Looking forward to seeing this WW1 movie at the cinema in January. Looks like a movie masterpiece.

''The sound design is off the hook — biplanes roar over us, deafeningly. The cinema seats shake. Much of the action is nail-biting.''

Official trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg


Relatively Non spoiler review

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/1917-movie/

Apparently its filmed all in one shot.

karatekid wrote:Looking forward to seeing this WW1 movie at the cinema in January. Looks like a movie masterpiece.

''The sound design is off the hook — biplanes roar over us, deafeningly. The cinema seats shake. Much of the action is nail-biting.''

Official trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg


Relatively Non spoiler review

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/1917-movie/

Who wins????

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Apparently its filmed all in one shot.

I think you have misread the reviews. One of the scenes is 7 minutes long, which is unheard of nowadays.
The review in the Times was really complimentary and gave it 5 stars, saying it wasn't quite the best war film ever, just.

Paths of Glory will take some beating.

Saw it being filmed down the road (Salisbury Plain) but didn’t get a job as an extra

Filmed all in one shot Haha.

I think it’s filmed to look like one long single shot. So presumably it’s effectively in real time, I.e. if the film is 100 minutes long it represents a single period of 100 minutes in the war.

Does look good, my kind of film

ClaretAndJew wrote:Filmed all in one shot Haha.

Must be a long one shot film because it flips from day to night and back again on the trailer

I hope this helps to understand the one shot type of filming the movie employs.


Since Mendes couldn’t cut to, say, reaction shots during dialogue scenes, he began to realize that so much of the choice of how you shoot something is about what you're willing to allow to not be seen as much as to be seen.

“‘I don't think the audience needs to see that. They need to see that,’ he mused. “And it's not always the person talking who you want to have a counterpoint to that. So it forces you to make that fundamental editorial decision, which is actually, ‘I'm going to look away from who's speaking to the person who's listening’ or whatever. Those things have to be done on the day [of shooting] that you would normally be doing in the editing room. And once you've made the decision, it's amazing how the actors adapt, knowing, ‘O.K., I'm not on camera here so I'm going to wait a beat until I am on camera and then deliver this.’ And they do that instinctively too. That's why it's a dance.”

In Rope, Hitchcock would have to find ways to stop filming so his cameraman could change the film in the camera. “Somebody would walk towards the camera and it would wipe on the black of somebody walking,” said Deakins. “Then you'd cut and the character walks away from camera. It was meant to be a seamless cut. I mean, it was clever.” But the 1917 filmmakers wanted to avoid drawing any attention to the inevitable breaks between individual shots. Some of those breaks will be “tweaked” digitally to appear continuous, but others don’t even need that.

“For the most part it was in-camera, and obviously we paid specific attention to the end of the A shot and the beginning of the B shot to make sure that we had those plans,” continued Deakins. “We didn't want to every time do somebody walking up to the camera, and walking away from it. Some of them you don't need to do anything. … Some of [the cuts] just work. They just work. I've seen some of them just put together and they're just seamless already.”

Bosscat wrote:Who wins????

U.S.A

ClaretAndJew wrote:Filmed all in one shot Haha.

It is meant to look as if it is one long, uninterrupted shot. Obviously it wasn't all filmed in one single take, it is all stitched together with digital effects and editing. It takes them above and below ground, through areas that are deserted or through large-scale open-air battles.

We haven't had a technical curiosity like this to get our teeth into since Gravity, I'm very much looking forward to this.

Just out of interest, would you go to watch this kind of film with mates or misses?!

I'll take my two sons. Not my wife's kind of movie.

Alanstevensonsgloves wrote:Just out of interest, would you go to watch this kind of film with mates or misses?!

My recent ex wouldn't watch it, but the one before her probably would.

I'll be watching it with my two sons and their Uncle though.

This looks very good. I prefer the film reviews and recommendations on here over that annoying twerp of a critic on Radio 5.

Bosscat wrote:Who wins????

Extra time and penalties!

Marty Dobson wrote:U.S.A

No, they turned up just before the end to hold the trophy up.

Bosscat wrote:Who wins????

Still in the balance. VAR still examining replays

BennyD wrote:No, they turned up just before the end to hold the trophy up.

That's what the winners usually do

Watched this yesterday. Great movie with fantastic camera work. Some shocking scenes of destruction on the battlefield and brings home the futility of war. 8/10

karatekid wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:51 pm

Watched this yesterday. Great movie with fantastic camera work. Some shocking scenes of destruction on the battlefield and brings home the futility of war. 8/10

Cheers Karatekid, really fancy going to watch this next Friday or Saturday

Down_Rover wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:39 pm

Still in the balance. VAR still examining replays

The early VAR was called Versailles in those days.

Has anybody seen this film? Any opinions?

ecc wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:15 pm

Has anybody seen this film? Any opinions?

Enjoyed it but would not call it a classic - great camera work and all done in one setting

I enjoyed it too, well worth watching if it's your type of film but it's no Saving Private Ryan.

I watched it at the Everyman in Clitheroe, a cracking cinema imo.
As stated before the cinematography is brilliant and really captures the essence of the Great War in, at parts, all its horrific glory.
It's a pretty basic tale of getting from A to B but that really doesn't matter imo as it's so well done and acted. You actually feel like you are part of the team sent on the mission.
There are nice little cameos littered throughout from some of these shores finest actors too which is a nice touch.
If you are expecting action packed slaughterfest akin to the opening salvo of Saving Private Ryan or the current trend employed by Superhero movies of action overkill it may leave you disappointed.

It's a solid film and I really enjoyed it tbh

9/10

ecc wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:15 pm

Has anybody seen this film? Any opinions?

I loved it, I think it's a brilliant film, I've seen it a few times now.
10/10 for me, the sort of surreal, sometimes absurd but very moving wartime story you used to hear from the old men in the 110 Club.

I saw this on Monday and enjoyed the first half, but thought it lost its way after the bit where he gets out of the truck and crosses the bridge.

Technically very impressive though.

Some of the filming took place near where I live on Salisbury Plain. This time last year I was unable to use a regular walking route for several weeks due to the security arrangements for the production team's temporary offices etc.

The section that was definitely shot in this location is where the two soldiers emerge from woodland, pass through a little orchard and investigate the abandoned farm buildings. If you've seen the film you'll know the significance of this scene.

We went to see the film on Monday in Salisbury: I'm not a big fan of war films generally but this was rivetting, and the camera work superb.

1 photo shows my walk last May, with the French farm buildings visible at the top of the valley. The other shows the same walk last Tuesday, the French farm long gone now.

Seen the film last week and thoroughly enjoyed it and so did the wife