2019 Movie Discussion

[AKA23]

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!

[KC]

I would say there's something "a little different" about this one. The way it's shot is almost an immersive experience.

The music isn't minimalist like an Eastwood movie, but I'm fine with that. In fact there was one sequence when I thought how I really liked the music that was being played there (and I don't remember what sequence that was).

Yes, for many "the way it's shot" alone would make it worth seeing. The only reason to avoid it would be if you've seen one World War I movie too many, but there haven't been that many in recent years (with up-to-date special effects).

Christopher and I will have to agree to disagree about intrusive scores. They always make me think of that great scene from Blazing Saddles ...

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ZzKUVsHL7ac" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ZzKUVsHL7ac</a>

[KC]

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.

[Gant]

Ok... Taking Mrs Gant tonight to see it... Will report back...

[KC]

Afterwards, you can have Mrs Gant take you to see Little Women!

[AKA23]

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.

[Christopher]

I think scores definitely can be intrusive, but I really didn't notice 1917's like that.

[Gant]

I definitely want to see Little Women, possibly a superior war film

1917... Amazing technical achievement and I found the first half hour quite intense, however it lost me a little in the
second half.. It felt a little forced and schmaltzy in places. The scene with the woman felt unreal and shoe horned in and the waterfall scene was like something out of Rambo. I felt like I was spending most of the film marvelling at how impressively it was filmed rather than becoming emotionally involved with characters and story . For all it's impressive cinematography it still didn't feel gritty or dirty enough for me.. Soundtrack didn't bother me but the basic story wasn't very original..Certainly won't be pushing Attack or Paths of Glory off the top spot on my fave war films list...

I enjoyed JoJo Rabbit far more..

[Christopher]

Certainly won't be pushing Attack or Paths of Glory off the top spot on my fave war films list...

Paths of Glory is an amazing movie.   I have Attack recorded on the DVR still waiting to be watched...

[Gant]

I love Attack, killer movie packed with real gritty performances... Eddie Albert, Lee Marvin, Jack Palance... What a cast !!

[KC]

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! 

[KC]

I think scores definitely can be intrusive, but I really didn't notice 1917's like that.

Might have been the sound system in the theater where I saw it ... though I've always been especially sensitive to that sort of thing. It's one reason why I took to Clint's films.

[Gant]

The whole movie (1917) felt a bit like a computer game walk through to me.. and very predictable.

On a good note. The trailer for "The Personal History of David Copperfield" looked good and posters were up for
Richard Jewell..
Jewell gets a good write up in the new issue of Sight & Sound..

[Christopher]

I didn't know there was a new David Copperfield movie.

[Christopher]

1917 is still the only Best Picture nominee that I've seen, but Parasite is about to be released to blu-ray/DVD. I'd like to rent that and Joker at some point here (still don't have tons of interest in seeing Joker--it's more of a curiosity thing).

I typically have seen most of the best animated picture nominees though. Though this year there's two I haven't seen yet: I Lost My Body and Klaus, which are both on Netflix.

[AKA23]

"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.

[Gant]

I enjoyed Jo Jo Rabbit far more than 1917. It's story and characters moved me a lot more..
I did enjoy Ford v Ferrari (Le Man 66 here) but mainly cos of all great car and racing scenes..
I'd put Once Upon a time in Hollywood and Joker FAR above 1917 for my best picture of the year.

I reckon you're  right tho AKA23.. 1917 will probably win it, and for  all the wrong reasons..
As Mr Wison once said

[Christopher]

I recently watched Klaus and I Lost My Body on Netflix, which, as I mentioned before, are both nominated for best animated film at the Oscars. Both are good. I Lost My Body would be my choice for which I think should win. It's not for kids, by the way.

[Gant]

Just back from seeing Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson in

The Lighthouse

Very grim and intense film. Both actors are superb. A claustrophobic cabin fever drama..
No cgi here to distract the eye. Both actors look like they went through hell making it..

Starkly shot in black and white with vintage lenses.. Not a film you will easily forget..

[Gant]

Parasite

Every bit as good as they're saying..

After the film there was a Q&A with the director and his lead actor that was very interesting and entertaining..