The Wimmins were having a baby shower at the house today, so I took my leave.

Watched 1917, Saturday matinee was full.

Quite enjoyed it. Didn't "move my soul", but certainly a great war movie.

Wow. Truly amazing.

I would say that this is the most visceral movie I've ever seen, war genre or otherwise. I'm guessing that was a product of the filming, which essentially sets you as a character, rather than an observer. I literally recoiled at the explosion in the bunker--even though I knew it was coming. Each of the first gunshots in the town was powerful and felt like it was actually aimed at you.

Some of the shots were just plain beautiful, too, like the final shot with the tree.

The movie wasn't cerebral, nor did it overtly raise "big" questions, but it was truly captivating and immersive.

I appreciated how they used the A-list Brit actors (Firth, Cumberbatch and Strong) as commanders, but everyone else was an unknown actor or an extra. It was a real delicate way to highlight the class distinctions in the WW1 British military, and kept the focus firmly on the two men and their mission.

I say this supplants Saving Private Ryan as my #1 war movie.

Has anyone seen this is D-Box?

https://www.ravecinemas.com/technology/d-box/#

My theater is showing 1917 in standard reserved recliner seats and also D-Box, which looks like it would be a better experience for this movie.

Here's a behind the scene video describing how they were able to achieve some of the long, continuous shots (and fudge the appearance of some others).

Note that it does contain some mild spoilers.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBnvz-dEXw

I thought that part when George trips over the other soldiers looked real. I said to myself, "I bet that wasn't planned".

Saw this movie yesterday. I thought it was fine, but not quite the level of the hype.

Frankly I was a bit bored. A good movie but nowhere near the hype. Now I do appreciate the way it felt like one long scene. On the other hand I think that’s also exactly why it was a bit boring. Solid 7.5/8 out of 10.

I liked it quite a bit. It is a good movie but surprisingly wasn't incredible at least to me. It should definitely be seen and honestly my hope is it brings us more from the western front.

I think my issues are more technical and tactical and I have to remember I'm not watching a documentary but I think I may be overly critical as I study WW1 quite a bit. I'd have liked to see a big battle or a trench raid but thats, in fairness, not what this is truly about.

If you are on the fence definitely see it. I also cannot recommend "they shall not grow old" enough.

I watched it a few days ago and think it was one of the best, if not the best war movie I've ever watched. So much better than Dunkirk!!!

Why is everyone so down on Dunkirk? Not to derail but I thought it was quite good?

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
Why is everyone so down on Dunkirk? Not to derail but I thought it was quite good?

Well, for my own part, I didn't mean to diss Dunkirk per se, just pointed out that something that was challenging for the former was not a hindrance for 1917. (Talking about multiple storylines.) Still have the greatest respect for Christopher Nolan's massive undertaking, and he remains one of my favorite, if not most favorite directors.

The Smithsonian has a excellent write up on the movie and the reality.

1917

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
I watched it a few days ago and think it was one of the best, if not the best war movie I've ever watched. So much better than Dunkirk!!!

I haven't seen 1917 yet but plan to. For me, saying that is is better than Dunkirk isn't saying much. I thought Dunkirk was awful.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
Why is everyone so down on Dunkirk? Not to derail but I thought it was quite good?

The most common complaints against Dunkirk that I've seen seem to be:

A) The potentially confusing timeline, which is somewhat understandable, especially for certain types of movie viewers who just prefer to turn off their brains and be entertained. (No judgement - "popcorn flicks" certainly have their place.) This is common complaint for some other Nolan films too, like Memento and Interstellar.

and

B) The muddled sound, which is typically a result of a detailed/complex soundscape being compressed and forced through low quality stereo speakers, rather than the high quality discrete multi-channel surround setup for which it was intended and mixed. Similar complaints abound in some of his other films like Interstellar, Inception, etc.

As you can see, complex timelines and complex soundscapes are basically Nolan's trademarks. When heading into a Nolan flick, be prepared to keep your brain engaged, and see them at the theater or on a higher-end home theater system.

For comparison, Point B is also a consideration with 1917, although Point A is not.

I've also seen some complaints from people who thought Dunkirk was "boring", likely because they were expecting a more stereotypically heroic run-and-gun style of war movies, with the good guys gunning down hordes of bad guys with giant dramatic fireball explosions, copious dynamic stunts, and shiny CGI. (See Point A's discussion of "popcorn flicks" above.) And those people probably will be similarly disappointed with 1917. But realistically, neither film is intended to be such, or advertised as such. Not every "war movie" is alike.

I saw it Wednesday. It was good but I don't get what all the fuss is about. I don't think it beats Saving Private Ryan. IMO its uniqueness is in the way it was filmed, the sets (trenches, no man's land, and town), and the fact that it's WWI.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
Why is everyone so down on Dunkirk? Not to derail but I thought it was quite good?

Here's the discussion about Dunkirk:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...935/m/5110006724/p/1

I, and others, disagree with Rogue's assessment as to why a number of us didn't like the movie. You'll see why if you read the thread.

I liked the cinematography for sure. The plot was sort of Private Ryan-ish.

I thought they jumped the shark when the guy jumps into a canal in what looks like Belgium, then it turns into rapids, over a waterfall, and ends up in terrain that looks like the Somme some 50 miles further inland from where he went in.

I've been to a dozen Western Front battlefields so maybe I'm being too critical.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Wow. Truly amazing.

I would say that this is the most visceral movie I've ever seen, war genre or otherwise. I'm guessing that was a product of the filming, which essentially sets you as a character, rather than an observer. I literally recoiled at the explosion in the bunker--even though I knew it was coming. Each of the first gunshots in the town was powerful and felt like it was actually aimed at you.

Some of the shots were just plain beautiful, too, like the final shot with the tree.

The movie wasn't cerebral, nor did it overtly raise "big" questions, but it was truly captivating and immersive.

I appreciated how they used the A-list Brit actors (Firth, Cumberbatch and Strong) as commanders, but everyone else was an unknown actor or an extra. It was a real delicate way to highlight the class distinctions in the WW1 British military, and kept the focus firmly on the two men and their mission.

I say this supplants Saving Private Ryan as my #1 war movie.

The producers should pay you for this. 1917 has moved to my Must See ASAP. Thank you, Jim

Just saw it tonight. Glad I did. Much better than Dunkirk.

I saw it yesterday and couldn't wait for it to end. It dragged on and on and on. Not anything I'll ever watch again and glad I paid the matinee price.