was disappointing except for the cue “The Night Window” and its variations - so good.
Do I have to see 0001-1916 before seeing this?
