|
Saw it last night. The movie didn't make me a feel a drat thing, apart from some shocks and revulsion (eg putting hand in corpse's chest). I thought that despite the technical wizardry and creativity on display it felt empty and calculated - ultimately, contrived. I also thought that it was implausible. If the mission is so important, why send only two men (instead of, say four pairs), but more to the point, why didn't they just drop the orders from an airplane? (I just did some research and they were doing this from 1914). I also thought it hit pretty much every trope about WW1 films squarely on the head. There are other WW1 films which manage to elicit much more emotion in me. This just felt tricksy.
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Smart rear end yet accurate answer: because that wouldn't have been a very exciting movie. Sure sure. I get that. But having had that thought right at the beginning only added to the sense of contrivance. They could have said something about low cloud making flying impossible, although that would have made the airplane scene impossible. At least in LOTR Tolkien goes to the bother of generating some mythology around a Ring-bearer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
fenix down posted:The plot is based on Sam Mendes' grandfather being charged with delivering a message. So while greatly exaggerated, not implausible. I know they used messengers but for something of such importance the method of communication seems pretty risky. As for research, I did very little. This was the first google result. http://www.iwm.org.uk/learning/resources/what-impact-did-the-first-world-war-have-on-aircraft-and-aerial-warfare quote:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
IT’S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD! Is basically the criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Global Disorder posted:Precisely, the question was about integration and not about the well-known fact that imperialist powers had no qualms about making subject peoples kill or die on their behalf, thank you very much. Should have expressed myself more clearly. Even the Daily Heil confirms that Sikhs fought alongside white British troops https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911347/Soldiers-Empire-DID-fight-regiments-British-WWI.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
George H.W. oval office posted:I feel like there were a couple of instances where there had to have been a slight time jump or distance skipping of sorts even if it’s one shot. Floating down the river being the other example I can think of. Yes, it’s almost as if they sacrificed plausibility in order to maintain the one-shot feel. Almost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:I found that the first "over the top" scene, with navigating mud and barbed wire, felt wonderfully creepy and real at the same time. Anyone with any kind of rural background, at least, knows how much mud and barbed wire suck, and here's a whole landscape made out of them. Yeah, I did gasp when that happened. I also expected him to have developed an infection towards the end of the film, but I suppose it wasn't that predictable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
DOPE FIEND KILLA G posted:the problem with the passage of time has nothing to do with it being a war movie. the problem is that it betrays the seamless effect from the film's shooting style, giving it the effect of being one of those haunted house tours where you're dragged from room to room to have a huge variety of mis-mashed poo poo to pop out and it feels remarkably phony. Hypothetically a standard structure would've served the film better if it wasn't using the 'one-shot' gimmick to cover up its lack of substance. Great post. Totally agree.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:That may be so, but in the context of the movie, they clearly weren't in obvious danger. A more practical reason for the two leads being played by less well-known actors is that there are very few actors (especially British) in their late teens or early twenties who are stars, whereas there are lots on their 30s and 40s. Who is more famous and a good actor who could have played those roles at those ages? (I see a lot of casting discussions around younger actors, and generally one has to go with a less known name as there are so few well-known ones). Also, the officers clearly were in danger: Blake' brother was in great danger of the attack went forward. That is a key factor in the story. And why would the captain be crying if he wasn't terrified, because he was about to be in danger too? At one point the average life expectancy for a 2nd LT was something like 2 weeks. therattle fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Feb 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:The point is that you cast unknowns as the characters that the audience can identify with, whereas the big name stars are people-you-would-not-be. We encounter them fleetingly but do not establish a relationship with them because they are too important, regardless of how sympathetic they are. I am pretty sure that they would have cast bigger names had they been available. A film of that budget would need names to support the marketing etc; they couldn't get them for the leads (where you'd usually have stars), so they packed the supporting roles with stars to up the wattage and give it a good ensemble. That is common in cases where the scope to cast stars as the lead (usually due to age) is limited. I know how these discussions go. If they wanted complete unknowns that nobody had any associations with they wouldn't have cast someone from GOT.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 10:41
|
|