Saw
1917. Really well made of course, although similar to something like
Dunkirk, I do think there's a bit of a soulless quality to it. There is some genuine emotion in here, particularly in one scene
, but I don't know, a lot of it felt a bit barren on an emotional level. Acting was fine, nothing to write home about, but that's completely OK for this type of movie.
Where Dunkirk excels with sound, this one is much more visual. Goes without saying that it's an amazing looking movie, although not my favorite looking Deakins movie. I do think the one-shot thing held his style back in certain areas, although it still rears its head semi-consistently throughout. The whole fire sequence in particular was amazing to look at, it's classic use of lighting and shadows by Deakins. I also loved how the bunker scene was shot with the rats, and that one shot where the camera goes along the water as they're crossing the pit. I think at times it kind of felt like the area was designed like an obstacle course rather than a natural war setting, but in a weird way I kind of liked that because I went into this movie very much aware of the technical aspect of it and was looking at things more like "I wonder how they're going to approach this shot" rather than actually getting engrossed in the movie's world.
I see this is the favorite for score for awards, which surprises me a bit. Like its present throughout essentially the entire movie, but I feel like nothing really stood out about it. Good but unexceptional.
I think I'm nitpicking this but overall I do think it was really good. I think anyone that goes into it knowing that it's a war movie about a couple no-name soldiers will absolutely get a lot of enjoyment out of it.