I thought 1917 was an artsy fartsy POS like Dungkirk.
It wasn't bad, and the shooting of the film was done in an unusual fashion. Still, the story was a little thin, and there were a few "WTF" moments in there. I was taken aback when one of the main characters was killed (partly his own fault, I thought) halfway through the movie. The ending was a nice turn, though not totally unexpected. I'd give it a B.
As far as "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" and "Richard Jewell": Saw both, liked them both, but I'd give the edge here to Tarantino. Much like his "Inglorious Basterds" movie, he took actual events and turned them on their ears in a kind of "what if?" vein. Very effective and a nice twist on the dreck emanating from Holly-weird lately.
That's not to say that "Richard Jewell" was bad. I just had a real problem with Jon Hamm as the FBI agent, an "amalgamation character" who was just a real Richard end to end. I also was not happy with how Clint tried to make the little reporter beyotch who started the whole sham into a tragic character who was just "doing her job".
—I agree about “1917”-—hokey story with more holes in the “plot” than a sieve-—
—I will grant that t the photography was good, if you accept that manufactured scenes of WW1 battlefields are great—
“ I thought 1917 was an artsy fartsy POS like Dungkirk.”
I do too. Horrible waste of time. That fat lead with the fluffy hairdo? But I’m getting slammed for saying so