one of the big questions this awards season along with is Joker a responsible
movie is once upon a time in Hollywood offensive well one of the other big
questions that's emerged late in the game so it's not getting quite the same
amount of attention and well if it wins though and I think it might but is 1917
a great movie an oscar-winning worth my worthy movie or all the other awards
it's picked up so far without the one continuous shot gimmick and I don't
think it would be I don't think it is a great movie without that but it is
filmed as one continuous shot that's I think the whole reason for it's the
raison d'être for the film right and the one continuous shot is so well executed
so well choreographed and heightened artistically with lighting choices set
design etc that it rises above being a gimmick I've been using gimmick and some
of you are like it's not a gimmick grace but I think that what it was first
conceived it's like how can we Plus this movie how can this movie stand out from
the other films how can this film be Oscar worthy Awards worthy and it's as
one continuous shot but it seen again it's so well done
that it becomes not a gimmick even though that's probably how it was
initially conceived but it instead becomes a masterpiece in fact I would
say it's the greatest one-shot movie of all time
Rome gets points for being first also from a UK director Alfred Hitchcock but
this is the best I believe I think there's actually no argument there some
of you might try to make the argument but you're wrong
which makes 1917 truly truly noteworthy in the history of cinema that's an
impressive thing to pull off it's also interesting though that you know it's
borrowing on this continuous one shot that of course was introduced by rope a
long time ago the setting is world war one
but because we're constantly following our lead characters from behind moving
forward that's actually a choice the movie makes I've put down below a link
in the video description to a behind the scenes short on how this movie was made
craftsmanship that went into it and you don't your minds already blown I'm sure
if you've seen this movie but this will blow your mind even further but it's one
of the things that details is that the movie makes the choice to always have
the camera moving forward because never backwards because they're on an
important journey they're racing against the clock they're on a mission and that
mission has goals both large and small they go to many different locales which
are like levels so the following the character from behind in those other
elements mission elements I think make 1917 also feel quite a bit like playing
a video game and I'm not sure if that's intentional or not we'll discuss it more
at the acting but it's very interesting I would have even more respect for Sam
Mendes if he intentionally work that in there so far it's not playing so well
with younger audiences you know usually Hollywood divides the demographics
twenty five under it up but maybe hopefully they'll discover this film
it's like a video game you know maybe they should they should
maybe they should have played that up more and the advertising they should
have had video game publications highlight that but maybe they were like
it's not worth it potentially undercutting our awards chances maybe
they should play that up after awards season but anyway if our maybe if I were
the universals publicity office I'd have all those articles ready to go after the
day after it probably wins the Oscar because I would say 1917 is a shining a
shining example of cinematic craftsmanship with too glaring
exceptions screenwriting and film acting so let's discuss that right
screenwriting with the whole brother angle you know they're trying to save
one of their brothers so who's on the who's with the put the the battalion
that's in danger the movie comes off a bit like a watered down Saving Private
Ryan as I've said in other coverage Sam Mendes is copying the best here
Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg Steven Spielberg though is the executive
well his companies aren't produced producing this movie so I'm sure
Spielberg is okay with it but anyway well it's also very touching
that Sam Mendes he co-wrote the film based it off of the mapless the stories
that his grandfather told him about his grandfather's real-life experiences
during World War one the story itself here it's pretty basic any when you hear
that you think back to the story about like the rat and the rat you know I
don't want to give anything away if you haven't seen it but you're like oh yeah
that's why he worked little anecdotes like that because his grandfather told
that to him and you know it makes sense because the movie is so strong visually
that the script is so bare-bones that it's really just an excuse for those
visuals now it doesn't have to be but here that's what it is
and I mean that make sense I mean if the movie had better writing and acting I
would feel it was a slam-dunk for Best Picture but as it is it feels to me like
a legit choice but a safe choice when compared to other nominees like Joker
and parasite like it would be a little sad if the Academy was willing to really
step out on a limb there and recognize those films for Best Picture
but 1917 is as I said a legit choice so what's the problem with the acting well
George McKay has a great screen presence visually with big wide eyes and a lanky
frame but I don't think he says charismatic as other actors he's not
electric right which again this is my thoughts on you know we're acting comes
in with the video games that adds to the video game feel because his characters
more avatar and fully developed character like a real character and you
know well that was initially a criticism I have of the head of the film when I
was writing my notes here I thought maybe that was again a choice that Sam
Mendes made maybe again the video game aspects of the movie are intentional and
McKay will be just fine I'm sure a big franchise Marvel DC or whatever will
scoop him up because he's British after all and Hollywood has never been able to
resist a British actor however there are two very charismatic cameos in the movie
Andrew Scott who is always a delight and he's a hundred and ten percent electric
whenever he's on screen he has some of the funniest lines in the movie he's
just you're like don't leave the movie but he's it fortunately he's only on
there for a few minutes and then also Mark Strong who could act with just the
lower half of his body when he first came on screen and you could only steal
him from the waist down I was like who's that he's just amazing and I don't even
I can't even see the top half of his body the walls bit of stunt cast well I
didn't like I didn't like him I mean outside of those two cameos I was
a fan in the stunt casting I thought that it would take you out of the movie
be like oh wow Colin Firth this must be an important movie but again it's like
you have to weigh the loss the pros versus the con so the con is it slightly
takes you out of the movie but the pro is is it makes it seem like it's an
awards worthy film and that's obviously working quite well for this movie but in
a Cumberbatch I thought was the one just didn't work out of all the cameos
especially because he is so not a boss level character but any means when he
shows up at a vital moment in the third act maybe again that's also intentional
that you know you have this big thing built up in your head and then it's just
like this regular dude man you know again I'm still processing it you know I
think that this will certainly be a film that is studied and you know by
cinephiles and film students like because it's that good so let's talk
about the genius because the story is a bit weak even while watching the movie
you find yourself marveling at its technical prowess and that adds that's
like that's almost I think the primary enjoyment of the film and so maybe
that's why we've screenwriting the acting aren't great because there that's
not the reason for the film again to exist like you're watching it and you're
like they really build all that right do they build that many trenches and look
how different the UK trenches look from the German trenches that was such a cool
thing also how do they do that with the flares with the shadows and how do they
choreograph that how did they go through that window and again I hope you'll
check out that behind the scenes short that I have linked down below which has
a lot of the answers to those questions you know even if you haven't seen the
movie I think that that behind the scenes short might convince you to go
because you're like I can't believe they did that
again much of the enjoyment of the film it's not the story or the characters but
seeing the movie pull off this one continuous shot topping itself from
scene to scene in cleverness technical ability and artistry and that makes Sam
Mendes as a director not so much a writer but again he he put this whole
thing together and I think that there are things that are intentionally
underwhelming to play up other aspects it's crazy it's interesting it's almost
it's like it's it's really it is very nolan e in that regard
Nolan's like damn it so Sam Mendes is the director Roger Deakins is a
cinematographer but then also production designer Dennis
Gastner those are the real stars of the movie and Gastner by the way has a
stunning resume he is a seven-time Oscar nominee including for this movie I think
he's gonna win here but he already won back in 1992 when he was a double
nominee in the same category double nomination for Barton Fink and Bugsy
what a Sophie's Choice but the Academy went with Bugsy
so for its cinematic craftsmanship 1917 1917 instantly becomes one of the
greatest war movies and just plain movies ever made even if the script and
acting are weak that's how amazing it's one continuous shot is and I wonder if
in the near future anyone will try to top it the challenge
to me seems immense but also immensely appealing because Mendes and his team
really throw down the gauntlet here it's like wow could I do that and I think
you'll at least see like um you've seen a couple like cool hallway like
daredevil for instance had a really good long shot and it's final sadly final
season but I think so I think you might see more people using long shots as a
continuous takes as a result of this movie at least four chunks of their film
I would just be too tempted to try my hand at it because it's so cool but no
one can do it in a war movie it's done this is the definitive one-shot war
movie so that's my review of 1917 I'm very curious to hear your own thoughts
down below if you haven't seen it yet what's still keeping you because it's
now of course playing why but I think I think people will be discovering this
movie all the way through until the Oscars air and probably well after that
it's again it's part of cinematic history you owe it to yourself to see it
even if you're a casual movie goer so share your thoughts down below subscribe
today and of course as always you can check out some more videos right now