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

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

Am I the only one somewhat irritated by the accusations at this film that there wasn't enough "character"?

 

Sometimes I find myself asking whether certain critics (online and print) think that every movie needs a sit down scene in which someone tells a traumatic tale from their past where secrets get revealed, otherwise the movie doesn't have enough 'character'. While I think there are perfectly good criticisms to be had of the film (Mendes' first stab at dialogue is hardly flawless for instance, and I get why the commitment to a single motif is going to mean is simply doesn't resonate with some), the 'lack of character' argument seems bizarre. Character is clearly revealed, through action and to a lesser extent dialogue, throughout the whole film.  It's a high stakes action environment in what is essentially a workplace, how much of people's personal lives would anyone realistically talk about? Notoriously The Thing got similar criticisms on release.  

 

It strikes me as a remarkably lazy piece of criticism, at least without being supported by clear examples.

[JB33]

On 1/20/2020 at 6:16 AM, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

Am I the only one somewhat irritated by the accusations at this film that there wasn't enough "character"?

 

Sometimes I find myself asking whether certain critics (online and print) think that every movie needs a sit down scene in which someone tells a traumatic tale from their past where secrets get revealed, otherwise the movie doesn't have enough 'character'. While I think there are perfectly good criticisms to be had of the film (Mendes' first stab at dialogue is hardly flawless for instance, and I get why the commitment to a single motif is going to mean is simply doesn't resonate with some), the 'lack of character' argument seems bizarre. Character is clearly revealed, through action and to a lesser extent dialogue, throughout the whole film.  It's a high stakes action environment in what is essentially a workplace, how much of people's personal lives would anyone realistically talk about? Notoriously The Thing got similar criticisms on release.  

 

It strikes me as a remarkably lazy piece of criticism, at least without being supported by clear examples.

It tells me that these critics really do have a manual, or a checklist. If these items (character moments) aren't blatantly obvious, then they're missing. You're absolutely right that the action is telling not only the story but also about the characters.

[dudalb]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 11:02 AM, Lordmandeep said:

Was a really good film...

 

The filming style was interesting and cool but i think as a result sort of robbed us seeing the epic action of the war on a grand scale as well at times. 

I think Mendes wanted to keep the focus narrow on the Two soldiers;he did not want to give us a grand view and certainly not a epic view. Epic is not the right word to use about the stupid, useless slaughter that was the Western Front in World War One. He was not doing a WW1 version of The Longest Day here. The narrow, limited focus was a deliberate choice..and I fell a  very good one. He did not want to do a "epic".

Edited January 22, 2020 by dudalb

[dudalb]

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 3:43 PM, filmlover said:

This would make for a decent Best Picture winner in my books (certainly a big step up from the movie they crowned last year) but I'm laughing at the thought of a whole bunch of directors looking at Best Picture wins for Birdman and this within the last five years and beginning to plot their own "one shot" attempts at Oscar glory.

SInce when has not a successful film produced lots of failed imitations? 

 

[CoolioD1]

the ultimate betrayal @MrPink

 

 

[MrPink]

43 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

the ultimate betrayal @MrPink

 

 

 

All I can do is politely disagree and move on.

 

Not that 1917 is bad, mind you.

 

Spoiler

Let's make sure he's cut out of Tenet

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by MrPink

[MrGamer]

58 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

the ultimate betrayal @MrPink

 

 

Top 10 Anime Betrayals 

[CoolioD1]

20 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Let's make sure he's cut out of Tenet

 

I'm sure he's not worried about that. he's angling for a gig in the Sam Mendes time travel spy movie that's coming out in 2023.

[AndyK]

Spoiler

We win

 

[The Futurist]

Mendes has been ripping off Nolan for years now.

Time to pay the bill Sam.

There is only one british filmmaker superhero and his first name is Christ(opher).

[Ninenin]

29 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Mendes has been ripping off Nolan for years now.

Time to pay the bill Sam.

There is only one british filmmaker superhero and his first name is Christ(opher).

So true, especially with Skyfall

 

The 5 minutes dogfight in Dunkirk was better shot and more impressive than anything in 1917 though as an overall film i can see why some would prefer 1917. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ninenin

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:26 PM, movies!movies! said:

 

I wonder how this would have been sold with somebody well known in a major role. How much of the one-shot hype was about the virtuoso on display vs. the leads not being very famous, and Universal saying, "Look, it's a World War I movie, we have to sell it somehow"? Not to take away from the impressive technical achievements on display in 1917, though it kind of put such an emphasis on the "gimmick" that it was the primary way some people assessed the movie, both for good and to its detriment. But if they'd had Spidey (or a similar star) to plaster on the posters/trailers, maybe the focus going into the movie might have been a little different?

Edited January 28, 2020 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[filmlover]

Yeah, if Holland had been in this that would've changed the whole marketing dynamic surrounding the movie and his name/face would've been front and center. I assume he was considered for the George MacKay role.

[Ninenin]

On 1/19/2020 at 11:43 PM, filmlover said:

This would make for a decent Best Picture winner in my books (certainly a big step up from the movie they crowned last year) but I'm laughing at the thought of a whole bunch of directors looking at Best Picture wins for Birdman and this within the last five years and beginning to plot their own "one shot" attempts at Oscar glory.

Green book was certainly a step up from The Shape of Water which was instantly forgotten upon release

[MrPink]

Of any complaints I had in 1917, George MacKay isn't one of them, so I'm glad it wasn't Holland

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

14 hours ago, filmlover said:

Yeah, if Holland had been in this that would've changed the whole marketing dynamic surrounding the movie and his name/face would've been front and center. I assume he was considered for the George MacKay role.

I was thinking Blake, but who knows how different the script might have been back when Tom Holland was in negotiations.

 

I did like George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's performances a lot, and many critics praised the effect of the "stars" having cameos essentially while the leads are unknowns, to mimic the effect of how lowly these two guys would have been in comparison to the leadership. And that probably doesn't happen if it's "Peter Parker in the trenches!" 

[Valonqar]

Unknown or semi-known leads put more suspense in characters' survival. It's largely expected for stars to survive and it's a rare twist that they don't (eg. Drew Barrymore was used to that effect in Scream). 

[filmlover]

I can't picture Tom Holland (at least the Tom Holland of 2017 and beyond) as either of the leads. MacKay and Chapman made for perfect audience surrogates.

Edited January 28, 2020 by filmlover

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I was thinking Blake, but who knows how different the script might have been back when Tom Holland was in negotiations.

 

I did like George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's performances a lot, and many critics praised the effect of the "stars" having cameos essentially while the leads are unknowns, to mimic the effect of how lowly these two guys would have been in comparison to the leadership. And that probably doesn't happen if it's "Peter Parker in the trenches!" 

And when he finally gets to the Major it's Dr.Strange.

I really think having relatively unknown actors as the leads in this film was a good idea . Not that Holalnd could not have played the role well, but he brings some baggage with him.

[dudalb]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 8:12 AM, Ninenin said:

So true, especially with Skyfall

 

The 5 minutes dogfight in Dunkirk was better shot and more impressive than anything in 1917 though as an overall film i can see why some would prefer 1917. 

I won'r get into a debate about which is better, but the dogfights in Dunkirk are the most accurate portryals of fighter combat in World War 2 I have seen.