1917 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Curtis Lemay -> 1917 (1/10/2020 6:45:09 PM)

1917

Not just a great war film – a great film of any genre (already won the Golden Globe for best film).

Those of you familiar with my Kaiserschlacht 1918 scenario will be aware that the Germans abandoned a salient in their lines in the Somme region in 1917 – to shorten those lines. When they did so, they fell back to very well prepared new positions. The idea for this film is that some gung-ho front-line British commander has erroneously taken that withdrawal as a collapse in morale by the Germans and wants to pursue their broken forces – right into those new lines. Aerial recon has revealed the new lines, however, and the high command knows he is walking into a disaster. But the phone lines have been cut, so they must send couriers instead. The film follows the couriers.

What ensues is a superbly realized exploration of, not just of World War I trench warfare, but warfare in general. Plus the film has a unique mechanism to put the audience in the mud with the couriers: It’s all in ONE shot! The couriers are followed in real time, with the camera never leaving them. (There is one trick used to skip some time, however, but I won’t reveal it).

I would quibble a bit about the premise. It would seem that no commander could be that gung-ho. And couldn’t they just see the new works? But it is still a perfectly good vehicle for setting up the courier thing.

Since the original German lines have been abandoned, the couriers don’t spend too much time in them and are mostly going over territory beyond them. What is shown of the original no-man’s-land is muddy, but probably not muddy enough to satisfy the “it was all mud sea” crowd. Still, my understanding was that the Germans devastated that ground as they abandoned it. So, that may be another quibble.

I also found some of the British cockney accents a bit hard to follow some of the time. Brits may get more out of it than I.




Grognerd_INC -> RE: 1917 (1/10/2020 8:06:07 PM)

Nevermind...




Gray Fox -> RE: 1917 (1/10/2020 8:36:28 PM)

Box Office
Budget:$100,000,000 (estimated)
Gross USA: $2,721,279
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $2,721,279

Oh well.




PipFromSlitherine -> RE: 1917 (1/10/2020 9:26:41 PM)

That was a from a (very) limited release so that it was eligible for this award season. It got a 'real' release today, the 10th of Jan 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_(2019_film)#Release

Cheers

Pip




RangerJoe -> RE: 1917 (1/10/2020 9:59:31 PM)

quote:

currier
a person who tans hides
Not to be confused with:
courier – messenger


https://www.thefreedictionary.com/currier




Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1917 (1/11/2020 12:00:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

currier
a person who tans hides
Not to be confused with:
courier – messenger


https://www.thefreedictionary.com/currier

Which makes it hard for Word's spell checker to catch it.




balto -> RE: 1917 (1/11/2020 5:28:33 AM)

Nice, going to see this next weekend. I see its rated R and the previews has "tons of combat" so looking forward to this. Crossing fingers this is not another Dunkirk, fake war movie crapper.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: 1917 (1/11/2020 12:28:01 PM)

Sorry there is actually very little combat. More of a story with the Movie being slow at times. This is NO Saving Private Ryan 1917. I would give the Movie 7.5 out of 10. Good movie but not great. Sorry that's how I see it. Saw it last night.




berto -> RE: 1917 (1/11/2020 1:31:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Crossing fingers this is not another Dunkirk, fake war movie crapper.

Sorry, have to agree. Dunkirk was underwhelming.




Chickenboy -> RE: 1917 (1/11/2020 8:51:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Crossing fingers this is not another Dunkirk, fake war movie crapper.

Sorry, have to agree. Dunkirk was underwhelming.


Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion about a movie that you saw, berto. No need to apologize. I felt the same way.

I have heard nothing but good to great reviews of 1917. I'll be seeing it in the theaters myself. [8D]




Simulacra53 -> RE: 1917 (1/12/2020 8:55:14 AM)

It isn’t that Dunkirk is bad, it is just not that great a movie that the industry, including the ubiquitous critics, was hyping it to be.

I was also underwhelmed to say the least, story and character development were imo only so so.
The Tom Hardy / RAF storyline brought some needed dynamics, however while doing so lost any suspension of disbelieve.

The Battle of Brexit movie.




Simulacra53 -> RE: 1917 (1/12/2020 9:03:13 AM)

...looking forward to 1917, but not expecting a classic regardless of what the industry - including its ubiquitous critics - is hyping it to be (tm). The modern movie industry seems to be less and less capable of creating time enduring stories as we drown ourselves in PC correctness and secondary agendas, unless by accident.

OTOH, there are few movies that stand the test of time, artistically or otherwise.
People and taste change.

1917
Even the title is pretentious.




RFalvo69 -> RE: 1917 (1/12/2020 3:46:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Nice, going to see this next weekend. I see its rated R and the previews has "tons of combat" so looking forward to this. Crossing fingers this is not another Dunkirk, fake war movie crapper.


Dunkirk is a thriller set in WWII, which shows how the perception of "stressful time" under combat varies according to the nature of the combat.

Regarding Saving Private Ryan, I have this idea of mine: that those who hail it as "a great WWII masterpiece!" are actually hailing the first 20 minutes. SPR is no Paths of Glory, U-Boot 96, Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now - just to name a few.




balto -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 1:20:45 AM)

4 out of 10. Another movie like Dunkirk -- made to look and sound like war movie. Not a war movie. Hint, 1 guy stabbed, 2 ungraphically shot. How is that a war movie.




goodwoodrw -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 2:00:43 AM)

I saw Dunkirk at an Imax theatre excellent I thought. Schindler's List was a war movie as well also excellent, not all war movies need to be like the first 20 minutes of SPR.




goodwoodrw -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 2:05:43 AM)

double post[8|]




balto -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 2:52:28 PM)

Shindler's list.., 10 out of 10. Not a war movie. It is a movie set during the war, like Dunkirk. 13 Hours over Benghazi, American Sniper, those are war movies. There is scientific formula, which I do not have at the moment, that requires a certain bodycount (high) and a certain percentage of time of combat footage to be a war movie.




warspite1 -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 3:18:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

.....There is scientific formula, which I do not have at the moment, that requires a certain bodycount (high) and a certain percentage of time of combat footage to be a war movie.
warspite1

But that 'scientific formula' is someone's opinion surely? I consider Schindler's List a war film. But that is personal opinion - there is no science about it.




RangerJoe -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 3:34:25 PM)

There are movies set in wartime, there are war movies with no combat, and then there are combat movies. If you want to see blood and guts, go to a slaughterhouse.




Zorch -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 4:21:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There are movies set in wartime, there are war movies with no combat, and then there are combat movies. If you want to see blood and guts, go to a slaughterhouse.

The bloodiest film I ever saw was a High School Driver's Ed movie. Really.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: 1917 (1/26/2020 8:30:43 PM)

You got that right. [:(]




jimi3 -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 1:32:59 AM)

Amen. 1975. It was called Mechanized Death.




wodin -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 10:25:02 AM)

I enjoyed it despite some misgivings. Soldier doesn't know Forest in French despite being out there at least 6 months. The general plot is abit silly with alot of holes in it. Still I did enjoy it. Though still waiting on a WW1 classic to be made.




zakblood -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 10:56:33 AM)

i also enjoyed it, but did think it was one sided and rather a odd story and way it was made made me think it was for one side view point to view and comment on, not a classic by any stretch of the words, so seen better, and much worse, but would recommend it all the same as not that many come out from the period




Trugrit -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 11:08:47 AM)


I liked the film. There are holes in almost every movie plot. I suspend disbelief to enjoy the movie.

WW1 Message Streamer:
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL28973/

“The lack of ground to air communication in WWI saw all sides use messages dropped from aircraft.
The message bags to which the streamer was attached would have the message inserted and the whole
dropped over the relevant unit or position. The streamer was long and colorful to enable
it to be seen and recovered.”





Kuokkanen -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 4:15:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Though still waiting on a WW1 classic to be made.

All quiet on the Western Front




warspite1 -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 4:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

There are holes in almost every movie plot.

warspite1

I'm glad you added the almost caveat. One would be hard pressed indeed to find any holes in the movie plot for the Michael Bay masterpiece Pearl Harbor.




Zorch -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 5:06:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

There are holes in almost every movie plot.

warspite1

I'm glad you added the almost caveat. One would be hard pressed indeed to find any holes in the movie plot for the Michael Bay masterpiece Pearl Harbor.


Warspite! You have named the-movie-that-shall-not-be-named! Chastise yourself.




warspite1 -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 5:14:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

There are holes in almost every movie plot.

warspite1

I'm glad you added the almost caveat. One would be hard pressed indeed to find any holes in the movie plot for the Michael Bay masterpiece Pearl Harbor.


Warspite! You have named the-movie-that-shall-not-be-named! Chastise yourself.
warspite1

This piece of celluloid magic gets such a bad press. I defy you to name even one plot hole.




Orm -> RE: 1917 (1/27/2020 5:25:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

There are holes in almost every movie plot.

warspite1

I'm glad you added the almost caveat. One would be hard pressed indeed to find any holes in the movie plot for the Michael Bay masterpiece Pearl Harbor.


Warspite! You have named the-movie-that-shall-not-be-named! Chastise yourself.
warspite1

This piece of celluloid magic gets such a bad press. I defy you to name even one plot hole.


So why did Rafe travel to England to fight, if the war hadn't begun yet?




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875E-02