Long takes have become very overused, so I kind of went into this expecting it to be tiresome. Too often it seems like filmmakers throw a long take in just because it looks cool as opposed to it actually serving a story purpose. I think it was a solid idea given the story, and all credit to Mendes and Deakins for making it relatively seemless. However, I don’t think the story always needed one take. The scene at the abandoned house or the scene with the French woman and her baby didn’t need to be one take in my opinion. It didn’t add to the story in those situations.
I was finally able to watch this the other night. Now, just a tiny bit of background: I love long tracking shots; I love war movies and think WWI is under-represented in modern films; I think Roger Deakins is a god among men. I did enjoy this film a lot and was captivated for almost the entire runtime, but in the end the whole one two? shot thing ultimately did feel like a gimmick to me. As a visual exercise, watching Roger Deakins flex his muscle and work his magic for two hours straight was pretty captivating, but I do think it hurts the film in the end. I can't help but feel like the film would have been better served had it been made up of a lot of long tracking shots but was not beholden to the 'one shot' illusion, similar to Children of Men. I do believe cutting between long sequences, albeit cutting sparingly, would have helped the pacing and increased the rewatchability of this film tremendously. That, or it probably should have been about 30 minutes shorter and lost a few 'sequences'. Still a very good film though. * Edited to add that the actors were fucking PHENOMENAL in this across the board, especially considering what the two main actors must have had to go through with the insanely long takes.
Oh damn, I might have to pick this up. I actually still think about this movie a lot, which I didn't think I would do. I'd still put it in my top 5 for 2019.
I read through this thread for kicks and the reactions it got once it started picking up awards is insane lol.
Hmm, this is still one of the movies from 2019 I find myself thinking about most often. "Slog" is one of the last words that comes to my mind when describing it.
I stopped focusing several times because of the one-shot conceit. It is a really bad trend that takes away one of the great advantages that film has.
I definitely do not agree that this movie was a slog, but after watching it and thinking about it I do think that it should have been shorter. I think they should have dropped a sequence or two from the overall film, which I realize is more difficult to do in a film like this as opposed to more traditionally edited films, but I do think they should have had a shorter runtime as the goal right from the start. It would have made it a more powerful and effective film, in my opinion.
This film had a bigger emotional impact on me than any other film of 2019. The one-take was really able to capture the weariness of war in a way I’ve never seen before. And I find that weariness really relatable right now. Also, the ruins scene contains the most beautiful shots I’ve ever seen in a theater.
I think this movie does a good job of capturing the emotion of the frontline guys, but the entire plot of saving 1600 guys feels like a load of bullshit. I doubt a general in WWI would give a single shit about that number of people when 12 million Brits were pretty much thrown to their deaths for nothing. This movie was basically:
I didn’t think it was just about saving those men as much as it was stopping that group from running straight into a trap.