1917



Excellent film.. cinematography is exceptional. I dont think it will be everyone's cup of tea... and possibly miss out at the oscars because there arent any Americans in it ;)
 
makumstu said:
Enjoyed the film but wouldn’t say I was amazed.

Bit that I didn’t get was the random woman and the “starving” baby, no chance would they have been able to hide out in the deserted town and not be found.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'd go along with that. I think I was maybe expecting more of a spectacle - if you can call the horrors of trench warfare that. Still some good scenes and I quite like how it was shot - the long takes following the leads to make it seem like one continuous shot in real time. I was quite moved by the first wave over the top.
coach13 said:
Took my 15yo lad to see it, they are studying the first world war at the moment. Really well done movie but I felt it just lacked something, didn't move or shock me like shaving Ryan's privates.
Click to expand...
Yep - agree.
Angmering said:
Watched it today, it’s ok,ww1 saving private Ryan. I thought some of the cinematography was average at best in places and it leaves you wanting more substance, a 12 second blackout halfway through which is probably half too long. Also down to the very closing scene you wonder why a drone wasn’t used to gain altitude and look back with a statement . It’s ok don’t get me wrong but it’s not a private Ryan and I don think it will sweep up at the oscars.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could argue that's a perspective the lads on the ground never had. I think it was enough to see the contrast between no man's land, and the idyllic countryside behind the line at the end.
Skandhaless said:
Yeah the french at least did quick rotation , i think the poor jerries were there for longer stints . Give Dan Carlins pod cast a listen if you haven't absolutely spell binding and informative . I've read about ww1 for 40 years but never thought about the true individual human reality of it until I listened to it .
Click to expand...
What podcast might that be marra?
Sorry - read back and found it. Ta. Just ordered that book too.
Jon Dough said:
Ahhhh,right,i thought he might have been the north-east lad in the back of the truck,jonny lavelle,i will watch out for him in future,the kid from billy Elliott ended up in Hollywood,always room for talent.
Click to expand...
Thought that geordie sounded terrible. Anly thing missing was a plug for the latest Sunday for Sammy DVD. *shudder*
Dark Traveller said:
That bloke didn’t have much luck did he as the film progressed?

I was expecting him to be shot by his own side at one point, when they all going over the top and he’s going in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
:lol: He had fuckin' heaps of it!
Jon Dough said:
Click to expand...
He's ganna have a fuckin' fit when he gans to see David Copperfield then...
 
Last edited:
Jon Dough said:
Click to expand...
It's called 'suspending your disbelief' ffs! This plank is an actor and bitching about details as if he was an academic historian! If the set-up in the back of that truck were real, the troops would most likely have been from the same place. You would certainly not have had a Sun'land lad, a jock, a brummie and a cockney in the same platoon, so having a Sikh in there was no big deal. He did the best piss-take 'snotty officer' voice anyway! Fox is an attention-seeking WUM, going by his performance on Question Time, and probably in the pay of Dominic Cummings.
Regarding the film, I thought the cinematography was a game-changer. It was like a video game, and the way that huge long take as they crossed no-man's land ended nearly cost me a set of underwear!
 
Last edited:
1917 – 7.5/10

Though it is beautifully photographed by the Deakmeister, 1917 pales in comparison to Dunkirk. Especially as an iMax experience. The one take approach to the filmmaking worked brilliantly for the most part but it was nowhere near as immersive as what Nolan achieved with Dunkirk. It doesn't help when you have a score that constantly calls attention to itself rather than complimenting whats happening on screen.
From the muckiness of the trenches to the notes being etched into woodwork, they clearly did their research and tried to put as much gory detail in as possible. George McKay’s role reminded me a lot of Leo in The Revenant, battling with the terrain and putting himself through hell in the name of film. Surprised more isn’t being made of his performance.

There are several awkward performances that really took me out of the film. Andrew Scott was terrible, he seemed to think he was in a Tropic Thunder sequel. The absurdity of the plot and the far-fetched chase scenes also took away from any realism that Sam Mendes had built up. I thought the first half, pre blackout was by far the strongest section of the film although the flaming town and blossom scenes are truly gorgeous and Roger Deakins at his very best.
I genuinely think this would make a good double bill with Sunshine on Leith.
 
DJ Doubt said:
1917 – 7.5/10
There are several awkward performances that really took me out of the film. Andrew Scott was terrible, he seemed to think he was in a Tropic Thunder sequel. The absurdity of the plot and the far-fetched chase scenes also took away from any realism that Sam Mendes had built up. I thought the first half, pre blackout was by far the strongest section of the film although the flaming town and blossom scenes are truly gorgeous and Roger Deakins at his very best.
I genuinely think this would make a good double bill with Sunshine on Leith.
Click to expand...
Agree with that.

Can't quite agree with Dunkirk being much of an "immersive" affair mind. Jumped around too much with the timeline to the point where the film's pretty forgettable to be honest.
MackneyHackem said:
Bollocks.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's too far wide of the mark to be honest.
 
I went down to Dalton park yesterday afternoon to see it and I was disappointed, sucked in by the hype I suppose.
My opinion of course and as we all know opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.
 
DJ Doubt said:
1917 – 7.5/10

Though it is beautifully photographed by the Deakmeister, 1917 pales in comparison to Dunkirk. Especially as an iMax experience. The one take approach to the filmmaking worked brilliantly for the most part but it was nowhere near as immersive as what Nolan achieved with Dunkirk. It doesn't help when you have a score that constantly calls attention to itself rather than complimenting whats happening on screen.
From the muckiness of the trenches to the notes being etched into woodwork, they clearly did their research and tried to put as much gory detail in as possible. George McKay’s role reminded me a lot of Leo in The Revenant, battling with the terrain and putting himself through hell in the name of film. Surprised more isn’t being made of his performance.

There are several awkward performances that really took me out of the film. Andrew Scott was terrible, he seemed to think he was in a Tropic Thunder sequel. The absurdity of the plot and the far-fetched chase scenes also took away from any realism that Sam Mendes had built up. I thought the first half, pre blackout was by far the strongest section of the film although the flaming town and blossom scenes are truly gorgeous and Roger Deakins at his very best.
I genuinely think this would make a good double bill with Sunshine on Leith.
Click to expand...

Dunkirk was even more disappointing than 1917.
Give me the Sir John Mills 50s version any day of the week.

Ref 1917, the ludicrousness of the plane crash landing in to the barn, the pilot surviving the crash and then having the awareness and strength to stab the Brit to death man ffs.
Then all of a sudden loads of British troops appear from nowhere behind the other buildings to help out.
Bring me a Mrs Doubtfire dvd any day.
 
chriswallace85 said:
Can't quite agree with Dunkirk being much of an "immersive" affair mind. Jumped around too much with the timeline to the point where the film's pretty forgettable to be honest.
Click to expand...

I saw it twice at the BFI Waterloo iMax and it was one of the most immense and immersive cinema experiences I've had. Those gunshots at the start sounded mental. Like we were being shot at. It really needs to be seen in 15/70mm format. Seeing that Spitfire land in 18K resolution... *kisses fingers*

I listened to a podcast the other day with Quentin Tarantino raving about it:

www.theringer.com

‘Dunkirk,’ With Quentin Tarantino, Sean Fennessey, and Chris Ryan

Sean Fennessey and Chris Ryan are joined by writer-director Quentin Tarantino to rewatch the first movie in a three-part ‘Rewatchables’ series
www.theringer.com www.theringer.com

He is obsessed. Describes it as a symphony, not a film.

I said at the time that when Nolan made Dunkirk, he made a Kubrickian leap forward as a filmmaker. It was great to hear Tarantino echoe my thoughts.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top