Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: 1917


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3590
Date:
1917
Permalink   


Anyone seen it yet?

1917.jpg

 



Attachments
__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 797
Date:
Permalink   

A couple of associates saw it last week.  Although one had only limited interest in the Great War, both praised the film; noting it was unique in that just one camera was used to follow the principle character throughout his quest.  Only negatives were the film's unrealistic plot, and the incredibly poor marksmanship displayed by the Germans.



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 171
Date:
Permalink   

Yes, I went to see it...and there is a very brief appearance of a ditched tank. As already commented, the "plot" barely exists, and has no basis in reality, whilst the film provides a succession of "set pieces", with characters attempting to overcome difficulties in a number of scenarios (unwittingly scoring "points", no doubt). The director is a games enthusiast, and it shows. With two Sopwith Camels demonstrating air superiority over a lone Albatros, it is a pity nobody used the opportunity to communicate a vital message by dropping it from the air. And maybe keep a look ot for the extra in the rubber-soled boots.

So much technical brilliance in cinematography, and a complete lack of any narrative coherence. Perhaps it was intended as a commentary on the futility of war/ and/or film.

If you have nothing better to do...( and I await the contrary view from someone who loved it)

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3590
Date:
Permalink   

My enquiries continue, but I can tell you this: the tank shouldn't be there. The action takes place on April 6th, and tanks weren't used at Arras until April 9th. It wasn't in shot long enough for me to tell whether it is the correct Mark.

Also, a neighbour happens to be a retired infantry Major. I saw him this morning and asked him if he'd seen the film. He replied, "Yes. Absolute rubbish."

More later.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.

PDA


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1353
Date:
Permalink   

Haven't seen the film, but I gather the tank is a Mark II. AFAIK the film crew (or whatever) went to Bovington and digitally scanned the MkII and digitally recreated it in the film.



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3590
Date:
Permalink   

Aha. I never thought to google it. Thank you. Here it is: https://www.tankmuseum.org/year-news/bovnews78649

Plenty of coverage in local press etc.

However, it will not escape anyone's attention that Bov's Mk II has a female sponson on the r/h side and no sponson at all on the l/h, whereas the film tank has a male sponson on the left. There must have been some consultation.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard