Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just got back from seeing this. I thought the filming was extremely effective--it made me feel as if I were actually part of the entire thing, rather than just watching it.
And I did well until the very end.....then I lost it and started sobbing. I won't say what scene this was, but I'd guess anybody who saw the movie can probably figure out which moment it was. And I am not usually a 'crier' during movies.
I just got back from seeing this. I thought the filming was extremely effective--it made me feel as if I were actually part of the entire thing, rather than just watching it.
And I did well until the very end.....then I lost it and started sobbing. I won't say what scene this was, but I'd guess anybody who saw the movie can probably figure out which moment it was. And I am not usually a 'crier' during movies.
I cry in just about every movie, so I was already getting emotional after the one death. But like you said, you feel like your part if the entire thing, so I got attached to the characters pretty quickly.
The story is mostly fiction as are the characters, but the basic scenario of a soldier needing to send messages to troops was in fact based on the director's grandfather's real life experiences in WW1.
To me this wasn't so much a WW1 movie but a movie with that war as the setting, if that makes sense. I like movies that are about journeys, where the protagonist(s) go from point A to point B and their experiences along the way.
This is by no means the 'definitive' WW1 movie or close to it, and they don't even show any major battle sequences as conventional war movies do. But I don't think that was necessarily the intent of the director, at least from the movie I saw.
Several tense and incredibly well done scenes, leading to a satisfying and powerful conclusion.
I was very disappointed by this movie and must say am astounded that it has a shot at best movie at the Oscars. Sure the cinematography was great and while the "one take" (actually 40 shoots stitched together) gimmick was ok for the most part, I found myself feeling like I was watching a multi level video game. And the character development and lead acting was also about the standard of a video game.
As a big fan of Gallipoli I couldn't help comparing the two throughout, especially in the message delivery scene. While Peter Weir's Gallipoli was haunting and left you will enormous anguish, 1917 was just another level in the video game where you knew the ending. But at least it brought us closer to the end of the film.
If this wins the Oscar for Best Picture, it will be a triumph of PR and gimmick over substance. If not for the gimmick, this would not be in the discussion and will never rank anywhere when assessing greatest war movies.
If this wins the Oscar for Best Picture, it will be a triumph of PR and gimmick over substance. If not for the gimmick, this would not be in the discussion and will never rank anywhere when assessing greatest war movies.
People have different taste in movies. Just because you did not like it, does not make it a bad movie that isn't deserving of all the awards it has received.
Yes Ive seen it ...great cinematography.. shows the trenches in all their glory..good film but not great and wouldnt watch it again. others though have loved it.. Id give it 6 out of 10 watched some of it being filmed in Glasgow docks. not up to the hype..
Well that is plain stupid. I don't think there were any women in the trenches. They served in other capacities, but not on the front line.
That doesn't matter to Hollywood today. They are perfectly fine with changing history, making stuff up, and bastardizing everything in order to insert unrealistic female roles, gays, and minorities where they never were.
People have different taste in movies. Just because you did not like it, does not make it a bad movie that isn't deserving of all the awards it has received.
Well that kind of goes without saying doesn't it?
I didn't say it was a bad movie, just that in my opinion it was weak in most aspects apart from the photography. As an overall package it was a 5 or 6 out of 10. In my opinion of course
We saw 1917 today at a matinee and both loved it. It was a touching and exciting movie. I definitely recommend people see it on the big screen before it leaves the theater.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
