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. That's probably why they choose two relatively unknown actors to play the leading roles while surrounding them with big name actors who all only appear briefly.
One thing that's great about 1917 is that although it's a somewhat action film, it still has a few impressive slow scenes and very beautiful shots. It maintains a balance between commercial and art elements quite well.
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?
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
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
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.
I drew the comparison to Journey's End merely to show a war film that gripped me - the two storylines are obviously completely different.
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.
A method actor would have gone to the dentist and had some teeth removed to really get into the part.
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.
I agree with you that 1917 is a better film than Joker but I think the acting of the lead in Joker was a tour de force and is nailed on for the Oscar.
You could give Once Upon a Time... another go. Yes, it is weird and, yes, it drifts a bit in the middle but the performances from Pitt and DiCaprio are excellent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The whole point of Waititi's film is to view things from a child's perspective which shows the blind fanaticism of the Nazi regime to a more chilling effect. It didn't really remind me of a Wes Anderson film other than it has a surreal nature.
It was more of a drama than a comedy - I think the comedy was really a small part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I liked the film a lot more than I expected to - it's a very difficult subject to approach and it certainly wouldn't work if you don't like a surreal view.
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 think it's a shame, as I think the film starts coming together from the point you left it. I agree that the comedic points at the beginning don't hit the highs of his usual comedic stuff, so I can understand why you left it, but once the film comes together I think it works as a character-based young adult war tale, with some strong satire.
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.
Jimmy 85 also thinks The Last Jedi is a good movie so don't get the impression his opinions are infallible! ; )
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 think it's a shame, as I think the film starts coming together from the point you left it. I agree that the comedic points at the beginning don't hit the highs of his usual comedic stuff, so I can understand why you left it, but once the film comes together I think it works as a character-based young adult war tale, with some strong satire.
It reminded me a bit of the German film The Tin Drum which again seemed to divide opinion massively - another film based on a child during the Nazi regime.
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.
I agree with you that 1917 is a better film than Joker but I think the acting of the lead in Joker was a tour de force and is nailed on for the Oscar.
You could give Once Upon a Time... another go. Yes, it is weird and, yes, it drifts a bit in the middle but the performances from Pitt and DiCaprio are excellent.
Yes absolutely yes. So I hope Phoenix wins the Best Actor award, which I've said in previous posts more than once.
As for Once upon a time in Hollywood, it's the lowest rated of all 9 nominated films on Douban, the Chinese equivalent of IMDB. Like me, a lot of people find it boring. Ultimately it goes down to whether we're interested in the subject matter of the film or not. Many people that don't like it have zero interest in the story itself. I'm one of them. I have to add that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my all-time favourite actors, and I've seen almost all of his films. I loved every single one of his films since Titanic, up until this one. And as for Brad Pitt, I was actually a fan for a while many many years ago. So to lose interest in a film with two main actors that I really like (or liked) just tells you how "not my cup of tea" it is.
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.
Sorry I probably misled you. I was meant to say the imaginary Hitler was obviously one unrealistic element but I knew about it beforehand. It was a few other things that I found difficult to believe. Scarlett Johansson goes into Sam Rockwell's office and arrogantly kicks him in front of all people. How's that possible? He's a Nazi officer. And the way the Jewish girl appears and speaks to the little boy is very weird too. That's not how I would imagine a Jewish girl reacts while being found at a German house.
Sam Rockwell is another favourite actor of mine but I have to give this film a miss.
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 think it's a shame, as I think the film starts coming together from the point you left it. I agree that the comedic points at the beginning don't hit the highs of his usual comedic stuff, so I can understand why you left it, but once the film comes together I think it works as a character-based young adult war tale, with some strong satire.
I'm probably only used to normal WWII films. I just don't like the tone of this one. I've seen and liked some children films before, but they don't use satire. Anyway, films are subjective. Some people don't like it doesn't mean it's not good. So to each his own.
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.
I think there's a difference between saying "I didn't like it for X", which of course is fine, and "it fails because of X" which should be open to debate.
Sharing your opinion is one thing, making a definitive statement is another. And asking to not have your statements challenged on discussion forum is bizarre. In my opinion, you should be challenged. So checkmate!
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.
I think there's a difference between saying "I didn't like it for X", which of course is fine, and "it fails because of X" which should be open to debate.
Sharing your opinion is one thing, making a definitive statement is another. And asking to not have your statements challenged on discussion forum is bizarre. In my opinion, you should be challenged. So checkmate!
You seem to be the one making definitive statements by implying that my view is not valid. I have never made a definitive statement but merely expressed a personal opinion.
If I say something doesn't work for me then it's obviously a personal view. I'm not expecting to be agreed with and haven't attempted to dismiss your opinion by making a ridiculous comment about lego.
We obviously see the film differently - both our views are subjective.
"The narrative fails because" read like a definitive statement to me (I don't think what you complained about had anything to do with 'narrative storytelling' but that's beside the point I suppose).
The Lego comment is meant to highlight how stupid I think it is to say "that's my opinion" as if an opinion cannot be wrong, or at least challenged. I think that's truly the dismissive act here - claiming that everything is subjective and nobody should discuss.
Personally, if I didn't like being challenged, I wouldn't put an opinion on a public forum! I don't mind that Jessie and I disagree on TLJ, I am happy to discuss that and I learnt from that poster why people have issues with that movie. If, months ago, I'd said "screw you, Jessie, it's my opinion and I'm not letting you question it" I wouldn't have learnt anything at all.
"The narrative fails because" read like a definitive statement to me (I don't think what you complained about had anything to do with 'narrative storytelling' but that's beside the point I suppose).
The Lego comment is meant to highlight how stupid I think it is to say "that's my opinion" as if an opinion cannot be wrong, or at least challenged. I think that's truly the dismissive act here - claiming that everything is subjective and nobody should discuss.
Personally, if I didn't like being challenged, I wouldn't put an opinion on a public forum! I don't mind that Jessie and I disagree on TLJ, I am happy to discuss that and I learnt from that poster why people have issues with that movie. If, months ago, I'd said "screw you, Jessie, it's my opinion and I'm not letting you question it" I wouldn't have learnt anything at all.
I expressed an opinion which you took as a definitive statement and then when I made it clear it was just an opinion you're somehow now claiming that I don't wish to discuss things. You seem to have misunderstood me.
Comments
The film really isn't about character development though. That's probably why they choose two relatively unknown actors to play the leading roles while surrounding them with big name actors who all only appear briefly.
One thing that's great about 1917 is that although it's a somewhat action film, it still has a few impressive slow scenes and very beautiful shots. It maintains a balance between commercial and art elements quite well.
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
I drew the comparison to Journey's End merely to show a war film that gripped me - the two storylines are obviously completely different.
I possibly had the wrong expectations of 1917.
You could give Once Upon a Time... another go. Yes, it is weird and, yes, it drifts a bit in the middle but the performances from Pitt and DiCaprio are excellent.
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
It was more of a drama than a comedy - I think the comedy was really a small part.
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.
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.
I think it's a shame, as I think the film starts coming together from the point you left it. I agree that the comedic points at the beginning don't hit the highs of his usual comedic stuff, so I can understand why you left it, but once the film comes together I think it works as a character-based young adult war tale, with some strong satire.
Jimmy 85 also thinks The Last Jedi is a good movie so don't get the impression his opinions are infallible! ; )
As for Once upon a time in Hollywood, it's the lowest rated of all 9 nominated films on Douban, the Chinese equivalent of IMDB. Like me, a lot of people find it boring. Ultimately it goes down to whether we're interested in the subject matter of the film or not. Many people that don't like it have zero interest in the story itself. I'm one of them. I have to add that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my all-time favourite actors, and I've seen almost all of his films. I loved every single one of his films since Titanic, up until this one. And as for Brad Pitt, I was actually a fan for a while many many years ago. So to lose interest in a film with two main actors that I really like (or liked) just tells you how "not my cup of tea" it is.
Sam Rockwell is another favourite actor of mine but I have to give this film a miss.
I'm probably only used to normal WWII films. I just don't like the tone of this one. I've seen and liked some children films before, but they don't use satire. Anyway, films are subjective. Some people don't like it doesn't mean it's not good. So to each his own.
I think there's a difference between saying "I didn't like it for X", which of course is fine, and "it fails because of X" which should be open to debate.
Sharing your opinion is one thing, making a definitive statement is another. And asking to not have your statements challenged on discussion forum is bizarre. In my opinion, you should be challenged. So checkmate!
If I say something doesn't work for me then it's obviously a personal view. I'm not expecting to be agreed with and haven't attempted to dismiss your opinion by making a ridiculous comment about lego.
We obviously see the film differently - both our views are subjective.
The Lego comment is meant to highlight how stupid I think it is to say "that's my opinion" as if an opinion cannot be wrong, or at least challenged. I think that's truly the dismissive act here - claiming that everything is subjective and nobody should discuss.
Personally, if I didn't like being challenged, I wouldn't put an opinion on a public forum! I don't mind that Jessie and I disagree on TLJ, I am happy to discuss that and I learnt from that poster why people have issues with that movie. If, months ago, I'd said "screw you, Jessie, it's my opinion and I'm not letting you question it" I wouldn't have learnt anything at all.
We obviously have a different view on the film.