|
Post by hi224 on Feb 2, 2020 1:04:55 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.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. i am in your boat as well.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Feb 2, 2020 1:29:27 GMT
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. Where are they both falling now with regard to 2019, the 2010s and all time? I've only seen Parasite and it's Top 3 of 2019 so far, but I still have a lot to see. It's not in contention for decade or all time.
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Feb 2, 2020 12:32:24 GMT
I more meant I was rethinking whether I prefer Parasite to 1917 in terms of best of 2019. Where are they both falling now with regard to 2019, the 2010s and all time? I've only seen Parasite and it's Top 3 of 2019 so far, but I still have a lot to see. It's not in contention for decade or all time. 1917 and Parasite are for sure my top 2 movies of 2019 by quite a margin, followed by Knives Out and Us. Those are the four movies released last year that I'll probably revisit over and over. I liked movies like Marriage Story, Irishman, Lighthouse, etc, but those aren't movies I'm likely to ever want to watch again. I haven't made a list of top 10 of the decade, but if I did I think the top 5 would be Inside Llewyn Davis, Under The Skin, 1917, The Master and Parasite. If I made a top 10 of the century (thus far) I think the top 5 would be Inside Llewyn Davis, Pans Labyrinth, Under The Skin, 1917 and The Master. I'm not sure Parasite would quite crack that list.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Feb 2, 2020 12:55:52 GMT
Where are they both falling now with regard to 2019, the 2010s and all time? I've only seen Parasite and it's Top 3 of 2019 so far, but I still have a lot to see. It's not in contention for decade or all time. 1917 and Parasite are for sure my top 2 movies of 2019 by quite a margin, followed by Knives Out and Us. Those are the four movies released last year that I'll probably revisit over and over. I liked movies like Marriage Story, Irishman, Lighthouse, etc, but those aren't movies I'm likely to ever want to watch again. I haven't made a list of top 10 of the decade, but if I did I think the top 5 would be Inside Llewyn Davis, Under The Skin, 1917, The Master and Parasite. If I made a top 10 of the century (thus far) I think the top 5 would be Inside Llewyn Davis, Pans Labyrinth, Under The Skin, 1917 and The Master. I'm not sure Parasite would quite crack that list. Nice. Inside Llewyn Davis and Under the Skin are among my favorites of the decade, Top 20, maybe Top 10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 19:53:17 GMT
Going with the flow much..... like a school of fish. Everybody likes it so I must do 2 .I hated it. I didnt even know in what year it tokk place.... 😉😅😩
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 4, 2020 10:54:26 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. I feel that 1917 proves earnest, especially given the source material that Mendes reveals at the end. But aside from the questionable stylistic decision, the film is quite traditional, for better or worse. Indeed, it is reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (which I find "good" yet overrated, or cinematically regressive as much as progressive) in more ways than one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 12:31:43 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. I agree whole heartedly. I was not once invested in any of the fates of the 2 lead actors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 12:34:06 GMT
I felt like I was watching a Disneyfied version of a war film. A little bit of blood here and there. Gimme a break!
|
|