1917 - Sam Mendes' "one long shot" WW1 movie.

[Wowbagger]

I agree too. I was probably thinking of Black Panther.

[Bravoman]

For anyone who liked or is interested in the subject matter of 1917 have you seen Journeys End? Set in the trenches towards the end of WW1. It’s got a great cast but I found it harrowing to watch and really made you think what the youngsters of the day went through on on our behalf so many years ago.

[shteve]

Yeah, Journey's End is a very good film. Harrowing is the word, and like a proper war film (not an action war film), it really makes you sure we don't want it to happen again.

[Bravoman]

Originally Posted by shteve

Yeah, Journey's End is a very good film. Harrowing is the word, and like a proper war film (not an action war film), it really makes you sure we don't want it to happen again.

Definitely I had to find something lighthearted to watch after. Proper war film that makes you wonder if you could have coped with even a millionth of the stress that they went through.

[James45]

Originally Posted by statto

Dunkirk was way better than this.

Couldn't stand Dunkirk but thought 1917 was wonderful, the time frame conceit was thrilling and the cinematography breath-taking, best film I've seen this year.

[cedge]

Preferred Dunkirk, didn't much care for 1917 after the single shot novelty wore off...

[shteve]

I enjoyed Dunkirk and 1917, both have their merits in different ways.

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by James45

Couldn't stand Dunkirk but thought 1917 was wonderful, the time frame conceit was thrilling and the cinematography breath-taking, best film I've seen this year.

Dunkirk was OK at best. Liked it less with the second viewing and got the impression that Nolan was just trying to be too clever with a theme that is not really up his kind of alley.

By contrast 1917 was better the second time around with more natural scenes and acting.

[allan]

I didn't like the "digital" clean look to this film, it took me out of it in a way as it looked like it was filmed last week rather than set in 1917.

[James45]

Originally Posted by allan

I didn't like the "digital" clean look to this film, it took me out of it in a way as it looked like it was filmed last week rather than set in 1917.

Should they all have been walking around in black and white at 12fps?

[allan]

No, I just prefer the look of film, with the grain etc. Digital has its place but it's just too "clean" looking for this kind of film in my opinion.

Compare to a semi-recent film like Saving Private Ryan shot on 35mm, it just looks better for the period it's trying to convey.

[Shingster]

"semi-recent" there's 21yrs between Saving Private Ryan and 1917! At some point you've just got to accept that digital has become the norm, warts and all!

[allan]

It can look like film still, Knives Out is the perfect example.

I just don't like the clean digital look for certain types of film, it just makes things look made for TV rather than a film.

[Shingster]

The very last thing 1917 looks like is "made for TV".

[allan]

In your opinion. In my opinion it does.

[Shingster]

Every single post on every single internet forum is an opinion, it doesn't have to be stated or pointed out.

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Every single post on every single internet forum is an opinion, it doesn't have to be stated or pointed out.

I agree. In my opinion (and that only), the problem I have with Dunkirk is the peculiar editing, particularly in the second half of the film. The scenes are in normal speed motion but the events timeline is unrealistically stretched out for effect. I got the feeling that Nolan was trying to emulate Sergei Eisenstein but IMO failed to do so.

I know that the theme and plot ate totally different, but somehow the editing in Dunkirk reminded me of another film Arrival (2016). While I liked Dunkirk overall despite the quirky editing, I hated Arrival. The director plays with timelines in that film as well and some reviews talked nonsense about a non-existent entity called "non-linear time", forgetting that 'time' by its very definition and understanding is a linear concept.

[Shingster]

Arrival spoilers:

Probably a discussion best started in the Arrival thread, but surely the idea of "nonlinear" time isn't that crazy? We experience space in three dimensions and time in one dimension, but if you experienced space in two dimensions and I showed you a ball, you'd see it as a circle. Now imagine if you could experience time in more than one dimension and how that could affect your perception of it, that's all Arrival is going on about. Yeah it's a pretty radical scientific theory, but isn't the exploration of radical scientific theory the bread and butter of science fiction?

[AndyWilson]

Originally Posted by Raigmore

...The director plays with timelines in that film as well and some reviews talked nonsense about a non-existent entity called "non-linear time", forgetting that 'time' by its very definition and understanding is a linear concept.

Time is not linear, just our perception of it...

...and even then only some of the time, memories aren’t sequential.

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by AndyWilson

Time is not linear, just our perception of it...

...and even then only some of the time, memories aren’t sequential.

Time is linear, both by definition and our perception. If you think about day to day events in relation to each other, if you know what I mean; I am not talking about hours, minutes and seconds, which are something that we devised for convenience.

Memories are not always sequential but that's because of the way they get 'imprinted' in our brains for later recall. There is a lot of individual variations to that and it has nothing to do with perception of 'real' time.

But as Shingster says, these discussions are out of scope for this thread. Sorry.