- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/12/20 at 11:15 am to marcus3000
Shouldn’t all eat movies essentially be anti-war?
You fight. You likely die. If you don’t die you’ll likely be fricked up psychologically for the rest of your life to go with an injuries you suffer.
WWI and II just hammer that home because trench warfare.
You fight. You likely die. If you don’t die you’ll likely be fricked up psychologically for the rest of your life to go with an injuries you suffer.
WWI and II just hammer that home because trench warfare.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 11:30 am to Athos
quote:
Shouldn’t all eat movies essentially be anti-war?
Maybe should but mostly aren't. Take In Harm's Way, The Green Berets, Enemy at the Gates, The Longest Day, Patton, Zulu, and let's throw in The Patriot as well.
All of those celebrate war as righteous, which it certainly can be, but it isn't without its very steep costs which are largely ignored in those movies. 1917 highlights the costs of war.
This post was edited on 1/12/20 at 11:49 am
Posted on 1/12/20 at 11:45 am to marcus3000
There are lots of World War I movies and period dramas that are way more anti war imo. This movie was made for the masses, so the plot is relatively non complex. There was no dialogue on why they were fighting and there weren’t even really any battle scenes. World War I was a slaughter house. There is no real way to depict it as anything else. There is no righteous cause. Just a lot of death. And they did a good job of showing that imo.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 12:11 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Honest question, was it very much like Dunkirk in direction and narrative aspects?
I think I'm one of the few people who really enjoy Dunkirk. This *felt* like Dunkirk, was arguably even better shot than Dunkirk and is definitely more mass market than Dunkirk (not necessarily in a bad way).
I take no issue with the many who will think this is a better movie than Dunkirk. I do think I'd rather watch Dunkirk again than 1917.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 1:51 pm to Huge Richard
quote:
There are lots of World War I movies and period dramas that are way more anti war imo.
I'm not trying to be difficult with you, but aside from Paths of Glory how many WWI and period dramas about that time are anti-war?
[e]: I'm dumb The French Leutenant's Woman and All Quiet on the Western Front come to mind.
This post was edited on 1/12/20 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 1/12/20 at 2:28 pm to marcus3000
Add War Horse to that list too.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 2:31 pm to marcus3000
The Lost Battalion is another good one. Passchendaele is about Canadian troops with good battle scenes. The British really like making movies and shows that take place during WWI too. But like I said there is really no way to glorify it. It was basically just men going over the top and getting machine gunned and shelled for no reason. 1917 was just a depiction of the reality.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 2:54 pm to Huge Richard
The Trench with Daniel Craig is good too. All of this shite you can pretty much watch on YouTube lol
Posted on 1/12/20 at 5:17 pm to Lawyered
While the movie gave a realistic view of the fighting during that time period, I felt the movie lacked a story. There wasn’t any real character development and it ends rather abruptly. It is basically the equivalent of a movie that only consist of a long car chase scene.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 5:32 pm to Ramblin Wreck
I think it’s easier for WW1 movies to be anti war just due to the brutal nature of it. It was all about survival.
WW2 is just romanticized more, more heroes, more interesting historical figures and battles. WW1 was just a big arse slop
WW2 is just romanticized more, more heroes, more interesting historical figures and battles. WW1 was just a big arse slop
Posted on 1/12/20 at 6:38 pm to Pettifogger
quote:I loved Dunkirk.
I think I'm one of the few people who really enjoy Dunkirk.
This was okay. It looked gorgeous, but then, most movies today do. It was just boring at times, not engaging. And I'm a guy who can sit and watch Dr. Zhivago or Chariots of Fire over and over again. This was just a lot of images and themes being presented with little dialogue, and I didn't feel like it completely worked.
And the BFI Diversity and Inclusion Initiative is getting ridiculous. Yes, I'm sure there is some almost completely trivial fact of black troops fighting for Britain in WW1, but every scene has some random black guy walking by.
Also, Tommen is fat from now on. After I saw that his brother was Robb Stark, I really hoped they'd gone with Joffrey. That would have been awesome.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 6:40 pm to marcus3000
quote:
My opinion, but I think this is one of the few war movies that's very anti-war.
Just about every single movie that has ever been made about the First World War is anti-war.
Posted on 1/12/20 at 9:42 pm to RollTide1987
Just saw it. Reminded me of Dunkirk. Liked it a lot.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 10:28 am to Lawyered
Saw the film yesterday--really enjoyed it, but a few annoying details:
1) The entire premise is so flawed. Really, two messengers is the only way you can get there? When there are aircraft operating all over the front? Why not just have one of them drop a message?
2) I felt like the river scene was stolen from The Revenant. And an hour later he's bone dry, and the order and pictures that went down the river with him look like they never even got wet.
3) A bomb strong enough to destroy an entire bunker goes off basically under a guy's feet, and all he gets is some dust in his eyes? No ruptured eardrum, shrapnel wounds, broken bones, etc.? Just pull him out of the rocks and dust him off and he's fine?
Sorry. I liked the film. But be prepared to suspend disbelief in order to really enjoy it.
1) The entire premise is so flawed. Really, two messengers is the only way you can get there? When there are aircraft operating all over the front? Why not just have one of them drop a message?
2) I felt like the river scene was stolen from The Revenant. And an hour later he's bone dry, and the order and pictures that went down the river with him look like they never even got wet.
3) A bomb strong enough to destroy an entire bunker goes off basically under a guy's feet, and all he gets is some dust in his eyes? No ruptured eardrum, shrapnel wounds, broken bones, etc.? Just pull him out of the rocks and dust him off and he's fine?
Sorry. I liked the film. But be prepared to suspend disbelief in order to really enjoy it.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 11:18 am to Lawyered
germans had storm trooper level aim in this movie 
Posted on 1/13/20 at 5:21 pm to 1999
quote:
germans had storm trooper level aim in this movie
Lol. Same thing i said when watching but germans are the basis for george lucas stormtroopers, although it was ww2 germans lol
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:49 pm to RockChalkTiger
quote:Loved the movie too but some things didn't add up.
Saw the film yesterday--really enjoyed it, but a few annoying details:
1) The entire premise is so flawed. Really, two messengers is the only way you can get there? When there are aircraft operating all over the front? Why not just have one of them drop a message?
2) I felt like the river scene was stolen from The Revenant. And an hour later he's bone dry, and the order and pictures that went down the river with him look like they never even got wet.
3) A bomb strong enough to destroy an entire bunker goes off basically under a guy's feet, and all he gets is some dust in his eyes? No ruptured eardrum, shrapnel wounds, broken bones, etc.? Just pull him out of the rocks and dust him off and he's fine?
Sorry. I liked the film. But be prepared to suspend disbelief in order to really enjoy it.
4) Why would he trust the German kid he surprised in the city not to sound the alarm after his buddy had been knifed by the pilot they agreed to not finish off?
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:08 pm to Lawyered
Really enjoyed the filmed
I might be the only person that didn't care for the night scenes. Felt like artsy Roger Deakins overkill
I might be the only person that didn't care for the night scenes. Felt like artsy Roger Deakins overkill
Posted on 1/16/20 at 11:22 pm to MF Doom
Wow... did you guys see the same movie as me...
I am not seeing this a some great movie here.. This thing was just Flat.. and I mean Flat.
I cannot understand where all this best film of the year, and oscar talk is coming from... The storyline was just flat.. It had no real development... Most actions took place in dark places... Blurry scenes when the camera tried to follow the characters movements.
But Fury still ranks as Number one for sucky war movies...
But this was a HUGE disappointment.
I am not seeing this a some great movie here.. This thing was just Flat.. and I mean Flat.
I cannot understand where all this best film of the year, and oscar talk is coming from... The storyline was just flat.. It had no real development... Most actions took place in dark places... Blurry scenes when the camera tried to follow the characters movements.
But Fury still ranks as Number one for sucky war movies...
But this was a HUGE disappointment.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News