As a little bit of a WW1 buff, when this came up on various news feeds (that's the way it is these days it seems) it became a must-see. Went to see it last night - (Vue in Rhyl was more than half the price of CineWorld in Broughton) great film, beautifully put together and some great effects. I know a little about WW1 and it seemed as true to life as the cinema can ever be. There were some "weird" moments towards the climax, not least the river and waterfall scene. The singer scene at the start of the final sequences of the film were quite odd, but not at odds with history, I've read about stuff like that (no spoilers).
Well worth going to see, beautifully produced.
|
Just been to see it and I was quite bored with it, but then I am with most films. I went with my mate who is a font of knowledge on WWI and he was disappointed too.
What he hadn't noticed but I'd read before we went was that it was all very cleverly (made to look like it was) filmed on one shoot from a single camera. I put that bit in brackets as I suspect they've been a bit cunning in places, e.g. where the camera goes one side of a tree and the target is on the other, but certainly there are some very long sequences where I couldn't see any stitch point. You can see more on that here
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94
There appeared to be just two people working in the cinema - one person selling sweets and crisps and one person waiting at the door of our room once the film had finished, presumably to sweep up the popcorn I'd spilt :-) So we moved to the premium seats, which aren't a lot different at the Bracknell Odeon. There were only about 6 other people there anyway
|
Bored? I'm quite staggered by that. Also went to seee the film this afternoon. I thought it a brilliant piece of film making. Death is all around you and the film depicts surreal quality of the war. At times you are living through a nightmare. Brilliant direction by Sam Mendes and I thought the "single take" technique gave it a reasl sense of involvement and immediacy.
The film is nominated for Best film in the Oscars and I think it stands a good chance although the Joker is favourite (I really didn't like it). I have seen a couple of the other nominees, Little Women and Le Mans 1966, nominated under the American Title of Ford v Ferrari,
Of the four I have seen I would give it to 1917 although LIttle Women was also a brilliant piece of directing by Greta Gerwig
|
Maybe bored is the wrong word. But I soon get fidgety at the cinema, it's why I hardly ever go. I enjoyed it roughly until he met that woman and baby. Then I got the fidgets and started looking at my watch. I do honestly feel it went downhill from about that point.
There's no doubt it set the scene of how it was in WW1 and much of that was impressively put across.
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 13 Jan 20 at 20:25
|
|
It was - a couple of friends, one in particular is an expert (just done his MA in WW1 history), have been to see it. The "expert" was impressed - he has got an eye for detail, he was very impressed. I prefer factual over fictional, the river scene was most odd, don't know why it was included. The trench scenes were first class.
|
|
It was not intended to be a documentary. The film works on a number of levels.
|
Spoiler Alert:-
The Germans lose.
|
>> Spoiler Alert:-
>> The Germans lose.
>>
Ah?
But did they?
|
|
NOw We are out of the EU and got back control, yes they did. We all know the EU was a nazi plot.
|
It's a film I want to see. The trailers look good.
I took my wife to see Le Mans 1966. Not something you usually take your wife to and she was sceptical. But although I know a lot of the back story and she knows nothing, we both really enjoyed it. Strongly recommended if you haven't seen it and probably one of the best films I have seen which mixes fact with some artistic licence.
|
|
Yes it was good. I know nothing about motor racing but it was a good story with fine acting. My wife enjoyed it too. Take your wife to see “Little Women”. A complete contrast to 1917 but one of the best films I have seen for a while. I think you will both enjoy it.
|
|
Ww have two cineworld vouchers left...guess we may go and see one of those !
|
Saw it this evening. It's certainly a film you need to see at the best cinema screen you can find with the best sound set up, don't wait for the DVD, the film will have escaped you.
The cinematography, ie the single continuous shot, is a technical triumph, and makes the whole film very first person, it's like being in a real life computer game, or even being there.
On the whole its gripping, shocking, more so because it's so immersive.
I can see what smokie means tho, the human element scenes, the baby and the girl for example are chunkily shoehorned in and destroy the pace (although it could be a blessed needed rest period in the first person action) and the director allowed himself to indulgently get carried away with the over the top flare lit night scene.
As far as accuracy goes, who the hell cares, its history now so open to interpretation and re writing, but I am not sure how many raging rapids and waterfalls there were on the western front!
The ending is a bit of a cop out, cant explain why it would be a massive spoiler.
It's one of those classic must see's, that in years to come you will say, I saw that on its release.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8sr
Towards the end of this programme there's an interview with one of the producers, I only caught the end of it. I need to re-listen later.
|
|
Home just in time to watch Love Island I see.
|
>> Home just in time to watch Love Island I see.
whassat?
|
|
There is a dream like not to mention religious element to the film. The scene that sticks in my mind is the awareness of singing in the distance. I intend to see the film again.
|
|
And me..it needs to be re-seen. That song was covered by Johnny Cash - Mrs RP thought it was an odd choice, but seems it's a traditional folk song, either American or English in origin.
|
Not for me, wont work a second time round.
The song sequence? an attempt to portray the futility of war, and a way to portray what we now know as PTSD perhaps.
|
|
It was quite a common occurrence in the "back areas" maybe not so just prior to an attack. Reminds me of an early scene where the "heroes" walk in through back trenches to the front line, most impressive, as was the difference in the build quality of the German trenches as compared to the British ones...
|
>> the difference in the build
>> quality of the German trenches as compared to the British ones...
And they were almost always better sited with respect to the geography,
|
|
The military reason was that they had every intention of staying put, whilst the allies didn't.
|
as was the difference in the build
>> quality of the German trenches as compared to the British ones...
>>
More about purpose and outlook of the war of each side rather than quality of work per se.
|
|
Regarding the almost dreamlike quality it is interesting to compare the initial and final shot of the film.
|
Its been intentionally "washed out" gradually through the film almost to sepia, and vistas are "wider" with less detail and clutter, gives a transient less permanent* feeling to the ending scenes.
*Except the field aid station, Dark, crowded, sharp focused chaos in the middle of the washed out featureless scenery.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 17 Jan 20 at 09:36
|
|
In a brilliantly executed production (accuracy wise) that was the other odd touch. Normally CCS' would have been close to the action but would have been better protected (i.e. in an underground "dug out" or actually entrenched) not in a tent in an open field directly behind the front line in the course of a planned attack. But is it a fault - who cares, brilliant film sublimely executed. May go to an iMax next week to see it again
|
Somethings been kinda bothering me about this film, and it hit me today.
If you had an urgent message to send, you wouldn't send two blokes across miles of hostile territory on foot, you would get the RFC to fly over there and drop a message canister.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 18 Jan 20 at 21:35
|
|
Odd you should say that. One WW1 was asked what 21st Cent. bit of tech he'd have wanted when he was in the trenches. His answer was quite simple. "A mobile phone"....think about it. Not a state of the art weapon system, a very simple communication device
|
Sat down with the missus to watch it last night but as usual, I got fidgety, restless and ended up going away to do some odd jobs about the house, occasionally popping back in to refill her glass.
Not in any way a reflection of the film, she loved it. Just that I very rarely can sit down and watch a full film. James Bond yes, Les Mis yes but not a lot of others. Probably same reason why I don’t watch any of these box set series that everyone tells me I “must watch”!
|
I regularly visited the KMFM ...Kendal Mountain Film Festival. I’d go into one of the screens mid morning and emerge 12 hours later have watched a dozen or so adventure films.
Admittedly I’ve not been to the cinema for a few months...my fav film of 2019 being ‘Once upon a time in Hollywood’. Loved it.
|
|
I'm with this Fella. I have two problems apart from the one's you lot might invent. I want to shout at, shoot or generally batter the TV when the overly loud adverts come on, most of which seem to bear no resemblance to the carp being peddled. And worse than that, when my A hits a soft seat my eyes seem to close. In life I'm truly fed up with people asking me if I've seen this film or that whatnot. In truth they generally do very little for me.. BTW who is this James Bond chap??
|
|
We were discussing a film currently on release at the cinema not on TV.
|
|
Yeah we were watching it on our TV via IPTV.
|
>> Yeah we were watching it on our TV via IPTV.
>>
So the people that invested tens of millions to make the film wont get paid for your streaming of it!
Nice!
|
|
Apart from any moral issue if you were to go to a cinema you would find the film a much more immersive and fulfilling experience. 1917 is a film that demands to be seen on a big screen, the bigger the better.
|
|
While there is something in that CGN, in this thread I first used the word fidget somewhere above. I am not good at sitting for ages watching anything. I guess it suits some better than others.
|
As the Music Industry knows, and the Film Industry is beginning to understand, the way to defeat piracy is to make it unsatisfactory and pointless. To pursue it with the law in a digital age is fruitless. They can really only attack distribution and that is becoming increasingly difficult after early successes.
Though in the past it was stated that the home download audience and the cinema trip audience were actually different audiences seeking different experiences. I say in the past because I haven't been involved for a few years and audience balance may have shifted.
The Film Industry is working out how to develop revenue from the home download audience without cannibalizing their cinema trip revenue - hence the drive to improve the cinema experience over the last 20 years. The solution to piracy will increasingly be, as it is for music, on-demand streaming.
One of the major barriers is their desire to retain geographic based release and availability. Always been a mainstay of their business model. Though I see this is gradually falling away. Once it is gone then one of the most significant drivers and enablers of pirating will also be gone.
Streamed / on-demand music is priced at a level and given an availability which makes piracy close to pointless. In fact music sales (units) are at a 50 year high and music sales (Revenue) are at an all time high increasing year on year (something like +40% in the last 5 years). And they are doing it in such a way that it is increasing concert / tour revenue as being a different experience.
Of course only streaming is actually significantly increasing. CDs are dropping through the floor and downloads not far behind.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 20 Jan 20 at 00:54
|
>> Apart from any moral issue if you were to go to a cinema you would
>> find the film a much more immersive and fulfilling experience. 1917 is a film that
>> demands to be seen on a big screen, the bigger the better.
>>
As I said up thread, if you don't see it on the big screen, with a great speaker system you have missed the film As Bobby has
|
> As I said up thread, if you don't see it on the big screen, with
>> a great speaker system you have missed the film As Bobby has
>>
Not worth bothering with when its released on TV?
|
>> Not worth bothering with when its released on TV?
I wouldn't, getting bored is a distinct possibility.
|
>>
>> >> Not worth bothering with when its released on TV?
>>
>> I wouldn't, getting bored is a distinct possibility.
>>
Ah right, cheers.
|
>>you would find the film a much more immersive and fulfilling experience. 1917 is a film
>> that demands to be seen on a big screen, the bigger the better.
>> >>
>> As I said up thread, if you don't see it on the big screen, with
>> a great speaker system you have missed the film As Bobby has
>>
75 inch Qled 8k flagship model does me!
|
>> >> As I said up thread, if you don't see it on the big screen,
>> with
>> >> a great speaker system you have missed the film As Bobby has
>> >>
>>
>> 75 inch Qled 8k flagship model does me!
Im talking 15 yards, with 1000 watt 20 speaker Dolby 8.1 sound.
|
>> 75 inch Qled 8k flagship model does me!
>>
>> Im talking 15 yards, with 1000 watt 20 speaker Dolby 8.1 sound.
>>
I know, saw the new Star Wars film a couple of Sundays ago at the local cinema and you can’t beat it.
We have one major and 3 indis so get a good choice. The indis tend to get films after the main rush or show ones that would never get screen time at the chain.
|
I tend to use Cinema City in Norwich. It’s part of the Picturehouses chain which show a good mixture of mainstream and art house material. It’s housed in a a lovely old building and incorporates a wine bar an restaurant as well as three screens. I like going to the cinema, it’s so much more of an event than putting on a DVD let alone streaming a dodgy pirated copy of a film. As has been said most cinemas do a half price deal on one day, Cinema City is Monday and I don’t think £5.70 is a lot to pay for an afternoon out on a dreary day in January
|
>> Yeah we were watching it on our TV via IPTV.
>>
What's the quality Of the copy like?
I wonder how they get a copy while still in the cinema?
|
|
It’s the copy that is given to the judges for the various award ceremonies.
|
>> It’s the copy that is given to the judges for the various award ceremonies.
>>
Ah right thanks. So pretty good quality I should imagine.
I'd not heard of iptv til you mentioned it in your post.
|
|
I remember watching a pirate E.T. with my school mates. Crappy video, crappy telly, crappy sound, crappy experience. I'll never do that again, it should be experienced at the cinema. It's not that expensive either, some cinemas do a special price on a certain day. Wednesdays for me, half price. It's the popcorn that hits you in the wallet with a family of four. But I've got to have that too.
|
Of course, because that was analogue tape based which deteriorated with each copy.
Digital files do not.
|
>Digital files do not.
Statistically speaking, if you copy a digital file enough times one of those copies will suffer from undetected corruption. Make a copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum and you'll eventually end up with garbage.
/Pedant mode
|
"Make a copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum and you'll eventually end up with garbage."
Unless you apply some sort of selection and then you end up with evolution
|
>> /Pedant mode
I said that VHS copies deteriorate with every copy, whereas digital file do not.
I can't quite see where your point contradicts that. Or do you mean that digital files *do* deteriorate with every copy?
/Better pedant mode
|
>Or do you mean that digital files *do* deteriorate with every copy?
Digital files can and do deteriorate if they are copied or transferred enough times although I doubt every copy.
The CRC used to protect each block of data cannot detect all errors so with successive copies the likelihood of encountering one of those errors increases.
/Even better pedant mode
|
>> >Or do you mean that digital files *do* deteriorate with every copy?
>>
>> Digital files can and do deteriorate if they are copied or transferred enough times although
>> I doubt every copy.
>>
>> The CRC used to protect each block of data cannot detect all errors so with
>> successive copies the likelihood of encountering one of those errors increases.
>>
>> /Even better pedant mode
>>
You can do a bit by bit check of a digital copy against the original before copying it again to make sure it is 100% and then copy it, then you are effectively copying the original anyway.
|
>You can do a bit by bit check of a digital copy..
Reading the data back from the target and comparing to the source defeats the objective of trying to protect it with CRC during transmission. You might as well just squirt it down the line and read it back until it matches.
|
>>It's the copy that is given to the judges for the various award ceremonies.
Typically they're watermarked and are not necessarily the final cut.
|
>> >>It's the copy that is given to the judges for the various award ceremonies.
>>
Sad that those entrusted to a copy and who presumably sign an agreement not to share the film with others are prepared to damage their own industry. I doubt that any of the judges are penniless. Contemptible really.
|
I entirely agree.
Pirate copies appear one of four ways;
- Some lying, dishonest little s*** steals it and passes it on or sells it.
- Someone goes into a theatre with a video camera and filmed
- It's released on DVD somewhere in the world a bit ahead and ripped.
- Streamed on Netflix or similar somewhere in the world and copied.
But it's not the judges. It's other people that handle it; The post room, an administrator, someone 'mislays' a copy before it is sent, disposal after judging etc. etc.
|
>Typically they're watermarked and are not necessarily the final cut.
And "Cats" was even recut after it was released in the US.
|
>> >Typically they're watermarked and are not necessarily the final cut.
>>
>> And "Cats" was even recut after it was released in the US.
and it was still crap
|
>> Le Mans 1966, nominated under the American Title of Ford v Ferrari,
Just watched it. Utterly loved it. One of the most enjoyable films I have watched in many years.
I guess you'd have to have at least a passing interest in motor racing, it was enjoyable from end to end. Great casting, great acting and a quite reasonable story line.
I have no idea, or indeed interest, in how accurate it was; what is was is thoroughly enjoyable.
Highly recommended as a good fun, exciting and interesting film.
|
As I posted earlier I thought it a good film too. I don’t think you need an interest in motor racing to enjoy it. I have very little and my wife none whatsoever but we nth enjoyed the film immensely.
Completely different but saw “The Personal History of David Copperfield” yesterday. Absolutely a joy. Thoroughly recommended. There have been a lot of good films lately.
|
There have.
As I also mentioned above, my wife really enjoyed Le Mans 1966 as well. Little Women was for me a slow burner, but wife and daughter enjoyed it and by the end so did I.
Need to see 1917 and David Copperfield (although I really ought to finish the book first)..
|
|
Worth the admission to see Hugh Laurie as Mr Dick
|
|
Went to see 1917 today. Recommended.
|
1917 - smokie