6 min
A Review of the Movie 1917 The Patrick Coffin Show | Interviews with influencers | Commentary about culture | Tools for transformation
-
- Christianity
Check out our premium community, join hundreds of Catholics from all over thw world! www.coffinnation.com
**************************************************************
Here is my review for the new Sam Mendes World War 1 drama, 1917.
The movie showcases a wise blend of newcomers and veterans. Director Sam Mendes has decades of experience in the theater and went on to direct movies like American Beauty, Skyfall, and Road to Perdition
I just read that he directed Dame Judi Dench on the stage in England at the age of 24.
The Director of Photography is Academy Award winner, Roger Deakins, whose credits include Kundun, The Shawshank Redemption, Oh Brother Where Art Thou, and the underrated movie “The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford” based on a book by Deacon Ron Hanson.
1917 blends together all that experience to deliver a quiet wallop. While the subject matter is harrowing and mostly terrifying, one has to use the word beautiful to describe the visuals throughout.
More on that in a moment.
Two very well-known actors have small but critical roles as military commanders, Benedict Cumberbatch—who has one of the most magnificent speaking voices in the world—and Colin Firth.
Both of these great actors seem born to play characters from the past.
On the other hand, Mendes’ co-writer is a relative newcomer Krysty Wilson-Cairns, who has written a few short films and a TV series. There’s nothing green showing here, though. The dialogue is pithy and rings true to the context and the period.
Almost unknowns in the two lead roles:
Dean-Charles Chapman as Lance Corporal Blake and George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield.
These are fine young actors who are mostly unknown to American audiences. and this is a good thing because, from the opening scene, they are a blank slate.
The fact that both characters are a bit on the bland side is also a plus because they become “everyman” making it easier to vicariously follow their mission behind enemy lines and alert a British general to halt an invasion that intelligence has discovered is a German trap.
The emotional stakes have to do with the fact that Lance Corporal Blake's brother is set to be unleashed into this trap along with 1600 other British soldiers.
And this is where 1917 draws an easy comparison with “Saving Private Ryan.”
The brutal depiction of what was called The War to End All Wars coupled with the emotional impact of saving a brother makes for a very watchable movie.
But 1917 in its basic story components it's much more similar to Gallipoli, the 1981 World War One drama that proved to the world that Mel Gibson could you more as an actor than motorbike to the desert a black leather outfit and bad hair.
Gallipoli and 1917 share the same trope of gung ho soldiers maybe or maybe not being stopped before going over the top into enemy fire. No spoiler alerts, so I’ll stop right there on that.
1917 opens and closes with bookend images that show how many physical and emotional miles the characters have undergone. Again, simple and unadorned.
Everyone's talking about the single continuous shot which of course is not literally true, as was the case with the Oscar-winning Birdman, directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu.
It WAS the case with the 2002 movie Russian Ark, directed by Alexander Sokurov, and LITERALLY a 90-minute continuous steadicam shot.
With 1917, Mendes and Deakins have pulled off a two-hour magic trick by seamlessly blending the cuts along the way to give the uncanny appearance of one single camera perspective, mostly handheld and mostly traveling backward which adds to the sense of disorientation.
If you're wondering where they spent the estimated 100 million dollar budget, this is it. cameras mounted on dollies, on cranes, on steady-cam operators, and even on motorcycles, all to take the viewer on a dangerous and unpredictable adventure into hell.
Unlike with most war stories that introduce the charac
Check out our premium community, join hundreds of Catholics from all over thw world! www.coffinnation.com
**************************************************************
Here is my review for the new Sam Mendes World War 1 drama, 1917.
The movie showcases a wise blend of newcomers and veterans. Director Sam Mendes has decades of experience in the theater and went on to direct movies like American Beauty, Skyfall, and Road to Perdition
I just read that he directed Dame Judi Dench on the stage in England at the age of 24.
The Director of Photography is Academy Award winner, Roger Deakins, whose credits include Kundun, The Shawshank Redemption, Oh Brother Where Art Thou, and the underrated movie “The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford” based on a book by Deacon Ron Hanson.
1917 blends together all that experience to deliver a quiet wallop. While the subject matter is harrowing and mostly terrifying, one has to use the word beautiful to describe the visuals throughout.
More on that in a moment.
Two very well-known actors have small but critical roles as military commanders, Benedict Cumberbatch—who has one of the most magnificent speaking voices in the world—and Colin Firth.
Both of these great actors seem born to play characters from the past.
On the other hand, Mendes’ co-writer is a relative newcomer Krysty Wilson-Cairns, who has written a few short films and a TV series. There’s nothing green showing here, though. The dialogue is pithy and rings true to the context and the period.
Almost unknowns in the two lead roles:
Dean-Charles Chapman as Lance Corporal Blake and George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield.
These are fine young actors who are mostly unknown to American audiences. and this is a good thing because, from the opening scene, they are a blank slate.
The fact that both characters are a bit on the bland side is also a plus because they become “everyman” making it easier to vicariously follow their mission behind enemy lines and alert a British general to halt an invasion that intelligence has discovered is a German trap.
The emotional stakes have to do with the fact that Lance Corporal Blake's brother is set to be unleashed into this trap along with 1600 other British soldiers.
And this is where 1917 draws an easy comparison with “Saving Private Ryan.”
The brutal depiction of what was called The War to End All Wars coupled with the emotional impact of saving a brother makes for a very watchable movie.
But 1917 in its basic story components it's much more similar to Gallipoli, the 1981 World War One drama that proved to the world that Mel Gibson could you more as an actor than motorbike to the desert a black leather outfit and bad hair.
Gallipoli and 1917 share the same trope of gung ho soldiers maybe or maybe not being stopped before going over the top into enemy fire. No spoiler alerts, so I’ll stop right there on that.
1917 opens and closes with bookend images that show how many physical and emotional miles the characters have undergone. Again, simple and unadorned.
Everyone's talking about the single continuous shot which of course is not literally true, as was the case with the Oscar-winning Birdman, directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu.
It WAS the case with the 2002 movie Russian Ark, directed by Alexander Sokurov, and LITERALLY a 90-minute continuous steadicam shot.
With 1917, Mendes and Deakins have pulled off a two-hour magic trick by seamlessly blending the cuts along the way to give the uncanny appearance of one single camera perspective, mostly handheld and mostly traveling backward which adds to the sense of disorientation.
If you're wondering where they spent the estimated 100 million dollar budget, this is it. cameras mounted on dollies, on cranes, on steady-cam operators, and even on motorcycles, all to take the viewer on a dangerous and unpredictable adventure into hell.
Unlike with most war stories that introduce the charac
6 min