In 1917, it was very fascinating in two hours. The long reciprocating low-return lens combined with the bright and clean picture made an adventure extraordinarily fantastic and brisk, like a paper airplane flying thousands of miles in the wind without falling. There is no need to pick the screen. The cinema can enjoy the audiovisual art in place.
The theme of the battlefield almost defaults to stacking repeated violence. Indeed, if it needs to be scary, repetition is necessary. The beginning of 1917 also gave me such an illusion. The terrible bomb crater and the bloody palms kept suggesting the environment of the possibility of infection. It was not until the two protagonists detonated landmines in the basement that they were unharmed, only to find that it had completely changed this method. . I have noticed that the protagonist’s use of violence is far smaller than the looseness of his identity. Generally speaking, as long as a character is on the side of the Allies, the audience will basically not feel that the moral comfort zone is challenged. The justice of victory is by default greater than everything. . But the protagonist of 1917 seemed to be required to complete the mission with the lowest killing. The first frontal killing shot, during the day, with a gun, was forced to kill his companion first; at the same moment of the second killing, he was also hit and There was a black screen, the third time, in the dark, no gun was used and there was no sound, and then the gun disappeared forever. To say that the interlacing of indoor and outdoor levels is a visual sense of the game, the tension between the difficulty of the task and the method of completing the task more reflects the deliberately designed rules of the game.
The slight fragment at the moment before the partner's death is realistic, but the effect is fantastic. The sense of time here is actually accelerated, photographing human death quickly and lightly, and the expression is completely stripped of pain. When the hourglass falls, it immediately sinks into eternal sleep, just like a flower falling from a branch. In contrast, the protagonist’s adventure is very long. The ruins are as huge as a palace all night, and the 300-meter trenches run like 10,000 meters. The wet uniforms inside and out are dry again, and different passages are mixed with different flow rates. Together, it is unclear whether the second half of the journey is real or the result of hysteria caused by the protagonist's palm wound.
And, the part where the protagonist jumped into the waterfall and was sent ashore by the rapids and followed the singing into the forest, special, special, Lord of the Rings!
There are also places that I feel like nothingness. It certainly provides a good artistic enjoyment, but at the same time I can't see where there is room for thinking. The protagonist is innocent, the audience is comfortable, and the politics are safe-"Don't the Germans want to go home, they hate their mothers and wives". It has been a hundred years since the First World War, and the conclusion is that the Germans are still not good. I wonder if your geography and culture are all considered family friendships, and why the slap-sized place can give birth to two world catastrophes. Don’t be so sloppy. You overestimate love, use love, and claim that love can solve everything. When the tide is raging, the whole hour is more severe than love! It is recommended that the "Road to Glory" be played in the next hall simultaneously as an uncomfortable hedge (and the heads of the great powers should gather to watch the documentary of the last czar's family, if any)
View more about 1917 reviews
