Latest Films

ForeverAddickted said:

Jessie said:

ForeverAddickted said:

1917 gets a 9/10 from me... Fantastic film which is incredible when you consider how its shot

Mendes' version of No Man's Land is just amazing, the whole from that point at the beginning to the very end just leaves you on edge the whole time

Whilst everyone has their opinion (I respect that) I feel it was a film that wasnt about the characters hence why development wasnt required

Certainly didnt really care about the individuals and their backgrounds as wasnt a story about them specifically - they were just another two people in what we know was a brutal conflict

In terms of the cast I've been made to eat my words; when I saw the casting of Schofield and Blake my first reactions were: "Seriously, they look far too soft" but seeing them in the film I was extremely impressed - If anything my sole nit pick would be around Firth | Strong | Cumberbatch | Marsden - Felt the film was poweful enough not to require any big names and their brief cameos turned the scenes into: "Oh my god its X" when I think lesser actors like those who played Blake (Yes I know he was in GoT) and Schofield would have put more emphasis on the scene itself

My biggest critiscm was shortly after Blake died... Unless Schofield was sat there for an age I found it strange that Strong and his men suddenly appeared on the scene with no warning i.e. in cars / trucks couldnt be heard whilst a handful of soldiers were round the corner having a piss yet themselves were oblivious to the fight? - Of course I may just be missing something in that passage of the film and was a sign of how Schofield had completely zoned out and was oblivious to everyone around him in the aftermath of Blake's death

That was indeed a bit weird but I was thinking maybe it was done in that way in order to keep the one continuous shot.

One other thing that is unrealistic is that Schofield wasn't even hit by one shot when being chased by German soldiers before and after the French girl encounter. How many shots were fired by the Germans? Must have been a lot?

They must have been German Stormtroopers and so distant relations to the Star Wars Stormtroopers who couldnt hit a target for toffee

Will need to watch it back but I seem to remember the Germans shooting as they ran after Schofield which would surely make it harder to aim - Reckon in real life they'd have stopped, would have taken careful aim and would probably have brought him down (although I've read somewhere that WW1 weapons werent as accurate as you'd think)

Of course had that happened then the film would have come to a pretty abrupt end

I meant to say in my original post but I liked how this was another film that pretty much made the Germans invisible (apart from the pilot and the guy that Schofield kills) - Took a small leaf out of Dunkirk's book from last year which I quite liked as you dont need to see them

TellyTubby said:

Jessie said:

Just watched 1917. It is the sixth of the 9 films nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars that I've watched. I must say it is hands-down my favourite of those six. I knew about the one shot fuss but didn't pay too much attention to it while watching. I've always loved war films and 1917 is definitely one of the most captivating and intense war films I've watched. The sountrack immensely helps build the film too. I had tears in my eyes seeing the scene where Sco walking/running on the frontline in the direction of the camera while all other solidiers are running to the left side of the screen - it is such a powerful scene and the music is simply amazing. Sam Mendez has done a tremendous job. I was slightly surprised that this film turned out to be the biggest winner at the Golden Globes a few weeks ago but now I totally get it.

I'm going to watch Jojo Rabbit soon. Not sure about Parasite as I'm usually not interested in Korean films but seeing as it's got so many positive reviews I may watch it. Not interested in Little Women. So I rank the 6 films in this order: (Once upon a time in Hollywood is far down below because I simply couldn't get into it. It was one of those 'what the hell is this' kind of films for me.)

1917

JOKER

FORD V FERRARI

THE IRISHMAN

.

.

MARRIAGE STORY

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD


By the way, I hope Thomas Newman wins the Best Original Score award at the Oscars.

OK, I've given it a week or so now. 

Although I liked 1917 a lot and thoroughly recommend it, there was one thing about the film that bugged the hell out of me. 

They had gone into a lot of effort to try and get details right, that's why it stood out for me so much. All the actors had perfect teeth, watch the clips of the period film and everyone must have a third of their teeth missing. 

Jessie said:

JiMMy 85 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

ForeverAddickted said:

To be fair though how would you expect characters to develop in a WW1 film? 

I'm just commenting on finding the characters a bit one dimensional - I was more engaged by the WW1 film Journey's End. Just my opinion.

I think we can take it for granted that it’s your opinion. 

Journey’s End is also a WW1 movie but there’s not a lot else they have in common. One is an interpersonal drama, based on a play from 100 years ago, designed to delve into the mindset of WW1 soldiers awaiting their doom, while the other is effectively an action movie. I think it’s entirely unfair - or even unnecessary - to compare the two in this way. 

And while an action movie will spend less time expanding on character history or motivation than a drama, I personally thought 1917 did a grand job of explaining who Schofield and Blake were, particularly given they were constantly on the move.

Sure you can prefer one or another. I just think saying ‘the narrative fails’ is nonsense. 

(Spoilers alert)

I totally agree. Despite the film not delving into character development, the two young soldiers instantly give the impression that they're two different kinds of people. Blake seems less experienced than Schofield and probably has a softer heart. And he eventually gets killed by the German pilot tragically. Schofield is more cool-headed, calmer.

The film really isn't about character development though. 

Jessie said:

Bedsaddick said:

Jojo Rabbit . As one critic brilliantly put it , “ it’s like a Wes Anderson film set in the third reich “ .

It did little for me . I probably laughed about three times .  7 out out of 10 - Just 

So true. I watched till the Jewish girl appeared and gave up. The imaginary Hitler aside, it was so unbelievably unrealistic. I didn't get the funny parts and felt the 'child's perspective' thing was simply not my cup of tea. It is exactly why I'm never interested in Wes Anderson films.

Jessie said:

Bedsaddick said:

Jojo Rabbit . As one critic brilliantly put it , “ it’s like a Wes Anderson film set in the third reich “ .

It did little for me . I probably laughed about three times .  7 out out of 10 - Just 

So true. I watched till the Jewish girl appeared and gave up. The imaginary Hitler aside, it was so unbelievably unrealistic. I didn't get the funny parts and felt the 'child's perspective' thing was simply not my cup of tea. It is exactly why I'm never interested in Wes Anderson films.

AddicksAddict said:

Jessie said:

Bedsaddick said:

Jojo Rabbit . As one critic brilliantly put it , “ it’s like a Wes Anderson film set in the third reich “ .

It did little for me . I probably laughed about three times .  7 out out of 10 - Just 

So true. I watched till the Jewish girl appeared and gave up. The imaginary Hitler aside, it was so unbelievably unrealistic. I didn't get the funny parts and felt the 'child's perspective' thing was simply not my cup of tea. It is exactly why I'm never interested in Wes Anderson films.

I'm not sure the imaginary Hitler is particularly realistic.

Fair enough that the child's perspective doesn't work for you but I thought the humour was very approachable.  Then again, I was the only one in a packed cinema constantly laughing so perhaps I'm easily pleased.

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

JiMMy 85 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

JiMMy 85 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

ForeverAddickted said:

To be fair though how would you expect characters to develop in a WW1 film? 

I'm just commenting on finding the characters a bit one dimensional - I was more engaged by the WW1 film Journey's End. Just my opinion.

I think we can take it for granted that it’s your opinion. 

Journey’s End is also a WW1 movie but there’s not a lot else they have in common. One is an interpersonal drama, based on a play from 100 years ago, designed to delve into the mindset of WW1 soldiers awaiting their doom, while the other is effectively an action movie. I think it’s entirely unfair - or even unnecessary - to compare the two in this way. 

And while an action movie will spend less time expanding on character history or motivation than a drama, I personally thought 1917 did a grand job of explaining who Schofield and Blake were, particularly given they were constantly on the move.

Sure you can prefer one or another. I just think saying ‘the narrative fails’ is nonsense. 

It's not nonsense if it's my opinion - the narrative didn't work for me because I found the characters a bit one dimensional. The film worked on a visual level but I wasn't as gripped as I expected to be given the nature of the story - possibly it was simply down to the actors.

An opinion isn’t valid just because it’s yours. I could have an opinion that the trees outside my house are made of Lego, but that wouldn’t make me right. 

The narrative makes perfectly good sense. The story is set up, the story is told. And I’m the context of what the film is supposed to do - tell the story of two men on a journey - it tells us what we need to know about the people involved. Where I do agree with you is expectation - that’s a major part of enjoying a film, and IMO it’s much better to know very little going in. 

We're both entitled to our opinions as far as I'm aware - it's not really helpful to simply be dismissive. 

A narrative doesn't work as well if you're not fully engaged by the characters and I wasn't - obviously you saw it differently. 

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

JiMMy 85 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

JiMMy 85 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

ForeverAddickted said:

To be fair though how would you expect characters to develop in a WW1 film? 

I'm just commenting on finding the characters a bit one dimensional - I was more engaged by the WW1 film Journey's End. Just my opinion.

I think we can take it for granted that it’s your opinion. 

Journey’s End is also a WW1 movie but there’s not a lot else they have in common. One is an interpersonal drama, based on a play from 100 years ago, designed to delve into the mindset of WW1 soldiers awaiting their doom, while the other is effectively an action movie. I think it’s entirely unfair - or even unnecessary - to compare the two in this way. 

And while an action movie will spend less time expanding on character history or motivation than a drama, I personally thought 1917 did a grand job of explaining who Schofield and Blake were, particularly given they were constantly on the move.

Sure you can prefer one or another. I just think saying ‘the narrative fails’ is nonsense. 

It's not nonsense if it's my opinion - the narrative didn't work for me because I found the characters a bit one dimensional. The film worked on a visual level but I wasn't as gripped as I expected to be given the nature of the story - possibly it was simply down to the actors.

An opinion isn’t valid just because it’s yours. I could have an opinion that the trees outside my house are made of Lego, but that wouldn’t make me right. 

The narrative makes perfectly good sense. The story is set up, the story is told. And I’m the context of what the film is supposed to do - tell the story of two men on a journey - it tells us what we need to know about the people involved. Where I do agree with you is expectation - that’s a major part of enjoying a film, and IMO it’s much better to know very little going in. 

We're both entitled to our opinions as far as I'm aware - it's not really helpful to simply be dismissive. 

A narrative doesn't work as well if you're not fully engaged by the characters and I wasn't - obviously you saw it differently. 

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

The Personal History of David Copperfield

An interpretation of the life of David Copperfield directed by Armando Iannucci. I think it helps to be a fan of Dickens to really be fully absorbed by this - its an interesting take on Dickens but does become very pantomine at times. Dev Patel is very good in the title role and it has an excellent cast.

The casting ignores race and its unusual to see this from a story of that time. There will be plenty of debate over this.

7/10