1917

[+ azdr0710]

gee, didn't see it listed as a thread......did I miss it??......

 

just watched it last night......ho-hum for me......was distracted too much by the much-ballyhooed single-shot cinematography, I guess......the plot seemed thin and unimportant......no character development at all.......perfunctory cameo appearances by a few famous actors seemed strange......

 

but scattered real "life in the trenches" moments were good history.......and, other than the single-shot gimmick, the cinematography was very slick and moody.....seeing it on the big screen, instead of my 50" home screen, probably would've been better, especially for the plane crash.......

 

[tchm]

I agree. Take away the one take gimmick and it's just an inferior remake of Saving Private Ryan. Photography was excellent though.

[+ Cash4Trash]

Saw it in IMAX which proved to be a big plus. (spoiler)_ If anyone knows who milked a cow and left a full pail of milk abandoned in the barn in the middle of the war is let me know. Thank God they did so the baby could be fed a couple of scenes later - manipulation like this drives me up the wall.

[+ honcho]

Having taken up an interest in Video & Photgraphy recently, I stumbled across a YouTube page talking about Cinema lenses versus photographic ones in a discussion with the lens designer for a company called ARRI. The guy said that the movie was shot with *two* lenses made by their company - mostly a 40mm, but one scene was done with a 35mm lens, so that means. You can have either of those lovely lenses for about $23,000 (just for the lens, to say nothing of the camera). They had clips from the shooting of the movie showing the position of the camera, as well as a couple of clips of the scenes being shot ..