Click here for Done Deal Pro home page
Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Movies & Television > Films
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-23-2019, 04:54 PM   #1
rainer
User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
Default 1917

Brilliant filmmaking across the board, led by Sam Mendes. The "One Shot" approach is not gimmicky at all in fact it draws the viewer into the mission, becoming a third soldier. The music is phenomenal, complementing the action and story. Roger Deakins's cinematography should secure him another Oscar.
rainer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2019, 09:11 PM   #2
DDoc
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 171
Default Re: 1917

Nice. I was wondering how this might turn out. I'll catch it this week.
DDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2019, 06:36 PM   #3
Darthclaw13
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 328
Default Re: 1917

Sooooooooo looking forward to seeing this one. Great to read the positive reviews.

Very excited!!
Darthclaw13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2019, 09:24 AM   #4
DDoc
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 171
Default Re: 1917

Yep. I thought it came out yesterday but I guess the wide release is Jan 10. Damn.
DDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2019, 09:06 PM   #5
KitchonaSteve
Regular
 
KitchonaSteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 426
Default Re: 1917

I was completely underwhelmed, but I'll hold my review until after wide release.
__________________
Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

-Steve Trautmann
3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast
KitchonaSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 06:52 PM   #6
JoeBanks
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,949
Default Re: 1917

Technically, this was a tour de force. Stunning production, Deakins (should be) a lock for Best Cinematography.

Characterwise, it suffered from Dunkirk syndrome for me. No-name soliders thrown right into the middle of the battle with almost zero characterization. I was engaged with their struggles to complete the impossible mission that they are given as human beings -- you want them to survive and get the message to the division at the front lines. But other than that base instinct, it's nearly irrelevant who they actually are because we know virtually nothing about them as real people.

Caveat: the one thing we do know is one of them is the brother of another solider who is in the company at the front lines. Which would be like if Saving Private Ryan was about sending Ryan's three other brothers off across Europe to maybe save their other brother but definitely risk all four of them dying in the process. I can't imagine why this brother would ever have been tasked with delivering the order in the hopes of saving his other.
JoeBanks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 10:04 PM   #7
Friday
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 611
Default Re: 1917

I heard that this was made to look like one continuous take. One of my favorite war movies was actually a smaller movie where it was just a sniper vs. another sniper.
Friday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 10:27 PM   #8
JoeBanks
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,949
Default Re: 1917

It basically is a one-take, though there are a couple obvious act breaks where Mendes "cuts." Even within that rule, Deakins does a lot of different things to keep it interesting and surprising. But Eisenstein's montage theory of cinema has persisted for over a century for a reason -- it really does work better than the reality of viewing images continuously the way we do in real life (though the brain makes its own cuts and edits to that too). As hacky as Spielberg's platoon of war movie cliches and stereotypes was in SPR, it did manage to keep you always engaged on a character level as they made their way across France. Here, the technical accomplishments feel more like a way to avoid having to develop the characters much at all.
JoeBanks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 11:06 PM   #9
KitchonaSteve
Regular
 
KitchonaSteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 426
Default Re: 1917

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBanks View Post
Technically, this was a tour de force. Stunning production, Deakins (should be) a lock for Best Cinematography.
Agreed, also production design was incredible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBanks View Post
Characterwise, it suffered from Dunkirk syndrome for me. No-name soliders thrown right into the middle of the battle with almost zero characterization. I was engaged with their struggles to complete the impossible mission that they are given as human beings -- you want them to survive and get the message to the division at the front lines. But other than that base instinct, it's nearly irrelevant who they actually are because we know virtually nothing about them as real people.
This was my big problem. Also knowing what a bloodbath WWI was, and the 1600 British soldiers involved in an inconsequential half-battle was a drop in the bucket of the roughly 20 million killed in the war. Granted, I know more about WWI than most audience members and that definitely colored my reactions, but the audience never got to know the two main characters enough for me to care about them, and the fact that one of them had a brother, and the other had any kind of life outside the battlefield until the very end never engaged me.

The gimmick was annoying to me because I was constantly looking for the cuts, which completely took me out of the story, but that's probably my own issue. I've seen more evocative and affecting depictions of wars and battles, and this film made me feel nothing but bored.
__________________
Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

-Steve Trautmann
3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast
KitchonaSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 11:21 PM   #10
JoeBanks
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,949
Default Re: 1917

Quote:
Originally Posted by KitchonaSteve View Post
Also knowing what a bloodbath WWI was, and the 1600 British soldiers involved in an inconsequential half-battle was a drop in the bucket of the roughly 20 million killed in the war. Granted, I know more about WWI than most audience members and that definitely colored my reactions
I don't have extensive WWI knowledge, other than it was a meat grinder for every side. It didn't bump me as much here because setting it in April 1917 made me think that we were coming in more at the tail end of the war. So it felt logical enough to me that things might have been in the mopping up stage? Though maybe it was a bloodbath right up until the armistice.
JoeBanks is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker