Started by Dixkot, September 30, 2013, 11:50:06 am
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Matt2112 on October 17, 2020, 11:54:31 amI can't help feeling this would have been tailor-made for Stanley Kubrick, in whose hands this might well have been a masterpiece.
Quote from: Matt2112 on October 17, 2020, 11:54:31 am1917A victim of its own success this - presented as a near-continuous 105-minute take with only one obvious cut, the technical achievements of the camera work, editing and Roger Deakins' (rightly Oscar-nominated) cinematography are so astounding that, for me, they outshone the narrative and dramatic tension of the film itself. Hence this is, bizarrely, less than the sum of its astonishing parts.If war films by their nature are intended to convey a profound message to represent the human horrors of conflict, then for me this got somewhat lost in the relentlessly ostentatious, how-did-they-film-that camera work, so it all serves mainly as a primer to watch the various "making of" featurettes, which are actually more engaging than the main event.It's all hugely impressive but unfortunately I didn't feel anything in my bones, which is where the best films have their effect.I can't help feeling this would have been tailor-made for Stanley Kubrick, in whose hands this might well have been a masterpiece.
Quote from: döm on October 18, 2020, 12:37:55 pmWatched the whole of Emily in Paris over the course of week. Despite the fact that it was frothy and light, containing little of substance and being very cliche ridden ( although I've no doubt some on here would see it as a very accurate picture of the French 😂) I really enjoyed it. Paris is truly a stunning City and the show used it wonderfully as a back drop.
Page created in 0.039 seconds with 21 queries.