A War movie for hipsters - 1917 (2020) Discussion

[–] TandyMan (11185) 5 years ago

That's exactly my impression from the weird obscure marketing they've used. They're not showing much cause there isn't much to show.

reply

[–] Dan11111 (23) 5 years ago

I think you missed the mark completely. I thought it was great.
I liked Hacksaw Ridge a lot BTW, but I have no idea what your talking about " Doesn't know shit about War Movies" Any movie that happens to involve a War that the plot revolves around better have more to offer than just being a "War Movie". That would be lame. Are there certain tropes that have to be in a war movie?
I see how you think it is for hipsters. You don't put stock in or ponder your nightly dreams do you? The Whole Movie starting at the airplane scene " What's that off in the distance? Oh Look It's Coming this Way." ( which is Exactly what would happen in a dream!) Displays war as Nightmare. Literal nightmare that could wake you up in the middle of night.
It is not Style over substance. It's just a very different substance. That is real as concrete but you can't reach out and touch it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He means there is not enough carnage in it and I agree. When I watch a modern WW1 movie I want two hours of horrible suffering with melee battles, open wounds, putrified corpses and senseless sacrifice. How hard is it to display that? Nobody cares about the cause for action since the outcome was long clear and war is stupid anyway. Best just keep it in the mild entertainment section like the rest of the horror genre. They should do more gas scenes in war films. Preferably gas attacks on civilians. War needs to make you puke!

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Sam Mendes ruined James Bond, perhaps beyond repair. I will never watch a film from this person again.

reply

[–] avigalidou (615) 5 years ago

I totally agree

reply

[–] duncan2020 (11) 5 years ago

Nothing could have damaged 007 more than the ghastly Roger moore era, And it came back afterwards.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8834) 5 years ago

The Roger Moore era -- seven films in in 13 years from 1973-1985 -- is my favorite run in the series with all seven films being kinetic, amusing, scenic and just all-around entertaining. There's not one stinker in the bunch and they were all popular/profitable at the box office.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Pearls before swine.

reply

[–] duncan2020 (11) 5 years ago

we'll have to agree to disagree Wuchak. Totally cringeworthy efforts.

I'm not convinced that box office receipts equates necessarily to a film being "good" - mereiy popular :-)

reply

[–] Wuchak (8834) 5 years ago

I agree with what you say about success at the box office, but the popularity of Moore's run explains why producers kept cranking 'em out for 13 years.

At the end of the day the Bond flicks are about all-around international spy entertainment, marked by globetrotting & the interesting locales thereof, action/thrills of a wide variety (e.g. skiing, boating, air sequences, underwater intrigue, firefights, brawls, martial arts, deadly beasts, etc.), beautiful women, egomaniacal villains, suspense, high society, mind games, competition, a bit o' humor, spy satire, etc. On top of all this, these films require the right charismatic actor to pull the movies off; and Moore fulfilled this role in spades.

Like I said, Moore's run is the most comprehensively entertaining on all these fronts. But, don't get me wrong, Connery's stint was great too, with "Thunderball" and "You Only Live Twice" being the best of that era IMHO.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Roger Moore was in some good and bad films, just like every other actor who has played James Bond with the exception of Lazenby who only played the role once. This really isn't an opinion that is shared by most fans, and Moore and his films continued to be very popular when he was in the role. He even outperformed Connery at the box office in 1983 when they both had a Bond film released in the same year.

reply

[–] duncan2020 (11) 5 years ago

i suppose it wsasnt so much _Moore_ as obviously the direction that Brocolli wanted to take the part with Moore as Bond. I guess I just found it even cheesier than before :-)

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Campy humour was always part of the Bond films, but they went a little bit overboard during the Moore era. For me personally, I don't think that 30 seconds of dumb jokes in a 2 hour movie is worth hating a film over. I like A View to A Kill because of the villain, the overall plot, and the action scenes. I don't like the California Girls surfing scene or the car chase where the car literally rips in half and Bond still continues to drive it, but those dumb moments are really just minor blemishes on a good Bond film overall.

Mendes' Bond films on the other hand are total shit for 2+ hours with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I rank his two Bond films as the worst and second-worst of all time. I think Spectre slightly edges out Skyfall as the worst of all time, but they are both so terrible that I really can't be certain.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

I agree that Mendes made a dog's breakfast out of his 007 movies. I almost didn't see this because of him. I sure am glad I did, though. 1917 was great. I highly recommend it.

1. I thought Dunkirk kinda sucked.
2. Though Skyfall and Specter are shitty movies, they are not the worst 007 films. They tie with about 3 other Bond movies for the D grade category. Diamonds are Forever and Die Another Day are absolutely worse.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Diamonds Are Forever and Die Another Day are at least real Bond films. Skyfall and Spectre are just random films that coincidentally have James Bond show up in them. They are unrecognizable from the rest of the franchise.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

That's a good point.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I would also add that there are redeeming qualities of those other films. I liked Kidd and Wint in DAF. They were hilarious and played a big role in starting the film off strongly. It's just that the climax is quite poor. In DAD, I like the first 1.25 hours or so. The action is great, I loved the concept of gene therapy, Toby Stephens was pretty good in the villain role, but there were major issues with Halle Berry's character, the crappy special effects, and the drastic shifts in tone.

Skyfall and Spectre have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. There's no reason I would ever watch those films again.

reply

[–] LTUM (1051) 5 years ago

I rank his two Bond films as the worst and second-worst of all time. I think Spectre slightly edges out Skyfall as the worst of all time, but they are both so terrible that I really can't be certain.

well said.

right on the money.

reply

[–] LTUM (1051) 5 years ago

Sam Mendes ruined James Bond, perhaps beyond repair. I will never watch a film from this person again.

i have been saying this EXACT thing for years, and i thought i was alone!

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I don't think many real Bond fans like the Daniel Craig films in general, and especially not these Mendes ones. I guess you'd think that you were alone if you only read internet forums. This website seems to have plenty of Craig haters which is cool, but reddit/r/jamesbond is basically a shrine towards Daniel Craig and everyone seems to have the same opinions, such as: GoldenEye/Skyfall are the greatest, Daniel Craig is the embodiment of Ian Fleming's Bond in the novels (they have probably never even read a Bond novel...), A View to a Kill is the worst film ever made, Craig's films are the most 'realistic', Eva Green is the best Bond girl, James Bond should be black, oh did I mention A View to a Kill is the worst film ever made?, Lazenby is the worst Bond, A View to a Kill is the worst film ever made, I think I'm cool because I like Licence to Kill, A View to a Kill is the worst film ever made just in case I didn't mention it before...you get the idea.

Those morons have also been spreading fake news about how Rami Malek is playing Dr. No in the upcoming film even though he explicitly said that he is not. They also love political correctness and they go on rants about how some short scene from a 60's Connery film might have been sexist if we apply today's social standards, and they get angry and hostile about these points. It's insane how some of these 'fans' have infiltrated this series and have played a huge role in ruining it.

reply

[–] LTUM (1051) 5 years ago

wow! crazy stuff!

i like craigs first two films, but the others really suck. but not due to him but due to mendes.

IMHO

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I was fine with the first two as well. I didn't have any problem with them being different because they were going back to the origins of Bond, but I thought that they were going to get back on track and start making normal Bond movies again after that.

reply

[–] bistritapcv (1884) 5 years ago

I am guessing they embellished the story to make it go longer. It may have been easier to reach the colonel than they showed. I suppose the best thing to do would have been to fly the message there.

That part with all the soldiers sitting in the field, and the one standing up and singing went on way too long.

reply

[–] duncan2020 (11) 5 years ago

I had wondered why not fly a message !

And as for "the hun have left the area / No they haven't / yes they have...." surely sending a plane up for observation would have sorted that out PDQ? !

reply

[–] mikethemartian (6872) 5 years ago

Or at least part of the way. But I got the impression from the colonel that the whole mission was pointless because he expected command would tell him to attack a week later.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

This has to be the most brainless post ever. What is a hipster? A term used by twats who are jealous of people who actually have a clue.

reply