1917

[wilberfan]

apart from the undeniably impressive technical bravado, which loses its narrative efficacy about a half hour in anyway... 
it's a pretty bad movie.  i have a feeling it'll win best picture at the oscars.

With a hug of condolence to Jeremy, I'm Team Samsong on this one. 

Just got back from a screening and had these random thoughts during the movie.  (I had plenty of time to ponder what I was watching--as I wasn't very engaged in the goings-on):

"This feels like something Disney Imagineering would put together for "World War I--the Ride."

"Jeez, when you take a powerful tool like the oner and make an entire film with it--it strips all the power and impact from it and essentially turns it into Steadicam Porn."

"Why am I completely unmoved by [redacted]?  That seems vaguely important and should evoke something emotional from the audience, no?"

"When the [redacted] is about to [redacted]--why not just run perpendicular?!  (This happens a lot in film.)

"Why would they choose to intentionally avoid the single most powerful tool in the Cinema Tool Chest--the fucking cut--to tell a story?!"

Sadly, I think Sammy is dead-on with his Oscar prediction. 

[Sleepless]

I'm with you, to an extent. The "one take" gimmick seemed like it hurt the movie rather than made it better. Numerous times it felt like they artificially condensed events in order to make the running time. When they get their mission, one of them mentions it'll take several hours to get there, yet less than two hours later, it's mission accomplished - even though they blacked out for several hours. I really think this could have been a much stronger film if it had been handled more conventionally - and retained the one-shot aspect for just the set pieces. It would have been a lot more impactful in that case, just like the one-shot in Atonement. Is this really Best Picture?

[citizn]

The problem is, the majority of the reviews I'm seeing boil down to "I had a strong emotional reaction to this movie" or "I didn't have a strong emotional reaction to this movie." And the thing is, neither of those are wrong. Nor are they predictive of whether any other individual will have a strong emotional reaction to the movie.

This. ^

Much has been made of the one-shot technique used in 1917, and I pretty much expected Deakins to accomplish this feat with expert artistry. What I did not expect was that this film would be one of the most moving emotional experiences I've ever seen. War movies have become a dime a dozen. It seems that every year a new one comes along to impress audiences with stories of bravery and conviction in the face of adversity. It's the age-old hero's journey. If anything, this is the "gimmick" used to get people in the seats. After all, research has shown that humans are drawn to heroes from early stages of development.

I have to admit, I spent the opening minutes of 1917 in deep fascination with the one-shot experience. As the camera tracked the two young soldiers making their way to the General's office through crowded trenches, I was looking for any hint of a cut. However, shortly after they received their orders, I began to feel a deep connection to the characters and their quest. It felt that every second mattered and there was no time to rest despite the exhaustion and danger that opposed them. This tension is what makes the film extraordinary. When the film reaches its final act, there are several scenes that pack a staggering emotional wallop (basement, forest, and battlefield), and because of the "real-time" feel, it seems as if they happen almost one right after another leaving no time to catch your breath. Even though the hero's journey is nothing new, this storytelling combined with the immersive experience of it all takes it to another level.

In the end, this film left me dwelling more on its themes of humanity and mission than any of its technical achievements (which were impressive nevertheless).