AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
 Offline
Posts: 3539
|
 |
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2020, 02:42:06 PM » |
|
Just got back from seeing "1917." I liked it. I totally agree with KC on the music. To me, some of it was just too loud and sometimes oppressively bombastic. There is one piece that is quite propulsive that I liked that played at several points, but even that was overused. I often like "movie music," but in this case, I felt like the music sometimes took me out of the film. Also, some scenes had a lot of music in them that I felt would have been better without any music at all. For example, there is one scene in a cave, and there are some rocks that fall down (I am trying to avoid spoilers), and overlaying that is a lot of music that wasn't necessary. The rocks falling down kind of created their own live soundtrack in real-time, and overlaying additional music on top of those natural sounds took away rom the gravity of what was already happening onscreen.
I also agree that the film had gorgeous cinematography. I particularly liked scenes where the light faded to darkness, or when certain elements of the screen were in shadow while other areas were illuminated.
I've never seen "All Quiet on the Western Front," but I really liked the Man on a Mission aspect of the movie. The fact that the main character was tasked early on with getting a very important message to his fellow soldiers gave me a compelling reason to care about what happened to the protaganist, which is something that I sometimes struggle with with war films. All throughout the movie, I was rooting for the guy to survive so he could deliver his message! I also liked how thrilling it was. There are long stretches of the movie where nothing in particular is happening, and then seemingly out of nowhere, at often unpredictable times, someone starts shooting at him and he has to run to safety and fight for his survival. This movie, to me, had more of a personal resonance than most war movies typically do. The fact that it was so focused on the main character, and his fellow soldier, rather than the whole battalion of troops, made the movie feel more intimate to me. War movies typically have a lot of realism to them, and this did do, but they typically feel very impersonal, and to me, this one didn't.
I can definitely see this doing well at the Oscars! It's a much more classic Oscar movie than some of the other movies vying for the awards, like "Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood," "The Irishman," etc. I can see it being a dark horse candidate to win some of them, including Best Director and Best Picture!
|
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 32408
Control ...
|
|
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2020, 07:50:35 PM » |
|
Good comments, AKA. Yes, aside from the "gimmick" most reviews are focusing on, the cinematography was wonderful. And of course ... The audience badly wants the "mission" to succeed, since we've invested nearly two hours of our time in rooting for this end! It's only cynics like me who can't help thinking, "Will the serum get to Nome, Alaska, in time? Well, of course it will, or there would be rioting in the theater!"
There is a particularly touching scene about halfway through that I didn't see coming, and that packs an especially strong emotional wallop.
|
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 32408
Control ...
|
|
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2020, 10:45:02 PM » |
|
I've read reviews that the film is quite difficult to follow with what seems to be a disjointed, non-linear structure. I've never seen any version of "Little Women," so for anyone that has seen this version, I'd be interested in what you thought of that.
I didn't find it at all difficult to follow (and I've never read the book, and if I've ever seen another version I don't recall it). It is non-linear, but one scene flows naturally into the next and I never had any uncertainty about where in the narrative we were. It may remind you somewhat of Bird, or (to take a 2019 example) Almodóvar's Pain and Glory. In particular a detail about the ending reminded me of Pain and Glory, and I think it worked equally brilliantly in both places. ( Pain and Glory is not to be confused with Paths of Glory!  ) Gant, I mostly agree with your comments about 1917, particularly the bit about how the scene with the woman "felt shoehorned in." You can almost hear them saying, "Wait, wait, can't we fit a woman into this thing somehow? Can't have a whole movie without a single woman!" As for Little Women being "possibly a superior war film" ... you may have something there!  |
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 3539
|
|
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2020, 03:24:09 PM » |
|
"1917" is going to win Best Picture, and likely, Best Director as well, in my opinion. I can't see Tarantino's movie winning, and they probably aren't going to give Best Picture to "Parasite," since it's a foreign film and will already be winning Best International Film. "Joker" was really well done, but was extremely depressing to watch, and they aren't going to give Best Picture to a movie based on a comic book, regardless of its quality. It also had a pretty dark and misanthropic tone, which will be divisive for some and not prone to winning on a preferential ballot. Jewish people likely won't take kindly to "Jo Jo Rabbit" satirizing the Holocaust (I have not seen this film, but I read some articles that some of the Jewish members of the Academy did not like it for that reason). "Ford v. Ferrari" was really entertaining, but it doesn't have any precursor support, so it's not winning. "The Irishman" was too slow, too long, and kind of gimmicky with all the CGI used to make the extremely old actors look younger. The acting was great, and it was nice seeing Joe Pesci coming out of retirement for this role, but it doesn't compare favorably to "Goodfellas," Casino," and "The Departed," all of which were more entertaining cinematic experiences. So, by process of elimination, "1917" will likely win. Based on quality, and not having seen "Jo Jo Rabbit" or Little Women," I'd give the Oscar to "1917" or "Parasite." "1917" was the most entertaining, but "Parasite," dealt with social class differences in interesting ways and is most relevant for the times.
|
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clint Eastwood Forums
Author