Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

"Now Showing"

Both really,
The story is a little predictable, but the way its done is just so impressive. There are some jump-out-of-your-skin moments and other moments where you are just breathless with what is going on. I don't think I was ever trying to spot the cuts (some are obvious) but the whole thing was just jaw-dropping in its execution - must admit I'm a sucker for the long-take and this was just the best (series of) long takes ever.
 
Last edited:
Alright, time for a bit dump...

Ford v Ferrari- Enjoyed it

Midway- Absolute filth, so so so so bad

12 Bridges- It should have been better, but it wasn't. Pretty predicable.

Knives Out- Enjoyable

Frozen 2- Enjoyable

Jumanji Third One- Liked it more than expected

Star Wars 9- Liked most out of this trilogy, which was a really really low bar

Irishman- Very very good.

Aftermath- Missed this in the theaters, caught it on HBO and really did like it.

Uncut Gems- This movie was so ****ing intense. I was anxious throughout and the last 40 minutes made me want a drink. Sandler ****ing crushed it. I yelled oh **** at one point, which I never do. Now for how much I loved it, I saw several people walk out and my wife disliked it. It is very very intense.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 
davidm said:
Just saw that 1917.

Awesome. Most impressive movie I think I've ever seen. I saw the trailer first a couple of months ago and kinda thought "meh", how wrong I was. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Just saw it this afternoon, and have to agree (maybe not about "most impressive ever") that it was brilliant. I knew nothing about it, and wasn't inteterested at all given that I'm not generally interested in war films, but it was excellent.

I think part of my dislike is that so many war films are all a bit too American, a bit too "USA! USA!", and this was decidedly not that at all. The story was pretty simple, but I found myself really invested in the main characters, which almost never happens with me.

I had no idea about the "one-take" thing. About 10 minutes in, I realised that the whole opening had been one-shot, following the same people, seemingly with a single camera, without a break and found that really impressive, but then it just kept going and I got that that was the whole "thing" for the film. I found myself then looking for where it might have been cut, and it kind of becomes clear if you're looking for it (camera moving behind a tree for a split second, characters getting close to the camera and "blurring" the view etc.), but it was all done seemlessy and was very, very clever.

One thing I didn't like was the cameo appearances from some big names. Colin Firth wasn't really a problem since it was very early on, but when bloody Cumberbatch pops up in the last 10 minutes, with an entire cinema audience - who until that point had been riveted - simultaneously gasping in recognition, it was REALLY a distraction and pulled me out of the film. There was just no need. I think part of the reason I got so invested in the main characters is that they were relatively unknown actors, making them more believable. It's almost as if the producers didn't trust that the film could hold its own / get an audience without a couple of big names for the posters, and that's a shame.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, agree that the "stunt casting" took you out of it a bit ; glad that I only realised that one of the main chaps was that Tommen out of Game of Thrones (he'd clearly had a few healthy meals since then) after I'd seen the film as well! :)
 
Just saw that 1917 at the LieMax.
Pretty much in agreement with Gav and Lord Mort^, it's excellent. Best film of the decade, in fact! ?
I will admit that the filming technique - the unbroken tracking shot thing - does occasionally draw attention to itself, like, it's almost too clever for its own good. I spent a good portion of the movie, especially early on, admiring the camerawork rather than investing myself in what was actually happening, but after a while I kinda settled into it and forgot that I was watching a (seemingly) single unbroken take.
The story itself is tad... convenient, maybe? It's almost as if the action is there to serve the camera, rather than the other way round. Even the rats appear bang on cue.
But hey, I'm nitpicking here. In the face of such astounding technical brilliance, picking nits is all you can do really.
Great film. Proper edge-of-the-seat stuff.
 
Regarding 1917 and this "single shot" business, I'll be amazed if it's as well done as it was in Birdman, where they absolutely nailed it.
 
FarleyFlavors said:
Regarding 1917 and this "single shot" business, I'll be amazed if it's as well done as it was in Birdman, where they absolutely nailed it.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's as well done as it was in Birdman. In fact, I'd say it was better. 1917 is grounded in reality and presented in real time, the edits needed to be discreet and unnoticeable, whereas Birdman's weird surrealism meant it could get away with some more obvious 'cheats' (pan upwards to the sky, pan back down to a different time and place for the next scene - that kind of thing). Whether 1917 is a better movie than Birdman, well... that's up to you.
 
The Gentleman - Old-school Guy Ritchie gangster film, nice to see him go back at making another gangster film. A shame then that so much of it feels out of touch and laughably trying too hard to be cool. It's still a fun time but it's not his strongest film.

Bombshell - Went to an early screening of this and loved it. Some really good performances in there and it moves at a quick pace. It feels a bit too similar in style to Adam McKay's Vice and The Big Short but it works.


1917 - Incredible! I was totally immersed the whole time (apart from the odd "how did they film this?"), the story is simple but I think just the way it's told is just a really engaging experience. I agree about how the more recognisable actors that pop up throughout can be a bit distracting but I was fine with that.

Was going to reply to @FarleyFlavors but I think @Howie nailed what I was going to say.
 
Howie said:
Yep, it's as well done as it was in Birdman. In fact, I'd say it was better. 1917 is grounded in reality and presented in real time, the edits needed to be discreet and unnoticeable, whereas Birdman's weird surrealism meant it could get away with some more obvious 'cheats' (pan upwards to the sky, pan back down to a different time and place for the next scene - that kind of thing). Whether 1917 is a better movie than Birdman, well... that's up to you.
Click to expand...
Just booked tickets for a Sunday morning screening so I guess I'll find out shortly!

I reckon you're being a bit harsh on the edits in Birdman though. The panning up to the sky "cheat" only happens on two occasions and in both cases it's to mark the passage of time (the location doesn't change). All the other edits are much harder to spot - more often than not involving a frame or two of black screen.
 
Oh I'm sure that, come Sunday afternoon, you'll be on here to systematically dismantle my argument ? , but I hope you enjoy it, bro. It's a good movie. In a world full of CGI smashy smashy, we should be grateful that people like Mendes are even making films like this. ?
Feeling the need to rewatch Birdman now though...
 
1917: Absolutely astounding! This was the first film I saw in the new year. I was intrigued on how the made the whole film appear as a single take. Final Grade: A+
 
1917

Going to join the circle jerk that so going on for this movie. If I would have seen it last year, it would have beat JoJo Rabbit as my top film. The score, the set designs, it was so beautiful. There are a few scenes that really blew me away, the first was the shift at the farmhouse with the camera (you'll know what I mean if you saw it) it was so smooth and then the bit from the trailer where he was running. It was truly a beautiful scene to watch.

I'm going to see it again, but I fully expect it to clean up heavily at the awards, and will probably stay at the top of my best of 2020 movies all the way through the year.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 
Might as well:

Little Women: I haven't read the novel, but I can tell Gerwig took her time to make this a very respectable adaptation. The performances were lovely, the use of lighting to distinguish time was quite clever, and the story was really compelling. Very nice, very good. I like it.

Bombshell: I was initially offput by the somewhat negative reception of the movie, but I thought it was actually pretty solid! The makeup was astounding to the point where I couldn't tell if the prerecorded videos were the original tapes or the actors recreating them. I get it was overdramaticized for the big screen, but it didn't take away from anything. If you have the chance, I recommend it. Also **** Fox News.

1917: Yeah, it's as good as everyone says it is. It had phenomenal pacing, incredible characters, and god damn the cinematography. Roger Deakins really is the master of his craft.
The use of the flares in the town after he wakes up is an absolutely brilliant use of lighting. And of course, the final running scene is about as perfect as you can make it
. Definitely going to be one of, if not, the top film of 2020.

Knives Out: Ahahahahah! I LOVE this movie! The characters, the subversion of expectations, the shift in dynamics throughout the film, all beautifully done. Its social commentary paired with the mysterious plot that tangles itself more as the movie progresses is really well done. Not to mention how funny this thing can be! Chris Evans telling everyone to eat **** is a truly iconic moment in cinema. Probably my top film of 2019 so far. I seriously cannot recommend this film high enough.

Also, Imagineering Story: First 4 are brilliant. It looks at all sorts of failed projects and lovely old-school backstage shots. Really enjoyed those. The last 2 though? Blegh. They're just Bob Iger circlejerks that don't even come close to touching this decade's 'failures', and instead tries to show that adding a few rides to their unsuccessful parks made them good. There's still some great backstage info, but it really just did not work as well as the first 4. Also, the last bit of the last episode has Rise of the Resistance spoilers if you don't want to see those.
 
Last edited:
Saw 1917 recently. Completely agree with everyone on it, it is truly fantastic. The best war film I've ever seen. Especially loved the editing and the way it appears as one take, soundtrack is fab as well.

Unlike most war films, it focuses on the emotion of the situation rather than the action. I don't personally tend to enjoy action scenes and much prefer story depth. To me, the relative lack of action in 1917 makes for a better storyline and hence, much better film.
 
Little Women

For source material that's so well-known, I've somehow managed to never read the book or see a single one of the 2,653 adaptations of it, so went in completely blind. It was very good. It perhaps felt a bit overlong, but I'm assuming they wanted to try and stay close to the book without shaving too much off. The cast was excellent; even Emma Watson managed to not be completely dreadful, so Greta Gerwig should've got an Oscar nomination just for that since it was no mean feat. Anyone else getting a bit sick of Saoirse Ronan now though? She's not even been in that much, but the constant adulation and awards nominations every time she farts is getting grating.
 
1917 then.

Not much plot to this and what little plot there is frequently doesn't make a lick of sense. It strains credulity to breaking point at times. The German soldiers are about as good as aiming their weapons as the average stormtrooper, for instance. It also presents a strangely sanitized version of trench warfare - which is odd for a purportedly anti-war film.

But I'm seriously glad I caught this at the cinema. As a piece of moviemaking, it's an incredible tour de force. The cinematography and camerawork are the obvious standouts but the production design (and set construction!) deserve special mention too. The SFX and the sound mix (I caught this in an Atmos auditorium) were faultless.

I suspect this isn't going to work nearly as well on a telly, much like 2001: A Space Odyssey becomes a snooze-fest on the small screen.
Howie said:
Yep, it's as well done as it was in Birdman. In fact, I'd say it was better. 1917 is grounded in reality and presented in real time, the edits needed to be discreet and unnoticeable, whereas Birdman's weird surrealism meant it could get away with some more obvious 'cheats' (pan upwards to the sky, pan back down to a different time and place for the next scene - that kind of thing).
Click to expand...
Can't argue with you at all. Thanks to @davidm I caught Birdman again the night before and 1917's edit points are muh more difficult to spot. I suspect there's quite a bit of digital manipulation going on though, unlike the former's carefully planned physical effects. (I got it wrong by the way - there's three instances of "pan up to the sky" cheats in Birdman). It's unbelievable that neither film was even nominated for an editing Oscar.
Howie said:
Whether 1917 is a better movie than Birdman, well... that's up to you.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is, but then again I do love Birdman to bits. And speaking of Oscars, I don't think it's as good a film as either The Irishman or Parasite, but it'll almost certainly beat both.
 
FarleyFlavors said:
1917 then.

Not much plot to this and what little plot there is frequently doesn't make a lick of sense. It strains credulity to breaking point at times. The German soldiers are about as good as aiming their weapons as the average stormtrooper, for instance. It also presents a strangely sanitized version of trench warfare - which is odd for a purportedly anti-war film.

But I'm seriously glad I caught this at the cinema. As a piece of moviemaking, it's an incredible tour de force. The cinematography and camerawork are the obvious standouts but the production design (and set construction!) deserve special mention too. The SFX and the sound mix (I caught this in an Atmos auditorium) were faultless.

I suspect this isn't going to work nearly as well on a telly, much like 2001: A Space Odyssey becomes a snooze-fest on the small screen.

Can't argue with you at all. Thanks to @davidm I caught Birdman again the night before and 1917's edit points are muh more difficult to spot. I suspect there's quite a bit of digital manipulation going on though, unlike the former's carefully planned physical effects. (I got it wrong by the way - there's three instances of "pan up to the sky" cheats in Birdman). It's unbelievable that neither film was even nominated for an editing Oscar.

I don't think it is, but then again I do love Birdman to bits. And speaking of Oscars, I don't think it's as good a film as either The Irishman or Parasite, but it'll almost certainly beat both.
Click to expand...

I read the first paragraph of this post and thought, 'Aye up, here we go, Farley's gonna give it a mauling', but thankfully you redeemed yourself with later comments. ;)
I largely agree to be fair - 1917 doesn't have much 'plot', and what there is is only there to serve the concept of the single take thing - and you do feel that sometimes. Geographically speaking it doesn't make much sense either, I mean, how far did they (he) actually travel? No man's land was, what? 100 yards? Few German trenches, bit of a wood, open field, couple of shelled-out buildings and boom - he's there. Wasn't it supposed to be an 8 or 9km trek that would take several hours? ?
But hey, it's not supposed to be Shakespeare and it's not supposed to be a documentary - 1917 is very much a technical exercise. In that respect, it reminded me a lot of Gravity (which is also a snooze fest on telly). People who complained about it not being scientifically (or in this case, historically) accurate are missing the point. I mean, you wouldn't go on Disney's 'Round the World in 80 Days', and then complain that it didn't actually last 80 days, would you?
What Mendes has done here is offer up a big-screen experience, and a bloody good one at that.
One that's better than Birdman. ;)
 
Last edited:
Howie said:
I largely agree to be fair - 1917 doesn't have much 'plot', and what there is is only there to serve the concept of the single take thing - and you do feel that sometimes.
Click to expand...
That's the feeling I frequently got too - that they decided on the one-take thing first then hung a few vignettes on it to vaguely resemble a plot.

Which leads to some ridiculous moments, probably the most egregious being
French woman: "The baby needs milk".

Soldier: "Have this fresh milk I found in a bucket a couple of hours ago."
Howie said:
What Mendes has done here is offer up a big-screen experience, and a bloody good one at that.
One that's better than Birdman. ;)
Click to expand...

A better big-screen experience than Birdman? No question.

It did have nearly six times the budget though.
Howie said:
it reminded me a lot of Gravity
Click to expand...
Thanks for a more recent example than 2001. I am old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top