Page 27 of 32
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 20th, 2020, 8:11 am
by Ruth
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 12:58 am
i seriously cant get over how amazing this movie would be if it didn't have a score. it adds such a blatant, sloppy level of artifice to a film that is otherwise doing everything in it's power to take that away. not just in technique but the story is also refreshingly reserved and matter of fact. i was legiterally sitting in the theater thinking
if the demolished town scene didnt have music i probably would have cried during it. if the content is good enough it can
be enough nahmean
also get rid of the subtitles. the whole emotional heft of that scene came from him connecting with that girl despite not speaking the same language... again the film is killing itself to be subjective but then translates a language that the main character wouldn't understand like are u on crack samuel
Same. i thought the score was pretty great in the first half of film, but the exact scene you mentioned was such overkill i just wanted that score gone completely. this film would have benefited a lot from more silence
also just my experience, but funnily enough, not all of french dialogue was subtitled iirc - only the bits schofield seemed to understand and directly respond to. the rest wasn’t
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 20th, 2020, 12:53 pm
by Disney+'s solo2001
i saw it like she was saying basic stuff you kinda half get, but i also speak french so maybe i'm way off lol. in any case to me the idea of subs seems against the mission of the film
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 21st, 2020, 12:49 pm
by natalie
Tecnically powerfull. Narrativelly empy for me.
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 22nd, 2020, 10:56 am
by Oku
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 12:53 pm
i saw it like she was saying basic stuff you kinda half get, but i also speak french so maybe i'm way off lol. in any case to me the idea of subs seems against the mission of the film
native speaker?
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 22nd, 2020, 11:14 am
by Ruth
Oku wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 10:56 am
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 12:53 pm
i saw it like she was saying basic stuff you kinda half get, but i also speak french so maybe i'm way off lol. in any case to me the idea of subs seems against the mission of the film
native speaker?
no, I think he’s just good with Duolingo.
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 22nd, 2020, 12:06 pm
by Disney+'s solo2001
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 22nd, 2020, 12:19 pm
by ChristNolan
personally, i'm more a fan of the first one, 1916, but this was a good follow up
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 23rd, 2020, 1:21 pm
by Oku
Ruth wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:14 am
Oku wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 10:56 am
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 12:53 pm
i saw it like she was saying basic stuff you kinda half get, but i also speak french so maybe i'm way off lol. in any case to me the idea of subs seems against the mission of the film
native speaker?
no, I think he’s just good with Duolingo.
Better than native speaker confirmed.
It's been so long since I've seen this lol is he saying "tongue" in French?
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 23rd, 2020, 11:31 pm
by Vader182
I had the pleasure of being invited to pilot a "debate" segment of The Take podcast for the first episode of the show in 2020. I was asked to defend the virtue of Dunkirk against 1917.
it's all more than a little cheeky and a bit glib, but I do mean most of what I say here:
https://www.flicks.com.au/features/the- ... -dunkirk/
As always, enjoy listening / let me know if you think I said something unspeakably wrong.
-Vader
Re: 1917 (2019)
Posted: January 24th, 2020, 12:46 am
by spade
Vader182 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:31 pm
I had the pleasure of being invited to pilot a "debate" segment of The Take podcast for the first episode of the show in 2020. I was asked to defend the virtue of Dunkirk against 1917.
it's all more than a little cheeky and a bit glib, but I do mean most of what I say here:
https://www.flicks.com.au/features/the- ... -dunkirk/
As always, enjoy listening / let me know if you think I said something unspeakably wrong.
-Vader
This was nice! Though missing bullets in 1917 is not that problematic. But as usual you make great points about Dunkirk. And more than the Dunkirk comparisons, I really dislike it when 1917 is mentioned with Gallipoli in the same breath. Peter Weir film is on a different emotional plane altogether and of course a far superior film.
