1917 (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

I'll have to do another watch of "Gallipoli" since some here are comparing that one to this film. It has been a long time since I originally watched the film, so I do not remember all that much about it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Which also sounds like a riff on the SPR scene

Spoiler

of Mellish being stabbed.

I think the more apt comparison comes from the "SPR" scene in which

Spoiler

Caparzo wants to help the child and gets shot. That's the rough equivalent of Blake getting knifed by the solider he tries to save.

Both have the "get killed while doing a humanitarian deed" thing...

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I think the more apt comparison comes from the "SPR" scene in which

Spoiler

Caparzo wants to help the child and gets shot. That's the rough equivalent of Blake getting knifed by the solider he tries to save.

Both have the "get killed while doing a humanitarian deed" thing...

That's just a scene; we are talking about the very premise, though the message aspect is only the last act of Gallipoli. Plus SPR is WWII.

 

[MartinP.]

Nobody in the film ever mentioned or brought up the optics that might ensue for the Army if the three brothers were killed. I mean, do you seriously believe that the Army would have suffered negative public consequences from three brothers being killed when thousands of families were losing sons in droves? The loss of her three sons would have been just another statistic and a medal.

I'm aware that during WWII five brothers were all serving on the same ship that was torpedoed and sunk and they all drowned. After that, I know there was some kind of policy either forbidding or discouraging brothers from serving in the same units. But not from serving at all. There was a movie made about this called The Fighting Sullivans.

In Saving Private Ryan, General George Marshall (played by Harve Presnell) reads the Bixby letter* to his officers before giving the order to find and send home Private James Francis Ryan after Ryan's three brothers are killed. The Bixby letter references a letter sent to Mrs. Bixby by President Lincoln after five of her sons were lost.

*Apparently, recently, historians believe this historic document may not have been written by Lincoln and there's controversy that the letter itself grew out of some lie that was told...but I have not delved into the details.

 

[MartinP.]

This film is supposed to make you feel as if you are the third squad member [...]

I felt that way through the entire film. But a film can't make you feel anything, feelings come from within and what the individual brings to it. It's why people seeing the same films bring wildly different reactions to them.

I always marvel that when it comes to films, people always seem to want others to agree with them about their tastes. Imagine if we did that with food?

 

[Edwin-S]

Have you seen the film @Edwin-S ?

I felt that way through the entire film. But a film can't make you feel anything, feelings come from within and what the individual brings to it. It's why people seeing the same films bring wildly different reactions to them.

I always marvel that when it comes to films, people always seem to want others to agree with them about their tastes. Imagine if we did that with food?

The film makers engage in a technique in order to make the audience feel as.if they are the third member of the squad. If it worked for you that is fine. It didn't really work for me. The steadicam work made it feel like the cinematography was on rails.

Also, no where have I implied or stated that anyone has to agree with my tastes. If the film works for a person or they think it is a masterpiece then that is fine. Personally, I think the film is good but overhyped. It is hardly a masterpiece in my book.

However, who knows, maybe I will change my mind about it when and if I ever watch it again. Right now, at this point in time, the story felt bloodless and emotionless to me. The characters didn't grab me and make me really care about what happens to them or what they go through.

The only surprise in this film, for me, was what played out at the farm.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That's just a scene; we are talking about the very premise, though the message aspect is only the last act of Gallipoli. Plus SPR is WWII.

I responded to a post that compared one scene in "SPR" to one scene in "1917". That's why I said one scene in "SPR" was more similar to the one scene in "1917" than the one scene someone else cited.

And thanks for pointing out "SPR" took place during WWII - I had no idea!

 

[Hanson]

I didn't feel like this movie rose above its presentation. An impressive technical feat to be sure (although it would have been more mind boggling if they had used practical camera tricks instead of tons of CGI). But other than some pulse pounding moments and sickeningly real looking corpses, my emotions were largely in check and I never really got past thinking about the behind the scenes nuts and bolts to become invested in the characters or story. Much of the movie felt like i was watching someone play Breath of the Wild or Red Dead Redemption.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

(although it would have been more mind boggling if they had used practical camera tricks instead of tons of CGI).

Ah, there is not "tons of CGI" in this picture. Did you see a different film?

 

[TravisR]

Ah, there is not "tons of CGI" in this picture?

And if there is, it's extremely well done. I assume that great shot near the end with the soldiers going over the top as Schofield is running against them has a decent amount of CG but it is flawless work.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The primary complaint I see about this picture when reading negative reviews is the technical process overwhelms the simple story and simple characters. Meaning how they made the film is much more interesting and complex than the story or characters. I think this will depend upon how drawn into the two main characters you are because the people that seem to dislike this picture seem not to be taken with the characters. I certainly understand the complaint but I actually was taken in by the two main characters, so did not suffer this issue.

 

[Edwin-S]

Ah, there is not "tons of CGI" in this picture. Did you see a different film?

I don't think there is tons of CGI in the film; however, the camera work, at times, made.it feel like a CGI picture. For example, the scene in the woods where the camera starts circling around, while rotating on its access and then moving in toward its subject.

 

[Tino]

The only obvious cgi I noticed is when he jumps into the river.

 

[Malcolm R]

I imagine a fair amount was used to match all the shots together to make them appear seamless.

It may not be big special FX CGI, but it's still CGI. Seems like I've read interviews with a couple directors (not necessarily Mendes) that said there is a lot more CGI in most films than people would expect, even when they're not big FX action blockbusters.

 

[TravisR]

I imagine a fair amount was used to match all the shots together to make them appear seamless.

It may not be big special FX CGI, but it's still CGI. Seems like I've read interviews with a couple directors (not necessarily Mendes) that said there is a lot more CGI in most films than people would expect, even when they're not big FX action blockbusters.

I would think that even the most ardent critic of CG would agree that the seamless stuff is where it's a valuable tool. Everyone knows that the Hulk or a Star Destroyer is CG but when they're doing something less flashy like painting out something in the background, that's when CG can be an invaluable and amazing creative tool.

 

[Tino]

I would think that even the most ardent critic of CG would agree that the seamless stuff is where it's a valuable tool. Everyone knows that the Hulk or a Star Destroyer is CG but when they're doing something less flashy like painting out something in the background, that's when CG can be an invaluable and amazing creative tool.

Exactly. And those of us who have actually seen the film can attest to its seamless integration. It really is impressive.

 

[Hanson]

Ah, there is not "tons of CGI" in this picture. Did you see a different film?

I was under the impression that they used a lot of CGI to erase their tracks (perhaps I misread a headline without reading the article to avoid spoilers). There is some of this, but it appears most of the long tracking shots were done with an advanced Steadicam with one operator. So it appears there aren't "tons" of CGI in the "wiped out the crew in every scene" sense as I had thought.

One of my issues with this film is that oners have conspicuous camera work and the results don't feel like a movie to me. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I watched Gemini Man in HFR and thought it was incredible. Other people hated it because it looked like video. So it goes for me, oners just don't feel like I'm watching a movie as much as I'm watching a magic trick.

 

[Tino]

.

 

[AshJW]

I liked the film very much.
I was invested in the characters arc. And that’s what counts for me.
Is there a lot of CG? Who cares if the results are good or even great. And I don’t have any complaints with this one.

It’s a good start in 2020 for me (I know, I know it’s from last year. But it started just last week over here).
I will count it to 2019 anyway in my list of best films of ... (it starts with 1920 up to now).

 

[Tino]

Sam Mendes And ‘1917’ Stake Claim As Oscar Frontrunner With DGA Victor


Sam Mendes took tonight’s top prize at the DGA Awards’ 72nd annual ceremony for his war epic 1917. The win further cements 1917‘s frontrunner status as this lightning-fast Oscar season marches on.

Mendes shared a story of his grandfather, who inspired the movie, with the DGA crowd for the first time in his speech. “My grandfather inspired this film, and he made me, when I was 12, sign a contract promising I would write a novel by the age of 18. Obviously I’m not a freak so I didn’t do that, but I did do this. So I want to say thank you for him for that.”

https://deadline.com/2020/01/sam-mendes-wins-dga-award-1917-1202841753/