I see the newly commissioned $13 billion USS Gerald R.Ford doesn't work properly, underlining that Smedley Butler was absolutely correct: war is a racket. Is now, was then and always has been a demonic scam perpetrated by crimbeciles.
As well, my great grandfather was killed in France. His son, my grandfather, who he took on the grand adventure, was shot and seriously wounded as well. My stupid stint in the armed forces was almost as disastrous.
As clever cinematically as it no doubt is, I won't see 1917. Jojo for the Oscar.
My grandad was gassed in the Somme: he’d bailed from the southern Mountains and was a ranch hand in Mesa Verde country when drafted. His gas mask worked, but he has sores from where the mustard gas had gotten inside his belt: and had to change dressings for the rest of his life: he died in ‘82. It wasn’t the only reason he was a mean alcoholic, but it was certainly a major one..now it’s Dad’s WWII generation dying out, in a world they can not fully comprehend...
I saw the 1929 version of "All Quiet On The Western Front," when I was around twelve yeas old. It changed the way I thought about...well everything. The admonition at the start of the film, "War is not an adventure," was and remains a radical statement. I was planning on seeing "1917," but the more I heard about it, the more it sounded like a ripping good adventure.
In "The Stunt Man," Peter O'Toole's mad director ponders the question of how to make an antiwar movie without crafting it to look exiting. In the wake of Vietnam, it wasn't easy to produce a movie that ended with a lusty male chorus belting out "The Marine's Hymn," but I thing that's starting to change for the worse again. Thanks a lot Mr. Spielberg.
I enjoyed--if that's the word I want--the film, but at one point thought, "This is a video game." I don't think I meant it pejoratively, but as our critic says, "set pieces" succeed one another. We get different "levels," with their distinct landscapes, dangers, "characters," etc. I was also reminded of Saving Pvt. Ryan and Cold Mountain, for better and for worse.
My (33-year-old) son observed that a lot of the camera work, its following over the shoulder of the heroes when not in their faces, was in fact developed in shooter video games. The sound design is terrific: gunfire sounds pop-y and not cool; flares sizzle; the music underlines but doesn't intrude. I will say that everyone who insisted I see it on the big screen was right, and I'm glad I let the kid drag me there. Oh, and there's a nice moment of suspense at the end, cleverly set up halfway through.
Haven't seen 1917 yet, but your review is an excellent analysis of war movies generally. Well done. For a dose of WWI reality, I recommend "They Shall Not Grow Old", Peter Jackson's documentary of ultra-restored WWI footage (currently available on HBO). I doubt if it's as graphic as 1917, but it was tremendously affecting to this viewer.
This movie felt cynically made to me. At many points it earns its emotions, but at others I could see it working too cleverly to set me up. I mean, the plot itself is no more complex than an elevator pitch -- "Okay, picture Private Ryan in the movie Gallipoli!" -- and overall I don't think Sam Mendes has a great feel for reality. American Beauty is one of the most movie-ish movies of all time, and this is not 180 degrees out from that pastiche of imaginary people representing abstractions -- though it should be.
This sounds like a negative review, but I did like it -- enough so that, as soon as it ended, I googled it, out of fascination with the fake-one-take thing, to find out where the cuts where. I'd only spotted four or five -- and when I googled, I didn't get anyone saying "Okay team, the cuts are here, here, here..." Instead, *everyone* was raving about it being "one take" as if it really was one take, and therefore deserved Oscars galore. Which made me feel Oh no, it IS cynically made, and dammit, it's working.
I see the newly commissioned $13 billion USS Gerald R.Ford doesn't work properly, underlining that Smedley Butler was absolutely correct: war is a racket. Is now, was then and always has been a demonic scam perpetrated by crimbeciles.
As well, my great grandfather was killed in France. His son, my grandfather, who he took on the grand adventure, was shot and seriously wounded as well. My stupid stint in the armed forces was almost as disastrous.
As clever cinematically as it no doubt is, I won't see 1917. Jojo for the Oscar.
My grandad was gassed in the Somme: he’d bailed from the southern Mountains and was a ranch hand in Mesa Verde country when drafted. His gas mask worked, but he has sores from where the mustard gas had gotten inside his belt: and had to change dressings for the rest of his life: he died in ‘82. It wasn’t the only reason he was a mean alcoholic, but it was certainly a major one..now it’s Dad’s WWII generation dying out, in a world they can not fully comprehend...
I saw the 1929 version of "All Quiet On The Western Front," when I was around twelve yeas old. It changed the way I thought about...well everything. The admonition at the start of the film, "War is not an adventure," was and remains a radical statement. I was planning on seeing "1917," but the more I heard about it, the more it sounded like a ripping good adventure.
In "The Stunt Man," Peter O'Toole's mad director ponders the question of how to make an antiwar movie without crafting it to look exiting. In the wake of Vietnam, it wasn't easy to produce a movie that ended with a lusty male chorus belting out "The Marine's Hymn," but I thing that's starting to change for the worse again. Thanks a lot Mr. Spielberg.
I enjoyed--if that's the word I want--the film, but at one point thought, "This is a video game." I don't think I meant it pejoratively, but as our critic says, "set pieces" succeed one another. We get different "levels," with their distinct landscapes, dangers, "characters," etc. I was also reminded of Saving Pvt. Ryan and Cold Mountain, for better and for worse.
My (33-year-old) son observed that a lot of the camera work, its following over the shoulder of the heroes when not in their faces, was in fact developed in shooter video games. The sound design is terrific: gunfire sounds pop-y and not cool; flares sizzle; the music underlines but doesn't intrude. I will say that everyone who insisted I see it on the big screen was right, and I'm glad I let the kid drag me there. Oh, and there's a nice moment of suspense at the end, cleverly set up halfway through.
Haven't seen 1917 yet, but your review is an excellent analysis of war movies generally. Well done. For a dose of WWI reality, I recommend "They Shall Not Grow Old", Peter Jackson's documentary of ultra-restored WWI footage (currently available on HBO). I doubt if it's as graphic as 1917, but it was tremendously affecting to this viewer.
This movie felt cynically made to me. At many points it earns its emotions, but at others I could see it working too cleverly to set me up. I mean, the plot itself is no more complex than an elevator pitch -- "Okay, picture Private Ryan in the movie Gallipoli!" -- and overall I don't think Sam Mendes has a great feel for reality. American Beauty is one of the most movie-ish movies of all time, and this is not 180 degrees out from that pastiche of imaginary people representing abstractions -- though it should be.
This sounds like a negative review, but I did like it -- enough so that, as soon as it ended, I googled it, out of fascination with the fake-one-take thing, to find out where the cuts where. I'd only spotted four or five -- and when I googled, I didn't get anyone saying "Okay team, the cuts are here, here, here..." Instead, *everyone* was raving about it being "one take" as if it really was one take, and therefore deserved Oscars galore. Which made me feel Oh no, it IS cynically made, and dammit, it's working.