1917 | Christmas 2019 limited, Jan 10 2020 wide | Universal | 19th Most Profitable Movie of 2019

[Plain Old Tele]

50 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Out with it, @Plain Old Tele! What didn't you like about Joker?

Not the thread for it. 🤣

[Ninenin]

On 1/13/2020 at 2:12 AM, wildphantom said:

Pretty much the definition of ‘see on the biggest screen you can find’. 
 

The entire production made my brain hurt, I was so bewildered (in the best way) on how on earth they pulled this off. It’s a minor miracle and looks effortless. Just stupendously planned and executed to the point where you’ve just got to hold your hands up and go wow. 

Id say this is the sort of movie you can wait and watch at home in the comfort of your living room. This was no Dunkirk. The one shot gimmick was good but Children of men did it better without having to do the whole movie like it

[wildphantom]

25 minutes ago, Ninenin said:

Id say this is the sort of movie you can wait and watch at home in the comfort of your living room. This was no Dunkirk. The one shot gimmick was good but Children of men did it better without having to do the whole movie like it

we can respectfully disagree

 

I’m not about comparing it to other movies. Yet it’s all about the experience and it just won’t be the same at home.  Just my opinion. 

[CoolioD1]

like i said in the review thread i think this was more comparable to the revenant than dunkirk. 

[Lordmandeep]

9 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

like i said in the review thread i think this was more comparable to the revenant than dunkirk. 

I hope so, Dunkirk was one hell of a bore and this is from a person who loves history. 

[filmlover]

15 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said:

This is hardly my favorite film of the BP nominees but I’d rather it win than that particular other movie that made a ton of money. 

Over half of this year's BP nominees made a ton of money so you're gonna have to be more specific there, Tele.  In all seriousness though, I mentioned this in the other thread but it's been a while since BP has felt this dominated by box office hits (even if two of them were IP-based, given the enduring popularity of the novel and previous adaptations of Little Women). There also ended up being a ton of other original hits this year (Us, Knives Out, Hustlers), proving that people will still show up to the movies when the quality is there. The articles declaring that movie theaters were dead after audiences rejected a bunch of tired franchises (or movies that were bad ideas from conception ala Cats) ended up being really premature. 

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

like i said in the review thread i think this was more comparable to the revenant than dunkirk. 

Hell, I think if you are looking for a comparable movie, I would say "Saving Private Ryan".

[dudalb]

It's really a good news bad news situation for Universal this weekend.

GOod News: 1917 is going to get a big bump from the Oscar Nominations.

Bad News; Looks as if Doolittle is going to bomb big time.

[lorddemaxus]

4 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

like i said in the review thread i think this was more comparable to the revenant than dunkirk. 

Eh, this movie wasn't self indulgent enough. 

[CoolioD1]

5 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Eh, this movie wasn't self indulgent enough. 

wow good one

[lorddemaxus]

11 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

wow good one

Lol, I take it you loved The Revenant?

[CoolioD1]

7 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Lol, I take it you loved The Revenant?

not really. was just a tired dig. i'm annoyed when i get a notification and it's something inane like that.

[dudalb]

BTW Benedict Cumbernatch...aka Dr Strange...has a small but really good role in the film.

[The Panda]

3 hours ago, dudalb said:

It's really a good news bad news situation for Universal this weekend.

GOod News: 1917 is going to get a big bump from the Oscar Nominations.

Bad News; Looks as if Doolittle is going to bomb big time.

Where’s the bad news?

[Eric Atreides]

8 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Where’s the bad news?

I was very disappointed Universal didn't offer you a role.  

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, The Panda said:

Where’s the bad news?

Depends on if you are a Universal stockholder....

[JB33]

On 1/14/2020 at 6:14 AM, Ninenin said:

Id say this is the sort of movie you can wait and watch at home in the comfort of your living room. This was no Dunkirk. The one shot gimmick was good but Children of men did it better without having to do the whole movie like it

Interesting. I'd say it would be the other way around for me. I love, LOVE Christopher Nolan but Dunkirk didn't do much for me. It wasn't poor by any means, but if I had to choose one to see in cinemas it would definitely be 1917.

[Ninenin]

4 hours ago, JB33 said:

Interesting. I'd say it would be the other way around for me. I love, LOVE Christopher Nolan but Dunkirk didn't do much for me. It wasn't poor by any means, but if I had to choose one to see in cinemas it would definitely be 1917.

Im a sucker for WW2 planes and those dog fighting scenes for me on an Imax screen and surround sound made the film for me even if the rest was underwhelming. I guess the more i think of 1917 the more like it, it packed a more emotional punch than Dunkirk

[RealLyre]

just saw this, the cinematography & sound design were amazing but the story and acting were by the numbers, the one shot illusion was super immersive and I caught 3 or 4 cuts. maybe it looked better in here cus its an action film (and Deakins is a god) but I felt the one take served the story more w/ Birdman. 

 

 

I still really enjoyed this but the fact that Bong Joon-Ho is gonna lose best director to Mendes because of a cinematography gimmick is uninspiring. 

 

 

Spoiler

knew it was just gonna be a cameo but wish we got more of Richard Madden

 

[tonytr87]

I'm always confused when folks say a movie is showing off and they don't like it. If you can do something that's difficult to do, do it. Should a filmmaker try less? GTFO.