"1917", a war film set in the First World War, tells about two 16-year-old British boys going to the front to signal to stop the attack. The journey is difficult and difficult, and there is endless fire.
Alas, it was easier to have a mobile phone.
For this blockbuster that was nominated for the 92nd Oscar but did not win a first prize, the main propaganda point of the domestic film critics is "one shot to the end."
"One shot to the end" has become a popular shooting method in recent years, and it is often seen in parkour videos and the vlogs of internet celebrities. The advantages of
are obvious: the long lens is stable and clear, and can reproduce the scene completely, giving people a sense of tension and pressure, and a sense of immersion like a video game. Compared to over-editing, it appears more realistic. The shortcomings of
are also more prominent: dizzying look and feel, and the inability to leave multiple possible reveries to the audience through editing, and the complete connection of the plot must be ensured to weaken the jump.
I don't think "1917" is an excellent film. The role of
is vague, the plot is mediocre, and it is not deep enough. The war scenes of
are aesthetically fatigued. Although the scenes are rich and the technical difficulty of setting up the scenes is high, it is said that the actors started training six months in advance in order to familiarize themselves with the scenes and characters, but the superb technical level cannot fundamentally make up for the paleness of the film. If
has to say there is something to gain, it should be: like other war films, compared to the war years, the audience after watching the movie will be more aware of the preciousness of peace.
