another Dunkirk?
all hype, but no substance...
shareIndeed you are
shareLOL!
share
MovieChat Forums > 1917 (2020) Discussion > another Dunkirk?
Looks like Dunkirk with more action and presumably more violence since it's R rated. A good sign if it's adding the things Dunkirk lacked.
shareOh, this is BETTER than Dunkirk by a country MILE.
sweet, going to see it tomorrow...
shareIts not, I was bored. Its just 2 dudes running and then 1 dude running and having side adventures.
share(bloody kids, I give up...)
c'mon bruh, I liked All quiet on the western front. 1979 version.
Good WWI movies are really hard to find.
The point with 1917 is that, unlike other WWI movies, it was like BEING THERE with the two soldiers. Didn't you notice that?
That is true - the camera always the same distance away from the main character - and it always had the main character in the shot, never straying away. It was, I must admit, an interesting technique. I'm not sure if it was truly necessary, but it did keep the story focused (I must admit though, I did fast-forward nearly 20 percent of the movie - thereby keeping the story even more focused).
shareDunkirk was fantastic
I saw 1917 yesterday. I can see why it is getting some Great reviews, but for me it is not that amazing, and not as good as Dunkirk.
Was it a realistic depiction of WWI? Nothing to do with the story but in the way Saving Private Ryan was.
share"The Great War" was an excellent documentary. I believe it was the one that showed the trench conditions. You wouldn't believe how disgusting it was. Flies, flies, and more flies of biblical proportions. Some guys even drowned in the latrines.
shareI’ve read about WWII Pacific theater for years but I’ve just recently been listening to an in depth podcast of WWI and I was amazed at the mass casualties and conditions.
shareInterstellar is awesome but Dunkirk is a total turdfest.
shareI don't think that was true of Dunkirk and it's probably not true of this film. But it doesn't matter to me because I didn't enjoy Dunkirk and the trailers for 1917 appear so similar I'm not the least bit interested.
shareJust saw this film - I fastforwarded maybe 20% of the film (the anecdotes one dude tells the other - I wasn't interested in that crap).
And Dunkirk .... I had to fastforward through 80% of it (long shots with absolutely nothing happening/incoherent and unfocused plot - Nolan's trademark).
So... yeah, 1917 has a coherent story, good visuals, good acting.
All in all, Dunkirk was an overhyped crapshow, while this proved to be a decent film (not amazing, but good). So.... it's like comparing that famous banana art to an actual painting. One is nonsensical, overhyped tard, while the other one is an actual painting.
The trailer for 1917 is crap though. It really does make it seem like dunkirk wannabe. In reality though, it's just a normal movie about a dude trying to prevent a massacre in war-setting. All in all, ignore the trailer, watch the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised, especially if you are expecting Nolan crap-like quality.
Dunkirk was crap, sorry to say.
share