1917

[menzies]

Been waiting for it to come out on general release. Will be going to see it Monday afternoon after everyone else has gone back to work.

Looks like a really good movie.

Review later!

 

[Andy G]

I will be interested to hear what you think. Seems to be getting good reviews.

 

[GFC]

Ditto. It's one I'm interested in seeing, unlike the newest Star Wars mess.

 

[Taras]

Watched it last night. It was a good movie. Hollywood promoted the movie as some thing a bit bigger though than I feel it really was. Yes, good movie, but didn’t move me as much as I had expected. I’d give it an “8”. Worth seeing.

 

[wfleenor]

I agree with Taras. It is a good movie but didn't live up to the hype.

 

[psneeld]

I wonder if some of the hype is because the new way of thinking of filming the movie rather than the actual content.

 

[ssobol]

I wonder if some of the hype is because the new way of thinking of filming the movie rather than the actual content.

Most movies and TV shows don't live up to the hype. The media gets everyone worked up about how stunningly stupendous something is going to be and there is no way that the production can meet that expectation. Especially as most of the hype occurs after most of the production is already finished and there is little opportunity for the production to be improved.

The hype of the "single shot" effect for the whole movie is an example. Maybe it is the first time the technique has been used in a war movie, but it has already been done with other movies and some TV show episodes. Cinematographer for Birdman already won an Academy Award for it. Hitchcock did it in 1948.

FWIW, 1917 was edited to look like one shot. There have been films that were actually done in one continuous shot for the whole movie. Longest one was 140 minutes.

The whole one shot thing is old news, but it is being hyped as something new and wonderful.

 

[markpierce]

Saw the movie Friday. Intense most of the time. A solid B+.

 

[psneeld]

Most movies and TV shows don't live up to the hype. The media gets everyone worked up about how stunningly stupendous something is going to be and there is no way that the production can meet that expectation. Especially as most of the hype occurs after most of the production is already finished and there is little opportunity for the production to be improved.

The hype of the "single shot" effect for the whole movie is an example. Maybe it is the first time the technique has been used in a war movie, but it has already been done with other movies and some TV show episodes. Cinematographer for Birdman already won an Academy Award for it. Hitchcock did it in 1948.

FWIW, 1917 was edited to look like one shot. There have been films that were actually done in one continuous shot for the whole movie. Longest one was 140 minutes.

The whole one shot thing is old news, but it is being hyped as something new and wonderful.

Good, I read up on it because I am not much of a movie goer...not new but a bit different than most films and thus hopefully not the quagmire of "same old Hollywood stuff".

 

[twistedtree]

None of this is specific to the movie, which I haven't seen, and actually don't even know what it's about though I would guess WW I based on the date.....


But isn't hype, by definition, over-reaching? Nobody would promote a movie as "a solid B".


And what's new and innovative is just whatever most people have forgotten about, or never new in the first place. How many movies are re-makes and most of the audience doesn't even know it?

 

[Wayfarer]

I went in knowing very little about it, and with minimal hype exposure, and I thought it was really good. I’d say solid B+ /A-. I really felt like I was there. I’d recommend it, and I’m glad I caught it in the theater.

 

[menzies]

So we went this afternoon. Some thoughts from me and from the missus.

I really like the "one shot" production. Kept the movie moving along at a very nice trot.

While I am sure that they could never really recreate life in the trenches and the destruction of war (ala full metal jacket) I thought they did an admirable job.

One aspect I really liked was the uncertainty of where your enemy was - in front of you, behind you, beside you! This kept the intensity up.

There were also one or two surprises which obviously I won't comment on - but certainly left you thinking "well, well, didn't see that coming."

There was one particular aspect that I thought was being built in to happen by the end of the movie that didn't actually happen - and I suspect that it was shot but ended up on the cutting room floor, which I am thankful for. For those that have seen it PM me for a discussion if you like.

So I agree a solid B+ on the edge of an A-.

Feedback from my wife was around the "one shot" production and what she felt was the overuse of the 360 degree shooting, made her a bit dizzy. She had another comment around the events our hero had to go through, but I will defer on that not to give anything away.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
I doubt I'll ever see this movie but can someone explain what the "one shot" production technique is please? Thanks

 

[Wayfarer]

Greetings,
I doubt I'll ever see this movie but can someone explain what the "one shot" production technique is please? Thanks

Essentially there are no cuts, or camera jumps to other angles. The camera follows along from a steady perspective without changing the point of view for long stretches, and really makes you feel like you're walking along behind them, because that's how you'd see it if you were.

 

[jimdavi]

Children of men was the movie I think that started this technique if I’m correct. There were long scenes with one camera. Made you feel in the scene.

 

[ssobol]

Children of men was the movie I think that started this technique if I’m correct. There were long scenes with one camera. Made you feel in the scene.

There are lots of movies that have extended one shot scenes. In Atonement, the Dunkirk beach scene was over 5 minutes long. Being one uncut shot (especially a traveling shot where the camera moves through a large scene) requires everyone hitting their marks at the right time. In the case of Atonement I didn't feel that it made you more in the scene. It was basically a medium shot that just ran for awhile as the character walks around the beach.

City of Men (6 mintues)

There have been a few movies that have been one take (shot) from start to finish.

In the case of 1917 and some other movies, the film is shot in a fairly conventional fashion, but usually with longer takes than normal. These are edited together to appear to be one long shot from start to finish. Shots like these require extreme planning and rehearsal. Nowadays computer effects can be used to make the transitions between shots more seamless.

If you shoot a movie that is supposed to be one shot then basically you are constrained to telling the story in realtime. There can be no jump cuts or fades to a later time (e.g. the characters go to bed and we cut to the next morning rather than watching 8 hours of them sleeping to maintain the one shot thing).

As I mentioned before Hitchcock did it in 1948.

 

[Andy G]

I watched the movie tonight.

Although it was interesting, for me it was not quite up there with some other war films I have seen. However it was still quite a riveting two hours. The 'one shot' style of cinematography certainly left me fairly exhausted by the end of the film.

Interesting concept using the more known actors in cameo roles and putting two unknowns in the staring roles.

I am not so sure about the musical backing, some of it to me seemed a bit odd for the scenes depicted. That's probably just me though.

On balance definitely worth seeing. 4 stars.

 

[diver dave]

A on the movie from me. 2nd row and not dizzy

It could have been far more gory, thankfully not.

 

[rsn48]

For sheer blood and guts movie - They Shall Not Grow Old - is the "best" (worst?) movie I have seen. It too is about WW1 but there was no editing of the very real injuries you see on screen, all factual.

Trailer:

 

[ssobol]

Saw this movie this evening. It was ok. The story was ok and the attention to detail was pretty extraordinary. There were a couple of scenes that really didn't add anything to the story.

The one shot gimmick didn't really make that much of an impression on me. Didn't really notice it. After watching for a bit, you can start to see where the cuts are. Eventually it becomes kind of obvious.

I didn't think it was that gory, pretty tame IMO. It was mostly just dead bodies lying around. There are certainly other movies that have a much more visceral feel to the combat scenes.

On the other hand, if you have a thing about rats, you might want to miss this one.

 

[John R M]

For me, it was interesting but not very believable. SPOILER ALERT: Would the captain in the truck really send 1 guy to undertake a risky task when some 1600 men were at risk? Why not send at least 1 or 2 men to help him?

Would soldiers really run after someone, firing away and missing, when they could simply plant their feet and take a good shot?

Would a women stay in ruined and under siege city with a little baby?

I also questioned the rushing river, that's something you'd expect to find in a mountainous area, not exactly the terrain he had been walking through. And how did the river simply stop flowing where he was able to exit?

To me, too much extra stuff added to make the movie sensational, but not believable.

 

[diver dave]

For me, it was interesting but not very believable. SPOILER ALERT: Would the captain in the truck really send 1 guy to undertake a risky task when some 1600 men were at risk? Why not send at least 1 or 2 men to help...

To me, too much extra stuff added to make the movie sensational, but not believable.

I had the same thought as to the urgency and the importance of the mission. Then, consider the basis of the movie as one soldier’s POV. There could well be several independent methods of contact in play. Would you tell a soldier that there are several other missions in place? How would that affect the dedication of each mission?

 

[psneeld]

All but the rushing river is believable (even then) in my book

Even then as they say...its not real, its Hollywood.

I have never been in combat but those that have, say the most unbelievable things happen in war.

 

[skipgundlach]

YMMV, and from the comments above, apparently do, for the most part.

I could think of a great number of things I'd rather I did, particularly at the time I left the theater. Going back to the boat (we live aboard) I looked up some reviews to see how I'd somehow missed the boat...

The first one echoed my sentiment. Waaay too much concentration of view (the cast of folks working on this movie in one way or another went on for many minutes, at 3 columns of personnel scrolling by at speed-reading velocity) and too little on the story...

 

[Bryant]

Been waiting for it to come out on general release. Will be going to see it Monday afternoon after everyone else has gone back to work.

Looks like a really good movie.

Review later!

I enjoyed it. However, I was a bit underwhelmed as there had been so much hype about "Greatest move ever, etc". Had I not heard all the hype I probably would have enjoyed it more. Having said that, it was a good movie, worth seeing on the big screen.

 

[Northern Spy]

Great movie. Watched it twice on a plane last year. Separate flights...

For sheer blood and guts movie - They Shall Not Grow Old - is the "best" (worst?) movie I have seen. It too is about WW1 but there was no editing of the very real injuries you see on screen, all factual.

Trailer:

 

[menzies]

Looked it up . And FYI:

They Shall Not Grow Old On TV soon
All times are in Eastern Time
Date
Channel
Sat, 2/8, 4:20 AM
HBO Zone (East)
Sat, 2/8, 7:20 AM
HBO Zone (West)

For those with DVRs looks like its worth recording.

 

[mpstan]

8 out of 10, tops

 

[menzies]

8 out of 10, tops

So B-

 

[mpstan]

So B-

I guess 8.3 out of 10. Is that a B?