Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
81 Minutes | Adventure, Animation, Fantasy | 1981-10-22
📥 Son of the White Mare 1981
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Needs a blu-ray release asap. Craziest animations I've seen - like chewing Bazooka Bubblegum but the flavor never runs out
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
126 Minutes | Adventure, Drama, Western | 1948-01-15
📥 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre 1948
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Fantastic movie with great cast and a thrilling story. Bogart performs great.
I wanted something very special to be my 5,000th film (at least to my horrible memory and to my stats on IMDb), and so after brazen and intense thought, I decided on a later-than-expected watch of a classic from Bogart's association with John Huston. I say later than expected because I bought the immaculate 24-film Humphrey Bogart Collection, which was supposed to have it on its 12 double-sided DVDs, but it accidentally had, in its place, the special features disc, which held excellent feature-length documentaries on both John Huston and the making of the film. Thus I waited until recently, when I found the blu for a very good price and went for it.
It was worth the wait. The ultimate tale of sordid greed. Without going into detail or spoilers, everyone got exactly what they deserved. My only qualm is that after a splendid cameo by the director (whom when I think of that aspect of his career, I will always fondly think of 'Chinatown'), I was hoping we'd end up seeing more of his character. That would have been even more wonderful for me.
Hopefully I will see and rate another 5,000--and I'm very curious if and when I do, what film I'll choose for THAT milestone...
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
116 Minutes | Drama, Mystery, Crime | 1957-12-17
📥 Witness for the Prosecution 1957
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Great thriller with superb classical interpretations. The plot moves sometimes too lazily.
**Why don't they make THESE movies anymore?**
Apart from being a **GREAT** courtroom drama_(which some people don't think this movie is)_, this movie is so much **FUN** and **ENTERTAINING** to watch.Especially because of the characters of _Charles Laughton_ and _Elsa Lanchester_. But _Tyrone Power_ and _Marlene Dietrich_ were convincing too in their portrayal of an _innocent, afraid for his life man and a disloyal, unloving, poker faced wife_ respectively.
Some people might say that they predicted the ending half way down the movie but i am not quite sure as to how they predicted the **ACTUAL ENDING** before it really unfolded before their eyes?
This movie is great not only in the part played in court but also in the scenes shot in _Sir Wilfrid Robarts's_ office(also due to _Miss Plimsoll's caringly lovably irritating character!_).
Perhaps the people(the minority I'd like to believe) who don't think this movie deserves the high ranking and rating that it's got saw this brilliant piece of art as more of a suspense thriller.But I loved this movie as a delightfully ENTERTAINING, MYSTERIOUS, DRAMA !
I rate this 10 just because I haven't seen any other CLASSIC courtroom drama that was intense throughout(barring some light hearted scenes with Sir Wilfrid Robarts) and yet in the end I somehow felt light-hearted and had a smile on my face rather than a thought provoking look on it.
The commentary in the ending credits was innocently adorable for our times of social networking _"The management of this theater suggests that for the greater entertainment of your friends who have not yet seen the picture you will not divulge to anyone the secret of the ending of Witness for the Prosecution!"_
And mind you I am a _big fan of 12 Angry Men and How to Kill a Mockingbird!_ But this movie too is equally good in a different way altogether!
I'm constantly surprised that women's hats don't provoke more murders.
Leonard Steven Vole finds himself on trial for the murder of a wealthy widow from whom he has inherited a fortune. Top barrister Sir Wilfrid Robarts takes up the defendants case, but he, along with everyone else, is stunned when Vole's seemingly loving wife Christine turns up to testify against the defendant.
Based on Agatha Christie's successful 1953 play, "Witness For The Prosecution" benefited from fine tuning from master director Billy Wilder and writing partner Harry Kurnitz. Here the dialogue becomes razor sharp and the characters are fully realised with quite wonderful results, but chiefly the masterstroke here is not letting a court room drama become just that, a court room drama. The film plays out with no wasted scenes, no moments of boredom, and it has such vim and vigour you sometimes forget that there actually is drama in the story.
The cast here are on fine form, Wilder had wanted to work with Charles Laughton for some time, and it's obvious that both parties here are getting the best out of each other. Laughton is a pure delight as Robarts, a sharp tongue, all bluster and cheeky into the bargain, his interplay with Miss Plimsoll (Laughton's real life wife Elsa Lanchester) is quality, and it's another testament to Wilder's genius for putting them together. Tyrone Power, in what would be his last completed film before sadly passing away, is devilishly smart as Vole, whilst Torin Thatcher is great as the gruff prosecution barrister Myers. Yet as good as they all are, they all sit in the shadow of Marlene Dietrich and her turn as Christine Vole, sultry and femme fatalistic, it's a sizzling performance that crowns this delightful film.
It occurred to me overnight that it's probably the closest film that Wilder got to being Hitchcockian, and I'm pretty sure the big master of suspense himself would have enjoyed this one. It's a mystery that is dramatic, it's a thriller that is also funny, it's pretty much a multi genre classic. 9/10
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
87 Minutes | Documentary | 2019-09-25
📥 Anthropocene: The Human Epoch 2019
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
149 Minutes | Science Fiction, Mystery, Adventure | 1968-04-09
📥 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
There are many great predictions hinting to future (it is from 1968 - can you believe it?) innovations throughout the movie. I might not have found all them because I keep falling asleep while watching it but I will keep trying to find them all.
I believe that we should call it a modernism show, albeit exhibited in the form of a movie. While it might feel "boring", it forces you to rethink what philosophical level that a two-hour film can achieve. The focus on questions about life, intelligence, and time, is worth more attention than the sci-fi part (though the special effect of this movie is already way ahead of its time).
The eighth wonder of the world. Easily 30+ viewings since I was a little kid. Nothing new to say here; simply wanted to add another pair of hands to the ocean of applause for my absolute favorite thing, the only indisputably perfect movie, the answer to the question of Is Life Worth Living, Man's greatest achievement, two thousand one a burger-flipping space odyssey
I got this movie recently when it came out on Ultra HD Blu-ray simply because it was missing in my collection and, being a Sci-Fi fan, missing 2001 in my collection simply would not do. It is a movie that was made to rely almost entirely on the visuals. It could be said that it is a visual symphony if that makes sense. Thus it was filmed on 70 mm film and in 6 channel stereo which, at the time was a huge thing. Thanks to this it actually made some sense to transfer this movie to Ultra HD Blu-ray since the originals were really good enough even though the movie was made in 1968.
I remember watching this movie as a kid and was profoundly disappointed. I thought come on, where’s the adventure, not to mention any form of action? Today I can more appreciate it for what it is. A visually stunning movie. I also can more appreciate the fact that the movie is trying to be scientifically accurate instead of going all out on the fiction part. The parts where gravity, or rather the lack thereof, was portrayed, that was really high tech movie making at the time. I also noticed now, when re-watching it, that all the screens are actually flat which also was really far in the future at the time. Actually it was still pretty much in the future back in 2001.
However, even today, I have to say that I find the movie excruciatingly boring. It is two and a half hour long and it moves very, very slowly. It takes 50 minutes of movie time before we actually get to the main part of the movie and get onto the Discovery for instance. No matter how great the visuals are, there’s only so much boredom I can stand before it starts to get to me.
In the last 30 minutes or so the movie starts to become very psychedelic. The part where Bowman is pulled into the vortex, the stargate, is going on forever and in the end it just becomes a blur of headache inducing color effects. The final parts of the movie with the three Bowmans of different ages is just weird.
So,as this is a non-professional and personal take on the movie I cannot really motivate more than 3 out of 5 stars.
I hadn’t actually planned to review this movie. Everything has really already been said about it but I could not refrain after having read this crap at Rotten Tomatoes:
Critics Consensus: One of the most influential of all sci-fi films — and one of the most controversial — Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 is a delicate, poetic meditation on the ingenuity — and folly — of mankind.
It’s pretty well known that Rotten Tomatoes is the absolutely worst movie rating site around and the so called “critics” are useless culture elite morons with an over-inflated opinion about themselves at best and politically motivated SJW asswipes at worst but still.
What the hell is controversial about it? Reality check, there’s really nothing controversial about it at all. It is just a fictional story in the future. Then we have that crap “the folly”. What bloody folly? If anything the movie shows a much better future than what we got. A future where the politicians apparently promoted advancement of science and space exploration which is the direct opposite to the money and oxygen wasters we have today.
Sure, if you indulge too much in smoking funny mushrooms or are politically motivated you can probably “interpret” the hell out of any movie and “find” whatever message you want but it is still bullshit.
Well, that was my (controversial?) take on 2001.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
134 Minutes | Adventure, Fantasy, Animation | 1997-07-12
📥 Princess Mononoke 1997
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Probably the best movie from Miyazaki. A mixture of old Japanese traditions with the story about the conflict between the industrial human being and the preservation of the Nature.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
149 Minutes | Mystery, Thriller, Drama | 2014-10-01
📥 Gone Girl 2014
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Good cast and decent story, although the end is not very convincing.
The cut of the movie is really good and Rosamund Pike is genuinely scary.
Not a master piece but quite good given the lack of passable movies lately.
Rosamund Pike is outstanding as the wronged wife and Ben Affleck is very good as the husband. It is convoluted, and you do start to think is this just going over the top, but the end just shows Pike's character to be a damaged high-functioning psychopath. So at the final sequence, even if it's a tad far fetched even if you feel that Affleck deserves everything coming to him, the look she gives to the camera is that of an pure evil. As my youngest daughter used to say when she was a kid, she's got scary eyes.
"This man might honestly kill me".
The story is about Nick Dunne, as he finds out his wife has gone missing. As increasing police and media pressure mount, the facade of a loving and blissful union crumbles and amidst the lies and behavior of Nick, the question remains - did he kill her?
David Fincher is a true master class when it comes to directing, because Gone girl is one of the best films of this year.
Ben Affleck was perfect for this role, because Ben Affleck through out he's career had a lot of hate from the media and the critics that mostly slammed him in every role that he was in. And that's why he was outstanding in this movie.
Rosamund Pike acting in this film was pure brilliant and spectacular. She was so good in this role she might get a Oscar nomination for this. Tyler Perry in this movie was actually pretty damn good, and am so surprise saying that because Mr. Perry was in such awful films like: MADEA trilogy, Alex cross and the list goes on. But in this movie he did good.
What this movie does so brilliantly well is how we view media today, because most of the stories you hear on the news might not be true and how the media can spread lies about people and ruining their lives. Everybody always believes what the media says even if it's true or not, because we don't know what that person on the news is going through, and this movie got that message out they so perfectly.
My only problem with this movie is Neil Patrick Harris character. Now let me just say that Neil Patrick Harris wasn't terrible in the movie, but his character to me slowed the film down.
Overall Gone Girl is a fantastic film.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
152 Minutes | Drama, Action, History | 2019-11-13
📥 Ford v Ferrari 2019
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
A biography on American underdogs from a blue-collar industry with notable actors, an impressive production team, and an inspiring story; did someone say Oscars? Whatever its intent, ‘Ford v Ferrari’ is an impressive biopic that rarely strays from its path. A melding of entertainment and creativity, this should be considered both a commercial and critical success. Fire up your engine and race to the cinema to catch this film that everyone’s sure to be talking about.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-ford-v-ferrari-a-racing-biopic-thats-right-on-track
_**I'd have preferred to see Michael Mann's version, but this is an impressive and heartfelt study of friendship and triumph**_
>_Next year, Ferrari's ass is mine._
- Carroll Shelby, after losing to Ferrari in the 1964 World Sports Car Championship
>_To take control of this materialised energy, to draw the reins over this monster with its steel muscles and fiery heart - there is something in the idea which appeals to an almost universal sense, the love of power._
- A.J. Baime; _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_ (2009)
In 2015, a long-gestating project was announced as entering pre-production – based on Brock Yates's 1991 book _Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races_, the film was tentatively called _Enzo Ferrari_ and was to be written, produced, and directed by Michael Mann (_Heat_; _The Insider_; _Ali_). A long-time racing fan, Mann had been trying to bring Ferrari's story to the screen since the book was published (in 1992 it was reported that Robert De Niro was circling the role and Mann would begin shooting right after he completed work on _The Last of the Mohicans_), but in 2015, things seemed to finally be moving ahead. Christian Bale was cast as Ferrari and Noomi Rapace as his mistress, Lina Lardi. And then, nothing. Time passed and no more was heard until 2017, when it was announced that Bale had dropped out and been replaced by Hugh Jackman. And again, nothing. In the meantime, a different film was greenlighted – an adaptation of A.J. Baime's 2009 book, _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_. Set to star Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, it was to be written by Jason Keller (_Machine Gun Preacher_; _Mirror Mirror_; _Escape Plan_) and directed by Joseph Kosinski (_Tron: Legacy_; _Oblivion_; _Only the Brave_). That version of the project never got off the ground, but in 2018, it was announced that James Mangold (_Cop Land_; _Girl, Interrupted_; _Logan_) had signed on as director, working from a new version of Keller's script, written by Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (_Fair Game_; _Edge of Tomorrow_; _Get On Up_). Rather confusingly, none other than Christian Bale is in the cast, although not as Ferrari, whilst Mann himself is credited as an executive producer. Is this (at least in part) the remnants of his own film? Is his credit related to nothing more than rights, or was he actively involved in making the movie? Will we still see his _Enzo Ferrari_ at some point?
_Le Mans '66_ (released in North American with the equally generic title of _Ford v Ferrari_) is an excellently made but unadventurous movie. Mangold is a fine director, but he's no Mann, nowhere near, and the film did, to a certain extent, just leave me pondering what kind of kinetic brilliance Mann would have brought to bear on similar material. In contrast, to Mann's body of work, _Le Mans '66_ could never be accused of breaking any new ground or trying anything especially original – it hits all the beats, it hits them well, but it never strays from the formula. Much as Mann's _Ali_ (2001) was a boxing movie on the surface only, being far more interested in politics and institutional racism, Mangold's film isn't really about motor cars – it's about friendship, male pride, personal integrity, sticking it to the Man, art v commerce, individuals v corporations; it is, in essence, a thematically broad and aesthetically anonymous pre-_auteur_ theory audience-pleaser made with the technology and aesthetic sensibilities of modernity. And whilst the individual parts may be unsatisfactorily safe and familiar, the whole is unexpectedly accomplished and immensely enjoyable.
The film begins in 1959 as Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) wins that year's 24 Hours of Le Mans in an Aston Martin DBR1/300. However, shortly after the victory, he's told he has a heart condition and must stop racing. The film then jumps to 1963, as Ken Miles (Christian Bale), a brilliant but volatile and unpredictable driver, is running a sports car repair garage in LA, but the venture is failing (mainly because he continuously berates his customers for one thing or another). The British-born Miles has a reputation as one of the best drivers in the world, and is renowned for his almost supernatural ability to identify problems in test cars after only one or two laps. However, because of his personality, no one will hire him. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Company Vice President and General Manager Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) suggests that Henry Ford II (a superb Tracy Letts, who steals every scene he's in) buy the cash-strapped Ferrari N.V., speculating that Ford's involvement in international racing may go some way to countering the company's reputation for making boring and unattractive family cars (in essence, he hopes the purchase will give the company more street cred). Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), however, turns down the deal in favour of a counter-offer by Fiat Automobiles, which is more lucrative and allows him to retain ownership of Scuderia Ferrari (Ferrari's racing division). He also calls Ford II fat. Enraged, Ford II determines to build a car capable of winning Le Mans, a race which has been dominated by Ferrari for years, winning in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963. Iacocca reaches out to Shelby, the last non-Ferrari driver to have won the event, and asks him to design a car which can beat any Ferrari. Shelby and his engineering partner Phil Remington (Ray McKinnon) get to work but soon Shelby explains to Iacocca and Ford II that they will need a great driver as well as a well-designed car. And so he reaches out to Miles, who comes on board, but immediately clashes with the Ford executives, particularly Senior Executive Vice President Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). Nevertheless, Shelby, Remington, and Miles press on developing the GT40, a car capable of reaching speeds of 135 mph, if only it didn't keep breaking down.
_Le Mans '66_ is somewhat similar to Damien Chazelle's _First Man_ (2018), insofar as it uses the grandiose moments of history to tell an intimate story. Whereas Chazelle used the Apollo Program as the background against which to examine a failing marriage, Mangold uses the determination to win Le Mans '66 as the background against which to examine issues such as friendship and the clash between gifted individuals for whom success is its own reward and corporations who don't see value in anything unless it's monetarily successful. Indeed, the argument could be made that the film is actually a commentary on the Hollywood studio system, with Shelby and Miles representing independent filmmakers who love the craft and see the medium as an art-form, whilst the Ford executives represent the studio, always more concerned with the bottom dollar than artistic integrity, always getting in the way of the people who, if left alone to work, could produce something spectacular.
The film is also extremely funny in places, especially in a scene where Shelby shows up at Miles's house, and the two get into a fight on the street. Miles's wife Mollie (an underused Caitriona Balfe) emerges from the house, looks at the two men fighting, goes back inside, and remerges with a garden chair, a drink, and a copy of _Better Living_. She then sits down to watch the action. It's a hilarious moment, but it's one with great thematic importance – this is very much an androcentric world (Mollie is virtually the only female in the entire film), but for this brief moment, the audience is allowed to pull back and laugh at the utter ridiculousness of competitive maleness – boys will be clichéd boys, always trying to outdo each other, and getting all worked up over something as pointless as a fast car.
This thematic focus, however, is not to say the film ignores the intricacies of racing; on the contrary, there's a huge amount of techno-babble concerning vectors, aerodynamics, the mathematics of torque, the torsion of metal, and the ins and outs of physics. Additionally, although thematically, the focus isn't on the races themselves, there's no denying that the aesthetic design of these scenes is exemplary, albeit familiar. Mann would have done wonders here, but Mangold, cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (_The Ides of March_; _This Is 40_; _Nebraska_), and sound designers David Giammarco (_The Amazing Spider-Man 2_; _The Dark Tower_; _The Predator_) and Jay Wilkinson (_Furious 6_; _Man of Steel_; _Alpha_) have crafted some truly intense moments. For the most part, Mangold and Papamichael avoid any objective shots (for example, there are no overheads giving us a good vantage of the entire race), and there are very few shots showing us something that Miles is unable to see. The scenes aren't shot in the first-person, but our vision is anchored to his. This, of course, contributes to a subjective focalisation and creates the sense of being in the car with him, which brings a default level of intensity, as well as giving the viewer a perfect vantage point from which to see just how fast these guys are going and how difficult what they do actually is.
Is there a Mann influence on the racing scenes? Absolutely; if you're familiar with how Mann often shoots cars in motion (the camera affixed to the side of the car, with the screen virtually split in two – the side of the car taking up one half, the approaching road taking up the other), you simply can't help but notice the similar positioning of Papamichael's camera. Are they the best racing scenes ever put on film? No; you can find those in Lee H. Katzin's _Le Mans_ (1971), which intercuts footage shot during the real 1970 event with material staged for the film, lending the whole thing an unprecedented intensity that has yet to be topped. However, _Le Mans '66_ makes a hell of an effort, and that can only be commended.
In terms of problems, there are only two of any significance. The first concerns just how safe and rudimentary the film is. Aesthetically, although the race scenes are kinetic and exciting, there isn't anything new or inventive in them; thematically, the film doesn't say anything we haven't heard before; and structurally, it walks a very well-worn path – chances are that everything that you think might happen in _Le Mans '66_ does happen. This is your basic underdog story, and it adheres rigidly to that template. The character of Beebe is a good example of just how rigidly. In essence, he's a poorly written token villain because you can't have an underdog story without a token villain (usually in the form of bureaucratic interference). In this case, when Mangold feels the need to inject some conflict into proceedings, Beebe will pop up to throw a wrench into the works. His motivation? Apart from some brief references to how he doesn't think Miles is a "_Ford man_", his antipathy is never explained – the character is a Swiss army knife villain who can be used for multiple purposes, a one-size-fits-all token bad guy without an iota of nuance or interiority. The second problem concerns Shelby himself, who is disappointingly one-dimensional (at best), as we learn absolutely nothing about his personal life – for example, the film makes no reference to the fact that by 1963 he was on wife number three (of seven!). Who is the film's Carroll Shelby, and why should non-racing fans care about him? We never get an answer – he's Matt Damon wearing a Stetson and speaking with a Texas drawl. And that's about all the character development he gets.
Although these issues are significant in isolation, the thing about _Le Mans '66_ is that it's so well made, it rises above the clichéd and overly-familiar nature of many of the individual scenes, resulting in a whole that is very much more than the sum of its parts. A film about friendship and integrity rather than racing, it doesn't take any risks, nor does it bend any rules. Indeed it does nothing that could be labelled innovative. For all that, however, I couldn't help but enjoy it. It won't surprise you, it probably won't move you, it certainly won't change your life, but the storytelling is clear and refined, and the journey is one well worth taking.
I never expected a sports film, let alone one based on a true story, to impress me so damn much. James Mangold offers one of the best, if not the best sports movie ever. With award-worthy performances from both Christian Bale and Matt Damon, Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans ‘66) has characters so exceptionally-written and so emotionally compelling that I felt like crying by the end of the film. The races are riveting and entertaining, but it’s the beautiful screenplay that gets me. Definitely, one of the movies of the year!
Rating: A+
I think _Ford v Ferrari_ suffers from mismarketing. I don't mean that it was poorly marketed, and that the trailers made it look bad or anything. Just that it was marketed inaccurately. When I was keeping myself abreast of this project, it seemed very much that the insinuation was that the movie would be a battle between Bale's and Damon's respective characters. That this would essentially be the run-through of the whole film, and the climax would feature one emerging victorious over the other. In actual fact, the opposite is true. _Ford v Ferrari_ is largely about the friendship and partnership of those two characters. An occasionally rugged, and one occasion even violent friendship, but a friendship nonetheless. Even the title is misleading. I suppose Ford does v Ferrari at a couple of points over the movie's runtime, but it's not what _Ford v Ferrari_ is **about**. In fact, Ferrari barely features in the movie at all. Here's the kicker though: I actually liked what this thing ended up being, more than I think I would have enjoyed a movie that really did revolve around Bale actually versing Damon, or one about Ford actually versing Ferrari.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Well made sports-racing movie with excellent acting by Damon and Bale (no surprise there) and the racing sequences were great, not to mention the sound design. Kind of was concerned there wouldn't be enough story to fill the nearly 2.5 hour runtime, but this kept me engaged, though the ending was a bit anticlimactic. Still, good work from James Mangold. **4.5/5**
Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/IByQpyGV9Lg
Despite not being a big fan of track car racing - I’m more of a rally man - the chance to see Matt Damon and Christian Bale lead in a true life story attracted me to _Ford v Ferrari_. It’s a very good movie that tells the tale of the development of Ford’s race program to topple Ferrari as the champions of Le Mans.
Here’s the official description:
_American car designer Carroll Shelby and the British-born driver Ken Miles work together to battle corporate interference, the laws of physics, and their own personal demons to build a revolutionary race car for Ford Motor Company and take on the dominating race cars of Enzo Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in France in 1966._
I’ll say up front that even though Ferrari is mentioned in the title, they don’t really play a huge part in the movie. I was expecting things to bounce between each camp as they tried to one up each other in the race for glory. While Ferrari are here and there throughout, the main battle of the movie is Shelby and Miles trying to get their work done amidst the interference from factions within Ford’s management.
It still makes for a great story though, and it’s a movie that takes you on a ride of many highs and lows. From technological failures and success, to corporate shenanigans, to father-son moments, this hits so many beats that it kept us entertained the whole way through. Not only does it hit them, it does them very very well. There were some moments where I was genuinely holding my breath. It’s great stuff.
Even from a technical point of view there is a lot to love about this. The cinematography was a stand out for me - some of the sunset shots were stunning, as were the very intense race sequences. I’m sure there’s CGI all through this but it was of such a good quality that it was barely noticeable.
Damon and Bale are outstanding and lead from the front, with Bale in particular seeming to inhabit the role and transform, as he so often does. Even all the side characters bring their A game and the end result is a pleasure to watch.
This is an excellent film, it’s the whole package and feels like a real film as opposed to much of the cookie cutter movies we get a lot of these days.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and highly recommend it.
Exactly what you'd expect from a movie featuring Led Zeplin in its trailer (+1 star for Christian Bale's compelling performance).
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
| Thriller | 2020-10-30
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
88 Minutes | Horror, Thriller, Drama | 2020-07-23
📥 The Rental 2020
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
The Rental is Dave Franco’s debut as both director and screenwriter of a feature film. Making a successful horror movie was never an easy task, but I believe it’s even harder nowadays. This genre has evolved in so many ways by delving into distinct subgenres and helping new directors deliver brilliant horror stories. Of course, every year has dozens of awful horror films, and most of the “Worst Movies of the Year” lists possess more than one horror flick. However, I firmly defend horror is reaching audiences like never before, and I genuinely believe that it’s a matter of time until a Best Picture award goes to this genre.
So, is The Rental one of the better ones or not so much? Well, it’s as “okay” as it can be. I find it hard to heavily criticize a film that doesn’t really give me much to actually analyze. It’s a straightforward story with barely any complexity. Four characters with clear yet generic motivations. Their relationships and how they handle each romantic bond is surprisingly the most interesting aspect of the movie. Still, besides being somewhat predictable, it seems more captivating than what it truly is because one particular screenplay element fails to deliver a compelling narrative.
The main (and honestly, only) horror component of the story is no more than a hollow attempt at creating a franchise. Now, there’s nothing wrong with teasing an overarching story in the first film of a saga, but if this tease plays the entire horror role, then the only feeling Franco is getting from the audience is disappointment. Viewers might look forward to jumpscares and creepy sequences, but if the questions the movie makes are left unanswered, chances are people will dislike the ambiguity.
I’d be interested in a sequel because this first film creates a really intriguing mystery that I’d love to see developed and eventually solved. However, this comes at the cost of sacrificing the latter flick since it basically uses the whole runtime to introduce the overarching character/element. The Rental follows the usual “friends in a vacation house where things are not what they seem” formula, which doesn’t really set up Franco as a horror director to follow closely. He shows a bit of skill, the uneasy atmosphere is well-established, and he lets the actors play off their dialogues without too many cuts, something I deeply enjoy.
Technically, it’s quite good, to be honest. It’s a very dark movie, but I could see everything clearly, which is usually a problem in this type of horror film. The third act might be partially a letdown, but its execution holds the necessary tension and suspense. Dan Stevens and Sheila Vand deliver two great performances, showing remarkable chemistry. Alison Brie and Jeremy Allen White are also good, but the previous duo steals the spotlight. I wish it had more horror-like sequences, even though I appreciate the focus on the character’s relationships and dynamics.
All in all, The Rental is a clear attempt at creating a new horror franchise, and honestly, it partially works. If “success” means getting the viewers interested in a sequel, then mission accomplished. However, sacrificing the first movie of a possible saga to just introduce its main horror element doesn’t quite work as Dave Franco might have thought. In his directorial debut, Franco focuses on the characters and their relationships, which are undoubtedly the most captivating aspects of the film, also thanks to a fantastic cast. Despite some neat technical attributes, the formulaic screenplay and its predictable developments are far from being entertaining enough to hold my attention. The dozens of unanswered questions definitely leave an open door to produce a genuinely compelling sequel, but this first installment will always feel more like a prologue than an actual movie. If you’re just looking for a simple horror flick to spend your extra time, this one won’t surprise you, but it might be a good, inoffensive Saturday night pick.
Rating: C
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
88 Minutes | Drama, War | 1957-09-18
📥 Paths of Glory 1957
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Madness and Patsies Crash Together In Kubrick's Explosive Thunderbolt.
Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is holding up rather well these days, in fact it's as pertinent and relevant as ever.
It's 1916 and the French and German armies are in opposing mud trenches, when the French are ordered to undertake a suicidal assault on a German held hill, many of the soldiers are quick to realise it's an impossible order to see through to its conclusion and retreat, something which brings charges of cowardice from the military hierarchy. Someone must take the fall...
Withdrawn from circulation in France at one time, unreleased in Spain as well, Paths of Glory is a shattering indictment on military hierarchy. On those General types who watch from afar through telescopic sights as men and boys are led like lambs to the slaughter, then off they go to their dinning rooms to gorge on wine and wholesome meat, the stench of rotting flesh as bad on their breaths as it is out there in no man's land. But it's OK for the war effort, while there might even be a promotion for some lucky soul in nice trousers...
A two-parter, the film was adapted from the novel written by Humphrey Cobb. The first half follows the craziness of the attack, the horrors of war brutally realised as Kubrick and cinematographer Georg Krause bring out the worry and simmering anger that jostle for the soldier's souls. The camera is cold and calculating, thus perfect for the material to hand, it leads the viewers - with skillful fluidity - through the bleakness of the trenches and the desolation of no man's land, the former a foreboding place, the latter an atrocity exhibition as bodies get flayed and shattered, while others retreat with limbs or sanity barely intact.
Second part shifts to a legally based procedural as the Generals conspire to make an example of those who retreated. Cowardice and a dereliction of duty apparently means the firing squad must save the integrity of the army. Patsies are lined up, but their Colonel (a superb Kirk Douglas) wants to defend them, there's much sweat, tears and anger, accusations hurled, and mistakes once again proving insurmountable. Which leads to the astonishing finale, heartbreaking whilst inducing fury, and crowned by an elegiac song that brings tears for characters and viewers alike.
A monochrome masterpiece full of technical skills, towering performances and writing to die for, Paths of Glory, candidate for one of the greatest anti-military films ever crafted. 10/10
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
160 Minutes | Action, Thriller, Crime | 2012-06-22
📥 Gangs of Wasseypur - Part 1 2012
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
144 Minutes | Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Fantasy | 2016-05-18
📥 X-Men: Apocalypse 2016
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Not really a step forward in the X-Men franchise. Read my full review here.
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/x-men-apocalypse-review
Though far from the worst _X-Men_ film, _Apocalypse_ was still a disappointment, because until this entry, every Bryan Singer _X-Men_ film had been excellent. _Apocalypse_ is a far cry from terrible, but it is underwhelming given Singer's history, as well as in and of itself.
Certain actors, who shall remain Jennifer Lawrence, were completely checked out in this instalment. The CGI was often so bad it was confronting, even in the climax of the film. Apocalypse's plan was plot-hole-y and underdeveloped, and not all of the new characters hit it out of the park.
There was still a lot to like here though. Some of the newer costumes were neat, and a lot of the side-plots had me very intrigued. Fassbender and McAvoy are excellent as always. It's certainly not a failure amongst the likes of, for example, _X-Men: The Last Stand_. Which was a good callout in _Apocalypse_. Another thing I enjoyed.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._
**Another ancient power was awoken and blah blah blah.**
I have seen almost all the superhero films of the recent time, but this is the franchise I never liked. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the truth. The 'X-Men' series never made me sense, particularly to say it from the Marvel comics is a disappointment. When it comes to 'Wolverine', my opinion is different, because I loved those films. Hugh Jackman as Logan is the only 'X-Men' I love, so like usual this is another waste of time from its series to me.
I even enjoyed the recently rebooted 'Fantastic Four', but not this one. There's nothing new in the story, it's the same plot stolen from the different films. Like an ancient force is awoken who tries to rule the world by destroying everything created so far by the humans. So the mutants join hands to bring him down and we know what happens at the end. Apart from the vfx, this is very boring film and 150 minutes runtime was another lengthy joke that you never laugh.
Not just me, many people, even 'X-Men' fans showed displeasure over this film. That means, Bryan Singer's stint with the franchise is pretty much over. So they will going to bring a new one and that's another disappointment, because I don't know how long they're going to drag this series. End it already. Anyway, like I said I never was or will be this universe fan, so I don't care much, rather I just give them a try when they get released and obviously I'm to end in regret watching. Instead, I'm looking forward to the final 'Wolverine' film with Hugh Jackman.
_5/10_
X-Men Apocalypse is typical of what you would expect from a Marvel X-Men movie. Light on story and depth and heavy on special effects and action. In short it is exactly what I, as a Science Fiction and Fantasy geek, would expect as well as hope for.
The X-Men faces a new threat in the form of the worlds first mutant. Naturally said mutant is really a Übermutant vastly more powerful than any “normal” mutant. Equally naturally this Übermutant is set on a path of world destruction and domination. I quite liked this villain. He is a good all evil and powerful bad guy and a worthy adversary. No nonsense about trying to make the villain likable or trying to explain why he turned evil or such like. This guy is evil, he is the bad guy, he needs to be taken down…full stop.
As I wrote the story is not the most elaborate one around but it is a good one within the confines of a Marvel super hero movie. It gets the job done without being overly stupid or silly. It is set in the “prequel” universe created by X-Men First Class. The movie adds a few new X-Men to the ranks of Professor Xaviers team. Some of them thanks to the manipulations of Apocalypse although they start out on the bad side at first.
The movie moves along at a decent enough pace and, as was mentioned, there are quite a few action sequences and special effects thrown at the viewer throughout the movie. Personally I found the special effects to be quite good. Even stunning at times. I am quite a bit of a special effects nerd so of course this pleased me a lot.
The movies ending certainly opens the door to future X-Men movies and I for sure would like to see the franchise continue. I very much enjoyed these almost two and a half hours in front of my TV set.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After immensely enjoying the turn the X-Men franchise took after the disappointment of X-Men: The Last Stand, I was pretty excited to see this movie. I love comics, but I never got into the X-Men, so I can excuse some of the inaccuracies that seemed to upset hardcore fans. I just enjoyed the movies.
X-Men Apocalypse is the weakest film since duds like Last Stand and Wolverine Origins. It just didn't have a whole lot going on. One of the biggest critiques of Marvel (yes, I know X-Men films aren't produced by Marvel Studios, but I'm speaking of the publisher of the original medium) is that their villains are lackluster. The big baddie through the whole franchise has been Magneto, easily the most charismatic and entertaining Marvel villain on film. Though we've had brushes with Stryker and Trask and his sentinels, this is the first movie in which the X-Men had taken on a true super villain who wasn't Magneto-- Wolverine vs. The Silver Samurai aside.
But it's almost like director Bryan Singer painted himself into a corner with Apocalypse. The villain was too powerful and could have easily achieved his goals without the help of his "four horsemen." He could have ended the world, in mere minutes, all by himself. But, of course, that would make a boring movie, so Singer and Co. had to figure out what to do with the world's most powerful and dangerous mutant for two hours before the final climax was to begin.
There were scenes where the villains were literally sitting around the desert talking about how they were going to lay waste to a city on the horizon. There were scenes where the most powerful of the villains went out recruiting much less powerful villains to join him. Really, Singer just didn't know what to do with this character. How do you create conflict and drama when the bad guy is just too powerful? Well, you can't.
Of course, after two hours of watching the most powerful mutant ever talk about what he is going to do (instead of simply doing it) he finally unleashes his fury. Except that, the X- Men actually have the most powerful mutant in the world on their side in Jean Grey.
So, again, why is Jean not simply destroying Apocalypse in the first 10 minutes of the movie? Because, running time needs filler.
And that's basically what this movie is: Filler. They came up with a concept that would make the storytelling aspect problematic. And rather than tweaking the concept or fleshing out the story with subplots, they just assumed explosions and superhero fights would be enough to carry the film.
What a let down after Days of Future Past (the best X-Men movie ever, in my opinion). Bryan Singer has usually directed some of the best films of the franchise but this one is a real clunker. Too many characters with not enough development and a very lackluster villain. Oscar Isaac is a talented actor, but even he can't make Apocalypse interesting under all that silly blue make up. Characters like Angel and Psylocke, as Apocalypse's horsemen, are very thinly written and barely have a personality. Also, it is absolutely ridiculous that the villain Mystique is transformed into a role model and leader for the X-Men in this movie. Jennifer Lawrence looks bored throughout and barely appears as Mystique's true blue self even though she's supposed to be an out and proud mutant. A real disappointment.
***Ranks with the best in the X-Men franchise***
Released in 2016 and directed/co-written by Bryan Singer, "X-Men: Apocalypse" has the team go up against the first mutant, Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac), whose origins date back to ancient Egypt. After thousands of years in stasis, Apocalypse is immediately disillusioned by the state of the world and so recruits a team of worthy mutants, including a dispirited Magneto (Michael Fassbender), to purge humanity and craft a new world order over which he will reign. Professor X (James McAvoy), with the assistance of Raven (Jennifer Lawrence), leads a team of young X-Men to stop their greatest nemesis and save mankind from complete destruction. Josh Helman is on hand as Col. Stryker.
This sixth film in the franchise (not including the several spin off films) easily ranks as one of the best. It includes many of the best elements of the X-Men and everything I would want in a great X-Men flick:
Professor X's ongoing goal for an educational sanctuary for interesting mutants from all over the world; his love for Moira (Rose Byrne); Magneto's increasing mastery of his great powers and his struggle to go on the offensive against prejudiced humanity; a greater focus on Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and his potent power, both of which were neglected in the original trilogy; an outstanding actress to play Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), who is far better than the bland Famke Janssen; Olivia Munn's ultra-hotness as Psylocke; a worthy subplot on Weapon X with the corresponding guest appearance of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman); an excellent collection of young mutants, like Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Quicksilver (Evan Peters), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Havok (Lucas Till), Angel (Ben Hardy), etc.; a worthy main villain in the mold of Dr. Doom and Thanatos; an epic, apocalyptic final act (sorry); I could go on and on.
This isn't to say the movie doesn't have faults, however; the cartoony overblown prologue in ancient Egypt is Exhibit A.
The film runs 144 minutes and was shot in Quebec, Canada (Greenfield Park, Montreal and Oka).
GRADE: A-
Plenty of action with good acting, however, Apocalypse (the villain) lacks originality. X-Men: Apocalypse is a mediocre film in the respected franchise that is "X-Men"
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
| Drama, Music | 2021-01-21
📥 Everybody's Talking About Jamie 2021
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
106 Minutes | Crime, Drama, Thriller | 2018-09-14
**_Could do with a bit more vitality, but the acting is superb_**
_I knew there was an old axe down cellar; that is all I knew._
- Stefani Koorey quoting Lizzie Borden; _The Preliminary Hearing in the Lizzie Borden Case_ (2005)
Written by Bryce Kass, and directed by Craig William Macneill, _Lizzie_ is based on the _cause célèbre_ of Lizzie Borden (not to be confused with director Lizzie Borden, or extreme porn star/director Lizzy Borden), who was accused and subsequently acquitted of the axe murders of her father and stepmother in Fall River, Massachusetts in 1892, a crime that is still officially unsolved. A "_smash-the-patriarchy_" (to use a quote from producer and star Chloë Sevigny) revisionist take on the material, the film presents Borden as a protofeminist lashing out against patriarchal oppression, homophobia, and sexual assault. Strikingly contemporary in its thematic concerns, this long-time passion project for Sevigny adopts the perspective of the #MeToo movement, proposing a version of events wherein Borden is forced to actively fight back against a lifetime of subjugation. Although the languid pace will alienate many viewers, whilst the liberties it takes with historical facts will irk others, there is much to praise here, including fantastic cinematography, terrific sound design, and flawless acting.
The film begins on the day of the murders, August 4, 1892, with Borden (a terrific Chloë Sevigny) and housemaid Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart, with a surprisingly convincing Irish accent) working in the garden moments before the bodies are discovered. The narrative then jumps back six months, presenting the family dynamic leading up to the murders. 32-years-old, Borden lives with her domineering father, Andrew (a lecherous Jamey Sheridan); stepmother, Abby (Fiona Shaw), and elder sister, Emma (a criminally underused Kim Dickens). Although the Borden family are prominent members of the community, Andrew is well-known for frugality, refusing to install indoor plumbing or electric lights in the house, believing them "_extravagances_". When Sullivan arrives as a live-in housemaid, she and Borden quickly grow close, with Borden attempting to teach her to read and write. Meanwhile, the family is receiving written threats, which Borden believes are connected to her father's land acquisitions. Overhearing Andrew discussing his will with his brother-in-law, John Morse (a slimy Denis O'Hare), Borden is shocked to learn Andrew plans to leave everything to Abby. She later discovers that Andrew is regularly sexually assaulting Sullivan. Eventually, the friendship between Borden and Sullivan turns romantic. However, when Andrew learns of it, he forbids Borden from seeing Sullivan again, something Borden refuses to accept.
Well-known in the US because of the nursery rhyme, this is actually the first theatrical feature to depict Borden's story, although it has been adapted many times for other mediums; a 1948 Agnes de Mille ballet (_Fall River Legend_), a 1952 Michael Brown musical number (in _New Faces of 1952_), a 1961 Chad Mitchell Trio song ("Lizzie Borden"), a 1965 Jack Beeson opera (_Lizzie Borden_), a 1975 Paul Wendkos-directed TV movie (_The Legend of Lizzie Borden_), a 1980 Sharon Pollock play (_Blood Relations_), a 1984 Evan Hunter novel (_Lizzie_), a 1985 Angela Carter short story ("The Fall River Axe Murders"), a 1989 Walter Satterthwait novel (_Miss Lizzie_), a 1998 Christopher McGovern and Amy Powers musical (_Lizzie Borden_), and a 2014 Nick Gomez-directed TV movie (_Lizzie Borden Took an Ax_), which led to a limited series (_The Lizzie Borden Chronicles_).
The idea for the film originated with Sevigny herself, who brought it to Kass to write as a TV miniseries almost a decade ago. The script was sold to HBO in 2011, but by the time the network decided to move forward with the project, Lifetime's _Lizzie Borden Took an Ax_ was nearing completion. When it spawned _The Lizzie Borden Chronicles_, HBO decided against proceeding with Sevigny's version, so she and Kass purchased the rights back, with Kass adapting the script into a feature film. Pieter Van Hees was hired to direct, but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts, and was replaced by Macneill. The idea that Borden and Sullivan were lovers is not original to Kass's script, as it was first posited in Hunter's novel. He theorised that Abby had caught the girls having sex, firing Sullivan, and prompting Borden to kill her. When Andrew returned home, Borden confessed, but when he reacted with horror, she also killed him. In later life, Borden was rumoured to be a lesbian, but there was no such speculation about Sullivan, who moved to Butte, Montana and got married. Speaking to the _Huffington Post_ at Sundance 2018, Sevigny revealed she was somewhat disappointed with the finished film, stating
> _almost everything that was on the page was filmed, and a lot of it didn't make it in the movie. More stuff with me and Fiona Shaw. There was more to the relationships that made them more complicated, and also then informed why Lizzie did it. Now it's a little more vague than what Bryce and I intended._
One of most interesting aspects of _Lizzie_ is its narrative structure. Beginning on August 4 just as the (unseen) bodies are discovered, it then flashes back six months to Sullivan's arrival in the Borden house. Building up to August 4 again, this time we are shown the bodies, but we don't see the murders. It then jumps forward to the trial, before once again flashing back to August 4, this time showing us the actual killing. This pseudo-_In Cold Blood_ structure is well-handled for the most part, and has a number of advantages. For one, it allows the film to briefly cover the trial, whilst still employing the murders as a powerful and very effective _dénouement_. It also allows the film to build tension around an event which the audience know is coming; by not showing the killings (twice), it has the effect that when the film does actually depict them, they are all the more impactful, placing a suitable cap on what is essentially a story of forbidden love.
From an aesthetic point of view, there's much to praise, with Noah Greenberg's cinematography particularly laudable. Often framing Borden in windows, doorways, and behind railings, whilst also using shallow focus to flatten backgrounds, the sense is that this is a woman living a confined life with little room to move, trapped in her immediate environment. When she and Sullivan first kiss, the camera pulls back to reveal that Andrew is watching them – even in this moment of release, they are still trapped in his domain. Borden is also often shot off-centre, or reflected in mirrors, particularly as she talks to someone who is on camera. This reinforces the sense that she is trapped, and also feeds into the metaphorical meaning of a later scene where she spreads the shards of a broken mirror outside the door of Sullivan's room to cut her father's feet as he emerges.
Dank and airless, the dimly lit Borden household, outside of which the film rarely ventures, is practically another character in and of itself. Complimenting Elizabeth J. Jones's production design, Greenberg's photography gives rise to a restrictive and claustrophobic _mise en scène_, which is often lit with only a single candle. However, it's not just how he lights scenes that impresses, it's also how he uses the camera; gliding over important details without hammering home why we should be paying attention (the first time we see the hatchet, for example). Also worth mentioning is how Macneill uses the full-frontal nudity towards the end of the film. Although it will no doubt be accused of gratuitousness by some, it's not only historically accurate, it's shocking, necessary, and makes a powerful statement. God forbid a woman should ever appear naked on screen in a scene _not_ of a sexual nature. Assisting Greenberg's photography and Jones's design is Ruy García's superb sound design. Of particular note are the floorboards, which creak with the slightest touch, making any kind of clandestine interaction between Borden and Sullivan virtually impossible, and thus contributing to the sense of the household as a prison. Enhancing this even further, is the lack of warmth in the sound design, with footsteps and voices echoing and bouncing off the walls due to the lack of any soft surfaces.
As a narrative of female empowerment (albeit of the homicidal variety), most of the film's main themes relate to combating the patriarchal strictures of the Gilded Age, represented primarily by Andrew and John, both loathsome characters in their own way, and Abby, who reinforces patriarchal hypocrisy by unquestioningly submitting to it (she is well aware that Andrew is abusing Sullivan, for example). Talking to the _Huffington Post_, Sevigny explains,
> _we just really wanted to focus on how she went about finding [her freedom] and how important that was to her and what that meant to her. Whether it was through the relationship with Bridget or ultimately killing her parents for money – because money equalled freedom then. It still does. I wanted it to be this rousing, smash-the-patriarchy piece and then she gets everything she wants, monetarily – the capitalist dream._
Presenting Borden as a woman driven to her wit's end, with few practical options in a society that looks down on her because she is unwed and in her 30s, the film depicts a free-spirit living in a cage, yearning for agency, with the murders presented, at least in part, as her attempt to break free of such restrictions. Suffocated by unquestioned authoritarian patriarchal rule, Borden essentially becomes a protofeminist heroine, actively rebelling against the dominion of men and the women who enable them.
Sullivan, who acts as the audience's moral compass, faces different obstacles, primarily related to economics and social caste. Her place in the ideological and socio-economic hierarchy is manifested in the fact that the family call her Maggie (the generic name given to all Irish servants). However, Borden's insistence on calling her by her actual name (which is historically inaccurate, as Borden also called her Maggie) lays the groundwork for their later emotional connection. Presenting their relationship as an illicit romance which they had to hide because of the moral bigotry of the age, the film very much adopts a #MeToo sensibility, as Borden and Sullivan fight back against self-righteous judgement, unchecked abuse, and socially sanctioned oppression. In this sense, when Borden and Sullivan strip naked before the murders, they aren't just undressing to avoid getting incriminating blood on their clothes, they are repudiating the garments that have restricted them in a physical sense just as much as men have in an ideological sense.
There are, however, some sizeable problems in all of this. For one, the film lacks energy, and the slow pacing will leave some viewers bored to tears. Additionally, apart from Sevigny and Stewart, the rest of the cast is wasted, particularly Shaw, O'Hare, and Dickens (who only has a handful of scenes, and is virtually a background extra). None of their characters come across as possessing any kind of interiority, instead existing almost exclusively as archetypes; the wicked stepmother, the lecherous uncle, and the ice-cold older sister. Additionally, although he has a lot more to do, Sheridan's Andrew is completely over-the-top, only one or two beats away from a moustache-twirling mega-villain. Perhaps the most egregious problem is that the film seems as war with itself. On the one hand, it wants to be an elegant, period-appropriate tale of women attempting to take their destinies into their own hands in a Victorian society not predisposed to allow such, but on the other, it wants to present a modern story of murder and homosexual women (Patty Jenkins's _Monster_ (2003) in corsets, if you will). At times, such as the superb depiction of the murders themselves, you can feel the modern sensibilities rise to the surface, but for the most part, they're stifled by the hushed austerity of the more muted _milieu_.
_Lizzie_ tells the story of an initially powerless victim who lashes out and, quite literally, slays patriarchal authority. Just by giving Sevigny the first significant starring role of her career, the film earns a lot of brownie points, as she's been an unsung, but consistently brilliant supporting player since her debut in Larry Clark's _Kids_ (1995). Alongside her, Stewart equates herself very well, even having a decent go at an Irish accent, and the passion between the two, though period-appropriately muted, is completely believable. However, the film's attempts to shoehorn in 21st century moral values doesn't entirely work, primarily because Kass's script tips the scale in Borden's favour to a ridiculous degree – there's Andrew's over-the-top villainy (not just an authoritarian homophobe, but a rapist to boot), John's creepy intimations, Abby's refusal to stand up for her step-daughters, Borden's protofeminist rhetoric and humanitarianism, the alterations to historical fact to ensure the audience is never in any doubt as to where its sympathies are supposed to lie. Weighing the scales so decisively drains the film of any ambiguity and most of its vitality, presenting a binary story of righteous good slaying hypocritical evil, rather than a murder with many facets. A Gothic tale told from a #MeToo perspective, _Lizzie_ tries to be many things at once – a revisionist history, a feminist tract, a championing of homosexuality, a murder mystery, a period drama – but ends up kind of falling into a no man's land between genres. Still though, there are aspects of the film that are enjoyable, if you can look past the enervating pace.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
119 Minutes | War, Drama, Action, History | 2019-12-25
1917 2019 IMDb ~ Directed by Sam Mendes With DeanCharles Chapman George MacKay Daniel Mays Colin Firth April 6th 1917 As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that will stop 1600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap
1917 2019 film Wikipedia ~ 1917 is a 2019 British war film directed cowritten and produced by Sam Mendes The film stars George MacKay and DeanCharles Chapman with Mark Strong Andrew Scott Richard Madden Claire Duburcq Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch in supporting roles
1917 Wikipedia ~ 1917 MCMXVII was a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and a common year starting on Sunday of the Julian calendar the 1917th year of the Common Era CE and Anno Domini AD designations the 917th year of the 2nd millennium the 17th year of the 20th century and the 8th year of the 1910s decade
Watch 1917 Prime Video ~ 1917 8945 IMDb 83 1h 58min 2019 XRay R Director Sam Mendes brings his singular vision to this World War I epic Two British soldiers must cross enemy territory and deliver a timely message to stop a deadly attack
1917 2020 Rotten Tomatoes ~ If Mendes filmmaking has sometimes felt to have not fully outgrown his beginnings in theatre 1917 is wildly cinematic a movie that makes you feel the breath of mortality on your neck
What Happened in 1917 World History Project ~ 1917 Albert Einstein publishes first paper on cosmology In 1917 Einstein applied the General theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole He wanted the universe to be
1917 Official Trailer HD YouTube ~ 1917 In Theaters December Sam Mendes the Oscar®winning director of Skyfall Spectre and American Beauty brings his singular vision
The True History Behind the Movie 1917 Time ~ The story of 1917 takes place on April 6 and it’s partly inspired by events that had just ended on April 5 From Feb 23 to April 5 of that year the Germans were moving their troops to
History According to Trump The President and the 1917 ~ The President’s repeated reference to a “1917 flu” may well go down as a Trump classic a pointless and unnecessary screwup Photograph by Drew Angerer Getty As the coronavirus pandemic
1917 Movie Reviews Rotten Tomatoes ~ Sam Mendes 1917 is a remarkable technical achievement utilizing brilliant direction cinematography editing visual effects production design and sound design to tell a spellbinding tale
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
"Director Sam Mendes employs distinctive but extraordinary shots in the first person during the two-hour footage, which makes the production work in many different ways. Although it sometimes results too shaky, it is thanks to George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's performances that 1917 preserves both sombre but optimistic tones throughout the montage. In short, this is an exceptional approach to memorialise the hundredth anniversary of the end of the First World War".
We are somewhere in France during the Trench Warfare [1915 - 1917] with a depleted British Army; the atmosphere, alongside with the dialogues, can define by itself how was life at the front: scarce water and food, despair between soldiers to go home, endless weapons and corpses scattered on the floor, and so forth. Corporals Blake and Schofield are told to attain a severe/impossible mission despite not having any reinforcements. Before achieving this goal in sending General MacKenzie [Bennedict Cumberbatch] the infamous fallback letter, both privates must penetrate the frightful No Man's Land and experience horrendous life-and-death encounters in many places.
Regardless of the silent second half, the absence of preeminent performers and the woozy experience of watching the film in one sole perspective director Sam Mendes and executive producers deliver an eloquent portrayal about surprising facts of the four-year global conflict. For example, both soldiers are bewildered by the superiority of the German trenches in proportions and in quality considering that historically they were far better equipped than the Allied ones which allow the audience the opportunity of a lifetime to analyse the condition millions of innocent citizens were facing. The result improves with some accurate shots at landscapes, underground warfare channels, entire villages pulverised, etcetera. I must acknowledge the last fifteen minutes of the film; it has been a long time since I spotted such an imposing ending. Countless emotions appear regardless of having reached the climax. What a masterpiece ladies and gentlemen!
What amazes me the most is that despite being a World War film, 1917 does not give the impression in duplicating the ordinary details of previous same-genre releases such as Hacksaw Ridge [2017]. Once Mr Gibson introduced a brief biography of Desmond Doss [the main character] he began recording some ultraviolent scenes as though you were spotting the most savage state of humankind. As an alternative, 1917 delivers some innovative procedures in creating a war film without increasing the brutal strength of instant classics as Saving Private Ryan.
Congratulations!
[80/100]
Very well made war-drama all in a one-shot like format. Performance from George MacKay who I guess if nothing else could follow in the footsteps of Tom Cruise for his all-out running ability. Joking aside, really enjoyed this film which manages to provide enough character development for me to care about his well being and task. Probably my favorite of 2019. **4.5/5**
When it comes to impressive achievements in filmmaking, “1917” deserves to be near the top of the conversation. This war film, which unfolds in two hours of real time, is shot to appear as one continuous take. Thankfully, it is so much more than just a technical gimmick. The showiness eases up as the emotional weight of the story unfolds, but it’s still hard not to get stuck on the challenges and manner of the moviemaking rather than the characters that should be the focal point of the film.
Set during the First World War, the story follows Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), two young British soldiers who are given a seemingly impossible mission: deliver a message across hostile territory to the front lines. In a race against time, these men must deliver the information within a couple of hours if they want to stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldiers’ brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap.
The plot is thin, and the characters even more so. Instead of learning more about Schofield and Blake, the showy filmmaking technique commands the spotlight over learning more interesting aspects of these soldiers. It’s more of an experiment in “look what I can do!” rather than compelling storytelling. The camera becomes more of a character than the actual characters.
Does this matter? Not really. Roger Deakins is a master cinematographer, and his technique here creates a fully immersive experience. Paired with director Sam Mendes, the two capture the trench warfare of WWI with clever camerawork that not only gives a real sense of the distance these men had to travel, but makes you feel trapped alongside them as fellow soldiers sharing the same journey. The intimate style of camerawork makes you feel as if you are right there in the trenches, on the battlefield, with these two young men. Since the film is made to feel like it was shot in real time, it becomes a psychological wartime thriller as time begins to run out.
“1917” is a large scale spectacle that often overshadows its small scale story, but there’s no disputing that it is a grand achievement in filmmaking.
I see that a lot is made of the technique they use to film this movie in one continuous shot, and it is very interesting, but I must confess I am not a student of film, merely a viewer. So you will find no critiques of the director or editor or that sort of technical detail. I like what I like.
Anyway, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected I would. I am not big on war movies. The scenery seemed great to me, and though there were visually stunning scenes, they didn't try to pile on explosion after explosion to cater to that crowd. The two leads were at the same time heroes and regular guys. I could almost picture myself in their position. Moments of extreme courage and bravery under fire were balanced by totally justified panic and fear. There were also quieter moments here and there, breaks from the sometimes hard to bear tension. Finally, there was a plot twist that seems normal looking back at it, but it shocked me at the time. I will leave it at that and not risk giving anything away.
So while I probably won't watch it again anytime soon, I do recommend it, even to viewers like me, who aren't big on war movies. As a side note, one viewer warned others NOT to compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan. I guess he thought it doesn't compare with it. Maybe I should give that movie a second look.
I think this film with very great shot. also the actors was very good.
But the story didn't appeal to me. haha
Excellent original film. It truly sucks you in straight from the very first scene until the last. There's nothing predictable in this well thought out and very tense (soon to be) classic.
An incredible journey that will keep you on the edge of your seat, albeit without many surprises.