>le one shot gimmick
why did nu-males love it so much?
Le one shot gimmick
Carter Evans
Isaiah Reed
I'm a nu male and it was boring. You old faggot.
Nicholas Cruz
wasn't really that great or interesting tbqh. i thought the one shot gimmick was really overdone at a certain point. Makes it feel like you're trapped in a bad dream.
Charles Torres
It was a good movie about brotherhood, sacrifice, and the absolute exhaustion that comes with war, but a nu-male like yourself wouldn't get it. The Wayfaring Stranger scene alone makes it better than most of the shit that gets peddled on this board.
Ryder Phillips
1917? “Yikes! The Russian Revolution,” you’d normally think. But Mendes memorializes that year with a closer-to-home story, as if discovering British patriotism — a new way to exploit Brexit. For Mendes, 1917 suggests national loyalty by following Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) as they trek into and outside battle conditions. Their mission is to prevent a suicidal maneuver by a battalion of 1,600 British troops — including Blake’s brother.
For civilian filmmakers such as Mendes, war is not a recalled experience, it is an engrossment ceremony. Mendes, a theater phenom, broke into Hollywood as a master of contrivance with American Beauty (1999), followed by several other America-based films. He didn’t make a single movie set in England proper until 2012’s James Bond opus Skyfall. Now, using war in the spirit of Scorsese’s one-shot GoodFellas gimmick, Mendes confirms that contrivance has replaced moral and political response.
Mendes’s prowling-camera vision of trench and field warfare offers jolts but never surprise; as Roger Deakin’s adaptable camera surges through variously lighted locales, one’s suspension of disbelief is dispelled by the photogenic stunt. 1917 evokes the relentless movement of Stanley Kubrick’s WWI drama Paths of Glory but commits to a video game’s ever-shifting environments.
In the 21st-century battle between cinema and video games, Mendes announces defeat.
Daniel Harris
WW1 was insanely brutal, gruesome, and bloody. This film was like a fantasy compared to what actual combat was like, tons of historical inaccuracies.
The whole “one shot” thing was a gimmick to sell the movie, it was not necessary for the story being told, and it was so obvious when they cut to a different take.
Easton Bailey
>This film was like a fantasy compared to what actual combat was like, tons of historical inaccuracies.
It didn't show "normal combat" at any point, the whole point of the movie was to stop that sort of thing
Justin Lee
>1917 evokes the relentless movement of Stanley Kubrick’s WWI drama Paths of Glory
Huh? That movie was about a military tribunal trial and its associated bureaucracy politics. Did this person just not watch it and think it's an action film?
Jaxon Ramirez
It's not a gimmick. It was really well-shot and happened to have the technical mastery of appearing to be one-shot.
You're functionally retarded if you can't see that
Grayson Martin
It felt like I was watching someone play a videogame with all the setpieces
Chase Stewart
There it is
>uhh it's actually hard to do so I'm gonna pretend to be impressed to signal that I'm really "into" filmmaking techniques, even though the result doesn't actually look good and is literally just a gimmick for numales like me to virtue signal
Asher Walker
Kek brits aren't masterful at anything except having fucked up teeth
David Wright
there's something wonderfully freudian in the way that american critics unanimously praise a completely unremarkable and forgettable war film whose only noteworthy feature is something that cannot be said about their penises; that is, it's (made to seem) uncut. the repressed sexual content distorts every brief line of dialogue into a double entendre ("might be a tight squeeze" and whatnot) and returns in various details: the world war setting as a major shock to traditional ideas of masculinity, the immediate association of the injured hand with the inability to pleasure oneself (note the ensuing temporary blindness just a few moments later, evoking the myth of excessive masturbation leading to the loss of sight), the promising light at the end of the shaft, the damaged tips of artillery cannons and other phallic objects, etc. it all points in a direction that the eventual best picture win will only confirm -- this film is at once a wish-fulfillment fantasy for an uncirscumsized male organ as well as an elaborately constructed eulogy, mourning the unnecessary loss of millions of foreskins.
Adam Miller
he's talking about the beginning when Douglas is walking through the trenches and when they go over the top
Jonathan King
So a small part of the movie that doesn't characterize it? Did they just watch the start then?
Nathaniel Davis
The only unremarkable movie that got praised in 2019 was Parasite
Carter Harris
>Britain was... le GOOD
>Germany was... le BAD
Robert Cooper
Who cares about euros
Jose Ortiz
Most fake and soulless looking movie of 2019.
Gabriel Ramirez
>Remainers are still this butthurt about Brexit
Jason Sullivan
This but unironically.
Britain was least to blame for WW1. It only intervened when the Belgian ports were threatened,
Isaiah Smith
Austin Watson
>It makes it feel like you're trapped in a bad dream
I think that's the point
Kevin Ward
>What, like invading Belgium for a laugh and shooting up civilians is BAD now?
Isaac Rodriguez
>)
Nicholas White
Birdman did it better
Jacob Thomas
sorry I had to do it. I already have a hard week coming up.
Tyler Ward
>NIGGERS on Any Forums who've never made a film in their entire lives suddenly think their opinions on film matter
1917 was a great movie and having it edited together in one shot was an interesting way to manipulate the narration of the story.
Samuel Sanchez
The one shot gimmick can both be over done and obviously stitched and also effective. The cumulative effect of the positives outweigh the negatives. Lots of great shots aided by the camerawork and a few great moments beyond it.
Charles Flores
You're thinking of Dunkirk