Much of the pre-publicity for 1917 centered around the long takes, which made me suspicious the makers thought the overall result was a bit average. And so it transpired – the movie was indeed a bit average, and boring to boot.
Last edited 2 years ago by Tony Taylor
Kelly Mitchell
3 years ago
Yes, by all means. Maintain the noble idea of feminism as War between men and women.
Andre Lower
2 years ago
I thought the movie was wonderful. No need to “interpret the meaning” of every detail and calling it cliche as the article’s author did so cynically. Sure, everyone know there was plenty of butchery and that it is necessary when one wants to win a war. But then again denying that everything else that the movie portrays simply did not exist is just wrong.
Go watch some Sam Peckinpah if you are missing gore. And leave Sam Mendes alone.
Much of the pre-publicity for 1917 centered around the long takes, which made me suspicious the makers thought the overall result was a bit average. And so it transpired – the movie was indeed a bit average, and boring to boot.
Yes, by all means. Maintain the noble idea of feminism as War between men and women.
I thought the movie was wonderful. No need to “interpret the meaning” of every detail and calling it cliche as the article’s author did so cynically. Sure, everyone know there was plenty of butchery and that it is necessary when one wants to win a war. But then again denying that everything else that the movie portrays simply did not exist is just wrong.
Go watch some Sam Peckinpah if you are missing gore. And leave Sam Mendes alone.