1917 has to be the most Oscar bait film of 2019
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
Still a big achievement though, as it consists of many long takes in very elaborate sets and often with a lot of extra's or action going on. I also think you should not only consider the achievement in itself, but the reasons why it is shot this way. I found it really effective in taking you along on this journey with these two characters and (especially in the second half) driving home the timelock without every showing the clock itself. It's the changing light and the distances and the action that makes it so tense in the end. I think that's why it's lauded for being a one shot movie.
That said, the hidden cuts are often quite noticable if you have an eye for it (but most audience members won't notice), and the technique has it's narrative limits (sometimes you crave for an insert or a reverse shot).
Oh, and even without the hidden cuts, it's actually TWO shots, lol.
I really do not like the "this whole movie is one continuous shoot" concept of filmmaking. Its just way too much. Birdman was a goddamn nightmare because of it. It's this like that? Unrelenting, frantic and exhausting? Being a war movie makes me think it will be.
I'm interested mainly for the cinematography. WWII movies are typically a snooze for me but after hearing about Deakins being involved my ears perked up.
Honestly I'd probably say that would be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It's one of my favorite movies of last year but a movie about how awesome Hollywood was with that cast is definitely set up to win those folks over.
Really, oscar bait can mean pretty much anything lol
Really, oscar bait can mean pretty much anything lol
It's not as relentless as Birdman, which basically has one speed. Despite aspiring to the single take it has many parts where it decides to slow down the narrative. Feels like much more of a journey than Birdman. It certainly is exhausting but not because it's frantic, it also gives time to levity and relief.
Thought it was exceptional. Saying it lacks substance makes me believe you didn't understand the substance being captured.
It's a damn good movie, and it felt like a fitting companion piece to that WW1 Peter Jackson documentary.
I don't like that people dismiss films with amazing visuals as if it doesn't count for anything. Film is an audio visual art form.
Imagine pointing to an abstract painting and saying 'It's just style'.
Imagine pointing to an abstract painting and saying 'It's just style'.
On the other hand it can also be expected for truly acclaimed films to have style and substance. I can't speak to 1917 yet, I'm seeing it in two hours.
I can't believe this thread title exists for the same year that had Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. It's almost impossible to have a more Oscar-baity movie than that. (I love the movie, but it's a movie with lots of big names attached, about the film and TV industry, in the 1960s, and Oscar voters just love movies about themselves and what they do.)
Seeing 1917 tonight and am pretty excited. Didn't know it was a one-shot type of movie until this thread though.
Seeing 1917 tonight and am pretty excited. Didn't know it was a one-shot type of movie until this thread though.
Sam Mendes is a highly overrated director.
These hyped-up virtuoso cinematic gimmick movies are always empty technical exercises that critics eat up come awards season and no one ever watches them again.
These hyped-up virtuoso cinematic gimmick movies are always empty technical exercises that critics eat up come awards season and no one ever watches them again.
I'm wary of movies that try do to the whole thing in one take because it seems like it could just be some Everestian challenge by the filmmakers to say that they did it. I'm seeing it tonight so I want to give it the benefit of the doubt, and maybe there's something to be said about watching a moment of World War I with one continuous perspective, but I still have my suspicions. One takes should be a tool to be used, not something that should be a gimmick or an accomplishment in itself.
The Marvelous Mrs Maisel uses one takes often, but weaves them so well into the stories and action that you don't realize you're watching one most of the time. The metaphorical seams are intended to be invisible, and only the story and visual enhancing effects of the one take - not the one take itself - is meant to come across.
The Marvelous Mrs Maisel uses one takes often, but weaves them so well into the stories and action that you don't realize you're watching one most of the time. The metaphorical seams are intended to be invisible, and only the story and visual enhancing effects of the one take - not the one take itself - is meant to come across.
This is exactly what Scorsese tried to warn us about!
That doesn't really sound like The Two Popes at all
Walter Chaw did not care for it:
He didn't care for Dunkirk, either:
He didn't care for Dunkirk, either:
I tend to peek into theaters to see a glimpse of the different movies. With 1917, just from 30 seconds, I wrote off seeing it. The british soldier man was holding some baby in a cave.
Wow the human cost of war, that's great thanks for telling us about it
Wow the human cost of war, that's great thanks for telling us about it
I'll always have a hard time understanding why REGULAR people tend to be so overly-critic instead of just watching and possibly enjoy a movie.
What's the point of trying to find gaps and mistakes and whatnot in a movie that a lot of people worked on it? It's like overthinking what you could've said to your date at the right moment after all has been said and done and stressing and finding all the mistakes done instead of just moving on.
I enjoyed the movie by the way.
What's the point of trying to find gaps and mistakes and whatnot in a movie that a lot of people worked on it? It's like overthinking what you could've said to your date at the right moment after all has been said and done and stressing and finding all the mistakes done instead of just moving on.
I enjoyed the movie by the way.
Reading this thread, I certainly feel more of an urge to watch it. Feels like it's going be a bit like Dunkirk where so many things are amazing but the characters and story are somewhat shallow. A great film, but not really begging for a second viewing.
Haven't seen the film yet. Hopefully will this week. But from the moment I heard the entire film is made to look like it is one shot I have been kind of uninterested. Like this gimmick has been done before. It is not that interesting especially since you know it is just done through editing.
Oops, my bad. Still not into war movies in general so my point still stand :P
Yea, at least Dunkirk had the triptych with the added novelty of non-linear editing with the stories converging at the end
I don't know if this post is serious or not. But I also haven't seen Dunkirk
Awesome. I really want to watch Dunkirk just haven't gotten around to it yet. I've liked most of what I have seen from Nolan
OP
OP
like many have said that's it's like a video game, as you get familiar to how they do it and you just wait for the next part,
first the characters encounter some type of action, they finish that part, it slows down and they have dialogue, they finish talking and they're in front of the next place that gets them ever so close to their objective, rinse and repeat.
This format makes it so bad because they make the characters do something dumb And felt rather too unrealistic that it takes you out of the film.
Haven't seen 1917, but you bring up Parasite, which is funny because for me that was a movie that after I saw it was like 'that was it?' I expected so much more interesting things going on with the hype from almost everyone :(
Yeah I thought it was amazing too. Also to whomever complains about him holding the baby scene. It's all about context.Everything is pretty much explained.
Is this going to be another year where I like the Best Film Oscar the least out of all the nominees? I don't think that has happened since Crash. Hurt Locker was close but luckily Avatar was nominated that year.
The more descriptions I read of this film, the more certain I am that this is merely yet another of those expensive, self-aggrandizing, extended technical exercises which flatter the nerds who jizz over it enough to disregard the fundamental emptiness and bankruptcy of its vision. In short, totally not my cup of Oscar-bait.
OP
OP