Rendező:
Sam MendesOperatőr:
Roger DeakinsZeneszerző:
Thomas NewmanSzereplők:
Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, Daniel Mays, Colin Firth, Pip Carter, Josef Davies, Billy Postlethwaite, Andrew Scott, Spike Leighton (több)Tartalmak(1)
Javában zajlik az I. világháború, amikor két fiatal brit katonát egy lehetetlennek tűnő küldetéssel bíznak meg: az ellenséges vonalon kell áthatolniuk, hogy egy üzenetet kézbesítsenek bajtársaiknak. Egy napjuk van, hogy célhoz érjenek, különben 1600 társuk, köztük egyikük testvére is odavész. A két bátor harcos hihetetlen elszántsággal indul neki a német frontnak… (Freeman Film)
(több)Videók (15)
Recenziók (19)
Brutális kamera exhibíció, fantasztikus díszletekkel, lüktető ritmussal és filmimádó részletekkel (a legjobban Mark Strong megjelenésének örültem). Érvényes az első felére. A másodikban kevésbé érthető dolgok történnek, és az egészből egy elkerülhetetlen lépés lesz a sztori befejezése felé. A cselekményben semmi meglepő nincs, csak megerősíti a téma túlzott egyszerűségét és átláthatóságát, amely közhelyes gondolati szimbólumokra épül (áldozat egy magasabb cél érdekében, tej (nem forralt??) gyermek számára). Attól a filozófiától, amelyet színlel, messze van. De a látvány tényleg szuper volt. Még a komfortzónából kilépő Thomas Newman is élvezetes volt. A mozin kívül bárhol máshol megnézni a filmet baromság lenne. Mint minap a Gravitáció.
()
I think that Sam Mendes was aiming for the Oscar here, I don’t know why there aren’t more films about the First World War, but it’s probably because most of the time the soldiers were battling boredom in the trenches rather thanfighting for territory on the ground. Sam Mendes, however, went a bit too far here, replacing filmmaking with an attempt at absolute realism. The illusion that everything is a single long shot makes the scenes look remarkably surreal. It all starts with the crash of a German plane into a dilapidated barn, continues with ruins of the town illuminated by flares and ends directly in the trenches, a few seconds before running into the turmoil ofbattle. I was bating my breath, fascinated by the fabricated scenes, and enjoyed one of the best war films made in the last few years. The trio of good old British actors (Firth, Cumberbatch, Strong) is the icing on the cake, which will draw you into the depicted events of the war and remind you that it is “only” a film.
()
The cinematography was worked out to a monomaniacal degree of detail (all those trenches strewn with corpses, barbed wire and razed, burning cities), the mise-en-scene is composed masterfully and the special effects are fantastic but don’t seek to draw attention to themselves, nor are they in the audience’s face. In short, I’ve never before seen such production values in any film whose subject is World War I. And then there’s Mendes’s sheer virtuosity, captivating camera equilibristics, and (from the meeting with the young French woman) the requisite rush of emotions. I consider it a sad error in judgment on the part of the Academy that it preferred the shallow Parasite over this masterpiece.
()
1917 will be talked about as the war film that was shot in one take. Which it isn't, but we all know that, and I don't feel like anyone should mind. However, it would be a big mistake to just look at it as a technically perfect film where Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins fool around with the camera. The latter is, of course, amazing; 1917 looks like a computer game, with the camera managing to pan around the characters during dialogue, crawling along with them across the battlefield with cameraman looking for the craziest but still functional angles from which to capture everything. But the main star here is still Mendes as the narrator, who manages to get under the skin of both the characters and the audience in that "one shot". Initially, cold and distant, and like one of the soldiers, he treats the whole mission as just an order to be carried out, hoping to survive. Gradually, however, he begins to acknowledge the importance of the mission and very powerful and emotional scenes subtly, but eventually very intensely, surface. And for example the whole passage in the burning village or the very end are incredibly powerful moments. The film doesn't just look great. It's great throughout.
()
The first third is so packed with energy and drive that the last time I remember watching something like this was the last Mad Max. It pushes you forward, one idea alternates with another idea, you don't know whether to admire the technical aspecte, the mise-en-scène or the content, which never falls short...and is inevitably followed by a fall into the darkness. As much as the technical mastery remains, the more the film progresses, the more it turns into a variation on Come and See; the more reserved it becomes, despite the “one-shot integrity", the more episodic it is. Eventually, it completely falls apart into a jumble of scenes; sometimes unusually impressive, sometimes already seen, sometimes rather repetitive. Having slightly more or less scenes doesn’t really matter. The path (physical and internal) of the hero and the viewer would be quite the same. It's not bad or boring, not for a second. Only it's never as good as it was at the beginning. Which might be a problem for a movie intended to provide an exhilarating experience. So, it's not exactly a matter of form over content, but it's dangerously close to that. No doubt about it. However, given the very high level of the form, that wouldn't be anything negative.
()
Hirdetés