Hacker Cinema
1917
2019 · Film · 119 min
Directed by Sam Mendes
At the height of the First World War, two young British soldiers must cross enemy territory and deliver a message that will stop a deadly attack on hundreds of soldiers.
13 positive3 negative1 mixed12 neutralfrom 29 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
29 comments on Hacker News
> with the biggest budgets, like the MCU movies or Fast and Furious
Oh, I hundred percent believe it. But did they spend the money on the vfx?
For example 1917 or Nolan movies I think have great VFX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bRZbsk_wuA (last part)
The comments pretending Marvel actors (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch) are their Marvel characters in other movies (e.g. Sam Mendes' 1917) kill me.
Are you suggesting it's not noticeable in those movies? I found it distracting several times in I think every one of those (maybe the least in 1917? And I haven't seen Ford vs. Ferrari, but I have all the rest). A few entire scenes or sequences in TG:M look awful, and it's usually the mundane ones that wouldn't even have been effects in a pre-CG movie, not the aircraft action stuff. Alien: Romulus looks fake practically the whole movie (that one didn't ruin it for me or anything, but it had an effect like the Riddick movies, of being obviously mostly a cartoon, though of course not as awful about it as those were).
Well, I guess it wasn't exactly distracting in Barbie because that's practically a marionette movie a la Thunderbirds, so it's not really trying not to look off.
Perhaps you can share some examples of the films you are referring as "mindless banter in between sex and explosions". I'm not sure that description really fits most of the films coming out recently. If you said, "Dumb comic book films", I would maybe agree with you, but there isn't typically any sex in those so I assume you are not referring to them.
Covid halted the production of a lot of movies, and changed how others were made. It also shut down theaters. So, "since covid", is really talking about before and after an era. Kind of like saying, "since 9/11", in terms of the impact on culture. A lot of creativity has moved from the movie theaters to streaming services and from films to more episodic content.
However, here is a short list of films worth seeing (imo) since covid (2019).
Zone of Interest (2023) The Holdovers (2023) Parasite (2019) Dune (2021) Dune Part Two (2024) Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) 1917 (2019) The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) The Substance (2024) Palm Springs (2020) Oppenheimer (2023) The Lighthouse (2019) Hundreds of Beavers (2022) Barbarian (2022) Flow (2024)
I don’t care if the normies dont do long shots. The best movies have very long shots. Children of men or 1917. Until AI video gen can get past 5-10 second shots of slop, we won’t see any major critically acclaimed AI movies or related.
VFX powerhouse MPC, renowned for its work on The Lion King (2019), 1917, and Life of Pi, faces possible closure as parent company Technicolor grapples with severe financial struggles. Despite delivering groundbreaking visual effects and winning an Academy Award for Life of Pi, MPC now confronts an uncertain future. The company has played a key role in shaping modern visual effects, contributing to some of the most visually stunning films of the past decade. However, ongoing financial difficulties at Technicolor put the studio’s legacy and hundreds of jobs at risk, raising concerns about the future of high-end VFX production.
The movie 1917 is one continuous 2 hour take.
For me it's just part of the language of cinema, like a dolly zoom or a oner or slow-mo.
I can notice those things, particularly when they fit the scene well, and still appreciate them as a part of cinema on one hand, but still maintain my investment in the narrative on the other.
Like when my heartstrings are being pulled. If it's done well enough, it doesn't matter if you realise in the moment that it's something the filmmakers are doing deliberately; you still feel the emotion. I can appreciate the craft at the same time as being invested in the story. I enjoy appreciating a film on multiple levels at the same time.
To be sure, Wilhelm is more of a "heh, nice" moment than a "wow, what incredible craftsmanship" realisation. And, to my knowledge, it's never used inappropriately, e.g. in a historical tragic war scene. If it showed up in, say, Saving Private Ryan or 1917, I probably would be annoyed in a way that I'm not if it showed up in an MCU or John Wick installment.
It was Dunkirk I was most referencing in my original comment. I found it a very disappointing film. Here's this important human story that the movie refuses to tell clearly, making the whole thing hit less than the sum of it's parts. 1917 was much more effective in its stylistic choices in my opinion.
The only "gimmick" in Dunkirk was the way Nolan sanitized it to be PG-13. You see German shells hitting soldiers, but the explosions are rendered immaculately. It carries on the tradition of British war movies being suitable for family viewing because it's important for everyone to understand the sacrifices that were made. The same criticism can be leveled at Sam Mendes and 1917.
Watch the movie "1917" for long takes. Short takes would ruin the harrowing experience the main characters suffer.
> Yeah but this is 2022 are there even movie theaters anymore?
My uninformed and probably stupid thoughts:
Hollywood was doing some amazing movies in the 90ish (think Seven, The Matrix, Requiem for a Dream etc). It was a mix of new and established players that were allowed to innovate and be creative. Then Hollywood became more risk averse, I assume because sales were unpredictable and production companies wanted guarantees similar to other industries' large investments. So they started recycling ideas, produce sequels and trading IP rights for dudes in specifically colored spandex suits, which came with a guaranteed fanbase that would watch anything with the brand. This eventually became the MCU-type of crap where everything is a 4th wall joke packed with references to current events, leading to a shelf life less than a year and plots became an afterthought. The sales mindset went as far as putting stuff in the movie for the sake of producing a compelling trailer. At the same time TV was taking the Hollywood's lunch money, but for some reason they doubled down on the approach and blamed streaming for their failures.
The issue isn't the format though, or that everyone has Netflix on their microwave display now. There are still great movies today, and if you get a chance to watch one in a good theatre it's a mesmerizing experience. Me and my partner watched The Joker, 1917 and Dune in Alamo Drafthouse (a theater that has zero-tolerance to texting/talking and serves food & drinks). It's an experience that trumps even great TV shows, when done right. It's just sad that it's so rare.
I agree that the criticism undoes itself. The negative CGI we talk about is the negative CGI we notice; we don't talk about all the CGI that we never notice, of which there is a huge amount. Take for example the movie 1917[0], a WWII film that's extremely practical. They actually dug trenches for the actors to run/walk through, they actually built a bombed out town for a central set-piece, and they actually had huge numbers of men running across a battlefield.
Yet it's also the case that the movie seamlessly transitions from filmed shots of actors to complete CGI replacements for multiple seconds before transitioning back to filmed shots of actors, without a single cut or transition, and no one would know that unless you watch the effects breakdown.[0]
I agree that CGI is almost certainly a massive vitalizing force. CGI is making it possible for creators, hollywood or no, to build far beyond what was ever possible to those creators in decades past. Take this tiny short film, "Royal Dumplings"[1], a student made short film for no budget[2] . Made with a camera, green cloth backdrop, and hardware store lights. What we get to see on screen, even if "un-real", is so vastly more interesting than what we'd have gotten 30 years ago at this price that I don't care.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA
I have no opinion on the latter, there haven't been any movies except Bond that are in theaters and I'd like to see. You could have just referred to more specific instances of CCP censorship with regard to previous Marvel releases, because I don't follow it and it just comes across as fear-baiting rather than having substance. With respect to those things like Eternals not being released in China, and Hollywood probably wanting to court their audience, afaik it was not released there and I also don't think it looks very good, so I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to censorship because obviously it didn't work to get into that market. Every superhero oriented movie I've seen, or seen a trailer for, looks awful, but unfortunately they often do sell quite well in the North American market and make up disproportionately large amount of released movies over the last decade.
In summary, the movies I've seen that suck tend to just suck. Usually it's because they're way too long, or they don't tell a story very well, or the plot is just rehashed and contrived. James Bond was great, 1917 etc, but others just seem uninspired. To make a case that censorship is the reason, I think you'd need be annoyed with specific aspects of a production, rather than the entire thing.
I think there's an issue on the internet of people wanting to discuss somewhat contentious issues that are assumed to be followed by everyone, like CCP stuff or immigration or trans issues or whatever, but most people just don't care or aren't in that bubble, so it tend to come across as a bit sus unless you can tie it in together and make a reasonable case for it.
Or it reflects that the two genres merged to a degree, because of a more nuanced understanding? Recent war movies like "Dunkirk" don't really show traditional heroism, they show a very bleak version of war, with the soldiers mostly surviving rather than fighting. "1917", while showing a heroic act of one (or two) main characters, also used imagery and portrayal of military and higher ranks that is essentially a reference to classical anti-war movies.
> […] or you have designated Oscar-type fare, which as of late means something extremely depressing that says how bad humans are.
In the 2020/2021 season, the nominations included The Father about a man suffering dementia (from his perspective) and Sound of Metal about a drummer going deaf.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Academy_Awards
For 2019, we had the best picture nominations include Ford v Ferrari, Little Women, and 1917:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_Academy_Awards
Previous to that, Bohemian Rhapsody:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Academy_Awards
Going back one more year, Dunkirk and Lady Bird:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90th_Academy_Awards
Lastly for this discussion, Arrival, Hacksaw Ridge, Hidden Figures, and La La Land:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_Awards
I think these are good counter-examples to your claim that only two types of movies being made.
Yes, also the single take gimmick in "1917" was needlessly restrictive. It sort of prevented the camera from freely looking at the scene, by the need to have the principal character always in view.
Also we are still waiting for a reasonable movie treatments of the Russian/Austrian/Italian/Turkish fronts in WWI.
John Buchanan's "Mr Standfast" would make a fine WW1 film if ever filmed.
That was shown pretty realistically in the "1917" movie.
My favorite original movies of 2019: Parasite, 1917, Once upon a time in hollywood, midsommar, uncut gems, ford v. ferrari, the lighthouse, knives out, jojo rabbit, us, a number of shows that have shifted towards a streamed series format vs. traditional film
I think the film industry is alive and well.
I'd also say that dr. sleep only barely qualifies as a sequel if we're in the mood to complain about hollywood cliches.
I disagree. There are quite a few interesting movies out there. From 2019 alone: Uncut gems, Marriage Story, the Irishman, Us, 1917, Jojo Rabbit and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. All of those are good movies depending on the preference. In fact, they are innovative and creative. The main problem with judging now vs past, is the survivorship bias of the good movies, the bad ones are forgotten and lost.
Two of those are netflix movies - Irishman and Marriage Story, I don't see them any more synthetic than 1980's RAMBO 2-5? or God Father 2,3 etc. Movies were always based on the popularity, the difference being the better data.
> bad comic adaptations, getting their rating from wide fan base
The amount of haters and lovers might not offset each other perfectly, yet it should not matter after the hype dwindles. Besides, the top rated comic books adaptations are quite good - Joker?
Not OP, but I just recently watched Dances with Wolves a week or so ago and had almost an identical thought to what OP posted. I have some modern favorites of course, but it seems like I enjoy my modern favorites because it is a "mental tease". They don't really illicit emotional connections though. However, it is totally possible I'm just watching the wrong movies. Some modern favorites are the new Blade Runner, Ex Machina.... there is a big list.
There are of course exceptions. I also recently watched 1917 and I thought that was one of the best films I'd ever seen. In addition to being an action film it definitely felt emotional.
The twenty minute thing is because of device classification.
If a device records twenty minutes or more of continuous video, it is classified as a video device, which changes the regulatory structure.
If you watch movies, these days, it's almost unheard of for a single shot to be more than a minute or two in length. Even films like 1917 are really digitally-stitched montages.
I think the real reason is that Canon is ferociously dedicated to video, and they market that aggressively. It's a very different market from still images.
It'll be interesting to see how this effects a culture/mindset shift among large movie producers and directors. Putting aside their artistic concerns that their films are best experienced on the massive widescreen, having a big box office haul seems to be a key part of Hollywood braqfests.
If simultaneous theater+streaming becomes the norm, it would seem the days of multi-hundred-million box office gross will be past. In 2020, the highest grossing film (domestically) so far is the Bad Boys sequel, which released in January and got $204M. The only other 2020 release to break $100M is the Sonic the Hedgehog movie. And many of 2020's top grossing movies were released in late 2019, e.g. "1917" and Star Wars. Even worse, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" – released in September by Warner Bros – basically bombed at under $60M [0].
Given the huge movies that WB is planning to put on HBO (Matrix 4, Wonder Woman, Dune), I wonder if that'll spur Disney to throw Black Widow onto streaming. Apparently its Mulan release (which required a premium subscription) didn't do so well, but seems risky for Disney to sit on its hands while WB goes all in.
[0] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2020/?grossesOption=calendarGrosses
Babylon Berlin was a action/erotic/murder mistery-filled series on Netflix, with english dubbing. I doubt you can get more "populist" than that. If you mean very specifically a Hollywood-made movie: why should Americans deal with this topic? It is more appropriately made by a society that had more connections to these events.
But even so, you see counter-examples, eg. Jojo Rabbit, which is about a small german town, post-WWII. "trending periods" as a topic of filmmaking changes constantly. See how in the last decade a lot of people cried out about lack of coverage on WWI, and then came "1917" or Battlefield One.
I think this is an exaggeration. Short/Long takes are an artistic decision. We have recent movies that are a few long takes (sometime pretending to be a single take) 1917, Birdman, Russian Ark (true single take) all shot in recent years. Same with TV: True Detective has a famous long take scene, Mr. Robot, BCS.
With the same logic there should be a white guy somewhere in the background in Wakanda, but there weren't any. That's what the parent comment wants to say.
He was complaining about a strawman that existed only in his head. There were multiple random white guys in the background in the city scenes (Wakanda and elsewhere), and multiple named and speaking white supporting characters in the foreground, including Bucky Barnes, and whatever characters Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis were playing.
Re-watching 1917, I realized that there is exactly 1 minority character with a speaking role in the movie: a Sikh soldier during the caravan scene. I rewatched the trench scenes, and there are no black characters. There are white guys covered in ash and dirt that might look black but are clearly white when viewed in 4k, and can be confirmed during the battlefield run scene. (1917 was attempting to be historically accurate; Sikh soldiers made up a larger portion of the British army than did black soldiers.)
On a semi-related note did anyone watching the movie 1917 feel like the entire set was less than a mile wide? I was somewhat passively keeping track of distance covered and directions turned in my head and something just felt horribly off.
I swear they were on that truck for like 7 seconds and moved 100 feet.
Movies like 1917 and Birdman (and perhaps even Rope, if I'm being pedantic) only have the illusion of a single shot.
The best true single shot movie I've seen is the German movie Victoria (2015), which really wouldn't have worked half as well if it was shot in a more traditional way.
Agreed. I find comic book movies boring, so that removes a lot of options. I did go to the movies for the first time in ~3+ years to see 1917. Great movie. But, even with a movie I liked, the theater tried to ruin the experience by showing ~30 minutes of ads/preview prior to the movie.