one of the big questions this awards
season along with is Joker a responsible
movie is once upon a time in Hollywood
offensive well one of the other big
questions that's emerged late in the
game so it's not getting quite the same
amount of attention and well if it wins
though and I think it might but is 1917
a great movie an oscar-winning worth my
worthy movie or all the other awards
it's picked up so far without the one
continuous shot gimmick and I don't
think it would be I don't think it is a
great movie without that but it is
filmed as one continuous shot that's I
think the whole reason for it's the
raison d'être for the film right and the
one continuous shot is so well executed
so well choreographed and heightened
artistically with lighting choices set
design etc that it rises above being a
gimmick I've been using gimmick and some
of you are like it's not a gimmick grace
but I think that what it was first
conceived it's like how can we Plus this
movie how can this movie stand out from
the other films how can this film be
Oscar worthy Awards worthy and it's as
one continuous shot but it seen again
it's so well done
that it becomes not a gimmick even
though that's probably how it was
initially conceived but it instead
becomes a masterpiece in fact I would
say it's the greatest one-shot movie of
all time
Rome gets points for being first also
from a UK director Alfred Hitchcock but
this is the best I believe I think
there's actually no argument there some
of you might try to make the argument
but you're wrong
which makes 1917 truly truly noteworthy
in the history of cinema that's an
impressive thing to pull off it's also
interesting though that you know it's
borrowing on this continuous one shot
that of course was introduced by rope a
long time ago the setting is world war
one
but because we're constantly following
our lead characters from behind moving
forward that's actually a choice the
movie makes I've put down below a link
in the video description to a behind the
scenes short on how this movie was made
craftsmanship that went into it and you
don't your minds already blown I'm sure
if you've seen this movie but this will
blow your mind even further but it's one
of the things that details is that the
movie makes the choice to always have
the camera moving forward because never
backwards because they're on an
important journey they're racing against
the clock they're on a mission and that
mission has goals both large and small
they go to many different locales which
are like levels so the following the
character from behind in those other
elements mission elements I think make
1917 also feel quite a bit like playing
a video game and I'm not sure if that's
intentional or not we'll discuss it more
at the acting but it's very interesting
I would have even more respect for Sam
Mendes if he intentionally work that in
there so far it's not playing so well
with younger audiences you know usually
Hollywood divides the demographics
twenty five under it up but maybe
hopefully they'll discover this film
it's like a video game
you know maybe they should they should
maybe they should have played that up
more and the advertising they should
have had video game publications
highlight that but maybe they were like
it's not worth it potentially
undercutting our awards chances maybe
they should play that up after awards
season but anyway if our maybe if I were
the universals publicity office I'd have
all those articles ready to go after the
day after it probably wins the Oscar
because I would say 1917 is a shining a
shining example of cinematic
craftsmanship with too glaring
exceptions screenwriting and film acting
so let's discuss that right
screenwriting with the whole brother
angle you know they're trying to save
one of their brothers so who's on the
who's with the put the the battalion
that's in danger the movie comes off a
bit like a watered down Saving Private
Ryan as I've said in other coverage Sam
Mendes is copying the best here
Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg
Steven Spielberg though is the executive
well his companies aren't produced
producing this movie so I'm sure
Spielberg is okay with it
but anyway well it's also very touching
that Sam Mendes he co-wrote the film
based it off of the mapless the stories
that his grandfather told him about his
grandfather's real-life experiences
during World War one the story itself
here it's pretty basic any when you hear
that you think back to the story about
like the rat and the rat you know I
don't want to give anything away if you
haven't seen it but you're like oh yeah
that's why he worked little anecdotes
like that because his grandfather told
that to him and you know it makes sense
because the movie is so strong visually
that the script is so bare-bones that
it's really just an excuse for those
visuals now it doesn't have to be but
here that's what it is
and I mean that make sense I mean if the
movie had better writing and acting I
would feel it was a slam-dunk for Best
Picture but as it is it feels to me like
a legit choice but a safe choice when
compared to other nominees like Joker
and parasite like it would be a little
sad if the Academy was willing to really
step out on a limb there and recognize
those films for Best Picture
but 1917 is as I said a legit choice so
what's the problem with the acting well
George McKay has a great screen presence
visually with big wide eyes and a lanky
frame but I don't think he says
charismatic as other actors he's not
electric right which again this is my
thoughts on you know we're acting comes
in with the video games that adds to the
video game feel because his characters
more avatar and fully developed
character like a real character and you
know well that was initially a criticism
I have of the head of the film when I
was writing my notes here I thought
maybe that was again a choice that Sam
Mendes made maybe again the video game
aspects of the movie are intentional and
McKay will be just fine I'm sure a big
franchise Marvel DC or whatever will
scoop him up because he's British after
all and Hollywood has never been able to
resist a British actor however there are
two very charismatic cameos in the movie
Andrew Scott who is always a delight and
he's a hundred and ten percent electric
whenever he's on screen he has some of
the funniest lines in the movie he's
just you're like don't leave the movie
but he's it fortunately he's only on
there for a few minutes and then also
Mark Strong who could act with just the
lower half of his body when he first
came on screen and you could only steal
him from the waist down I was like who's
that he's just amazing and I don't even
I can't even see the top half of his
body the walls bit of stunt cast well I
didn't like I didn't like him I mean
outside of those two cameos I was
a fan in the stunt casting I thought
that it would take you out of the movie
be like oh wow Colin Firth this must be
an important movie but again it's like
you have to weigh the loss the pros
versus the con so the con is it slightly
takes you out of the movie but the pro
is is it makes it seem like it's an
awards worthy film and that's obviously
working quite well for this movie but in
a Cumberbatch I thought was the one just
didn't work out of all the cameos
especially because he is so not a boss
level character but any means when he
shows up at a vital moment in the third
act maybe again that's also intentional
that you know you have this big thing
built up in your head and then it's just
like this regular dude man you know
again I'm still processing it you know I
think that this will certainly be a film
that is studied and you know by
cinephiles and film students like
because it's that good so let's talk
about the genius because the story is a
bit weak even while watching the movie
you find yourself marveling at its
technical prowess and that adds that's
like that's almost I think the primary
enjoyment of the film and so maybe
that's why we've screenwriting the
acting aren't great because there that's
not the reason for the film again to
exist like you're watching it and you're
like they really build all that right do
they build that many trenches and look
how different the UK trenches look from
the German trenches that was such a cool
thing also how do they do that with the
flares with the shadows and how do they
choreograph that how did they go through
that window and again I hope you'll
check out that behind the scenes short
that I have linked down below which has
a lot of the answers to those questions
you know even if you haven't seen the
movie I think that that behind the
scenes short might convince you to go
because you're like I can't believe they
did that
again much of the enjoyment of the film
it's not the story or the characters but
seeing the movie pull off this one
continuous shot topping itself from
scene to scene in cleverness technical
ability and artistry and that makes Sam
Mendes as a director not so much a
writer but again he he put this whole
thing together and I think that there
are things that are intentionally
underwhelming to play up other aspects
it's crazy it's interesting it's almost
it's like it's it's really it is very
nolan e in that regard
Nolan's like damn it so Sam Mendes is
the director Roger Deakins is a
cinematographer but then also production
designer Dennis
Gastner those are the real stars of the
movie and Gastner by the way has a
stunning resume he is a seven-time Oscar
nominee including for this movie I think
he's gonna win here but he already won
back in 1992 when he was a double
nominee in the same category double
nomination for Barton Fink and Bugsy
what a Sophie's Choice but the Academy
went with Bugsy
so for its cinematic craftsmanship 1917
1917 instantly becomes one of the
greatest war movies and just plain
movies ever made even if the script and
acting are weak that's how amazing it's
one continuous shot is and I wonder if
in the near future
anyone will try to top it the challenge
to me seems immense but also immensely
appealing because Mendes and his team
really throw down the gauntlet here it's
like wow could I do that and I think
you'll at least see like um you've seen
a couple like cool hallway like
daredevil for instance had a really good
long shot and it's final sadly final
season but I think so I think you might
see more people using long shots as a
continuous takes as a result of this
movie at least four chunks of their film
I would just be too tempted to try my
hand at it because it's so cool but no
one can do it in a war movie it's done
this is the definitive one-shot war
movie so that's my review of 1917 I'm
very curious to hear your own thoughts
down below if you haven't seen it yet
what's still keeping you because it's
now of course playing why but I think I
think people will be discovering this
movie all the way through until the
Oscars air and probably well after that
it's again it's part of cinematic
history you owe it to yourself to see it
even if you're a casual movie goer so
share your thoughts down below subscribe
today and of course as always you can
check out some more videos right now
