- Oct 25, 2017
Oh fuck now I have to see this.
Last war kind of film I saw was Hacksaw Ridge and I loved that one.
Oh fuck now I have to see this.
My take away was that it showed how ineffectual those weapons are. It was dark, foggy, and they were both running. I bet that’s closer to how it actually would have played out.Technically a beautiful film and it was pretty damn good, my biggest gripe:
Every german that chased him had stormtrooper (pun intended) level aim, even at like 10-15 feet away. That nighttime scene in the town when he meets the french girl is the worst offender here, bothered the hell out of me at how many close-range shots were missed.
nah. That’s spot on. It’s like 12-16hours? Condensed into two. There are a few points where it clearly demonstrates the passage of time.Was the movie supposed to be real time? I interpreted certain moments as being time lapses that allowed hours to tick by nonchalantly.
The scene where they walk through the barn house and we see everyone outside peeing, the scene with the villager and baby, everyone talking while he spaces out in the back of the truck.
Thanks! Doesn't sound too bad, will pitch it then.
A technically impressive movie and interesting to watch but I had a few problems with the story.
After Blake died all tension is lost as you know Schofield will make it and survive everything thrown at him. War films work best with a cast of characters that can be lost at any moment.
Deakins is the very best ever at his craft.Saw this on Friday in isense and loved it. What a beast of a film. Need to see it again.
The genius move was to cast super famous actors as high-ranking officers, and cast recognisable actors as lower-ranking officers, and then unknown actors as normal soldiers. It made the ranks of soldiers carry a recognisable authority. Genius.
The night scene with the flare lighting was gorgeous. Richard Deakins' finest hour.
There really wasn't. It'd be a super risky turn in the story for them to fail in the mission or for it to all be for nothing. Movies these days hardly take chances like that and tend to end with the main characters surviving.
Like, watching him sneak through the German occupied village had no suspense at all becuase you know he'll survive.
This movie was good but not great! Visual treat and some sequences were great but after thinking back on it, the movie has a lot of slower moments that don't character build or add much depth. It's a visual movie and has great moments and set pieces with a great score and that alone is worth seeing it!
two things that started to bug me were how somethings were super random like after his friend dies randomly a few platoon of soldiers pop up without making noise and help him out. Also the main character gets way to lucky! He gets shot so many times and not once wounded! The guy that charges after him is in close proximity that he doesnt hit him or when he's running away to the water and several German soldiers cant hit one guy.I love how the movie opens and closes similar with the trench to evenually it begining and ending at a tree.
I found that the movie did a nice amount of on-the-move characterization that gave the emotional beats weight. Compared to Dunkirk, this movie felt intimate and human.Just got back from this.
I fucking loved it. I'm a big fan of beautiful movies and yeah this was just as stunning as Blade Runner.
to address some of the points made in this thread:
I'm not sure I agree with the lack of depth issue. There isn't a lot of character development but this isn't a film about characters, it's about struggle and dedication and chaos and futility. It's a travelogue from hell. A rapid fire odyssey.
I don't agree with 'evil germans' complaint. There was that one guy who you hoped would reciprocate but he's a warrior, it's a war. I didn't see him as evil. As for the rest, they were just soldiers reacting according to their training. What would you expect them to do when encountering a Tommy in their lines? And as for 'stormtroopers' - this is war, they are tired, they have unreliable weapons, mostly it was dark, some of them were drunk...
And as for "no tension because of plot armour" - isn't that the case in the vast majority of films? Someone gets given a mission, you know they are going to get to the end of it.
Anyway, like I say, I thought it was great. Tense, pretty, visceral. I don't think I've seen another movie that throws you right in the middle of WW1 like this.
I agree with that. We're not talking Link levels of blank avatars here. But it's not a character driver film. We get just enough to relate and that's all that was intended or needed imo.
I liked Star Wars and not for some weird pick-a-side political reason either. 1917 is a better film, both are good spectacles but I'd rather have 1917 be the one I saw on the big screen.
Agreed. Intimate with the humanity of them more than their personal life or self. There for each nervous glance, laugh, concern on the journey. Shared or unshared.
Agree with every word.I felt that Blake’s death was more impactful and fucked up than many other death scenes I’ve seen in a lot of war movies. It just...happens, a kind of usually inconsequential wound we’ve seen character take in dozens of movies, and then the suffering and struggling to survive goes on for what felt like many long minutes. Him suddenly being so pale was really shocking. It happens so fast
I couldn’t believe he actually died too. That was a legitimately surprising turn