Dementeleus Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 9 hours ago, Avatree said: Didn't like this film? It’s fine. Even good. But hardly representative of the best directing or best film of the year, aside from being impressive technically. (Which isn’t nothing, but given some of the other really interesting and exciting films out there, it’d be a letdown if something like this won it all). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Both @DAJK and I have been saying for a little while now this could do $40M on its wide opening. On top of the GG's, it actually went UP 7.2% this past weekend. Lone Survivor almost hit $40M and it went down 6.6% on the same weekend in LESS theatres. No, it may not hit $40M but from my view the storm seems perfect for it. This will be a big player this month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 22 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said: It’s fine. Even good. But hardly representative of the best directing or best film of the year, aside from being impressive technically. (Which isn’t nothing, but given some of the other really interesting and exciting films out there, it’d be a letdown if something like this won it all). Seeing it this weekend, (with some fellow Military History buffs). I suspect it will be a good film, but will not give "All Quiet On the Western Front" or "Paths of Glory" any real competion as the "best film made on World War One". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyK Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 23 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said: It’s fine. Even good. But hardly representative of the best directing or best film of the year, aside from being impressive technically. (Which isn’t nothing, but given some of the other really interesting and exciting films out there, it’d be a letdown if something like this won it all). I'm not sure its impressive technically if the trailer is anything to go by. Battlefield shell explosions which leave no visible craters is very low tech cinema. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 46 minutes ago, AndyK said: I'm not sure its impressive technically if the trailer is anything to go by. Battlefield shell explosions which leave no visible craters is very low tech cinema. Practical stuntmen deaths ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 47 minutes ago, AndyK said: I'm not sure its impressive technically if the trailer is anything to go by. Battlefield shell explosions which leave no visible craters is very low tech cinema. ...what? It’s very impressive technically. It’s kinda goofy watching the trailers and TV spots, since of course they’re edited a great deal. But the whole thing does (essentially) play out “in one shot” and that’s no small feat at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 9 BAFTA nominations for 1917, 3rd behind Joker's 11 and 10 each for The Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Best Film Best Director Best Cinematography Outstanding British Film Best Original Score Best Sound Best Production Design Best Special Visual Effects Best Makeup and Hair Oh, and finally got my ticket for Saturday afternoon. Can't wait! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 89% on RT after 218 reviews. 95% audience score through 665 verified ratings. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1917_2019/ Everything is going right for this film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Feng Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Saw this film in HK. It will show the world what cinema should look like: Spoiler porn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktor Vilotijevic Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Now I'm seeing some are predicting 35-40 million $ wide opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 ticket sales are really, really, really strong here in the UK - although you would expect it to do better in the UK than North America. but still, things very promising. Wouldnt be surprised with $40M+ in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 On 1/7/2020 at 1:51 PM, Plain Old Tele said: ...what? It’s very impressive technically. It’s kinda goofy watching the trailers and TV spots, since of course they’re edited a great deal. But the whole thing does (essentially) play out “in one shot” and that’s no small feat at all. Sounds as ii makes the famous long singshot opening of Orson Welles "Touch of Evil" look likes a quick cut shot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorddemaxus Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Watched the movie about an hour ago and its just decent. I did end up liking the film but its gimmick was almost certainly a detriment for the most part. It's technically impressive, the night sequence was beautiful to look at, and the main actor was really good but the one-shot gimmick doesn't add much to the movie. In fact, it just messes up the geography of a some of the set pieces and I just found it confusing to watch (espescially in sequences with wide, open spaces). Where it does work very well though is the last 5-10 minutes (and pretty much any scene that involved tight spaces) which was also a lot more emotionally satisifying than I expected. But I have no clue why this movie couldn't just have a lot of long shots instead of doing this gimmick. It would have worked much better than way. Also, I think there was one spot where the editing was really dodgy (read inside the spoiler box) and kind of ruins the gimmick. 6/10 0 Advanced issue found ▲ Spoiler Two more things: There was very clearly a hard cut in the middle of the film. I don't know how Mendes thinks Richard Madden looks like an older version of British Josh Gad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 3 hours ago, lorddemaxus said: Watched the movie about an hour ago and its just decent. I did end up liking the film but its gimmick was almost certainly a detriment for the most part. It's technically impressive, the night sequence was beautiful to look at, and the main actor was really good but the one-shot gimmick doesn't add much to the movie. In fact, it just messes up the geography of a some of the set pieces and I just found it confusing to watch (espescially in sequences with wide, open spaces). Where it does work very well though is the last 5-10 minutes (and pretty much any scene that involved tight spaces) which was also a lot more emotionally satisifying than I expected. But I have no clue why this movie couldn't just have a lot of long shots instead of doing this gimmick. It would have worked much better than way. Also, I think there was one spot where the editing was really dodgy (read inside the spoiler box) and kind of ruins the gimmick. 6/10 Spoiler 0 Advanced issue found ▲ Reveal hidden contents Two more things: There was very clearly a hard cut in the middle of the film. I don't know how Mendes thinks Richard Madden looks like an older version of British Josh Gad. It’s not really dodgy editing, it’s just that they clearly abandon the central concept for one moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 4 hours ago, dudalb said: Sounds as ii makes the famous long singshot opening of Orson Welles "Touch of Evil" look likes a quick cut shot.... Well sure, but Welles also didn’t have an Avid and a small army of VFX technicians to make it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 watch long day's journey into night instead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Plain Old Tele said: Well sure, but Welles also didn’t have an Avid and a small army of VFX technicians to make it work. Neither did Hitchcock when making "Rope". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorddemaxus Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said: It’s not really dodgy editing, it’s just that Reveal hidden contents they clearly abandon the central concept for one moment. Yeah, I just didn't know how to describe it without spoiling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdinSon2k14 Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) Just saw it...the AMC didnt have scheduled IMAX viewing ready. How about the standard showing...no big deal, right 🙂? A cellphone would have came in handy in that day, huh 🙂? If you're expecting a lot of action...this might not be what you're getting...its more of a..."stealth" thing? Theres more sneaking around than actual combat. The director and/or the producers LOVED the lengthy moving camera shot in the foxhole corridor. If I see one more crowded corridor...another trip down a crowded, cramped foxhole corridor 😂...wow, they were in love with that camera track shot. Theres a little inspiration from The Revenant here, traversing and surviving the rough terrain? I would give it a B+...dont go into it expecting loads of gung ho combat. Its more about stealth, and avoiding combat. Nice cameo at the end... Edited January 10, 2020 by OdinSon2k14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 I don’t think the gimmick was a detriment to the story being told, I actually think it’s what makes the movie work. Granted, I think the film (plot included) was built around the gimmick so had Mendes chosen a different route I think we get an entirely different movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...