|
Post by hi224 on Jan 11, 2020 3:24:53 GMT
wow I needed a cigarette after that fucking film great stuff as well.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 11, 2020 15:13:35 GMT
wow I needed a cigarette after that fucking film great stuff as well. Just slap that endorsement on the poster and they’d be set.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 18, 2020 20:43:15 GMT
It's oustanding. And Deakins deserves the Oscar nod for the night time/dusk scenes alone.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2020 20:49:25 GMT
It's oustanding. And Deakins deserves the Oscar nod for the night time/dusk scenes alone. why
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2020 20:50:33 GMT
wow I needed a cigarette after that fucking film great stuff as well. didn’t the seeming one take-ness distract you? I enjoyed the movie and I marvel at the craft BUT the form was too overpowering for me in the end. Too form over content.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 18, 2020 20:53:03 GMT
It's oustanding. And Deakins deserves the Oscar nod for the night time/dusk scenes alone. why I can't think of anything that looked as impressive or beautiful all year. Though not seen the Lighthouse yet, which from what I heard has the award locked down
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2020 21:02:55 GMT
I can't think of anything that looked as impressive or beautiful all year. Though not seen the Lighthouse yet, which from what I heard has the award locked down yeah but why do you pick those scenes to mention what was so special or rather cinematographically challenging about them? (Lighthouse is great i highly recommend it)
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 18, 2020 21:11:47 GMT
I can't think of anything that looked as impressive or beautiful all year. Though not seen the Lighthouse yet, which from what I heard has the award locked down yeah but why do you pick those scenes to mention what was so special or rather cinematographically challenging about them? (Lighthouse is great i highly recommend it) I'm no cinematographer, but those scenes with the flares throwing shadows across the derelict town I'm sure weren't easy and looked great, and overall managing to film over lengthy takes must have been challenging
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2020 21:22:33 GMT
yeah but why do you pick those scenes to mention what was so special or rather cinematographically challenging about them? (Lighthouse is great i highly recommend it) I'm no cinematographer, but those scenes with the flares throwing shadows across the derelict town I'm sure weren't easy and looked great, and overall managing to film over lengthy takes must have been challenging oh yeah managing the film with the lengthy takes must have been a Bitch. The amount of rehearsals alone and then the pressure on the actors and everybody else to not mess up because then you have to reset and start over on many cases from the beginning. Must have been hellish. I didn’t love the use of light or rather the limitation on the use of light though, but I get why it had to be done that way. And I too think he will Winn because they did something incredibly unique. But as a viewer I was distracted by it.
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Jan 19, 2020 13:07:34 GMT
wow I needed a cigarette after that fucking film great stuff as well. This is my honest opinion -- to observe, dissect and criticize -- and I don't trust the critics anymore, because they went overboard just for the realistic depiction of war violence, calling the movie "the greatest war movie ever made!" In truth, older war movies are much better in terms of writing and acting (Paths of Glory and The Longest Day) -- despite the fact that they're tame for not being profane and gory.The German soldiers, in the contrary, don't seem to have mothers or anyone who cares about them, they are ugly, lean-mean-killing machines, shouting incomprehensible things and should be killed wherever possible. They are also not just as scared as any other simple soldier on a battle field, they don't have any feelings at all The audience is given very little credit. The dialogue sounds like it is cut out of newspaper articles which editorialize the mission. It's as though Mendez thought his audience was so stupid that the moral dilemma of the film had to be spelled out for them in detail.I am not as enraptured by this film as so many others seem to be. I sensed a disturbing hollowness at its center, and I left the theater feeling as if my emotions had been manipulated. I found it ugly and shabby. Beautifully photographed, though.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 19, 2020 19:11:25 GMT
wow I needed a cigarette after that fucking film great stuff as well. This is my honest opinion -- to observe, dissect and criticize -- and I don't trust the critics anymore, because they went overboard just for the realistic depiction of war violence, calling the movie "the greatest war movie ever made!" In truth, older war movies are much better in terms of writing and acting (Paths of Glory and The Longest Day) -- despite the fact that they're tame for not being profane and gory.The German soldiers, in the contrary, don't seem to have mothers or anyone who cares about them, they are ugly, lean-mean-killing machines, shouting incomprehensible things and should be killed wherever possible. They are also not just as scared as any other simple soldier on a battle field, they don't have any feelings at all The audience is given very little credit. The dialogue sounds like it is cut out of newspaper articles which editorialize the mission. It's as though Mendez thought his audience was so stupid that the moral dilemma of the film had to be spelled out for them in detail.I am not as enraptured by this film as so many others seem to be. I sensed a disturbing hollowness at its center, and I left the theater feeling as if my emotions had been manipulated. I found it ugly and shabby. Beautifully photographed, though. what the fuck?.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 20, 2020 23:05:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Jan 20, 2020 23:25:18 GMT
It left me gobsmacked and I declared it not only the best movie of the year, but the best of the decade and among the greatest movies ever made, but then I caught a screening of Parasite and am now rethinking everything.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 27, 2020 18:49:54 GMT
Mendes has been awarded the DGA, so it pretty much seems like he is a lock for best director at the Oscars. These usually go hand in hand. Director then can mean very high odds of winning picture too. yep.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 28, 2020 6:57:22 GMT
To me, it felt like watching a 2 hour playthrough of a video game. The one shot gimmick, walking along, talking to basically NPCs until the action happens - I don't think cinema has ever captured the feel of a video game quite like this.
Which I doubt was the effect Mendes wanted for his "gritty war drama". But rather than immerse me into the story, it did the opposite. Sure, it's impressive, but it adds nothing and is basically just Sam Mendes flexing. He did not deserve the DGA, and shouldn't win the Oscar, although I'm sure he will.
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Jan 28, 2020 8:57:52 GMT
To me, it felt like watching a 2 hour playthrough of a video game. The one shot gimmick, walking along, talking to basically NPCs until the action happens - I don't think cinema has ever captured the feel of a video game quite like this. Which I doubt was the effect Mendes wanted for his "gritty war drama". But rather than immerse me into the story, it did the opposite. Sure, it's impressive, but it adds nothing and is basically just Sam Mendes flexing. He did not deserve the DGA, and shouldn't win the Oscar, although I'm sure he will. How can people say "I like this movie"... Jesus Christ almighty do this generation lost any good taste and forgot what good acting, good directing, good screenplay, good photography is? 😣😣🧶
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 30, 2020 18:07:03 GMT
To me, it felt like watching a 2 hour playthrough of a video game. The one shot gimmick, walking along, talking to basically NPCs until the action happens - I don't think cinema has ever captured the feel of a video game quite like this. Which I doubt was the effect Mendes wanted for his "gritty war drama". But rather than immerse me into the story, it did the opposite. Sure, it's impressive, but it adds nothing and is basically just Sam Mendes flexing. He did not deserve the DGA, and shouldn't win the Oscar, although I'm sure he will. The video game analogy did occur to me, but perhaps he also felt that his might make his film more appealing to the millennial crowd. I myself didn't really have an issue with it and like the film overall. I am finding it either connects with one or it doesn't. Gosh I really wish more movies on here were dissected like the jojo rabbitt and this threads as well.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 1, 2020 2:15:33 GMT
I just saw it twenty minutes ago. Such an experience. I’m glad Igor the chance to see it in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2020 11:20:38 GMT
Movies filmed in just 1 continuous shot or edited look like that usually show impressive camera work, but I don't always praise their cinematography. The more movement there is, the harder it is to achieve the right lighting and color palette. Since you can't push the zoom button with this technique, if you want a close-up, you have to place the camera very close to the actors' faces to the point where the frame tends to look weird. 1917 made me realize that it all depends on the camera lens and the right coordination. Sam Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins and their crew have created images that always look good and consistent with each other. It’s hard to say what can make this technique essential or a gimmick. I can tell you that it felt necessary here, because it’s told it real time (from the protagonist’s perspective). The only downside is that, a lot of times, the camera focus on one character at a time. We can’t see the other one’s reactions and replies. People were expecting this to be nominated for many Oscars, but were surprised when one of its nominations was for Best Original Screenplay. The only nomination in that category the movie had gotten before was at the WGA, and it seemed like it happened because other movies were deemed ineligible. That made me assume this would be a movie that only excels in technical aspects. Now, I agree with that nomination. I wouldn’t have been immersed without a good story or characters. Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns present us with 2 soldiers (Schofield and Blake) that we root for and want to follow along, as well as a series of vignettes full of suspenseful and touching moments. There were a couple of moments I was able to predict, but they were the minority. There are even some details that look meaningless but cleverly pay off later in the plot. A good script is one where you unexpectedly don’t have the heroes achieve their goal. A better script is one where the heroes only partly achieve their goal. Here, Schofield and Blake have to bring a message to another regiment (that Blake’s brother is a part of) warning them about a trap. Schofield does deliver the letter (how is in perfect state if he fell into a river?!), but after a lot of soldiers had already been sent to attack. Also, Blake was stabbed to death by the German soldier he was trying to save (cartoonish characterization of a villain much?). His brother is alive, but because he survived said trap, not because Schofield stopped him. All of this makes the drama much more satisfying. 9/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.It left me gobsmacked and I declared it not only the best movie of the year, but the best of the decade and among the greatest movies ever made, but then I caught a screening of Parasite and am now rethinking everything. Why can't they both be among the greatest movies ever made?
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Feb 1, 2020 11:28:50 GMT
Movies filmed in just 1 continuous shot or edited look like that usually show impressive camera work, but I don't always praise their cinematography. The more movement there is, the harder it is to achieve the right lighting and color palette. Since you can't push the zoom button with this technique, if you want a close-up, you have to place the camera very close to the actors' faces to the point where the frame tends to look weird. 1917 made me realize that it all depends on the camera lens and the right coordination. Sam Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins and their crew have created images that always look good and consistent with each other. It’s hard to say what can make this technique essential or a gimmick. I can tell you that it felt necessary here, because it’s told it real time (from the protagonist’s perspective). The only downside is that, a lot of times, the camera focus on one character at a time. We can’t see the other one’s reactions and replies. People were expecting this to be nominated for many Oscars, but were surprised when one of its nominations was for Best Original Screenplay. The only nomination in that category the movie had gotten before was at the WGA, and it seemed like it happened because other movies were deemed ineligible. That made me assume this would be a movie that only excels in technical aspects. Now, I agree with that nomination. I wouldn’t have been immersed without a good story or characters. Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns present us with 2 soldiers (Schofield and Blake) that we root for and want to follow along, as well as a series of vignettes full of suspenseful and touching moments. There were a couple of moments I was able to predict, but they were the minority. There are even some details that look meaningless but cleverly pay off later in the plot. A good script is one where you unexpectedly don’t have the heroes achieve their goal. A better script is one where the heroes only partly achieve their goal. Here, Schofield and Blake have to bring a message to another regiment (that Blake’s brother is a part of) warning them about a trap. Schofield does deliver the letter (how is in perfect state if he fell into a river?!), but after a lot of soldiers had already been sent to attack. Also, Blake was stabbed to death by the German soldier he was trying to save (cartoonish characterization of a villain much?). His brother is alive, but because he survived said trap, not because Schofield stopped him. All of this makes the drama much more satisfying. 9/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.It left me gobsmacked and I declared it not only the best movie of the year, but the best of the decade and among the greatest movies ever made, but then I caught a screening of Parasite and am now rethinking everything. Why can't they both be among the greatest movies ever made? I more meant I was rethinking whether I prefer Parasite to 1917 in terms of best of 2019.
|
|