Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: "1917"

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,058
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    How was the story? I was excited at first thinking typical war/antiwar movie but the previews came across too me as having a silly adventure like premise, similar to Saving Private Ryan, but with less people on the quest. Can someone set me straight on what is suppose to be happening?

    Im not at all concerned about spoilers,though I suppose others may be

    Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by sgtrock82; 01-13-20 at 18:05.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,272
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Two soldiers are tasked with delivering a message to stop an attack that is going to be walking into a German trap. To get there in time they have to cross enemy lines in a area where the Germans recently fell back to a new MLR. Story is pretty simple, this takes place over less than a day, one of the message bearers has a brother is in the unit due to attack and most likely get wiped out (1600 men) if they don't get there before dawn. Like already mentioned this is an immersive film, they used some pretty innovative techniques. One scene where the main character had to get down a crowded trench and could not make headway the camera was on a boom mounted on a truck until he exited the trench to run in front of it and two grips grabbed the camera and ran in front of him still filming so it was one continuous take.
    Last edited by mack7.62; 01-13-20 at 19:12.
    “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

    "He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bora Bora
    Posts
    6,047
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    As expected. Even worse than the last two or on par with those?
    Better than the last one but not enough to warrant the investment of time.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,058
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mack7.62 View Post
    Two soldiers are tasked with delivering a message to stop an attack that is going to be walking into a German trap. To get there in time they have to cross enemy lines in a area where the Germans recently fell back to a new MLR. Story is pretty simple, this takes place over less than a day, one of the message bearers has a brother is in the unit due to attack and most likely get wiped out (1600 men) if they don't get there before dawn. Like already mentioned this is an immersive film, they used some pretty innovative techniques. One scene where the main character had to get down a crowded trench and could not make headway the camera was on a boom mounted on a truck until he exited the trench to run in front of it and two grips grabbed the camera and ran in front of him still filming so it was one continuous take.
    Thank you for taking the time to explain that, sounds alot better than I was thinking it would be.

    Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,390
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Just saw it last night with the wife... Went to a Dolby Cinema theater, as suggested by the reviews... dont go see it in IMAX, it wasnt shot for IMAX, but for Dolby Cinema(Atmos speakers and 2.35 aspect ratio).

    The story line was ok, I guess believable.

    The cinematography was fantastic. I really thought the single continuous shot editing was a really cool way to go. The set design was good, blood and gore was pretty realistic. Weaponry was good, but the main character never reloaded his rifle. I think he loaded a 5 round stripper clip and fired like 20 rounds...but maybe I missed a reload.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    S.E. PA
    Posts
    1,700
    Feedback Score
    0
    My 11 and 8 year old have taken an interest to military history. Is the violence and gore over the too over the top? Would you take boys that age?

    After getting questions about DDay during the anniversary I showed them Saving Private Ryan. Meant to show a clip hear and there but ended up letting the movie play. My wife was not happy. The 8 year old was perfectly fine but my 11 year old was a bit freaked out for a couple hours.

    I also let them see the final scene of Zero Dark 30. Again, the little one thought it was cool but the older one was a little bit unsettled (nothing crazy).

    My Dad always let me see stuff like this and I showed them thinking it’s a lesson in reality vs the video games they play.
    "A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish." - Ty Webb

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,390
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by OldState View Post
    My 11 and 8 year old have taken an interest to military history. Is the violence and gore over the too over the top? Would you take boys that age?

    After getting questions about DDay during the anniversary I showed them Saving Private Ryan. Meant to show a clip hear and there but ended up letting the movie play. My wife was not happy. The 8 year old was perfectly fine but my 11 year old was a bit freaked out for a couple hours.

    I also let them see the final scene of Zero Dark 30. Again, the little one thought it was cool but the older one was a little bit unsettled (nothing crazy).

    My Dad always let me see stuff like this and I showed them thinking it’s a lesson in reality vs the video games they play.
    mmmm I would say go see it by yourself and judge it. Everybodies tolerance for their kids is different. I thought it was probably pretty realistic for what it would have been like in WW1.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,319
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by OH58D View Post
    We take the family and ranch crew once a month to Albuquerque for a big lunch and a movie. It's a 3 hour drive one way. Saw 1917. It was well worth every dollar spent. A lot of times when you go to a movie, you leave with a feeling that it was OK. This movie leaves you with a feeling that you just saw something different, presented in a way that made you feel part of the action. Acting was great, production value was stunning, and you actually feel like you are there in April of 1917. Again, worth every dollar spent.
    This is exactly what I was hoping to hear.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,319
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Watrdawg View Post
    Saw it last Thursday and came away thinking that this was very good. The only thing missing with the trench warfare was being gassed.
    Without having seen it yet or knowing the storyline, I'll just say that on a technical side, April, 1917 would have been a peculiar point in the use of gas during the war and almost routine. Mustard gas had not yet been used and the PPE available to soldiers was considerably better than what it was in the gas attacks of 1914/15. From what I've read, it wasn't like both sides were routinely exchanging gas shells - they were part of a bombardment prior to an attack.

    As an aside, while the prolific use of chemical weapons during the "Great War" is a big part of the general knowledge people have about the conflict, comparatively few soldiers died as a result of it, at least in the near-term - probably no more than 1% of fatalities, and a majority of them before 1917, because PPE and defensive tactics improved faster than the offensive tactics. I'm sure that didn't make it any less terrifying for those that endured it. Also, the French were the first to use it in 1914, and from 1917 through the end of the war, the Allies used it in far greater proportion because they had the capacity to manufacture much more of it.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,984
    Feedback Score
    0
    After reading a lot of posts here, it seems that a lot of folks have a high threshold of acceptance for films. After seeing many recent films, there always seems to be a formula in all of them. I saw the last John Wick, Die Hard, Tom Cruise Mission Impossible franchise and even the James Bond films. I like action films and westerns. What made 1917 acceptable to me is that it didn't fit the normal formula. It is almost a sequential ride you take, going from afternoon of one day to the morning of the next. Long continuous shots have to survive on their own without fast paced edits.

    Just from a visual standpoint, it's interesting. We stayed for the credits rolling at the end, and the Director of Cinematography, Roger Deakins, was the primary camera operator. His list of film credits is impressive in itself, including 10 years ago in New Mexico for segments of True Grit.

    The story line was simple, focusing on a mission that required two messengers on foot (since phone lines were cut) to contact another unit. I was wondering why they just didn't send a bi-plane to fly to the other battalion with battlefield instructions, but that would deny having a dramatic movie to watch. I don't take the high-toned Hollywood film critic role when watching movies. I paid money to be entertained and the movie delivered.
    Last edited by OH58D; 01-14-20 at 18:45.
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •