Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Reggie W, Aug 1, 2019.
So I guess you didn’t like it?
Messages were sent to and from the front using only one man at times, so I can't see why only two men being sent out would be considered unrealistic. Probably the more unrealistic aspect isn't the number but that they are traveling together. Generally, you would think that two men dispatched as message carriers would travel separately to increase the chance of the message being delivered.
Yes, I don't think that there was an issue with how many men they sent or how they sent them. I think you have to balance the idea that this is meant to be a cinematic story and told in such a way that emphasizes that and that it is set within a real world event...and again gorgeously so.
There are two men because in a story sense that is more interesting. They are contrasting characters to some extent that have different motivations to be on and complete this mission. We learn about them through their actions and the journey they go on. The idea is not to give us a history lesson on WWI but rather to deliver intimate moments with these two men.
The way the film is shot is not a gimmick, it is shot that way to enhance the story and allow the audience to walk alongside them. They never intended to open the story up to give you some broader view of WWI, that's not this film. They just show us what these men go through and allow you to identify with it in whatever way you may.
I found it brilliant in that regard but I think it is the kind of film that will cause people to take different things out of it.
The guys I saw it with loved it and have said they want us all to go again so, I will be seeing it at a theater again.
Here's a little chat with the filmmakers...
'1917' is an amazing film! Well-acted and highly engrossing, the film pulled me in and wouldn't let go. Two hours flew by in no time. And cinematographer Roger Deakins's lens work is absolutely stellar. If Deakins doesn't win the Best Cinematography Oscar I'll be both disappointed and stunned.
The Booth Bijou gives '1917' 5 out of 5 stars. Got see it in a theater with a BIG screen and awesome sound system.
I'll still be rooting for 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' to win Best Picture but I won't be too disappointed if it goes to '1917'.
Wow - they hated it that much?
Disagree. The plot really does just offer a version of the "SPR" framework.
It's not a carbon copy, but it comes from the same playbook...
It's the old difference between "based on" and "inspired by".
"Based on" hews to a more literal connection to real events. It can still play fast and loose with the facts, but it's closer to something that happened.
"Inspired by" can mean anything, so connection to real events can be extremely minor. "Sam Mendes' great-grandpa fought in WWI" would be enough for the movie to be "inspired by"...
I went Dolby because my local IMAX didn't have it!
This post hasn't aged well!
Something I wondered about in terms of photography:
The color grading made the movie look "colorized" to me a lot of the time. Not that I expected natural colors, but I thought the movie looked like colorized B&W more than something shot in color.
I know they didn't shoot B&W and colorize it, but I wondered if they graded the movie in that way to make it look like other color WWI footage we've seen.
After all, we're barely a year out from "Grow Old", so audiences might think of color WWI in that colorized vein.
They probably didn't consciously make the movie look colorized, but it sure gave me that impression!
Nope but my absolute astonishment remains.
So what did you think?
That's actually not true. I mean, if you mean it is about soldiers in a war, then OK, but that's a pretty ridiculous take on it.
So someone isn't given a mission to save someone in this film like someone was sent to save someone in SPR?
Sort of. And that it’s set during a war. That’s about it regarding SPR similarities.
But I’m sure others will argue and disagree.
Ha, I mean that's incredibly simplistic and I would say no. In SPR a group of soldiers are given the task of going to find Ryan and bringing him back alive because his brothers have been killed. It is seen as a ridiculous task in the midst of the ongoing slaughter...particularly after the film opens with that beach landing. None of the soldiers are related to Ryan and all of them know this is not a good use of resources. They don't want this task.
In 1917 two soldiers are tasked with delivering a message to prevent an attack that will lead to the slaughter of two battalions, a mission that does make sense. One of the soldiers has a brother in one of the battalions, which is used against him as motivation to get him to go on the mission and also to show a contrast between him and the other soldier tasked to go with him. They are not given the mission to save his brother, only he cares about that, nor is the idea to save one man.
In a war men are given all sorts of crazy missions to complete, just because they are crazy does not mean they are the same.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
I thought it was an entertaining action movie but not a quote/unquote "great film".
It just lacked the character depth it needed to be more than a basic thrill ride.
It's pretty good in that regard, though I think the "one long shot" thing was more of a distraction than it's worth - I couldn't stop myself from looking for the cuts! I didn't want to hunt for them, but I couldn't help it!
Mission to perform a specific task that requires an arduous journey and involves the rescue of a specific person.
Yes, the mission itself doesn't exist to Save Lt. Baker, but that's the emotional hook for the character and for the audience. It's a specific party with a specific purpose that involves a specific person.
It's a lot more than just "soldiers in war"!
It didn't take anything away from the movie for me but I did the same thing.