Frelga wrote:Why did they do digital deaging, anyway? Michael Fassbender did a perfectly good job playing young McKellen, for example, while also giving fans something nice to look at.
It's a biopic, so they had to follow the characters through time from the 40s to the 90s (rather than show younger versions of established characters, like Magneto). I think aging younger actors would have worked better, though, as it's easier for a 35-year-old to mimic the movement of a 70-year-old than visa-versa.
Although, to be honest, I think this was meant to be the last gangster film bringing together 'the greats' of Scorsese/De Niro/Pacino/Pesci, hence they wanted to put them through the familiar type of story one more time.
It’s a psychological thriller/survival story in a wartime setting rather than a war film. It’s similar in some ways to Dunkirk, although the story is far more limited and focused and there’s more visuals and less dependency on sound and practical effects.
It’s a very strong film. I’d say the first third or so is perfect, particularly in its ability to create a sense of unrelenting danger even when there’s not a German in sight. I think it meanders in the middle, and is let down by more conventional action scenes where the characters have plot armour. I would have actually preferred tension for the entire film until the finale – that would have been something original and remarkable.
Still, the cinematography is magnificent, and anyone who is interested in film as a medium might like to see it for that alone. Its particular style signature is that the entire film is done in only a few takes, or has the appearance of only a few takes. It’s a perfect fit for the subject matter and I’d love to see it done more. And I wish more films could look and sound as good.
Glad for the glowing 1917 review as I've been very interested in it. Was going to see it last night but plans fell through, but hoping to catch it next weekend.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I was definitely curious to hear your views on that film, Túrin. Even if it is unlikely that I will ever go see it (or watch it at home).
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Túrin Turambar wrote:
Although, to be honest, I think this was meant to be the last gangster film bringing together 'the greats' of Scorsese/De Niro/Pacino/Pesci, hence they wanted to put them through the familiar type of story one more time.
Seems the theme lately. Like Stallone playing Rambo in Last Blood.
I like Stallone a lot. Like the best action stars, he's also an excellent character actor. He was hilarious in Oscar, and his small role in GotG2 was memorable. But he's not going to be the reason I go see a new action movie.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
I’ve been thinking about 1917 some more and trying to articulate exactly I found striking about it, and it definitely has to be the way the entire film has the appearance of a single take (Sam Mendes did a similar thing at the start of one of the James Bond films he directed IIRC – this was him going all-out).
Watching the film reminded me a bit of a video game, although that’s not a fair comparison – calling a film video-game-ish is usually pejorative. Then I heard another reviewer express exactly what I was trying to say – the single take approach is really immersive, and creates the illusion that you’re exactly with the characters. Watching 1917 is a more interactive experience than watching a ‘normal’ film, which I think is what reviewers have been praising about it and why it put me in mind of a video game. It also has great production design, which helps.
As I said, I don’t think it really reaches the potential of the idea and I found myself fidgeting and asking myself annoying questions through part of the middle, but when it gets it right it really gets it right.
I quite liked The Irishman, and I thought the final act differentiated itself enough from other gangster movies to not just be a nostalgic retread (though there are certainly elements of that). The movie deals thoughtfully with themes of aging and regret in a way mob movies rarely do - Godfather III tried, but that movie has other major issues of course and The Irishman goes farther with it.
All the performances are good, but Pacino as the crooked hothead union leader is the highlight. The digital de-aging is not 100% convincing, but good enough that I didn't find it distracting.
For 1917, one thing I like about it is that is a tale of the smallest kind of heroism - someone delivering a message to stop a suicidal attack. It struck me that Tolkien, who was of course intimately familiar with the setting, probably would have appreciated it.
Oscar noms came out this morning. Which ones have you seen?
Best picture
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
“The Irishman”
“Parasite”
“1917”
“Marriage Story”
“Jojo Rabbit”
“Joker”
“Little Women”
“Ford v Ferrari”
2019 was a bit of a weak year in movies for me as there were a good number of movies I quite liked, but none I would say I loved (besides Endgame). None of the ones I liked the most made the cut - The Lighthouse, Knives Out, and Ready or Not.
Of these noms, I have seen Jojo, Joker, and Marriage Story. I liked all three, but of those Marriage Story is easily the "best". That said, Jojo is the only one I would ever want to watch again.
I do plan on seeing 1917 soon, but I have minimal interest in the rest. I'll probably check out Parasite and Little Women when they come to DVD but not interested enough to go to the theater for those.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
We watched The Two Popes last night. It is not a film that we would have normally given a second thought about watching (or even a first one), but a good friend suggested it, and we didn't have anything better to do. We both quite enjoyed it (though I am doubtful as to how true to life it really is).I was interested to see that Jonathan Pryce (who I had never heard of before) was nominated this morning for a best actor award, and Anthony Hopkins was nominated as best supporting actor. They both were very good.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Jonathan Pryce is a wonderful actor. I loved him as the original Engineer in Miss Saigon and as Peron in the movie of Evita. More recently he was the High Sparrow in Game of Thrones.
Alatar wrote:Jonathan Pryce is a wonderful actor. I loved him as the original Engineer in Miss Saigon and as Peron in the movie of Evita. More recently he was the High Sparrow in Game of Thrones.
He certainly was very good in The Two Popes. Have you seen it, or do you have interest in doing so? I'd be curious to hear your impressions on it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
So I saw 1917 last night. Have to say I think this is movie-making as art. Its stunningly conceived and executed. Unlike Túrin, I think it badly needs the middle third because the tension would be simply unsustainable over 2 hrs. I fully expect it to win Best Picture.
I thought the urban sequence was great. Túrin may have a point about plot armor in a realistic film, but it was so well filmed that I'm fine with it. Besides, the Germans there are supposed to be a ragged group behind enemy lines.
Alatar wrote:So I saw 1917 last night. Have to say I think this is movie-making as art. Its stunningly conceived and executed. Unlike Túrin, I think it badly needs the middle third because the tension would be simply unsustainable over 2 hrs. I fully expect it to win Best Picture.
I can see both sides of the argument. That said:
Hidden text.
I thought the film strained credibility by having only two men go on this critical mission over miles of land not secured by the British Army in the first place, although I could be wrong, and this sort of thing might have actually happened. Once one of them was killed, it seemed bizarre to me that Mark Strong’s character didn’t send any of his own men with Scofield. Plus I couldn’t quite figure out how an entire column with vehicles materialised pretty much unnoticed in territory which had only been abandoned by the Germans recently enough for their embers to still be smouldering. Finally, I think the scene where comes across the Yorks in the forest would have been more powerful had they been the first friendly soldiers he came across since he left his own lines. So I thought the film went off the rails a little bit once the plane crashed (the wounded pilot seriously thinks he can kill two infantrymen with rifles with a knife?) and didn’t quite return to perfect form until the river scene. An alternative would have been to have more men go, and have all but one killed at some point (like the river crossing). As it stands, the German sniper looks really incompetent given he couldn’t kill one man in broad daylight from a perfect vantage point less than a hundred yards away given about a half-dozen shots.
I did end up watching 1917. Of the Oscar nominees I've seen, I would vote for it to win Best Picture.
I do think they pulled off something truly extraordinary, an astounding experience unlike anything I've ever experienced. There is a nagging part of me, though, that feels like on a narrative/storytelling level, it's too simple and simplistic for its own good. It's a very fresh perspective on an old story, but man, that story (aka "War is Hell: The Story) is really, really old at this point. get that they were trying to tell a very small, individual story, and give that very basic story a lot of heft and weight by the powerful execution of the story. And they pulled that off, for sure. But maybe it was too focused on delivering an "experience" at the expense of delivering something a little more emotional depth? Or maybe that's fine and the truly AWE-some experience is more than enough. Probably. Maybe.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
And now, what you've all been waiting for - yov's Top 10 Favorite Movies of the (previous) Decade!
Had hoped to post this in the actual decade but I wanted to re-watch these before listifying them and that took a bit longer than I expected. Without further ado, the movies I loved most from the past 10 years in no particular order:
- A Separation
[possibly the best written pure drama I've ever seen]
- Birdman
[if I had to pick a decade's favorite, it would probably be this one]
- Toy Story 3
[sobbing happysad tears for the last 15 minutes]
- Social Network
[it's weird how cool this movie is when it's about a bunch of nerds... which might be half the point]
- Black Swan
[terrifying insanity in just the best way]
- Lego Movie
[the shear level of creativity and imagination here is utterly bonkers]
- Eighth Grade
[for the genuine reminder that we really are worth loving]
- Much Ado About Nothing (2012)
[this movie wrings every possible ounce of charm out of its goofy setup]
- The Double
[my favorite movie that nobody anywhere heard about or watched]
- Avengers: Endgame
[pulling off this mega-finale should never have worked but damnit do they stick the landing; "Avengers assemble" is the very best film moment of the decade]
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
