1917

Based on events from The Battle of Passchendaele (or Third Battle of Ypres) in WWI

 

Looks like they’re trying to do Saving Private Ryan in WWI with a worser director and worser cast.

 

Another great movie pick, up for multiple Oscar awards, by the great movie-man himself:
Rich McBennett

 

"I'm not sure where all these "intense" comments are coming from. This movie was disappointing with respects to a WW1 war movie. As an art house movie, it's alright."

"I really enjoyed it but a lot of it was due to the technical aspect and cinematography. As a gripping wartime thriller, it was pretty lacking. Kinda like Boyhood was praised for its technical feat, I feel like this is also being praised with such regard due to its technical feat."

In other words, it's kind of shit.

 

Slightly profound from someone who knows nothing about war and even less about movies.
Nice try, though.

Move along, sonny.

 

Nah, he’s right

WWI is the most horrifying of all 20th century conflicts because of its hideous juxtaposition of ancient tactics and modern weaponry ... it’s a caustic stew of dead men rotting face-down in a rat-infested trench, gung ho kids cut to ribbons by machine gun fire as they attempt a charge over the top; young guys gasping desperately for air to cool off their burning lungs in a terrible, agonizing death... it’s shell shock, gangrene, limbs blown off... all a result of a skirmish here, a skirmish there activating a confusing web of alliances this way and that... it’s a completely insane, desperate, grotesque machine of senseless death

A proper film about WWI? You should almost be able to smell it

Gatti’s right, you’re wrong. Just a plucky, can-do, jolly-good, bloody-well limey cunt that should’ve been turned into Swiss Cheese by a Maschinengewehr 08 wielded by Whiskey’s great-great grandpa Gustav on the western front

 

You say this like WWI was a bad thing?

Okay, my main man is WWII which I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone about...respectfully, of course.






BTW, I've not watched 1917 yet.
1917?
Die!teen-seventeen, more like!!!

 

Ypres?


morelike Dië!pres, amiritë?!

 

Saw this a couple nights ago. It's very good. Not close to great, but very good. Of recent War movies, I'd say "Dunkirk" was much better, and "Warhorse" was a much better, and likely much more rewatchable depiction of WWI.

"Saving Private Ryan" is the easiest correlation you can make, only because of the red herring concept they throw at you in the beginning. "You must save the brother." It's not really about saving the brother though. It's more about men in charge manipulating a dude to go on a suicide mission, by dangling the fate of his brother in front of his face.

It's not really "like" any other war movie ever made. Whether that's a bad or a good thing, is perhaps debatable. The sets, the practical effects, the CGI (which must have been pretty seamless, because it was hard to pick out), the way the movie was shot, was very impressive.

Most impressive to me was how they pulled off the vision of how vast these trench systems were. I don't know how they shot it, but they sure made it seem like they dug out miles and miles of trenches specifically for this movie, as they were constantly navigating within these mazes that did not seem like carbon copies of one another.

Camera work was spectacular. Acting was workmanlike, nothing special, but the dialogue didn't really demand much of the actors other then to hit their physical cues on time. Audio, I don't know if it was the theater I was in, but the audio was for shit. Direct opposite of the camerawork on display. If the sound-mixing for "Dunkirk" was a "10", it was more like a "2" on this movie.

The plot was about as simple as you can get in a war film, so not very challenging there, and for all my compliments I have for it, there is just something missing to it. It plays off as very generic and without much personality of it's own for much of it's run-time.

Sam Mendes also made "Jarhead", which is essentially a homage (or rip-off if you prefer), of every Vietnam War movie ever made, set against the backdrop of a War that never really happened for the soldiers who were thrown into it. That said, "Jarhead", had tons of personality and I rewatch the shit out of it on the regular. I doubt that will be the case for me with "1917". Once you've seen it once, well................you've probably seen it all.

Lastly, I did watch it with two veterans. My dad (Vietnam), and my cousin (Afghanistan). They were both complimentary of it, though neither seemed to be overly affected by it very much. My dad made the comment that it portrayed the concept of down-time, and long stretches of nothing happening during wartime realistically, which to me was strange commentary for a movie whose main conceit was the illusion of a continuous tracking shot in real time of two soldiers on a possible suicide mission during the horrors of WWI.

7/10

 

Excellent review.

 

1917 unseated 'Star Wars: Rise of Soywalker' to claim the top spot this weekend with $36.5 million gross. The Disney SW fiasco made a decent, but unimpressive $15.1 million in its fourth week of release.

 

A great post but for one small error you've made.
























Gustav never did get that job done. Elsa got up the pole by Fritz while Gustav was having his bollox blown to bits in Belgium.


Needless to say, Gustav soon put things to rights when he got home.

 

Anything with Benedict Cumbertwat in it is going to be condensed shite in a can. Sorry.

The same fucking dopey autistic cunt-face everytime.

 

Great breakdown but if you’re telling me War Horse is better than this than I think I’ll sit it out because I hated War Horse.

 

How about War Dog?

 

I think War Horse is better, but you might have a different opinion. War Horse is definitely more sentimental and cloying, but parts of it were certainly more harrowing then anything in "1917", and I found it eminently more entertaining, and dare I say, "manipulative".....................which to me, is actually what most movie making is supposed to be, if it's done correctly and not a documentary of some sort.

Spielberg might be the most skilled, "manipulative" film-maker in history.

 

Cumbersnatch is in it for about 3 minutes, tops...so don't let him keep you from seeing it, if it's of any interest.

 

I think there's some obscure British movie Law that says "Under Pain Of Death and By the Power Invested in Me By Wokery, Cumbercocks Special Needs face must feature in every movie for a minimum of 3 minutes "

 

Yes and then some.

 

I'm ashamed to say I've never seen it.

 

A very long hard watch, a la Akiro Kurosawas Kagemusha.

You have to be prepared to sit through it.

 

Do you recommend it? I know most people love Kubrick, but he's a bit hit and miss for me.

 

Paths of Glory is the best WWI movie.

 

Solid movie. Great cinematography.

 

Okay, I´ll have to agree with Gatti here.
I watched 1917 this afternoon and I felt it did lack what you´re saying.
The first 45mins was great, then it dipped mid-way and kind of went dramatic from Rds9-12.

Didn´t care for the story or the acting, but from a technical PoV: brilliant.

7/10