1917
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:28 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:30 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.

Blackhawk Down > 1917


I think Dunkirk is going for a similar thing and accomplished it much better.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nobody
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 5358
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:35 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


Is it supposed to be a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning, though? The complete senslesness of WW1 has been dissected in great detail already (perhaps moreso in books and documentaries rather than (modern) cinema?), so I doubt that one expected 1917 to delve into something new and complex.

I somewhat liken it to Dunkirk, both aesthetically pleasing and with an almost palpable sense of dread the audience feels while watching. That was my experience, at least, although I preferred 1917.

edit: hehe, ocho beat me to it with the comparison (and with an opposite conclusion).


Last edited by Nobody on Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 27041

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:36 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:

Blackhawk Down > 1917


Apples>oranges

Agreed.
_________________
https://youtube.com/watch?v=t3jKtjgRZQY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86736
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:49 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.


I thought it worked well. It gave you the premise quickly, and then you follow these two guys in relentless real time race to achieve it. You don't need to know their backstory, you don't need a lot of character development, you're riding on the front horse in a cavalry charge.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 27041

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:49 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.

Blackhawk Down > 1917


I think Dunkirk is going for a similar thing and accomplished it much better.

Agreed. I don't remember if I've posted this, but Adam Nayman wrote the best piece on 1917 within the historical context of the genre and Truffaut's old adage that "there's no such thing as an 'anti-war' movie:"

Quote:
So far in the 21st century, no war movie can compete with the fetishistic spectacle of Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, a movie made largely in line with its creator’s analog aspirations; while there is a fair degree of CGI around the edges of Dunkirk’s epic, concentric narrative, the director’s ambition was to use as many real bodies, vehicles, and physical locations as possible to evoke a much-mythologized turning point in World War II. A decade earlier, Joe Wright’s Atonement (2007) used Dunkirk as an excuse to stage one of the most grotesquely ostentatious long takes in recent memory, movie language as floridly overwritten as anything in the novel-within-the-movie. Dunkirk, on the other hand, is not a subtle movie, but its most astonishing images—hundreds of soldiers lying face down on a beach during a bombing run; a fleet of civilian ships bobbing across the waves—are fully integrated as drama instead of feeling styled as virtuoso curlicues. It’s also fascinating to contrast Nolan’s editing-based presentation, which alternately stretches, pauses, and abstracts duration into three different, intersecting timelines, with Mendes’s one-take, dubiously “real-time” approach; where Nolan cultivates a sense of urgency and convergence, Mendes contrives a compressed “war is hell” highlight reel.

Both movies hum with the feeling of clockwork parts locking and sliding into place, but the results are not the same. Dunkirk melds its structural and dramatic satisfactions together into something at once oversize and concise, like an epic poem. Meanwhile, the technocratically picaresque 1917 is the cinematic equivalent of a run-on sentence, one that says very little that we haven’t heard before. When the camera finally comes to rest, it’s meant to be impressive that the last shot echoes the first, but it’s more a matter of redundancy than symmetry. Far from a step forward for the genre, 1917 remains mired in the same artistic no-man’s-land that so concerned Francois Truffaut.

Link
_________________
https://youtube.com/watch?v=t3jKtjgRZQY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:53 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:

Blackhawk Down > 1917


Apples>oranges

Agreed.


Then do you have a point or are you just trying argue about a comparison that isn't being made?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:57 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.


I thought it worked well. It gave you the premise quickly, and then you follow these two guys in relentless real time race to achieve it. You don't need to know their backstory, you don't need a lot of character development, you're riding on the front horse in a cavalry charge.


Exactly, there are lots of movies and films one could critique quite effectively if one insists on doing so based on something they were never intended to be.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:03 pm    Post subject:

Nobody wrote:
I somewhat liken it to Dunkirk, both aesthetically pleasing and with an almost palpable sense of dread the audience feels while watching. That was my experience, at least, although I preferred 1917.


There are certainly some similarities. Though Dunkirk told it's story through conventional methodology.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:10 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.


I thought it worked well. It gave you the premise quickly, and then you follow these two guys in relentless real time race to achieve it. You don't need to know their backstory, you don't need a lot of character development, you're riding on the front horse in a cavalry charge.


Again, I don’t think it suffered from lack of character development or backstory. It suffered from the insistence on its gimmick, the sacrifices they made in service of it, and the failure of the gimmick to deliver what it was intended to do. It wants to be seamless but it’s all seams.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86736
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:11 pm    Post subject:

I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2703

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:16 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:

Blackhawk Down > 1917


Apples>oranges

Agreed.


Paths of Glory and All quiet on the western front, although both dated films, show how senseless that war (and wars in general) are. There aren’t enough true anti war films in this military industrial dominant age

I’m sure 1917 is great looking and well made but I doubt it transcends or even reaches the message of those two films


Last edited by Goldenwest on Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:26 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.


I thought it worked well. It gave you the premise quickly, and then you follow these two guys in relentless real time race to achieve it. You don't need to know their backstory, you don't need a lot of character development, you're riding on the front horse in a cavalry charge.


Again, I don’t think it suffered from lack of character development or backstory. It suffered from the insistence on its gimmick, the sacrifices they made in service of it, and the failure of the gimmick to deliver what it was intended to do. It wants to be seamless but it’s all seams.


I think you may be misunderstanding what it intended to be. It sounds like you presumed that what you call a gimmick was intended to be a literal oner. Obviously it never could be, nor did they ever intend it to. They knew the undeniable barriers to it being such. There're going to have to be time cuts and with the sole exception of the blackout they were very organic compared to the traditional time cut device. It's also not clear what you think the intention of continuous action was supposed to convey versus what it did convey.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:34 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:37 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.


Yes I know. I was simply clarifying that I didn’t think it worked at its intended goal, not at an invented one.


I thought it worked well. It gave you the premise quickly, and then you follow these two guys in relentless real time race to achieve it. You don't need to know their backstory, you don't need a lot of character development, you're riding on the front horse in a cavalry charge.


Again, I don’t think it suffered from lack of character development or backstory. It suffered from the insistence on its gimmick, the sacrifices they made in service of it, and the failure of the gimmick to deliver what it was intended to do. It wants to be seamless but it’s all seams.


I think you may be misunderstanding what it intended to be. It sounds like you presumed that what you call a gimmick was intended to be a literal oner. Obviously it never could be, nor did they ever intend it to. They knew the undeniable barriers to it being such. There're going to have to be time cuts and with the sole exception of the blackout they were very organic compared to the traditional time cut device. It's also not clear what you think the intention of continuous action was supposed to convey versus what it did convey.


Obviously it wasn’t a literal oner, but that’s how it was presented and that is the intended effect. Only a skillful hand could have achieved such a foolish pursuit.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86736
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:38 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


OK, I get that it didn't work for you, and I respect that. I just went along for the ride. It might be because i'm trying to critique stuff i'm watching less and go with it than I used to (I'm usually the guy who watches the Statham remake of the Mechanic and notices during the slow mo shot of machine gun fire that the gun is ejecting a blank cartridge, and that type of thing). Your critique is valid. It just didn't bother me.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46099

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:44 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


OK, I get that it didn't work for you, and I respect that. I just went along for the ride. It might be because i'm trying to critique stuff i'm watching less and go with it than I used to (I'm usually the guy who watches the Statham remake of the Mechanic and notices during the slow mo shot of machine gun fire that the gun is ejecting a blank cartridge, and that type of thing). Your critique is valid. It just didn't bother me.


I get that. A lot of people are digging it and that’s cool. Gotta watch Statham’s weaponry more carefully now.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86736
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:49 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


OK, I get that it didn't work for you, and I respect that. I just went along for the ride. It might be because i'm trying to critique stuff i'm watching less and go with it than I used to (I'm usually the guy who watches the Statham remake of the Mechanic and notices during the slow mo shot of machine gun fire that the gun is ejecting a blank cartridge, and that type of thing). Your critique is valid. It just didn't bother me.


I get that. A lot of people are digging it and that’s cool. Gotta watch Statham’s weaponry more carefully now.


LOL, it's the type of things military guys notice. Wrong ranks on uniforms, incorrect tactics, too many rounds fired between loads, and the obvious, firing blank ammo (the tip of the cartridge is pinched together because there is no projectile), easy to spot if you know what you're looking at, especially in slow mo.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 9454
Location: LA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:59 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:12 pm    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?


That was Robb.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 9549
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:32 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
One of the advantages to being appreciative of the craft of moviemaking as opposed to a hipster film aficionado is that you get to enjoy some films for what they are as opposed to being turned off that they weren't what they were never intended to be.


I like the way you expressed that, and thank you for pointing that out. As I get older, the more I drift towards this type of philosophy, and it actually makes me feel good. Before, I was very close minded. I’m still of somewhat of a narrow focus, but I feel I’ve gained a broader understanding of things simply by allowing myself to enjoy them, particularly when it comes to the arts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 9454
Location: LA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:33 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?


That was Robb.


Robb was Tommen's brother (I'm probably getting r/whooshed here lol)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:59 pm    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?


That was Robb.


Robb was Tommen's brother (I'm probably getting r/whooshed here lol)


Maybe I am . . . Tommen was Joffrey's younger brother . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86736
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:01 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?


That was Robb.


Robb was Tommen's brother (I'm probably getting r/whooshed here lol)


Maybe I am . . . Tommen was Joffrey's younger brother . . .


Robb and Tommen were both in the movie...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46413
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:12 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I didn't find it seamless or seamy. I found it relentless and claustrophobic and urgent.


Claustrophobic maybe but I’m surprised to hear urgent or relentless. It has its moments but the gimmick demands we spend a lot of time video game walking to the next side mission (they even throw in well known actors as mini bosses along the way. I enjoyed getting to the Hot Priest level.)

That’s what I mean by seams showing constantly. It only works if it’s immersive and we feel present in the moment but the only thing that feels present is the camera.


This was the only thing that threw me off/would be my critique. I knew Benedict was in the movie so I knew that he'd have to make it to the end to see him. Took away some of the stakes for me. It kind of killed the immersion for me when I'm finally past looking at the one guy as Tommen and then boom, Moriarty shows up. Then I'm waiting for Sherlock to show up later.

off-topic but is Andrew Scott now more well known as Hot Priest or Moriarty?


That was Robb.


Robb was Tommen's brother (I'm probably getting r/whooshed here lol)


Maybe I am . . . Tommen was Joffrey's younger brother . . .


Robb and Tommen were both in the movie...


Ahh . . . I see now.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB