1917 [Sam Mendes]

Billcarson

PTH2009 wrote: »

Meant veterans still alive today

Very doubtful

Well the last British ww1 vet ,harry patch died in 2009. Aged 111

Hande hoche!

Enjoyable film, benefited from the big screen experience. Was worth the trek to the cinema.

Calibos

Cina wrote: »

I came out of it thinking that nitpickers will try and rip it apart and point out all the flaws and plot holes and inconsistencies, and to make sure I don't listen and let it dampen my view of the film, because overall it was two of the most stunning and gripping hours of cinema I've seen in a very long time, so personally I don't really care if

a plane could've done the job better or if ze Germans have the aim of a stormtrooper

Haven't watched it yet but given the positive online reviews, I just knew that this forums resident contrarian critic would hate it just like I knew he would probably like Ad Astra. Wasn't disappointed on either count.:D

delly

Just back from seeing it this evening in Cineworld on the iMax screen and it was pretty damn incredible to be honest. I'm a bit of a history buff, but specifically studied a lot of WWI. As wars go, WWII gets the lion's share of stories as it is closer to our timeline, but as a representation of WWI, it does a fine job. It was my first time to see the iMax in Parnell St. and I will definitely go out of my way to see my the next epic movie when one comes out, on iMax again.

correction

I enjoyed it for the most part. Can't say I've ever actually noticed a bad score until this, felt it took away quite a bit from the tense moments in the film.

FunLover18

Technically it's extraordinary and well worth the trip to the cinema. But if you were to shoot that script in the usual format it wouldn't be getting the awards buzz that it is getting, the script and story and good but not award worthy by any means.

ricero

Overall I enjoyed it. Really enjoyed the scenery and leftovers from the horror of war. Also loved the one shot take.

Thought it worked really well for this type of story.

The Princess Bride

I loved it, every moment.
Easily the best war based film I've ever seen.
I thought the soundtrack was effective yet not overpowering.

In Dunkirk, the music was so powerful and fantastic it totally distracted me from the film, which didn't impress me really anyway.

AdamD

Found it a lot more enjoyable than Dunkirk

pixelburp

An example of a film where ones enjoyment is likely in proportion with how invested you are in its fundamental technical gimmick - or indeed the size of screen you watched it on. While the "one-shot" isn't as rare as it used to be, this was a case where the production married the old school logistical hurdles of the concept, with the digital trickery allowing for seamless transition between the disparate, sprawling & intricate sets. This wasn't the kind of "lazy" one-shot seen with the likes of Kingsman, where it was almost entirely, transparently digital.

While the plot was a little boilerplate and arguably open to criticism over holes, it wasn't enough to break the suspension of disbelief or that I couldn't invest in the scenario as presented - or its characters. Thinly sketched, but they were relatable and likeable enough that it was easy to root for every small success eked out, inch by muddy inch. And despite the presence of the aforementioned digital transitions, the world felt as grubby, blasted and physical as you could imagine those trenches were; Roger Deakins brought a haunting beauty to the world, gorgeous compositions of limbo, the highlight perhaps a ruined village at night, lit by flares, the scene feeling like a surreal dream.

An example of a film where ones enjoyment is likely in proportion with how invested you are in its fundamental technical gimmick - or indeed the size of screen you watched it on. While the "one-shot" isn't as rare as it used to be, this was a case where the production married the old school logistical hurdles of the concept, with the digital trickery allowing for seamless transition between the disparate, sprawling & intricate sets. This wasn't the kind of "lazy" one-shot seen with the likes of Kingsman, where it was almost entirely, transparently digital.

While the plot was a little boilerplate and arguably open to criticism over holes, it wasn't enough to break the suspension of disbelief or that I couldn't invest in the scenario as presented - or its characters. Thinly sketched, but they were relatable and likeable enough that it was easy to root for every small success eked out, inch by muddy inch. And despite the presence of the aforementioned digital transitions, the world felt as grubby, blasted and physical as you could imagine those trenches were; Roger Deakins brought a haunting beauty to the world, gorgeous compositions of limbo, the highlight perhaps a ruined village at night, lit by flares, the scene feeling like a surreal dream.

Perhaps not as impactful as other war movies have been, but as a visceral experience it still left its mark. War might be hell, but it has rarely been this striking, hauntingly beautiful.

edit: also, the nature of the set pieces, and the one-shot transitions between them, gave the whole movie the feeling of a Video Game - in a good way.

Homelander

Was underwhelmed. It's certainly not bad but I expected far more given the glowing reviews. The acting is good, the one-take approach is well employed and visually it's quite strong in spots, especially the first third or so - after which I found it unfortunately descended into generic and uninspired territory.

The story is quite weak really, there are far too many plot holes/conveniences for a film of this type, it just didn't hold water for me. I know some people with try and dismiss all that with "nitpickers trying to find fault" but I don't buy that at all. Have no real problem with the general military/historical accuracy in the film though, in case anyone is conflating two seperate issues.

I would say it's worth watching, but it's a pretty average film outside of the technically interesting one-take style. It entertained me but it just didn't satisfy me at all.

Melanchthon

Homelander wrote: »

.

I would say it's worth watching, but it's a pretty average film outside of the technically interesting one-take style. It entertained me but it just didn't satisfy me at all.

Agree it wasn't amazing but it was pretty good and it's nice to see a film that's nicely shot, tense in parts, fairly well acted despite some not great dialogue. It did lack something to make it great perhaps the story itself wasn't strong enough but genuinely enjoy having a film that's not some comic book junk that the audience's love or the usual indie style deep emo or quirky whimsy that the kinophiles big up.
It's a middle of the road film but I mean that in the best way possible as it plays everything straight.

Arghus

Just saw it.

I think it's pretty good but far from flawless, the whole one shot thing is a bit of a gimmick, but there are moments of technical brilliance that just about - just about - justify it's "use".

The film works best as a rollercoaster ride, I don't think it's got anything too profound to say aside from war is hell, but, hey, thank goodness it looks great on the big screen, right!

There are some stand out sequences - the journey through no man's land, that burning town square, the river ride that turns from idyllic to hellish in the blink of an eye - but it's very much an in the moment film. Not much really lingers.

The horror of war is there, but if anything I think the film pulls its punches for me. Death is all around, but it doesn't come in forms we haven't seen before from a War Film - and there is a complete moral hypocrisy in a film that tries to show you the horror of the war - but in the most thrilling spectacle possible.

Another word for the score. It is extremely intrusive and annoying at times. Stretches of the movie are robbed from tension because we have to listen to booming music that really does insist upon itself.

ziedth

I enjoyed it, Really the only part that took me out of it was the the sheer luck landing at that point following jumping in the river. Wild conveniences annoy more more than plot holes to be honest. Didn't twig Blake was Tommen of GoT fame I think he was good in it particularly the march having received the orders but I felt a couple of his lines were a little off, I thought the lad who I don't know who played Scofield was really excellent.

ricero

Thought the soundtrack was forgettable enough except for this beauty along with the fantastic visuals from the night scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqo46lt-8Q4

Technocentral

A real treat for fans of camera driven narratives, me and my mates all in our 50s loved it. 10/10

El Duda

Here is the post credits sting for anyone that missed it:

saabsaab

One of the best films I've seen in quite a while. Maybe some parts were unrealistic but still great. Maybe not a film to bring your girlfriend to..

Irish_rat

Not very believable, a rubbish sniper and walking through a front-line is very far-fetched. Dean-Charles Chapman is bloody annoying to listen to. I found it got better when he kept quiet.

saabsaab

Irish_rat wrote: »

Not very believable, a rubbish sniper and walking through a front-line is very far-fetched. Dean-Charles Chapman is bloody annoying to listen to. I found it got better when he kept quiet.

Yep I also thought the sniper was a terrible shot but it is a film and I thought it was excellent overall

ShaneODub

I thought it was alright. I didn't notice the one-take-shot thing at all until I read a Guardian Review afterwards. Reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, Gallipoli, Apocalypse Now, at different points.

p to the e

By no means perfect but enjoyable. The decision to shoot like a one take was a bit gimmicky and didn't really work. Some of the scenes definitely worked as a long take (crossing no man's land) but others felt forced. The sound track was quite epic but I felt it took you out of the film occasionally when no sound track would have worked just as well.

This film belongs to the sets though. Some great depictions of the dirt and grime in the trenches and a terrifying look at the damage barbed wire can do. Andrew Scott was a highlight even though he was in it for 2 minutes and I just knew Bene-derp Cumber-wobble would pop up in a film about an imperialistic war.

El Duda

I thought Andrew Scott was terrible in this. Like really really bad. Completely took me out of the film. It's like he had 5 minutes to prepare.

There were a couple of other really dodgy pieces of acting. One of the lads on the back of the truck etc..

p to the e

El Duda wrote: »

I thought Andrew Scott was terrible in this. Like really really bad. Completely took me out of the film. It's like he had 5 minutes to prepare.

There were a couple of other really dodgy pieces of acting. One of the lads on the back of the truck etc..

It's funny that I dislike Scott in almost everything else he's done but his penchant for overacting seemed to work here because everyone else was fairly bland.

Actually a question popped into my head during the film. We see a lot of black soldiers interspersed with white soldiers throughout the film. Did this actually occur in WW1 or were they segregated units? I'm sure I could find it online but I'm supposed to be working.

LineOfBeauty

Disagree that it felt gimmicky at all. It was a cool way to link you to the main characters (given how sparse on dialogue the film is and how unashamedly threadbare the plot is) the film is a spectacle and the driving force of that spectacle is dread. Your view of events is the same as the main characters, your view of what is happening isn't shaped by exposition, flashbacks or scenes seeing men in suits talking or making declarations of war, it's linked by the camera tightly following two boys across a battlefield in war-torn Europe.

Not sure it has much re-watchability and certainly don't think it was be nearly as impactful watching it on a tv in your living room, it really has to be seen on the big screen. All in all it was a powerful film, that scene where the camera leaves the main characters for the first time and looks across the city burning at night is a stunning shot. The film never felt bogged down, moved along at a good pace, assisted by some big names popping up in small but important roles (disagree also about the Andrew Scott comment, loved the bit of levity he provided). A war film with a message too, something that perhaps some other big budget recent war films can't quite claim.

One of the best movies of the year, of that I'm sure. Though probably not my pick for number 1 overall, it's still very close to it.

silverharp

Re the comments about the “sniper” being bad shot, we aren’t told he is a sniper, I don’t think his gun had a telescopic sight on it and he didn’t go out of his way to hide himself, it was just a soldier in a building, might not have even been there under orders , could have been sobering up for all we know

pixelburp

p to the e wrote: »

It's funny that I dislike Scott in almost everything else he's done but his penchant for overacting seemed to work here because everyone else was fairly bland.

Actually a question popped into my head during the film. We see a lot of black soldiers interspersed with white soldiers throughout the film. Did this actually occur in WW1 or were they segregated units? I'm sure I could find it online but I'm supposed to be working.

I know there was a huge non-white presence in the ranks of British & French soldiers, mostly taken from the various colonies that still existed then (well, technically French Algeria was mainland France, but it was a colony in all but name), don't have the numbers but it's certainly something either forgotten or ignored in history. Presumably Britain doesn't like to be reminded of its colonial past so its popular history just ignores the thousands of non-white soldiers.

As to the mixing, I'm not sure. Given WW1 was a war that highlighted the deep divisions of class within society (specifically, British), I imagine black & Indian soldiers likely served under white officers and staff. So maybe they were mixed in that sense, as opposed to the film where ordinary grunts appeared to be mixed.

El Duda

1917 – 7.5/10

Though it is beautifully photographed by the Deakmeister, 1917 pales in comparison to Dunkirk. Especially as an iMax experience. The one take approach to the filmmaking worked brilliantly for the most part but it was nowhere near as immersive as what Nolan achieved with Dunkirk. It doesn't help when you have a score that constantly calls attention to itself rather than complimenting whats happening on screen.

From the muckiness of the trenches to the notes being etched into woodwork, they clearly did their research and tried to put as much gory detail in as possible. George McKay’s role reminded me a lot of Leo in The Revenant, battling with the terrain and putting himself through hell in the name of film. Surprised more isn’t being made of his performance.

There are several awkward performances that really took me out of the film. Andrew Scott was terrible, he seemed to think he was in a Tropic Thunder sequel. The absurdity of the plot and the far-fetched chase scenes also took away from any realism that Sam Mendes had built up. I thought the first half, pre blackout was by far the strongest section of the film although the flaming town and blossom scenes are truly gorgeous and Roger Deakins at his very best.

peddlelies

Found this to be fairly overrated, 6.5/10 for me.

Started off well but my attention really began to drift in the last 40 minutes.

Outlaw Pete

Loved it. Seen it in the IMAX and would recommend seeing it there if you can.