Jump to content

Grade it  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Grade it

    • A
      10
    • B
      6
    • C
      0
    • D
      0
    • F
      0


Recommended Posts

Discuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a great technical showpiece.  Worth seeing on the biggest screen you can.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the one-shot conceit definitely worked for me, with he horrors of war never really letting up. It also hit a surprising number of emotional beats for me as well. The ending is so simple and beautiful. Great stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solid all around. A lot better than I was expecting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Mendes takes some big creative risks with his World War I drama 1917, and these risks pay off handsomely in an intense war film that succeeds in creating an exceptionally immersive experience for viewers. Unfolding as one unbroken shot in which the camera follows its leads through mundane and treacherous scenarios alike, 1917 keeps the tension running high throughout its running time and uses its visual gimmick to excellent effect. Though it is easy to occasionally slip into working to spot the hidden edits, the style enhances the urgency of the narrative and the intimacy the audience shares with the protagonists; as such, the sudden jolts in action carry greater weight and a more pronounced sense of dread because we – like Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield – have just a limited view of the action and peril that lie ahead. From a technical perspective, the film is a tremendous accomplishment: Roger Deakins’s cinematography is gorgeous as usual and moves carefully and precisely enough to sell the illusion of continuous movement much more often than not; the sound design is crisp and puts the directional capabilities of an Atmos sound mix to great use; and Mendes directs each element of each scene confidently and with a clear sense of each detail’s purpose, whether practical or profound. If there’s a knock to be made on the film, it’s that the story is a bit too simple to sustain the full two-hour running time, but Dean-Charles Chapman and George McKay carry the film with equal parts strength and grace. Chapman and McKay are both terrific in everyman parts, and they are each solid in smaller, affecting scenes that remind viewers of the humanity at the center of the conflict. As a survival tale set against the backdrop of a World War, 1917 does admittedly stand in Dunkirk’s shadow to some degree, but there’s so much mightily impressive dramatic material and technical mastery on display that it’s hard not to get swept up in the world and scenarios Mendes creates onscreen.

 

A-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite loved this. Sam Mendes has made a movie of incredible craftsmanship for sure, as I thought the "one take" method added an additional sense of verisimilitude without coming across as too much a gimmick. As expected from Roger Deakins, there are many, many shots here that are just breathtaking to behold (especially on an IMAX screen). Furthermore, both lead actors (George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) are terrific, meeting the demands that their roles ask of them as we literally follow right alongside them the whole movie. Wouldn't say it's sure to become a classic among war movies, but this is an exhilarating technical achievement that's definitely a must-see, especially on the biggest screen you can find it playing on. A-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the aspect ratio was opened to 1.90:1 for IMAX. Given how great Skyfall looked with the expanded ratio and the same director/DP combination, I can't imagine how great this movie must have looked with more visual information.

 

I'll confess that at numerous points, I thought "Well, it's not Dunkirk" on the war-set survival movie front and "Well, it's not quite Birdman" on the one-shot appearance front (or the two major extended shots of Children of Men, for that matter). But the fact that I'm bringing up two movies that were in my top 25 of the past decade as points of contrast speaks to how much I admired this film. It feels like it fills a spot similar to that of Black Hawk Down: a really strong directorial achievement that proves exceptionally thrilling despite some admitted (minor) shortcomings in storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem of the film really is that it does what other films have done but worse. The race against the clock element of Dunkirk (I think this movie even features a ticking clock sound), the unecessary one-shot gimmick (I didn't find the use of it particularly great until the last 10 minutes), the scene with the woman (who of course had a child with her), the shallow and purposeless anti-war stuff all lack any sort of originality. It feels like Sam Mendes wrote an AI to make the perfect war movie. It all works well because of the execution but I think Mendes has no voice here. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

My biggest problem of the film really is that it does what other films have done but worse. The race against the clock element of Dunkirk (I think this movie even features a ticking clock sound), the unecessary one-shot gimmick (I didn't find the use of it particularly great until the last 10 minutes), the scene with the woman (who of course had a child with her), the shallow and purposeless anti-war stuff all lack any sort of originality. It feels like Sam Mendes wrote an AI to make the perfect war movie. It all works well because of the execution but I think Mendes has no voice here. 

I don't think this is as effective as Dunkirk overall but they're different movies with different goals imo. For instance, Mendes does a better job getting us invested in the characters here than Nolan did in his movie, but that's because we're only following two characters (literally) while everyone else in the movie is a cameo, as opposed to an ensemble we didn't really get the chance to become too attached to (except perhaps the Barry Keoghan character given his fate) because of Nolan's broader approach. MacKay's role in this is definitely more challenging than anyone's in that movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very good film, Mendes does capture not only this race against time but also how awful WWI was incredibly well.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing. So much that I plan to see it again...on IMAX. 

 

Loved the lead actors

Surprised at the early death

Very tense at times

Shoo-in for Oscar nominations, especially in the Sound department

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lilmac said:

Surprised at the early death

That didn't surprise me, I think the trailer and marketing were so focused on George MacKay that I had a suspicion that Blake would die at some point in the film.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 8:01 PM, filmlover said:

I don't think this is as effective as Dunkirk overall but they're different movies with different goals imo. For instance, Mendes does a better job getting us invested in the characters here than Nolan did in his movie, but that's because we're only following two characters (literally) while everyone else in the movie is a cameo, as opposed to an ensemble we didn't really get the chance to become too attached to (except perhaps the Barry Keoghan character given his fate) because of Nolan's broader approach. MacKay's role in this is definitely more challenging than anyone's in that movie. 

I don't know if I really was invested in the main character until the last few minutes (Him running across the field is definitely one of the most powerful moments in a film from 2019). I just think most of the time we spend with him is filler and him crossing some seemingly easy and effortless obstacles. Even more dramatic scenes like the one with the woman and the baby didn't really reveal much other than that he is kind I guess? And the use of the one shot camera makes the whole movie feel like we are watching from an objective lens rather than us seeing from the perspective of the character himself. I find it hard to care for a character if the movie doesn't do a very good job at making me empathise with them (Dunkirk was masterful at putting the audience in the perspective of the characters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after seeing it i don't think the dunkirk comparisons are especially valuable. feels like Mendes was inspired by the revenant more than any other recent flick. and yes it also felt super videogame-y. the most video game part was when the sniper started shooting at him on the bridge and the music suddenly switches to "action music" like when you run into bad guys in Uncharted or something.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jonwo said:

That didn't surprise me, I think the trailer and marketing were so focused on George MacKay that I had a suspicion that Blake would die at some point in the film.  

 

This is why I avoid trailers.  😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible movie. Possibly my favourite of 2019. And i’m glad I saw it in imax rather than home. 

 

I found it to be better than Dunkirk. And the one shot thing worked for me. 

 

Someone up said it felt like a video game at times and thats exactly what I told my friend at intermission (we have them here). I said this will make an excellent video game and reminded me a lot of FPS games at times (especially the tunnels in the trench scenes). 

 

Score and acting was good all around as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow! This movie was Intense, thrilling, and surprisingly emotional. Definitely one of my favorites of 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoyed it a lot. The nighttime shots especially were beautiful, and I loved the score. I respect the craft of it, but I think the movie would have been better if they dropped the one-shot thing. I feel Mendes could have still won his Oscar with a more "Revenant" style. My least favorite parts of the film were connecting scenes, and blurry camera pans which could have been better served by some cuts if they didn't have to keep up the charade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 10:33 AM, CoolioD1 said:

after seeing it i don't think the dunkirk comparisons are especially valuable. feels like Mendes was inspired by the revenant more than any other recent flick. and yes it also felt super videogame-y. the most video game part was when the sniper started shooting at him on the bridge and the music suddenly switches to "action music" like when you run into bad guys in Uncharted or something.

 

But what if I just want to call it poverty dunkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.