The "last movie I saw" thread

[Bo Diddley]

Hey KL, my grandfather served a 4-yr mission in Tonga/Somoa in the 1920's.

He must be a little farther down the list of white missionaries. That coincidence in our small group is uncanny.

[Katy Lied]

Been waiting forever for 1917 to come out, and we caught it today. There were no millenials whatsoever in the audience- the youngest looked to be 40. After the movie, a bunch of older viewers were milling about the bathroom area, and a millenial Megaplex employee addressed the group and asked if it was better than Dunkirk. Everyone agreed.

I love a new perspective in moviemaking, whether it is a technical improvement (aka StarWars IV), or different way of looking at a long-standing mythology (like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven). This movie was done in one continuous take, which resulted in an immediate POV the likes of which I have never seen.

Deft Touches and innovative storytelling resulting from the single POV:

Spoiler for (Do yourself a favor and watch the movie before reading spoilers):

The protagonist is not the protagonist we thought when the movie starts. Sort of like real war when a company of soldiers starts out and you never know (other than in Hollywood) who is going to end up coming home.

The movie starts out on a bucolic spring day, our hero sitting under a leafy tree. The movie ends up in exactly the same shot, a warm spring day under another tree-- this one stripped and scarred and lacking any leaves or greenery.

The one-shot is super effective in the opening sequence, where the soldiers transition seamlessly and innocently from open ground to trench warfare. As you watch the movie, you start as you realize that nothing can be seen- the sun, the grass, the landscape, the enemy. Its mud and sky, over and over.

They get closer and closer to the war front, and I'm all set to see the front line action. But nothing. In the trench war, there is no front line- only two trenches facing each other a few hundred yards away. Everything is below ground. There is nothing to see.

There is another scene where he is getting out of the river and has to crawl over a bunch of dead bodies to do so. An all-seeing perspective would have him swim past the bodies and disembark elsewhere, but his POV is shot so tight he cannot see the dead.

In a regular Hollywood movie, you'd see imminent danger, then scary music starts to swell, cut back to the danger, cut back to our protagonists, cut to danger, etc. In this movie, we notice a rat, then notice a trip wire, with no chance to react or be heroic or even really register the danger except very briefly before bad stuff happens. No foreshadowing, no narrative warnings- just survival and then death and when the smoke clears we see who were the lucky ones.

No admirable last stands, no self sacrifice, no key moments that change the outcome of the war, nobody jumps on a grenade. Just moments of battle and moments of no battles. The mission is sort of completed, the arrogant generals act sort of responsibly, there is no medal presentation for a job well done. The medals presentation is that fact that you are still alive.

Other notes:

The music was awesome- heroic but as unlike John Williams as possible.
Only 3 famous actors and all in brief roles.

[frank ryan]

Been waiting forever for 1917 to come out, and we caught it today. There were no millenials whatsoever in the audience- the youngest looked to be 40. After the movie, a bunch of older viewers were milling about the bathroom area, and a millenial Megaplex employee addressed the group and asked if it was better than Dunkirk. Everyone agreed.

I love a new perspective in moviemaking, whether it is a technical improvement (aka StarWars IV), or different way of looking at a long-standing mythology (like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven). This movie was done in one continuous take, which resulted in an immediate POV the likes of which I have never seen.

Deft Touches and innovative storytelling resulting from the single POV:

Spoiler for (Do yourself a favor and watch the movie before reading spoilers):

The protagonist is not the protagonist we thought when the movie starts. Sort of like real war when a company of soldiers starts out and you never know (other than in Hollywood) who is going to end up coming home.

The movie starts out on a bucolic spring day, our hero sitting under a leafy tree. The movie ends up in exactly the same shot, a warm spring day under another tree-- this one stripped and scarred and lacking any leaves or greenery.

The one-shot is super effective in the opening sequence, where the soldiers transition seamlessly and innocently from open ground to trench warfare. As you watch the movie, you start as you realize that nothing can be seen- the sun, the grass, the landscape, the enemy. Its mud and sky, over and over.

They get closer and closer to the war front, and I'm all set to see the front line action. But nothing. In the trench war, there is no front line- only two trenches facing each other a few hundred yards away. Everything is below ground. There is nothing to see.

There is another scene where he is getting out of the river and has to crawl over a bunch of dead bodies to do so. An all-seeing perspective would have him swim past the bodies and disembark elsewhere, but his POV is shot so tight he cannot see the dead.

In a regular Hollywood movie, you'd see imminent danger, then scary music starts to swell, cut back to the danger, cut back to our protagonists, cut to danger, etc. In this movie, we notice a rat, then notice a trip wire, with no chance to react or be heroic or even really register the danger except very briefly before bad stuff happens. No foreshadowing, no narrative warnings- just survival and then death and when the smoke clears we see who were the lucky ones.

No admirable last stands, no self sacrifice, no key moments that change the outcome of the war, nobody jumps on a grenade. Just moments of battle and moments of no battles. The mission is sort of completed, the arrogant generals act sort of responsibly, there is no medal presentation for a job well done. The medals presentation is that fact that you are still alive.

Other notes:

The music was awesome- heroic but as unlike John Williams as possible.
Only 3 famous actors and all in brief roles.

It was a great movie, but it wasn't filmed in one continious take. It was filmed in a series of uncut takes that masterfully made it look like one.

[LiveCoug]

After reading the book, I was excited to check out Just Mercy. Saw it last night and thought it was great. They definitely had to hollywoodize it a bit, but that's ok.

[All-American]

The "last movie I saw" thread

It was a great movie, but it wasn't filmed in one continious take. It was filmed in a series of uncut takes that masterfully made it look like one.

https://youtu.be/zZn0njzFL68

Edit: not the clip I was looking for. The one I had in mind was the continuous shot showing Charlie day masterfully evading the health inspector. Genius work.

[BigPiney]

Wasn't Russian Ark done in one shot through the Hermitage?

[Eddie]

Been waiting forever for 1917 to come out, and we caught it today. There were no millenials whatsoever in the audience- the youngest looked to be 40. After the movie, a bunch of older viewers were milling about the bathroom area, and a millenial Megaplex employee addressed the group and asked if it was better than Dunkirk. Everyone agreed.

I love a new perspective in moviemaking, whether it is a technical improvement (aka StarWars IV), or different way of looking at a long-standing mythology (like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven). This movie was done in one continuous take, which resulted in an immediate POV the likes of which I have never seen.

Deft Touches and innovative storytelling resulting from the single POV:

Spoiler for (Do yourself a favor and watch the movie before reading spoilers):

The protagonist is not the protagonist we thought when the movie starts. Sort of like real war when a company of soldiers starts out and you never know (other than in Hollywood) who is going to end up coming home.

The movie starts out on a bucolic spring day, our hero sitting under a leafy tree. The movie ends up in exactly the same shot, a warm spring day under another tree-- this one stripped and scarred and lacking any leaves or greenery.

The one-shot is super effective in the opening sequence, where the soldiers transition seamlessly and innocently from open ground to trench warfare. As you watch the movie, you start as you realize that nothing can be seen- the sun, the grass, the landscape, the enemy. Its mud and sky, over and over.

They get closer and closer to the war front, and I'm all set to see the front line action. But nothing. In the trench war, there is no front line- only two trenches facing each other a few hundred yards away. Everything is below ground. There is nothing to see.

There is another scene where he is getting out of the river and has to crawl over a bunch of dead bodies to do so. An all-seeing perspective would have him swim past the bodies and disembark elsewhere, but his POV is shot so tight he cannot see the dead.

In a regular Hollywood movie, you'd see imminent danger, then scary music starts to swell, cut back to the danger, cut back to our protagonists, cut to danger, etc. In this movie, we notice a rat, then notice a trip wire, with no chance to react or be heroic or even really register the danger except very briefly before bad stuff happens. No foreshadowing, no narrative warnings- just survival and then death and when the smoke clears we see who were the lucky ones.

No admirable last stands, no self sacrifice, no key moments that change the outcome of the war, nobody jumps on a grenade. Just moments of battle and moments of no battles. The mission is sort of completed, the arrogant generals act sort of responsibly, there is no medal presentation for a job well done. The medals presentation is that fact that you are still alive.

Other notes:

The music was awesome- heroic but as unlike John Williams as possible.
Only 3 famous actors and all in brief roles.

If you liked this and Dunkirk, do yourself a favor and catch They Shall Not Grow Old if you get the chance. Documentary by Peter Jackson. It's focused primarily on soldiers from Great Britain. They've colorized old film, used old recorded interviews of soldiers, and even had some lip readers interpret what people are saying in old silent film and added in the voices. Not for children - they show some dead bodies - but I really enjoyed it.

[frank ryan]

Wasn't Russian Ark done in one shot through the Hermitage?

I'm pretty sure you're right.

[beefytee]

Rope by Alfred Hitchcock is well known for its continuous shots but it looks like it was a few more than one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_(film)

The film is one of Hitchcock's most experimental and "one of the most interesting experiments ever attempted by a major director working with big box-office names", abandoning many standard film techniques to allow for the long unbroken scenes. Each shot ran continuously for up to ten minutes without interruption. It was shot on a single set, aside from the opening establishing shot street scene under the credits. Camera moves were carefully planned and there was almost no editing.

[Katy Lied]

If you liked this and Dunkirk, do yourself a favor and catch They Shall Not Grow Oldit.

yup. saw it. those brit boys sure had terrible teeth.

The movie I hear is heartbreakingly anti-war is Come and See. I dont think I could ever bring myself to watch it. Those who make it all the way to the end said it was a gut punch.

[Armenag]

I'm pretty sure you're right.

Russian Ark is amazing -- and a true, continuous single shot without any stitching together IIRC. Not really a conventional movie though -- very surreal. Well worth watching in my opinion, though if you're tired it will probably put you to sleep.

[beefytee]

Interesting video about the continuous take in 1917

[Pelado]

Finally saw "Baby Driver". I liked it quite a bit. I've had the Simon & Garfunkel song "Baby Driver" stuck in my head ever since.

[frank ryan]

Russian Ark is amazing -- and a true, continuous single shot without any stitching together IIRC. Not really a conventional movie though -- very surreal. Well worth watching in my opinion, though if you're tired it will probably put you to sleep.

I read about that film for a class in college but never did watch. How emotionally demanding is it?

[Sleeping in EQ]

I recently watched Jewel Robbery (1932).

William Powell was a stylish, gentleman thief and Kay Francis was perfect as a bored, impulsive mantrap.

Had this film been shot two years later, it would never have made it through the Hays Code.