1917 (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 5202
Joined: January 2012
What a comeback for Mendes after Spectre :clap:

it was lovely but i cannot stress how much better it would be without a score

Posts: 1190
Joined: May 2012
The salt in this thread is beholding.

Posts: 7758
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]
apocalypse now
and that makes it all the more cool

Posts: 19083
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I wouldn't compare it to
Apocalypse Now
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

Posts: 7758
Joined: August 2012
Imo
the comparison to apocalypse now is more direct, as in a lead on a path through different levels of chaotic hell until he encounters the film’s ‘kurtz’ (i mean Mackenzie is never THAT but the leads are asked to be careful around him upon their arrival). the story sort of follows a similar beat.
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.

Posts: 437
Joined: May 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Vader182 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 4:16 pm
I wouldn't compare it to
Apocalypse Now
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
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.

Posts: 1857
Joined: December 2016
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.

Posts: 8672
Joined: August 2009
Do I have to see 0001-1916 before seeing this?

Posts: 10510
Joined: March 2012
Location: The Rose City
Vader182 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 4:16 pm
I wish I liked it more.

-Vader

Post Reply