Showing posts sorted by date for query free download movie yesterday. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query free download movie yesterday. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Download Django Unchained FULL HD 1080p

Download Django Unchained FULL HD 1080p

With the help of a German bounty hunter, a freed slave sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.





America, mid-nineteenth century, just prior to the Civil War. Winter. Two horsebacked slave-traders are leading half-a-dozen manacled negro slaves through a large, unspecified section of Texas. As they move one night through a wood, they cross paths with an affable, charming German fellow identified by the hokey model tooth affixed atop his carriage by a spring as a travelling dentist. He greets the traders cordially but he's struggling to be understood; not because English is his second language (although he deferentially concedes as much when instructed - more than once - to "Speak English!") but because his vocabulary is far wider than that of the simpler men here before him. It's not a chance passing, either; this German fellow, who identifies himself as Dr. King Schultz (played by Christoph Waltz with the same smiling, deadly menace that earned him an Oscar statue for his part as Col. Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds) is looking for these traders. More specifically, their inventory of negro slaves. Even more specifically, one of those slaves in particular. Django (Jamie Foxx, Collateral, Ray). Attempting to buy Django, Schultz is met with short, suspicious shrift and ordered at gunpoint to be on his way. Within a second, one trader lies dead and the other lies incapacitated underneath the bulk of his dead horse. Schultz unchains Django, instructs Django to take the dead fellow's horse and coat, and pays the remaining trader for all that he's taken. He then tosses the manacle key to the other slaves and posits two choices to them, as he sees it: Carry their injured master thirty-plus miles to the nearest town for medical assistance, or unchain themselves, blow the injured slave-trader's head off with the gun Shultz has left them, bury the corpses and use the Pole Star to run for the Northern states, where slavery had been abolished, and for more than fifty years in some areas. Funnily enough, they take up the latter option.

So begins Django Unchained, an oater set in the slave states of the Deep South and the latest rollercoaster by Gen-X movieland wunderkind Quentin Tarantino. Always clearly a man heavily informed by the grindhouse subgenre of the Spaghetti Western, he's finally made one himself, and if Quentin's your thing it's a blast, though I doubt it'll convert many Tarantino sceptics; in fact it'll almost certainly reinforce those things that people dislike about him, about which more later.

It transpires that Dr. Schultz ISN'T a dentist ("I haven't practised dentistry in five years," he confides to Django over a beer) but a bounty hunter, and a lethal one at that. He's chasing down the Brittles, a murderous gang of brothers currently plying their trades as plantation overseers. He doesn't know what they look like but he knows they were recently employed at the Carrucan plantation, which is why he was searching for Django - a slave recently sold by that very plantation - in the first place; Django can point them out for him. Schultz is no fan of the South's backwards-thinking propensity for slavery though, and he offers Django a deal: help Schultz find and kill the Brittle Brothers, Schultz will treat Django like a free man, pay him $75 (a decent little wedge in 1858) and rubber-stamp his freedom. Along the way, he'll also teach Django a thing or two about the art of gunfighting and about the macabre trade of bounty-hunting (both in which Django proves to be a natural). On the trail of the Brittles, Schultz wonders aloud as to Django's plans once this endeavour is over and he's free. Well, as it happens, Django is a married man and his intention, once free, is to find his wife and buy her freedom. They'd tried to run from the Carrucan plantation together but they'd been caught, branded (both Django and his wife - played with all of her nerves exposed by Kerry Washington - sport R-For-Runaway scars on their cheeks) and sold on, separately. So he doesn't know where she is but that's what he's going to try to do. Schultz, feeling responsible for Django as the man granting him his freedom, proposes a further deal: If this Brittle bounty goes well, he'll honour Django's freedom but if Django stays with him through the winter as partners, taking on bounties and earning money, he'll help Django locate his wife.

What we have here is a large sequence of set-pieces - some funny, some tense, some action-packed - stretched across very-nearly three hours (though, like most QT films, it moves like a bullet train and those three hours just fly) strung together by a fairly simple revenge/rescue tale set against a geographically sprawling backdrop; a reasonably similar template to many of Quentin's movies and an almost identical template to that of previous outing Inglourious Basterds, to which Django Unchained could almost be considered a companion piece despite the wildly different global and historical settings. Like Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained is quite a bit longer than the story need be, and like Inglourious Basterds that is because each scene is treated by Tarantino as a mini movie, a contained set-piece all of its own. Every scene is fleshed out and deepened for either heightened comic or dramatic effect by lengthened sequences of characters going about the mundane or by characters delivering enormous monologues - rambling shaggy-dog stories, usually - to one another, for context. Not every scene is entirely necessary, either. I wouldn't call that a flaw though, I'd call it a trait typical of Quentin Tarantino; whether it's a flaw or an outright treat depends entirely on whether that's an element of Tarantino's writing that the viewer appreciates. Personally, I love Tarantino's writer's voice and I could watch these scenes for hours (indeed, I watched Django Unchained three times over the course of yesterday), but I can fully undersand what those lamenting the decent 90-minute film that's lost somewhere within the sojourns and speeches of Django Unchained are saying.

Performances throughout are utterly mesmerising, from stars Foxx and Waltz but also - in fact, maybe more so - from principle antagonists Leonardo DiCaprio as "Monsieur" Calvin Candie, the horrifying owner of the "Candyland" plantation currently holding the ownership deeds on Django's wife, and Samuel L. Jackson in an if-anything even more monstrous role as Stephen, Candie's elderly head house slave, a man who has utterly abndoned the culture and torment of his people in return for a few material trappings as the slave-in-chief. Playing to superb comedic effect is Don Johnson as Big Daddy, a strutting, peacock-like Tennessee dandy and owner of the plantation currently employing the Brittle Brothers, and delightful in cameo roles are (among many others) James Remar (The Warriors, Dexter), Jonah Hill (Superbad, The Watch), John Jarratt (Wolf Creek, Rogue) and Michael Parks (Red State, Kill Bill). Quentin himself makes a cameo as usual and, as usual, he's not as charming as he probably thinks he is, but he's also not as bad as many think he is, either. There's even a quick cameo (raising an involuntary cheer from me!) by Franco Nero, the original Django from the magnificent 1966 film of the same name by Sergio Corbucci (that's not the only nod back to the first Django movie; the opening credits to Django Unchained are presented in exactly the same way as the original, and the theme song to Quentin's film comes directly from the Corbucci film too).

Django Unchained is likely to come under fire on a couple of counts; possibly for it's incredible levels of bloodshed (one particular gunfight is the most blood-splattered scene I've seen in a movie since those elevator doors opened in The Shining), and much more probably for the liberal use of what guilty white folks like to refer to as "The 'N'-word", uttered literally hundreds of times from first scene to last. However, neither criticism is warranted in my humble opinion. The bloodshed is of the overexaggerated cartoon quality. Heads, arteries and extremities explode upon bullet impact like detonated watermelons to a gloopy, "BLAAAPP!" sound effect, the blood itself translucent, syrupy and intentionally unrealistic. And if a tale is set against the backdrop of slavery in the 19th century deep South, you're going to hear the word "Nigger" in that tale. Often. Be assured though that just as Inglourious Basterds was a revenge fantasy of the downtrodden Jewish war refugees over the stupidly evil Nazi Germans, this is a tale of empowerment of the enslaved black man over his sadistic, pig-ignorant white overseers.

If you like Tarantino, you'll probably like Django Unchained. If you like Westerns (and the blood-drenched Spaghetti Westerns of the late sixties in particular), you'll probably like Django Unchained. If, like me, you're an admirer of both Tarantino AND westerns, this is a no-brainer. Get and see it, it's a blast.

I'd like to have seen him pull a Gatling gun out of a coffin, though.

A highly entertaining yet disturbing film with superb cast and performances for an audience who would likely never consider watching a film fundamentally about slavery, where Tarantino is masterfully and emphatically navigating and exposing the complex layers of the violent and dehumanizing system of slavery.

**ENTERTAINING from start to finish !!**

Given I am a big fan of **Quentin's** works i knew this movie would be a treat to watch.But what i didn't know was violence can be so **COOL**... The movie is a treat to watch(including the blood and gore) from starting to end.The acting is superb.And the cinematography is just too good! The whole cast played their parts to perfection...Especially **Samuel L. Jackson** and **Jamie Foxx**..**Leo and Christopher Waltz** were superb too..And as Christopher said in the movie - "It was hard to RESIST".A must watch for everyone who likes QUALITY cinema..Even the ones who cant stand BOOMs and BANGs, you wouldn't regret spending about 3 hours watching this well written, well directed and well acted GREAT movie !!

This is one of the best movies I have watched in a long time. It is a pure Tarantino blast. The somewhat unexpected and quite hilarious start of the movie catches your attention from the start and from then on it is 3 hours (almost) of pure enjoyment.

The main actors are playing their roles very well. The Dr. King Schultz character (Christop Walz) is incredibly funny without being ridiculous, Jamie Foxx is excellent as Django and Leonardo DiCaprio is doing his role well as a plantation owner and slave trader. None of the rest of the crew stood out as particularly bad. Well with the possible exception of Tarantino himself then when he made his usual in-movie appearance a’ la Hitchcock. Not that he was particularly bad but he is no actor either.

The movie starts of by Dr. Schulz liberating Django and proceeding to a small town showing Django what he is in the business of doing. Those first minutes of the movie are somewhat unexpected and very funny to watch. After that the movie gets more serious as Django gets to learn to be a bounty hunter and finally gets on with his quest to rescue his “Damsel in distress”. It still has quite a bit of “Tarantino humour” sprinkled around in it though.

During the movie we are treated to a long series of stereotypical people with, let us say, an “attitude” towards African people. It is tempting to say “nigger haters” but that would not be true since a lot of these people did not exactly hate them. They just did not consider African people to be people but more than live stock for them to use as they wished. Unlike a lot of movies portraying these events this one never comes across as boringly finger pointing or overly morally lecturing. Nor does it in any way support or glorify the way things were at this time. It is a movie made to entertain set in a period where bad shit happened and using it for the story. Nothing more and nothing less.

As usual with a Tarantino movie there are some violent parts, some more violent parts and some bloody violent parts in it. The ending fights are a glorious show of destruction and blood splatter. I am sure some people are complaining about the “unnecessary violence”. I am not one of those people. Without these parts it would not be a real Tarantino movie. As always it is made with the usual exaggeration that Tarantino is so good and which reminds you that it is “only a movie”.
This is one of the few movies that I have given 10 out of 10 stars in a very long time. I enjoyed it immensely.

When Django is unchained (pronounced JANG-oh, not Duh-JANG-oh)

Released in 2012 and directed & written by Quentin Tarantino, "Django Unchained" stars Christoph Waltz as an ex-dentist who befriends an ex-slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) in West Texas a couple of years before the Civil War; they team-up as bounty hunters once they realize how good they jell. The second half focuses on their attempt to infiltrate a Mississippi plantation owned by pompous Southerner "Monsieur" Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) in order to rescue Django's wife (Kerry Washington). Samuel L. Jackson plays Candie's overly loyal house slave.

This is an excellent American Western with Spaghetti Western elements featuring Tarantino's typical artistic flourishes. It takes place in the West AND in the South, which is reminiscent of the underrated "Nevada Smith" (1966), one of my favorite Westerns. Waltz is magnetic as the nonchalant protagonist and he & Foxx have good chemistry. There's a nice mix of interesting dialogues, amusing moments and over-the-top action. Unfortunately, but to be expected, Tarantino goes overboard with the 'n' word and the blood-letting, the latter to the point of cartoonish-ness.

Nevertheless, this is an original Western that is vibrant with creativity, including stunning locations, cinematography and a great amalgamated soundtrack/score, which includes cuts by Ennio Morricone, like the excellent "Hornets' Nest," the imaginative "The Braying Mule" and the moving "Ancora Qui." It's all-around superior to "The Hateful Eight" (2015) because it's not limited by a one-room whodunit plot (although "Hateful" has its unique points of interest).

The movie runs 165 minutes and was shot in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Evergreen Plantation & New Orleans, Louisiana; and several locations in California (Lone Pine, Alabama Hills, Semi Valley, Melody Ranch, Santa Clarita, Independence & Los Angeles). The cast includes numerous peripheral notables, e.g. Ato Essandohs, Don Stroud, James Remar, Bruce Dern, Ato Essandoh, Franco Nero, Don Johnson, Amber Tamblyn and several others.

GRADE: A

Download Godzilla: King of the Monsters EN DIRECT

Watch Godzilla: King of the Monsters FULL HD 1080p

Follows the heroic efforts of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch as its members face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species - thought to be mere myths - rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity's very existence hanging in the balance.





‘Godzilla II: King of the Monsters’ promises to build on the great work already laid out for this franchise, mixing popcorn fun and thrilling craft, but instead it relinquishes all of that to be a predictably dull and plodding bore. It doesn’t even manage to be a fun, brainless monster movie, assuming that a satisfying monster battle is all about being big and loud and doing nothing else. We waited five years for the follow-up to ‘Godzilla’, which only makes this new film even more of a disappointment, and doesn't excuse the badly-written screenplay or the poorly-executed visual effects. With Dougherty handing the reigns over to horror director Adam Wingard for 2020’s ‘Godzilla vs Kong’, here’s hoping the Monsterverse finds its feet again.
- Daniel Lammin

Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-godzilla-2-king-of-the-monsters-the-king-stumbles-in-this-loud-and-blundering-mess

Picking up after the events of the previous film; “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” deals with a world trying to assess what to do with the presence of the giant Titans. The Monarch Corporation wants the creatures studied and has established locales to study the ones they have found currently hibernating. The U.S. Government wants them destroyed as they do not want repeats of the destruction that was previously caused by Godzilla.

Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobbie Brown) have developed a device known as Orca that will allow them to communicate with the creatures using specific sonic frequencies.

After a successful test under duress; the duo are captured by a ruthless Eco Terrorist group who want to use the giant creatures for their own objectives.
This leads to a chase around the world with Monarch attempting to stop them and with Emma’s ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler) deeply involved though he is deeply divided as he blames Godzilla for the loss of their son.

When a gigantic creature is freed; Godzilla faces his greatest challenge as there is a race against time to save the world.

While the film has some very impressive visual effects, the film drags as aside from a couple of brief encounters; the audience is required to sit through roughly 90 minutes of plodding story to get to the action which is roughly only the last 15-20 minutes of the film.

The human characters were very disinteresting and many of the international cast looked at times like they were sleepwalking though their lines as they seemed to have a real lack of passion for what they were given to work with.

The human characters were also very annoying and I found myself hoping that they would be taken out by the creatures as I had no connection to them and they did not inspire any sympathy.

While it may possibly appeal to hardcore fans, this was a miss for me as there simply was not enough creature action to counter-balance having to sit through the human characters and plodding plot to get to the good stuff.

2.5 stars out of 5

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

As some of you might know, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is one of my Most Anticipated Movies of 2019. Not because I expected it to be a beautifully written, heartfelt story with fully-developed characters who I would immensely care about. I was incredibly excited because it’s freaking Godzilla and from the few images that I had seen, it looked absolutely stunning. I didn’t need an Oscar-worthy screenplay or amazing performances. I just wanted a decent and logical (this last word is important) narrative with reasonable characters, and tons of monsters fighting to the death against each other. So, my expectations were neither complex or as high as some other people might have.

Unfortunately, I left the theater extremely disappointed. I can’t deny the impeccable VFX and the infinite amount of wallpaper-worthy images spread across the entire film. Some scenes are filled with jaw-dropping cinematography, astonishingly gorgeous monsters, and the fights feel so real that the sound design alone takes you to the edge of your seat. However, when the two pillars of any movie (story and characters) are so far away from even remotely working, there are no technically perfect aspects that can save the film from a disaster. I wrote this exact last sentence a few weeks ago regarding Game Of Thrones, and I will stand by it. I’m always the first guy to praise exceptional filmmaking skills, but if I have to choose between a technically seamless movie, and a film with a fantastic story and fully-developed characters, I have no doubts that the latter is the indisputably right choice.

Ultimately, that’s the huge problem here. The screenplay is loaded with some of the laziest exposition scenes I’ve seen in the last few years. Characters continuously have some sort of presentation to explain something in a completely unpredictable conversation randomly. Generally, a movie like this always has some kind of cliche secondary characters who are either a nerdy scientist, a comic-relief guy, a duo of bantering personalities or a military general who always wants to attack something, even though everyone knows it’s not the most intelligent decision. King of the Monsters has all of these types and more! More?! Seriously, Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields overstuff the narrative with so many unnecessary, useless, stereotypical characters who stretch the overall runtime and extend the periods between the massive fights, turning them into minutes of complete boredom.

I yawned during a Godzilla blockbuster. Yawned. How sad is that?! I really enjoyed Gareth Edwards’ 2014’s Godzilla. At the time, the most common complaint was that there wasn’t enough Godzilla in it. Most of the characters were well-written, despite that some could have been more fleshed out. King of the Monsters is (kind of) the other way around: there are dozens of monsters and bone-crushing, titanic fights, but they literally forgot to write a captivating story with compelling characters. In the first installment, even though I also wanted more Godzilla, when he actually shows up, I was so freaking excited! Since I had to wait for the third act to watch the Titans fight, the build-up that was generated and its payoff actually made the time spent with the human characters worthy.

This sequel was doomed from the moment the characters were written. There are a lot of fight sequences, and I wrote above that unnecessary characters extend the periods between these scenes. The dilemma is that those periods need to exist, making the whole thing look like a double-edged sword that the director is trying to avoid. On one hand, you can’t have an action set piece after another action set piece consecutively, otherwise, these will lose impact over time and become monotonous, so you need to spend time with the horribly-written human characters. On the other hand, you can’t have dumb characters with unclear motivations on-screen for long periods, otherwise, the audience will fall asleep of tediousness or get annoyed, so you have to insert a massive fight sequence again, hence making the audience gradually lose interest in those scenes.

King of the Monsters continuously repeats this cycle of going from one situation to the other. No one wants to have back-to-back fights because they’ll lose the impactful energy, but no one wants to waste their precious time listening to exposition-heavy PowerPoint presentations from characters no one is going to remember their name. I can’t even remember the main characters’ names, and I watched the movie yesterday! I can’t blame the cast, everyone gives good performances. Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell) continues her path to become one of Hollywood’s biggest stars (in less than 10 years, she’ll have an Oscar in her hands, I guarantee you that). Kyle Chandler (Mark Russell) does more than what was expected of him with such a lousy script, and Ken Watanabe (Dr. Ishiro Serizawa) is the only one who delivered a solid performance AND had a suitable character (fruit of the previous film). Vera Farmiga (Dr. Emma Russell) is connected to the worst character of the movie (atrociously irrational decisions made by Emma), and everyone else is pretty much one of the vast cliche secondary characters.

They had five years to write a straightforward narrative with simple characters. No fan neither wanted or needed a brilliant, groundbreaking screenplay. Dougherty and Shields delivered one of the worst scripts of the year, one filled with exposition, cliche characters, and a runtime that turned out to be way too long for someone to tolerate all of the dreadful dialogue. I don’t know if it will clearly end up as one of the worst films of 2019, but it’s definitely one of the biggest letdowns. All in all, Godzilla: King of the Monsters didn’t meet my expectations (and mine were pretty fair), not even close. Visually, it’s one of the most striking movies I’ve seen this year, and that can’t be dismissed. From the massive fights with the Titans to the impressive wide shots, Dougherty had a gorgeous diamond that he just needed to polish with a rational and simplistic story, like it was a soft, clean cloth. Instead, he used a hammer…

Rating: C-

It's dumb. Really dumb. And I don't mean "Oh it's a big, noisy action movie and it doesn't engage you very much mentally so that means it's stupid", I'm talking like, the rules contained within just this movie are frequently broken, and a big chunk of the ideas make no sense by the end. Dumb. But I still had a pretty good time with _King of the Monsters_ (kind of a weird title to give Godzilla when the tagline for the sequel is "God VS King", and Godzilla is not the king in that matchup, but I digress). The quality of the CGI varies _drastically_, but when it's good, it's **just** enough to get me over the line to enjoying it to the point I can give the movie a positive review.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**_Very loud, very dumb, and very entertaining_**

>_And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, "Arise, devour much flesh." After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, whic__h had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns._

- Daniel 7:3-7

>_Behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth_ [...] _And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea_ [...] _And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"_ [...] _And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world._

- Revelation 12:3-13:8

I really enjoyed Gareth Edwards's 2014 _Godzilla_. Sure, there were plot holes through which you could drive an entire fleet of trains carrying nuclear weapons, it featured coincidences that stretched believability even by Hollywood's standards, the human characters were paper-thin, and it took itself very, very seriously. But I enjoyed it. As Edwards had already proved with his debut film, the superb _Monsters_ (2010) and as he would subsequently prove with _Rogue One: A Star Wars Story_ (2016), he has a knack for wedding large-scale CGI grandiosity to stories that feel contemplative and personalised. And I don't care how long this franchise may run, and how many films get churned out, Godzilla's mic-drop moment, when he holds the female MUTO's mouth open and breathes blue fire down its throat will never be topped in its "holy shit"-ness. Ironically enough though, what I admired most about the film is the same thing that a lot of people disliked - the fact that Edwards kept Godzilla's appearances so fleeting; it took over an hour before we first saw him, and then he got only seven minutes total screen time. Personally, I thought it was a masterclass in directorial restraint, and it had the effect that when the big final fight came, it hit home on so many levels because here, finally, we were getting to see the big guy throw down. Remember when Hulk Hogan was the WWF champion for three years running? He didn't wrestle on every show, he didn't even appear on every show. So when Wrestlemania came around, and we knew the Hulkster would be headlining, it meant more than if we'd just seen him the week prior. Same thing with _Godzilla_. However, I understand why some people were unimpressed that a film called _Godzilla_ featured so little, well, Godzilla!

The third film in Legendary Entertainment's "MonsterVerse" franchise, _King of the Monsters_ is a direct sequel to Edwards's film (although sadly, he doesn't return as director), and sets up Adam Wingard's _Godzilla vs. Kong_, which has already wrapped shooting, and is scheduled for release next summer. However, whereas Edwards held Godzilla back and made the action feel smaller by focalising it through the human characters, new director Michael Dougherty (_Trick 'r Treat_; _Krampus_) essentially inverts that formula, putting Godzilla front and centre for pretty much the entire runtime (there are four big fight scenes within the first half-hour alone), and shooting the action in such a way as to make it seem as grandiose as possible. Indeed, he told Collider, "_I would call it the_ Aliens _to Gareth's_ Alien." And although Dougherty isn't half the director that Edwards is, _King of the Monsters_ works pretty well in a braindead summer action movie that's wall-to-wall giant monsters fighting one another kind of way. Sure, there are significant problems (all the best shots are in the trailer, the plot is beyond laughable, the characters are so thinly sketched as to make those in the first film feel Shakespearean, clichés abound, the talented cast is wasted), but all things considered, I enjoyed it, as it accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish, and you really can't fault a film for succeeding at its primary objective.

Five years since Godzilla defeated the MUTOs, many more creatures (newly dubbed Titans) have been found throughout the world, all in various forms of hibernation. In charge of studying and protecting them is the private company Monarch Sciences (introduced in a fledgeling state in Jordan Vogt-Roberts's _Kong: Skull Island_, which took place in 1973). As the film begins, Monarch employees Dr. Ishirô Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Dr. Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), both returning from the previous film, are attempting to convince the Senate that under no circumstances should control of the Titans be turned over to the military, something with which Admiral William Stenz (the great David Strathairn, also returning from the first film) strongly disagrees. Meanwhile, in China, paleobiologist Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) watch the awakening of the larval form of Mothra. However, when Mothra becomes distressed, Emma is able to calm it using the ORCA, a device which monitors the Titans' bioacoustics and transmits a dominant "alpha signal" capable of placating them. Soon thereafter, eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) and his private army storm the facility, stealing the ORCA, and kidnapping Emma and Madison. In response, Monarch track down Dr. Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler), Emma's estranged husband, and co-designer of the ORCA, hoping he might be able to help find Jonah. Mark and Emma lost a son in San Francisco during the fight between Godzilla and the MUTOs, and whereas Emma came to feel the Titans could help humanity, Mark became convinced they should all be eradicated. Meanwhile, Jonah heads to the Monarch facility in Antarctica and unleashes the only non-terrestrial Titan, a fearsome three-headed dragon codenamed "Monster Zero", but whom ancient humans knew as King Ghidorah. Arguing that humanity has brought the planet to the point of destruction, Jonah believes that if the Titans are awoken, the ensuing conflict would wipe out most of human civilisation, allowing the planet the time it needs to heal. And so, with Ghidorah awakening the various Titans throughout the world, Godzilla emerges to stand against him.

With production wrapping on _King of the Monsters_ in 2017, and with two release dates scrapped, the film was beginning to accrue some pretty bad buzz. Then that magisterial first trailer dropped, showing Mothra spanning her glorious wings scored with a remix of Claude Debussy's "Clair de Lune" from _Suite bergamasque_ (1890) and promising a film of pensive apocalyptic goings-on. It was the sort of trailer to turn even the biggest naysayer around. The good news is that all the best bits from the trailer are in the film. The bad news is that most of the best bits from the film are in the trailer.

Godzilla was originally created by Tomoyuki Tanaka, Ishirô Honda, and Eiji Tsuburaya, and first seen on screen in 1954's _Gojira_ (released in North America in 1956 as _Godzilla, King of the Monsters!_, a reedited version of the original with additional scenes and new actors). Over the last six decades, he has appeared in all manner of films and TV shows, from action flicks to eco-metaphors to kid's cartoons to comedy to whatever the hell Roland Emmerich's 1998 version was. Conceived in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident, Godzilla was intended as a metaphor for the destructive power of nuclear weaponry. Thematically speaking, the highpoint of the "Kaiju" (Japanese for "strange beast") genre thus far is probably Hideaki Anno's _Shin Gojira_ (2016), which was a political satire inspired by the Japanese government's response to the 2011 Tôhoku earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

_King of the Monsters_ has one eye on its themes too (a dire warning of oncoming eco-disaster, biodiversity, co-existence with other species, military impulsiveness, the insignificance of humanity compared to the vastness of nature), but really, the sermonising, exposition-heavy script by Dougherty and Zach Shields, from a story by Max Borenstein, is so badly put together, with the characters' motivations so poorly delineated, that any thematic concerns dissipate into nothing. Part of this is that the narrative simplifies Godzilla's 'morality'. Traditionally, Godzilla is inherently benevolent. However, in the 2014 version, Edwards muddied this concept brilliantly, depicting a monster that was fairly indifferent to humanity and was far more concerned with the biological drive to reassert his alpha status. In _King of the Monsters_, both Godzilla and Mothra are fundamentally good, and they wish to protect humanity from Ghidorah, which is more binary and not nearly as interesting a position to take.

And yes, the film does address the fact that through inattention and greed, humanity is on the brink of ensuring its own extinction. Jonah, of course, believes that giving the earth back to the Titans is all humanity deserves, and is exactly what the planet needs (it's revealed early in the film that the Titans leave behind biomatter which results in the rapid growth of vegetation). For her part, Emma compares humanity to a virus, and the Titans to a "fever" that could eradicate it. Elsewhere, obviously with one eye on the issue of American isolationism under Trump, as well as the unstable geopolitical situation, Serizawa states, "_sometimes, the only way to heal a wound is to make peace with the demon who caused it_". The problem with all of this is that the script is so ham-fisted and poorly structured, the eco themes so preachy, and the organic integration of those themes into the action so lacking, that they come across as background irrelevancies at best, and distracting moralising at worst. And in any case, the film ultimately undermines all of this in favour of reaffirming the clichéd old notion of human perseverance in the face of adversity.

As we're discussing the script, another problem is repetition. For example, on several occasions, Godzilla is getting his ass handed to him, only to make an 'unexpected' comeback, whilst not one, not two, but three characters sacrifice themselves for the greater good (all at different times), resulting in none of the sacrifices really meaning anything. There are also some hideous clichés. At one point, on their flagship the ARGO, the Monarch people are listening to Godzilla's heartbeat, which is becoming weaker and weaker, and Dr. Rick Stanton (a criminally underused Bradley Whitford) implores, all earnest-like, "_c'mon big guy_." It's supposed to be a moment of great pathos, tapping into the audience's empathy for Godzilla. Instead, at the screening I attended, everyone laughed, so clunky and self-serious was the moment.

Another scene that doesn't work, although in a completely different way, is the death of a major character; it happens so suddenly, amidst so much chaos, with the camera not even focused on them, that in the very next scene, the film has to show us their face on a monitor with the word "Deceased" written underneath. Not exactly the best way to handle a major death. There's also a (predictable) twist based on what could charitably be called ill-defined character motivations. The character of Mark is also peculiarly written. Played by the top-billed Kyle Chandler, he has precious little to do for most of the film other than look at monitors with a concerned expression, coming off more as a fed-up dad than the protagonist of a Kaiju film. There are also far too many scenes of characters standing on the bridge of the ARGO, spouting expositional word-dumps at one another, oftentimes even narrating their motivations. In any case, not a single character in the film comes across as three-dimensional, with not a hint of interiority amongst the lot of them. Additionally, because the scale of the fights is so massive, and the humans so poorly written, Dougherty is unable to make the characters seem even remotely significant. This was another area where Edwards did well, marrying the spectacle with smaller human drama, but Dougherty allows the spectacle to overwhelm everything else.

There are also some hilarious spatial hijinks going on. I get that the ARGO is supposed to be a super-advanced high-tech mobile fortress, but it seems capable of flying from one side of the planet to the other in about ten minutes. From Colorado to China to Bermuda to Antarctica to Mexico to Massachusetts, unless the ARGO is capable of transportation, there's some _Game of Thrones_-level compression of distances going on. Related to this is that Zhang Ziyi plays twins (Dr. Ilene Chen and Dr. Ling Chen), who we never see together. Except I didn't even realise there were two of them until I read a few reviews. Sure, I noticed what I thought was a singular character appear to be in two places at once, but because the ARGO had already been globe-hopping all over the place by that point, I just put it down to the film's lack of geographic realism. The fact that it's so easy to miss that there are twins is spectacularly bad writing, especially considering they're supposed to be a modernised version of the Shobijin, two fairies that speak for Mothra. Also, Aisha Hinds as Colonel Diane Foster, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Chief Warrant Officer Jackson Barnes, and Thomas Middleditch as Dr. Sam Coleman may as well not be in the film at all, so little are they given to do. The same could be said for most of the Titans. Apart from the central tag-teams of Godzilla and Mothra facing off against Ghidorah and Rodan, most of the rest (including those newly created for the film - Baphomet, Typhon, Abaddon, Bunyip, and Methuselah) are seen only in news reports and a montage that plays behind the closing credits, although a few do turn up for one scene.

But for all that, however, I thoroughly enjoyed _King of the Monsters_. Although the trailer does promise what the film can't deliver, aesthetically, there's a lot to admire. The sound design by Erik Aadahl (_I, Robot_; _The Tree of Life_; _A Quiet Place_) Brandon Jones (_13 Hours_; _The Shallows_), and Tim Walston (_The Incredible Hulk_; _Pacific Rim_; _Chronicle_) is suitably deafening, and the cinematography by Lawrence Sher (_The Hangover_; _War Dogs_; _Joker_) has a well-judged sense of scale, especially in the 2.39:1 3D IMAX format. This is complemented by the editing by Roger Barton (_Gone in 60 Seconds_; _Pearl Harbor_; _The Grey_), Bob Ducsay (_Season of the Witch_; _Looper_; _Rampage_), and Richard Pearson (_The Bourne Supremacy_; _Quantum of Solace_; _Iron Man 2_), who maintain the rhythm of even the most chaotic action scenes. And even though pretty much the entire film takes place at night in the midst of a storm of the Titans' own making, it never becomes difficult to follow or see what's happening.

The film also does some interesting things with colour. Whereas the palette is predominantly mixed when we're with the human characters, the Titans are coded in binary elemental colours: Mothra glows blue as a larva and gold in her final form, Rodan reflects the hardened red of the lava from which he emerges, Godzilla is the green of nature, Ghidorah is a neutralising dark brown. There are also some extraordinary individual shots (most of which have unfortunately been spoiled by the trailer); Mothra spreading her wings for the first time, Ghidorah perched atop an erupting volcano with a crucifix looming in the foreground, the reveal of Godzilla's lair. And the final shot is a goosebumps moment with which no Kaiju fan could possibly be dissatisfied. Purely at the level of craft, this is a hugely impressive film.

_Citizen Kane_ it most certainly isn't, but who expected (or wanted) it to be. The key to really parsing the film is to consider the context, looking at what it was trying to be. And in this sense, it's a success. Sure, the script is hideous, and Dougherty is no Edwards, struggling to accomplish what Edwards seemed to do with ease; bring his own personality to the spectacle. However, if you approach it for what it is, a dumb summer blockbuster about large monsters punching each other, you'll like it just fine.

Download 1917 FULL HD 1080p

Watch 1917 FULL HD 1080p

At the height of the First World War, two young British soldiers must cross enemy territory and deliver a message that will stop a deadly attack on hundreds of soldiers.





I really wanted to give this film five stars, but there is a curious introspection that prevents me from calling it perfection. Nevertheless, ‘1917’ is a brilliant piece of art, and clearly a personal project for Sam Mendes. Blending groundbreaking technology with detailed production components, it's sure to entertain audiences and garner respect from critics for its execution. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you when the Oscar nominations come out.
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-1917-sam-mendes-personal-war-story

Without a doubt, cinematically this is a visual tour de force. The one-shot approach becomes a distraction, at times, especially when one ponders "how did they do that?", but generally not enough to take away the wow factor.

The story, and dialogue, not to mention logic are the real problems that take this movie from great, to merely good.

The initial concept of sending two men on an imperitive mission to save 1600 men is ludicrous in itself, especially in a war where men were gassed and gunned down by the thousands. Sending only two of them into unknown situations, in no-man's-land was illogical.

Then there was the fact the hero seems to never get shot by enemy soldiers, despite being in dead-duck situations. When he does get injured, his wounds seem to magically heal and disappear instantly. Director Sam Mendes must have never had the concussive effects of explosions explained to him, because while some fall from explosions, the heroes seem immune to physics.

The most ludicrous scene involves booby-trapped explosives, and a collapsed ton of rocks leaving not only no visible injuries, but no effects at all on clothing or hearing. But there was dust in the eyes.

There are many more scenes involving lack of logic, or credibility.

Over-all, the movie is worth it for the cinematography, attention to detail, costumes and acting, but the trite story, and credibilty problems drag it down from what it should, and could have been.

Finally yesterday I was able to experience 1917 and I ended up doing it at IMAX, something I didn't plan on, but after seeing it there, I can say this film deserves to be seen and heard in an IMAX room to remember why movies still need to be lived on a big screen.

The visual odyssey of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins is an incredible journey. Yes, the story is very thin but that's something that made 1917 a somewhat different film
It's not a war epic, nor does it try to be one. It's kind of a lone wolf war story, though at the beginning it wasn't like that, and that's good because despite everything that happens, the film doesn't lose that sense of camaraderie at the task that remains after the loss.

1917 is a story of survival and that although it could not be considered completely original, that's totally the least of its problems because after all the experience is just spectacular.

I admit the film has certain rhythm dropouts that I didn't like, especially the scene where Schofield loses consciousness, but at that point we are given the extraordinary night sequence, so my discomfort ended up disappearing.

1917 is not a perfect film, but it's a reminder of how wonderful is to enjoy a film as they should be, even if it's a film that deals with the horrors of war.

This is the kind of film that should be lived and experienced that way, otherwise it loses its resonance, so if you have the chance to see 1917 at a big screen do it.

**_Although partly a technical showcase rather than a story, it's still a terrific Great War movie_**

>_In the newspapers you read: "Peacefully they rest on the spot where they have bled and suffered, while the guns roar over their graves, taking vengeance for their heroic death". And it doesn't occur to anybody that the enemy is also firing; that the shells plunge into the hero's grave; that his bones are mingled with the filth which they scatter to the four winds – and that, after a few weeks, the morass closes over the last resting-place of the soldier._

- Kanonier Gerhard Gürtler (Königlich Bayerisches 3. Feldartillerie-Regiment Prinz Leopold)

>_Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,_

>_Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,_

>_Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,_

>_And towards our distant rest began to trudge._

>_Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,_

>_But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;_

>_Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots_

>_Of gas-shells dropping softly behind._

- Wilfred Owen; "Dulce et Decorum Est" (1921)

>_No tactical or strategic gain was made on the Somme front that was worth the cost in lives. Even had the British and French achieved their breakthrough on the Somme, the Germans had plenty of room to manoeuvre and, unlike the French at Verdun, no national interest in staying where they were. During the winter of 1916-17, the Germans simply withdrew to the Hindenburg Line, east of the Somme battlefield, and it all had to be done again._

- Robin Neillands; _Attrition: The Great War on the Western Front – 1916_ (2001)

>_In the Somme valley, the back of language broke. It could no longer carry its former meanings. World War I changed the life of words and images in art, radically and forever. It brought our culture into the age of mass-produced, industrialised death. This, at first, was indescribable._

- Robert Hughes; _The Shock of the New_ (2004)

My paternal grandfather fought during the Great War. Corporal Edward J. Campbell was with the 9th Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 48th Brigade, 16th (Irish) Division and took part in the capture of Ginchy on September 9, 1916 during the Battle of the Somme. My dad was born in 1933, and in all the years that came afterwards – even when he himself joined the RAF – his father never spoke about those years.

The Great War broke men in ways the likes of which had never been seen before, and perhaps have never been seen since. It exposed men to psychological horrors inconceivable to most people today. The nature of trench warfare and the concomitant use of artillery on a scale beyond anything in human history did such things to men's minds that even thousands of those who returned never really left the battlefields. We've all seen "Shell shocked soldier, 1916", one of the most haunting photographs ever taken, and the picture it paints is a disturbingly vivid one. But what makes the Great War, the so-called "war to end all wars", so much worse than it had to be was that it pitted old school tactics against modern weaponry. Generals on both sides believed the war could be won, as others had been, by sending wave after wave of men "over the top" in an attempt to overwhelm enemy positions. However, such tactics failed to take into account advancements in weaponry, with combatants defending their trenches with miles of machine-gun emplacements and fields of landmines, reinforced with the war's most successful killer – endless artillery barrages. The technology had advanced. The tactics had not. Which led to the nine-month stalemate of the Battle of Verdun (February 21 to December 18, 1916), during which the Germans lost 143,000 men and the French lost 163,000. Which led to the first day of the Somme (July 1, 1916), when the British suffered nearly 20,000 loses in less than 12 hours. Which led to the unimaginable slaughter of the hell-come-to-Earth that was the Third Battle of Ypres, better known today as Passchendaele (July 31 to November 10, 1917), where at least 400,000 men died, maybe as many as twice that.

Every soul who fought in those battles is gone now. The last surviving combat veteran, Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules, who joined the Royal Navy in 1915, aged just 14, died at the age of 110 in 2011. And unlike conflicts such as World War II or Vietnam, The Great War has largely dropped from the popular consciousness. Not just the reasons why it was fought, but the conditions in which it was fought. Even celebrated films such as Lewis Milestone's _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (1930) or Stanley Kubrick's _Paths of Glory_ (1957) aren't all that well known. And that's one of the reasons that films like 1917 are important – they ensure we don't forget.

Written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, _1917_ is very loosely based on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather Alfred Hubert Mendes, who was a front line messenger during the war, and who, at 5'4", was able to use the low-lying No Man's Land mist as cover without having to stoop or crawl, and thus was much faster compared to other messengers. The film is directed by Mendes (_American Beauty_; _Revolutionary Road_; _Skyfall_), and unless you've been living under a rock, you'll know that it's done in such a way as to give the impression that it all takes place in two single shots (the marketing material says one shot, but it's two – there's a cut-to-black time-jump about midway through the film where no attempt is made to hide the transition). In reality, of course, there are a lot more than two shots (the longest single shot was just over 8 minutes), but the edits have been digitally 'hidden', much like Alejandro González Iñárritu's _Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_ (2014) or Erik Poppe's _Utøya 22. Juli_ (2018). Working with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins (_Kundun_; _No Country for Old Men_; _The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford_; _The Reader_; _Blade Runner 2049_), Mendes wanted the film to be the most immersive war movie ever put on screen, with the story designed to take place in real-time so as to ensure the importance/relevance of the single-shot aesthetic. And although I have some issues with it, and I certainly don't think it's the greatest war movie ever made, by and large, I think Mendes has made an exceptional film, one in which form and content are unusually tightly matched, with the style extremely effective at delivering the story in a thematically justified manner.

April 6, 1917; the Western Front. Two young British Lance Corporals, Will Schofield (George MacKay), a veteran of the Somme, and the younger, more idealistic Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are summoned to a meeting with General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Recently, German forces have fallen back, and Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) of the 2nd Battalion, Devonshire Regiment believes that if he attacks now, he will break the line and turn the tide of the war. However, he's unaware that the retreat is a tactical gambit – the Germans have fallen back to the heavily fortified Hindenburg Line and are lying in wait. With communication lines cut, Schofield and Blake, who has a brother in the 2nd, are given a simple but dangerous mission – to physically carry an order from Erinmore to Mackenzie calling off the following morning's attack, a mission which will involve them crossing into No Man's Land and traversing the Germans' former position. If they fail, 1,600 soldiers will be slaughtered. Mackenzie is six miles away. They have ten hours.

So, the film's big selling point is its aesthetic design. The use of the single-shot format is such a noticeable and idiosyncratic type of form that whenever it's used, it automatically places pressure on the content, which must justify why the film is shot this way, why it would lose something inherently thematic if shot conventionally. If the content can't do that, in other words, if the content can't justify the form, the form becomes gimmicky, drawing attention to itself. Think of, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's _Rope_ (1948), which was edited to look like one shot, or Sebastian Schipper's _Victoria_ (2015), which was legitimately one shot. Very little in either film justifies the stylistic design – shoot them conventionally and they're still broadly the same film thematically. Compare this with genuine one-shot films such as Mike Figgis's _Timecode_ (2000) or Alexander Sokurov's _Russkij Kovcheg_ (2002), and edited one-shot films such as Gustavo Hernández's _La casa muda_ (2010) or the aforementioned _Utøya 22. Juli_. Whether it's the spiralling nature of events in _Timecode_, the elegant cause-and-effect historical sweep of _Russkij Kovcheg_, or the real-time pressure and escalation of _La casa muda_ and _Utøya 22. Juli_ these films tie form to content in such a way that they become indistinguishable – form _is_ content, content _is_ form. And I think Mendes achieves like synergy.

Is the one-shot effect distracting? At first, yes, it is a little, especially if you're playing the game of trying to spot where editor Lee Smith (_Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World_; _Elysium_; _Interstellar_) has hidden the transitions. But after sussing two edits in the first twenty minutes, I stopped looking, because I realised I was just pulling myself out of the film unnecessarily. In essence, once you go with the aesthetic on its own terms, you forget about trying to spot the edits and asking yourself, "_how did they do that_", instead of letting the cinematography do exactly what it's supposed to do – immerse you. This is a film that wants to try to convey what it was like to live and fight in those trenches, with Mendes stating, "_I wanted people to understand how difficult it was for these men. And the nature of that is behind everything_". And, it does about as good a job as any war film I can think of in evoking the psychical reality, if not necessarily the psychological (more on that in a moment).

Generally speaking, the majority of the film is shot in one of two ways – either the camera is behind Schofield and Blake, following their path, or it's in front of them, facing back towards them as they 'follow' its path. There are some minor deviations from this (a few drone shots, some side-on footage etc), but irrespective of that, the film never for one second leaves their presence. And because the two men are almost perpetually in motion, it means that the camera is almost perpetually in motion, lending not only a tremendous fluidity to the blocking, framing, and movement, but so too a natural motivation – if they're walking along a trench, we're walking along a trench; if they're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town, we're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town. Almost everything the camera does is because one or both of the protagonists are doing the same thing, further emphasising the correlation between form and content.

The opening scene serves as a superb introduction not just to the visual design, but to the reasons for employing that visual design and the effectiveness of doing so. The film starts with a shot of a daffodil field, before pulling back and revealing Schofield and Blake taking a break against a tree before being summoned to the meeting with Erinmore. They rouse themselves and begin walking, first past more resting soldiers, then a camp where food and laundry are being prepared, then down a ramp into the trenches, the bucolic opening moments giving way to barbed wire and dirt. Geographically, it's a short walk, but thematically, it covers considerable ground. In a film that's all about scale and scope, this sequence perfectly encapsulates one of the main thematic reasons behind the single-shot – to accurately convey the importance of geospatial relations. We see the tactile transition from Edenic to hellish because we're moving in real-time through the _milieu_ with the characters; we see the boundary between peace and war because the characters walk along that boundary. You shoot this opening sequence conventionally, and you undercut this sense considerably.

Along slightly more conventional lines, one also has to commend the work of production designer Dennis Gassner (_Bugsy_; _Waterworld_; _Into the Woods_). Every location is visually unique – from a German bunker to an abandoned farmhouse to the bombed-out remnants of Écoust-Saint-Mein, and every location feels authentic and lived in. His design of No Man's Land is especially laudable, not just in terms of the expected mess of barbed wire and debris, but in the use and positioning of dead bodies, dead animals, and semi-destroyed machinery, with the whole thing having an almost post-nuclear desolation feel. Indeed, the film's No Man's Land is designed thematically. Mendes has said, "_the first World War starts with literally horses and carriages, and ends with tanks_", and this is mirrored in Gassner's designs. When the men first crawl into No Man's Land, they immediately encounter a rotting fly-covered horse carcass. Gradually, however, the battlefield becomes more mechanised, until they eventually pass through a German artillery position.

Also in a slightly more conventional sense, one has to mention Deakins work during the nighttime scenes in Écoust-Saint-Mein. The entire village has been reduced to nothing but the shells of buildings, and as we pass through the town, the only source of light is from the flares arching through the sky, which create very hard shadows in constant motion. The whole thing is almost otherworldly, and as the garish light traverses the sky, it's as if the ground itself is in motion, almost liquid-like, with the protagonists desperately trying to time their movements to ensure they stay hidden in the constantly shifting shadows. It might be a little too aesthetically beautiful for a film aiming for such gritty realism, but for aspiring cinematographers, you won't find a better study in how to compose an image using light and shadow.

Thematically, by its very nature, _1917_ is far more focused on the micro than the macro – you might learn something about life on the front, but you'll learn nothing about the politics behind the conflict, or even a sense of who's winning. Partly because of this, the film avoids, for the most part, the overwrought patriotism found in so many American World War II movies, the kind of cartoonish jingoism that made Steven Spielberg's _Saving Private Ryan_ (1998) so obnoxious. Indeed, it's relatively unimportant which side the protagonists are even on – their mission could have come from any of the combatants. Their nationality is largely anonymous, which is not something you can usually say of a war film, but which does illustrate just how irrelevant lofty political issues were at ground level, with everyone simply trying to survive as best they can.

On the other hand, however, because the film is so tightly focused, you shouldn't expect too much psychological insight. If you're anticipating an existential treatise along the lines of Terrence Malick's _The Thin Red Line_ (1998), you'll be severely disappointed. Malick's masterpiece is, for my money, the greatest war picture ever made precisely because it subverts at every moment what a war picture is supposed to be. It's about the war within rather than the war without, about nature's indifference to humanity's self-destruction, about the damage war does not to the mind or the body, but the soul. _1917_ is nowhere near this kind of thematic complexity, it's not even playing the same game, but I would value its simple individualised insights above something like the empty temporal trickery of Christopher Nolan's _Dunkirk_ (2017), which leans far too heavily into the "keep a stiff upper lip chaps" style of British filmmaking for my liking.

In terms of problems. I've seen some critics argue that the one-shot structure is a gimmick which draws attention to itself, and thus, rather than being immersive actually has the opposite effect. I admit that the film does take a little getting used to, but you soon settle into its rhythms (or lack thereof). I would agree that the story is paper-thin, but that's pretty much by design. One criticism I did have, however, is how well-groomed Scholfield and Blake constantly are, each with a perfect set of teeth. One only need watch Peter Jackson's _They Shall Not Grow Old_ (2018) to see how unrealistic this is. Indeed, for most of the runtime, the duo look like they've just stepped out of the makeup trailer, and it's glaring enough on a couple of occasions to pull you out of things.

All things considered though, I thoroughly enjoyed _1917_. I thought the single-shot strategy worked exceptionally well, and even if the film is weak from a character/storyline/theme perspective, it didn't really matter when the form and content are this well matched. This could have become an empty technical exercise predicated on nothing, but Mendes hasn't allowed that to happen, and instead, it's a war film that does justice to its subject. The more one knows about the Great War, the more one realises that it was hell on Earth. _1917_ doesn't make us feel what that hell was like. Because no film, no art form, can do that. But it's a damn good approximation.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Let me just take a deep breath... Wait, one more... Uff, I have no idea how I survived this IMAX screening of 1917. Usually, I don't delve deep into technical stuff since most people don't know or don't care about these attributes, but it's impossible not to address Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not the first time a film has been edited to appear as "one shot" (a continuous take), but it never fails to impress me.

Alejandro G. Iñárritu's Birdman, Silent House starring Elizabeth Olsen, or the famous Rope from the one and only Alfred Hitchcock... all produce the same trick. Even Mr. Robot and The Haunting of Hill House have brought us two phenomenal "one shot" episodes, edited as well with the so-called "stitches," meaning that the actual cuts are made to look invisible to the viewer, hence giving that feeling that it's all just one continuous take. Cuts are often applied when a random character is passing in front of the camera; when the latter "pans" (movement similar to a head-turn) over a wall or an object that occupies the whole screen; or when the characters are simply going through a dark area.

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith (editor) all work together to deliver the most immersive war movie (probably) ever. Yes, it has a simple premise, and the main narrative is basic, but the remarkable technical achievement elevates this film so freaking much. Even if you don't know the slightest thing about filmmaking or how movies are made, it's impossible to watch this film and not think "something feels different about this one." This is a movie meant to be watched at the biggest, best screen possible. Watching 1917 at home on a TV or a laptop is not going to work at all.

Throughout the whole runtime, I felt like I was there with Schofield and Blake. It feels like we are a third soldier going with them on a vital mission to save thousands of lives. I believe 1917 is the best "one shot" film to date (I've been using the quote signs for a reason, don't mistake it for an actual one shot movie), with Birdman as a close second. If the latter deals with a lot more dialogue and acting, the former has dozens of nail-biting sequences featuring shootouts, explosions, and a lot of running/walking/swimming through mud, dead corpses, blood, and way too many nasty rats.

I really have no words to describe Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not merely a film, it's a whole experience. It's not just another cool technical achievement. It's the entire foundation of 1917, and the main reason why so many people are rushing to the theater. However, a lot of people are completely ignoring Lee Smith's work. Don't forget, this isn't an actual one shot movie. If it's been edited to look like one continuous take, and if it actually does appear to be a single take, then the editor should get as much recognition as everyone else. Yes, he doesn't have to work with thousands of cuts (I counted 14, but I'm sure there's more), but they still exist, and he has to make sure no one feels them. And he did so perfectly.

My last paragraph concerning the technical aspects has to go to Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman. As the director, Mendes is able to deliver precisely what he envisioned and seamlessly coordinate his actors. Not only has he directed my favorite Bond film (Skyfall), but he also offers one of my favorite war movies of all-time. As for Newman, I just wish that Joker had been released in another year because 1917's score is fantastic. Hildur Guðnadóttir is likely taking the Oscar for Best Original Score, but if Thomas Newman takes it, I'll still be delighted.

A lot of comparisons are being made with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk. They're similar films regarding the fact that their main goal is to provide the most immersive war experience. Story and character-wise, both movies don't really develop that much. Nolan's film is loved by most critics and audiences all around the world, but one common complaint about it is the lack of character building. I didn't mind that at all because the movie never actually tried to make their characters important. They were just soldiers caught in the worst of situations, similar to 1917. However, I do think the latter does a better job of making us care for the protagonists.

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's characters have small arcs, but they exist. In the beginning, Blake is the emotional-driven character, while Schofield seems to be the rational one. We, as the audience, care about the mission first, but as time goes by, we learn about their personal traits and motivations. By the end of the film, I was crying. Both play off of each other really well, but it's their dialogue that impresses me the most. What seems to be just a random talk while strolling through an open field of grass, it truly isn't. If it's not meaningful at the time, it's going to be. The acting is more physical than anything, and both deliver outstanding performances.

I would say I love 1917 as much as I love Dunkirk. I might be tempted to choose the former due to the "recency effect," but there's one small aspect that negatively affects both. Their replay value is not as high as other films since their technical achievements don't work as well on a regular TV in the comfort of our own home. You will never feel or understand that "immersive experience" that everyone talks about. You won't know what made people to be blown away. You won't love it as much as everyone else. So, please, do NOT miss 1917 in theaters!

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith. Director, director of photography, editor. Three key filmmaking roles in the creation of one of the best WWI movies of all-time. Edited to look like one continuous shot, 1917 is a mind-blowing technical achievement, elevated by Deakins' always jaw-dropping cinematography, Thomas Newman emotionally powerful score, Mendes impeccable directing, and Smith's seamless editing. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman deliver outstanding (physical) performances, but it's the astonishing filmmaking that steals the spotlight. Production design, costume design, sound, you name it. Everything is absolutely perfect. It's meant to be seen at the biggest screen near you since this is an incredibly immersive experience that you won't get at home. It's going straight into my Top10: Best Movies of 2019, and I hope you'll love it as much as I do.

Rating: A

Featured Movies

Cinemaplix21 © 2014