Read User Reviews and Submit your own for 1917 - Page 3

8

prashant99084Feb 23, 2020

I liked the movie very much it has lot of emotions and screenplay is engaging direction is upto the mark

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

kmtd1971Mar 28, 2020

well done set and costume. Great cinematography. I found the 2 main characters seems to have no clues how dangerous war is. Overall the script is good and I totally stay engaged thru the entire film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

ThejodjeremieOct 28, 2020

The movie is non stop tension all the way through and it's great. The cinematography is incredible when it looks like the camera never cuts. The movie does slow down a little at times but it's still great.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

OlavLNov 10, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very good movie. The characters have good chemistry, the scenes are an even mix of depressing and beautiful, and the effects are just amazing. I saw this movie in IMAX, and it did not disappoint. I ended up really liking the main character, and the deaths throughout were really affecting. I also loved how the film tackled the uselessness of war, showing in harrowing detail how many lives were lost for nothing. The way the movie ends in an almost exact replica of the first shot, and reminds you only a day has passed, really makes you think about the endless circle that war feels like. Its a little too long, and a couple of the guest stars felt a little forced, but it was a good movie overall.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

DonnieTrumpJan 28, 2021

The 'everything recorded in one shot' technique is made famous by Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu and Sam Mendez has applied this technique in the same way for 1917. It brings you closer to the action where the viewer follows the actionsThe 'everything recorded in one shot' technique is made famous by Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu and Sam Mendez has applied this technique in the same way for 1917. It brings you closer to the action where the viewer follows the actions of a two soldiers that have the order to stop a battle. The biggest attraction of this movie is however the theme of isolation throughout their campaign. That feeling of isolation is conveyed in a believable and immersive way. The cinematography is one of the greatest in recent history, but the plot is unfortunately a little bit shallow and the movie has also a (misplaced) melancholic sentiment. Small mistakes in a enjoyable movie experience.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

Sarian263Mar 15, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A movie that shows just how horrific but also how heroic our soldiers were during the First World War. Thing about this movie that makes it work so well is that the majority of the movie is all across one take. So from the start to the end, You are following these two young soldiers, these two young lads go through literal hell and all the time your watching it, your biting your nails and on the edge of your seat hoping that they don't get ambushed. The moments where the characters are resting in a open area, you as the audience member are watching around to see if there is anyone there the characters have missed. Almost as if we as the audience are the third member of the group. Fantastic movie well worth a watch!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

HepkunApr 19, 2021

1917 is a thrilling war documentary and also a breathtaking film, the whole movie was edited in almost one cut, until the last few minutes of the film i didn't see a single cut. the immersion in this movie made feel like i was actually there1917 is a thrilling war documentary and also a breathtaking film, the whole movie was edited in almost one cut, until the last few minutes of the film i didn't see a single cut. the immersion in this movie made feel like i was actually there and it also had very good pacing with compiling all the information in the running time, the rating i would give this movie is an 8/10, great plot, great acting, great directing and amazing visuals.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

AgentLviJul 21, 2023

Great movie. The story is decent. The scoring is great, visual is really amazing, the voice & sound is also amazing

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

MarlaIsBackJun 24, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very well directed by Sam Mendes, some scenes like the "poor wayfaring stranger" scene are very powerful.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

azbaJul 16, 2023

Great movie. One of the rare war movies which does not glorify war, making it look like a cool fun adventure. Instead, it shows the destruction, the death all over the place, not only death of humans but also animals, even of the plants.
AlsoGreat movie. One of the rare war movies which does not glorify war, making it look like a cool fun adventure. Instead, it shows the destruction, the death all over the place, not only death of humans but also animals, even of the plants.
Also nice visuals. The only negative for me is that the plot is too predictable.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

marco34laJan 16, 2020

It's a good solid movie, but I felt was over-rated. The action is very predictable when it first happens - and too many stupid stops along the way. Ultimately, this is a short story that was made into 2 hrs. Didn't have the emotional depth orIt's a good solid movie, but I felt was over-rated. The action is very predictable when it first happens - and too many stupid stops along the way. Ultimately, this is a short story that was made into 2 hrs. Didn't have the emotional depth or courage as say a Private Ryan or other war movies.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

7

TyranianJan 24, 2020

Epic war-opera with some amazing scenes, the screenplay won't win awards but the visuals should.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

7

JoeCoolFeb 1, 2020

The continouos one shot of the movie is it's main feature. It unfortunately also limits what can be done in storytelling. In a massive action scene it's really a phenomenal achievement, but in rather boring uneventful scenes you as a viewerThe continouos one shot of the movie is it's main feature. It unfortunately also limits what can be done in storytelling. In a massive action scene it's really a phenomenal achievement, but in rather boring uneventful scenes you as a viewer have to walk the distance. The one shot gimmick makes the movie less enjoyable than it could be IMO. Sticking with at least trying to make it look like it was shot in one go does have downsides. If you admire how movies are made you'll probably be extatic about this one. If you're just in it to see a good movie, you might be slightly disappointed. Don't let the hoarde of one-review 10's fool you. This is not a movie you just have to see for anything other than to marvel at the technical one-shot feat. While it is quite the remarkable achievement it's also it's achilles heel.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

tropicAcesDec 26, 2019

About as good as Dunkirk, so if you thought that was a technical masterpiece then you’ll love this. If you thought it needed a more complex story then this may not be for you. I think both are perfectly fine, albeit not great, war films.About as good as Dunkirk, so if you thought that was a technical masterpiece then you’ll love this. If you thought it needed a more complex story then this may not be for you. I think both are perfectly fine, albeit not great, war films. Deakins is still king, though.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

7

mbeckfordOct 17, 2020

An epic visual masterpiece of the often ignored (at least in this generation) horror of World War I.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

etoppJan 16, 2020

While the (almost) one shot technique is clever, this movie sometimes felt like a first person shooter video game. I was never really invested in the characters. The score was also overblown in places taking me out of the scene. For a trulyWhile the (almost) one shot technique is clever, this movie sometimes felt like a first person shooter video game. I was never really invested in the characters. The score was also overblown in places taking me out of the scene. For a truly memorable film about WWI, watch "Gallipoli" instead.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

7

naufri27May 24, 2020

Secuencias imponentes y una gran interpretación de su actor principal para narrarnos la misión de un soldado anónimo, pasando por diferentes escenarios del frente.
Se echa en falta algo más de crítica social sobre lo que significó la GranSecuencias imponentes y una gran interpretación de su actor principal para narrarnos la misión de un soldado anónimo, pasando por diferentes escenarios del frente.
Se echa en falta algo más de crítica social sobre lo que significó la Gran Guerra.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Voodoo123Feb 10, 2020

1917 looks stunning in places, I was really impressed by the 'one shot'style and some very clever 'impossible camera' moments (esp drifting down into the crater!). Overall impressive production value to be seen here. The story was basic yet I1917 looks stunning in places, I was really impressed by the 'one shot'style and some very clever 'impossible camera' moments (esp drifting down into the crater!). Overall impressive production value to be seen here. The story was basic yet I never quite felt connected to any of the characters and I felt the modern film score was inappropriate in places over blowing the more emotional sequences. To get so much so right within an over saturated genre like this is in itself an achievement so there's that. Worth a look IMO.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

superbatApr 29, 2021

1917 is, in some ways, a mixed bag. From a visual standpoint, the film is a masterpiece. The one-shot technique is executed well. The action scenes are harrowing. The settings in the battlefields are vivid. The film excels at capturing the1917 is, in some ways, a mixed bag. From a visual standpoint, the film is a masterpiece. The one-shot technique is executed well. The action scenes are harrowing. The settings in the battlefields are vivid. The film excels at capturing the brutal and dreadful nature of war. main drawback to this movie is that it focuses on the technical aspects at the expense of a good storyline. The film invests little time in its characters and their backgrounds, as a result of the focus being on the protagonists quest to accomplish their mission. Without that connection to the characters, remaining engaged was difficult. 1917's visuals and technical aspects made it a good war film. However, it falls short of greatness due to a lack of a compelling storyline… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Creeper3455Jan 26, 2020

1917 is not the next big step for movies, besides the craft put onto it, and it's simply devoid of technical achievements. So there.

Now yes, there's the cinematography by Roger Deakins that is, indeed, nice to look at, and makes the movie1917 is not the next big step for movies, besides the craft put onto it, and it's simply devoid of technical achievements. So there.

Now yes, there's the cinematography by Roger Deakins that is, indeed, nice to look at, and makes the movie flow flawlessly, therefore making it a Videogame Movie of sorts, especially in some impressive moments, like Ecòust in the middle of a light **** that also acts like an Escape Level.
But it's also really awful at times. Never have I seen cutaways from people and/or objects as lazy as that.

Look, the thing about 1917 that confuses the hell out of me is why did Sam Mendes work (and boldly direct this big scale epic) with a script that feels like either a Jerry Bruckheimer movie or a Michael Bay movie, since sometimes it makes way for some unnecessary humor to it all because, I guess, we can't replicate the tone of Dunkirk or Hacksaw Ridge.
Characters are just as one note as you'd think, sometimes it's overly serious (like, serious without making sense) and again, about Ecòust, there's a scene that literally stops the plot for no reason other than "squeeze the runtime more".

And what's most disappointing about this movie is Thomas Newman's Score. Now, I love the dude, he's made some of my favourite scores for Animated Movies (Finding Nemo and WALL-E), but there's almost no score in here. It has its moments (its few tension setups, and the character running scene seen in the trailer), but most of it is an annoying bass fest full of "DUN DUN DUN DUNs" that go on and on and on forever.

But I salvage the movie nonetheless because the Artistic craft (Production Design and everything) is oh so gravy! From abandoned German mines to No Man's Land and just a **** of dead bodies surrounding the piece altogether...

So, uhh... yeah. I'm shocked. I wanted to love 1917 as much as everyone else did, and I still hope it gets some Oscar attention, but if this really is the movie they went for...Mah. At least Deakins will be a 2 Time Oscar Winner?… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

7

UridonJan 12, 2020

war is bad, not much more to it. not bad not great
;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;xxfffffffffffffffffffffff

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

CoreGamer1408Jun 2, 2020

The reluctant heroes journey is a timeless tale that never fails to inspire if done well. 1917 did a pretty good job of that narratively. I was not impressed by the early to mid part of the films cinematography. It looked kind of a low budgetThe reluctant heroes journey is a timeless tale that never fails to inspire if done well. 1917 did a pretty good job of that narratively. I was not impressed by the early to mid part of the films cinematography. It looked kind of a low budget small screen production value.The gimmick of trying to present the film as one flowing shot from start to finish didn't really work. It was really easy to spot where the movie was cut up and sewn back together. The film picked up for me after half way. With some really nice cinematography in mid to late action sections. I ended up really rooting for this down to earth guy trying to do his best in the most desperate of times.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

kirkenderMay 10, 2020

World War One movies are so hot right now. This one is fine. The whole "continuous shot" gimmick mostly works and is technically impressive, however what is super grounded realism for the first half, becomes wildly outrageous for the secondWorld War One movies are so hot right now. This one is fine. The whole "continuous shot" gimmick mostly works and is technically impressive, however what is super grounded realism for the first half, becomes wildly outrageous for the second half and feels like a damned John Wick movie. Also for a film "depicting the horrors" of World War One, this is super sterile; which I understand, because it's not a gore filled horror movie, but the film loses it's footing in trying to be realistic and not wanting to be realistic enough to scare people. The first third and the last scene are amazing and totally worth the watch, toss the rest.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

markjamie20Feb 8, 2020

Technically brilliant with the cinematography and editing, but as an actual immersive movie experience it's lacking emotionally and is substantially hollow.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MarkHReviewsFeb 7, 2020

At the end of “1917,” Writer/Director Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” the James Bond installments “Skyfall” and “Spectre”) dedicates the film to his grandfather, “who told us the stories.” For a film so presumably personal, “1917” isAt the end of “1917,” Writer/Director Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” the James Bond installments “Skyfall” and “Spectre”) dedicates the film to his grandfather, “who told us the stories.” For a film so presumably personal, “1917” is surprisingly lacking in both passion and perspective.

Rather than offering any sort of commentary about WW I or the conditions surrounding it, Mendes settles for a formulaic thriller. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) is summoned by his commanding general. The allies have just received intelligence that their forces will be heading into a trap if they mount an offensive against the Germans the following morning. Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) must go through enemy lines to deliver the message to the field commander, located nine miles away, to cancel the attack. If they fail, 1,600 men, including Corporal Blake’s brother, will be slaughtered. The film follows the two corporals’ peril-filled trek to hand-deliver the order and save the troops.

Technically, this film is impeccable. Long shots have been a Hollywood staple for years. They’re usually used to establish an environment. In this case, long shots are used consistently to follow the action, offering a vast visual scope that is sometimes breathtaking. The filming in “1917” is further complicated because Mendes often chooses to track the actors with a single camera that follows the action for several minutes and several hundred yards of movement without any apparent editing. Given these challenges, “1917” is in many ways Cinematographer Roger Deakins’ movie. Deakins has 80 credits as a cinematographer, dating back to 1975. His diverse body of work ranges from “Blade Runner 2049” to “Skyfall” to “Fargo” to “The Big Lebowski.” For “1917,” he is favored to win a second Oscar. His use of light and shadow in this film’s night scene is nothing less than a master class.

The acting is also first-rate. As Schofield, George MacKay’s haunted expressions, stilted gait and thousand-yard stare communicate clearly the costs of war, with no need for exposition to underline the point. Familiar faces Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch lend their gravitas at key points.

But ultimately, Mendes has made a war movie with a surprising air of detachment. We learn little about the characters along the way, other than their single-minded determination to accomplish their goal. We come to understand that this “war to end all wars” was intensely personal, with enemies often shot up close, stabbed or even strangled with bare hands. But commentary about this fact, or any larger points about war or human nature, is absent. As a result, “1917” is a war film that’s surprisingly bloodless.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

AJGo85Feb 9, 2020

There are not many films about World War I. The most well-known ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrillingThere are not many films about World War I. The most well-known ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrilling action-war movie. It is also such an immersive and intense experience that without making any overt political statement it is firmly an antiwar film. It may be a good, thrilling movie but it is never exciting in the way an adventure movie is exciting. Even in the quiet moments 1917 makes you want to be as far away from this war as possible and hope another one like it never happens.

The plot is simple and very straightforward. Two young British soldiers are selected to deliver a message to a distant regiment calling off an attack the next morning. If the attack goes forward 1,600 soldiers, including the brother of one of the messengers, will charge into a trap. The encounters Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and Georgy MacKay) have as they make their journey across enemy territory are what you might expect from a story about soldiers on a mission: attacks from the enemy, crossing paths with another group of soldiers, finding shelter that is actually dangerous, even stumbling across a villager trying to care for a child. 1917 isn’t a total onslaught to the senses for two hours though. There are respites here and there that allow us to get to know Blake and Schofield. There are some surprising cameos by well-known British actors along the way too (or unsurprising if you’ve seen the trailer or the cast list on IMDb). Fortunately, none of these cameos take you out of the movie (Andrew Scott and Mark Strong could slip comfortably into just about any movie).

Director Sam Mendes employs long takes and expert, precise cinematography by Roger Deakins and stealthy editing by Lee Smith to make the film look and feel as though it exists in one long unbroken shot. This gimmick works well for the movie when it is not distracting. In its successful moments the one-shot effect is largely responsible for the film’s frantic, immersive effect. The climatic sequence of Schofield running like mad across the top of a trench as a battle begins to find the colonel to call off the attack makes excellent use of the one shot effect; it had me gripping the armrests of my seat. Also, the nighttime sequence in a bombed-out village where flairs illuminate the night with a bright, eerie white light and a fire rages in the distance is surreal and terrifying. Other scenes, however, like when a group of soldiers (and the camera) climb into the back of a truck, then get out to push the truck, then climb back in again feel like they are straining to keep the shot unbroken. Though I think there’s nothing in 1917 that couldn’t have been achieved with conventional editing, I understand why Mendes chose to present his film as a single unbroken shot. It puts us right there with the two soldiers and we are as unsure as they are of what will happen next. There are two consequences of using the one-shot/single-take gimmick in a war film. 1) Whether intentional or not, the one-shot effect, which keeps the camera right behind, or in front of, or over the shoulder of the characters, along with the nature of the story makes the film feel like a video game at certain times. This is not really a fault against the film. It is more likely due to video games being influenced by movies and then filtering back into the culture, but the comparison comes to mind nonetheless. 2) I think all of the focus and talk surrounding the one-shot effect actually diverts attention away from the harrowing experience of the characters in the film. 1917 has already won several awards and praise as a technical achievement (which it certainly is). I just hope people can get past the film’s style to fully appreciate and experience the events on screen.

1917 only tangentially touches on the larger scale of the war. One character makes a background comment on the unimpressive patch of land they’ve been fighting the Germans over for years. Mendes chose not to focus on the politics of the war but instead tell the story of the enlisted men that fought in the trenches and in open fields. This movie is based in part on the experiences of Lance Corporal Alfred Mendes, Sam Mendes’s grandfather, to whom the film is dedicated. Mends co-wrote the screenplay, his only writing credit. For all the unrelenting action in 1917, the final shot makes this an emotional and affecting movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

9261mcanJan 10, 2020

I saw it in an IMAX theater so it was great photography. However, I saw flaws such: 1) Who milked the cow - milk was in the pail but where did it come from? 2) All the building/houses were bombed out- didn't just one remain intact 3) WhenI saw it in an IMAX theater so it was great photography. However, I saw flaws such: 1) Who milked the cow - milk was in the pail but where did it come from? 2) All the building/houses were bombed out- didn't just one remain intact 3) When his friend died, the field took the military ID and later gave it to the brother - but one purpose of the ID is to identify the dead - ID is put into the mouth in order to identify him later on. Not Oscar best picture material - only won the Foreign Press Golden Globe Best Picture due to British relevancy.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

7

Ubik08Feb 2, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Spoilers - I enjoyed 1917 and it moderately rather than fully conveyed the horrors of living and fighting in trenches. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia or Beevors Stalingrad convey it more effectively. Or just watch old footage and photos. Soldiers in trenches always get live, are slee and food deprived. They all looked a little tii clean and healthy. I thought the plot had a few gaping holes Why didn't they just drop the orders off by and? Plus I don't think the German pilot would have stabbed his buddy in reality. However it's a rip roaring adventure with enjoyable cameos from many British actor s at the top of their game. I enjoyed it and best viewed in the cinemaalwayss get… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

SimonsRantsSep 16, 2020

Compelling visuals and masterful technical filmmaking from cinematography to editing to sound mixing - all fantastic (although, some of the "invisible cuts" were blatantly obvious)
The fact that it's based on Sam Mendes' grandfathers memoirsCompelling visuals and masterful technical filmmaking from cinematography to editing to sound mixing - all fantastic (although, some of the "invisible cuts" were blatantly obvious)
The fact that it's based on Sam Mendes' grandfathers memoirs also makes it all the more compelling. But it has many drawbacks not the least of which is that the single cut style never stops feeling like a gimmick in this film - unlike in Birdman where you're absorbed into the story - so the film itself never stops quite feeling like a gimmick either.
It also suffers from a lack of having much to say as the plot is a rather basic A B C plot with no surprises or messages to make you think in the least. Just a standard story with nothing new or original to say. Now, it tells that story well but it's not particularly compelling in any way if you've seen other more masterful war movies. To call 1917 a war film may not be entirely fair or accurate either as it feels much more akin to a thriller. But even then, it's not quite thrilling enough to be a thriller so perhaps just a war drama?
It's a masterfully made film with very few technical flaws but with many, many storytelling flaws. Far from a bad film, but still almost just as far from being great - definitely good though, just unfortunately not much more than good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MovieRiffingJan 25, 2020

Sam Mendes' 1917 delivers some truly awe-inspiring set pieces with the aid of its one-shot effect, but fails to take advantage of it when trying to bring stress levels back down to Earth for its quieter scenes. Not only does it not take fullSam Mendes' 1917 delivers some truly awe-inspiring set pieces with the aid of its one-shot effect, but fails to take advantage of it when trying to bring stress levels back down to Earth for its quieter scenes. Not only does it not take full advantage of it, but at times the one-shot becomes truly distracting and out of place due to wonky camera work. 1917's spikes of gorgeous tension make it a must-see film, just one that does not live up to its potential.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

glommanOct 20, 2022

Don't get me wrong the whole one-shot camera thing is an incredibly brilliant idea and delivers a really immersive experience, but this movie honestly doesn't have much else going on besides that. It follows the same images of WWI you'veDon't get me wrong the whole one-shot camera thing is an incredibly brilliant idea and delivers a really immersive experience, but this movie honestly doesn't have much else going on besides that. It follows the same images of WWI you've probably seen dozens of times, the characters, although walking through trauma, are mostly flat. The Germans are just plain evil henchmen getting mowed down or just plain insidious whenever the chance arises (as per usual).
I really don't see how this movie is supposed to be special, once you take the incredible camera work away, it becomes a desolate wasteland of caricatures.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

aukalenderFeb 13, 2022

A looker. The movie is basically a one-shot (yes I know they disguise the cuts). It is very immersive. Saw this with my mother, who, like me, does not really have a massive thing for the war movie genre. But we were both gripped. The mostlyA looker. The movie is basically a one-shot (yes I know they disguise the cuts). It is very immersive. Saw this with my mother, who, like me, does not really have a massive thing for the war movie genre. But we were both gripped. The mostly unknown lead actors delivered greatly. Same for Andrew Scott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth and Richard Madden who jolted the movie with energy in the few scenes they were in. The story is pretty thin, but this is a movie and not a novel. It does not need a convoluted story and incredible dialogue to be compelling. Good acting, great shots, some dramatic music here and there and boom Bob's your uncle.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

keanureveesMar 16, 2020

As someone who isn't big on war movies, I wasn't sure how I'd feel about this, and now, after I've seen it I'm still not too sure. There's a lot to like. Visually it's stunning, with the directing and cinematography (the Écoust scenes were myAs someone who isn't big on war movies, I wasn't sure how I'd feel about this, and now, after I've seen it I'm still not too sure. There's a lot to like. Visually it's stunning, with the directing and cinematography (the Écoust scenes were my favourite part of the film); I also really liked the brotherhood between the soldiers that drove the story. The story as a whole, however, felt a bit flat to me and I feel like the ending was missing...something. Again, mixed emotions, but, without a doubt, worth the trip to the cinema.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

notor12Jan 10, 2020

Unfortunately, the one-shot gimmick seemed to limit the scope of the story to a point which ultimately harmed the film overall....Many of the sequences and plot points come across as being in service to maintaining this one uninterrupted shotUnfortunately, the one-shot gimmick seemed to limit the scope of the story to a point which ultimately harmed the film overall....Many of the sequences and plot points come across as being in service to maintaining this one uninterrupted shot instead of the shot being in service to the story. That would have been fine if this problem arose here or there, but it is a pervasive throughout.

That said, the film does what it set out to do and it does it well. It carries great emotional weight in certain places in part thanks to the uninterrupted shot style. It is highly suspenseful in places. It just doesn't tell much of a story; It's sort of like designing an entire movie around a chase sequence. People may be in imminent peril at all times, but there are no stakes for the audience unless you develop your characters so that we know them, empathize with them, and care about them.

That is why the comparisons to Saving Private Ryan don't make sense to me....There was much, much more character development and story in Saving Private Ryan than in this film. There was a simple objective in both, but far less plot linearity towards that objective in Saving Private Ryan. Being limited to two characters in an unbroken shot also caused some awkward moments where the characters had to basically tell the audience what was happening instead of the film showing them, which was jarring and took me out of the moment.

This isn't a bad movie.....but it isn't an all time great war movie either. World War I was such a disastrously stupid war and it boggles my mind that no film to take up the subject to date has quite captured its utter folly or causes. This film carries such a narrow focus it does not really do the war justice, in a sense. It focuses on the glory and the bravery of the individuals who fought it (of which there was plenty) but glory can obfuscate the truth when it is removed from its context; That truth here, where millions died for little to no good reason at all, and they knew it too.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

7

jkatchesJan 11, 2020

It is truly remarkable how both cast and crew pulled this together. It’s a filmmaking experience and achievement that should be recognized.

I was able to catch most of where the cuts were hiding, there was one or two were I wasn’t sure howIt is truly remarkable how both cast and crew pulled this together. It’s a filmmaking experience and achievement that should be recognized.

I was able to catch most of where the cuts were hiding, there was one or two were I wasn’t sure how they did it. Very cool to see it all as a “one take”

The strongest point of the film was audience identification with the protagonists. You learned and experienced everything with them. In that way the movie reminds me a lot of a campaign video game. There’s interactions and action along the way. It was a very immersive experience.

The only part I thought was lacking was the emotional connection. I didn’t feel a great emotional high watching it. If someone is smart and applies this same way of filmmaking to a horror, apocalyptic, zombie survival type of movie then they will make big money. Because I believe this type of shooting shines in that suspenseful edge of your seat ride. Overall loved the movie! Well worth seeing in theaters!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

KatanaVoidFeb 13, 2020

1917 has one of the best photographies and editing that Hollywood has ever seen, but Sam Mendes doesn't make a good plot or an interesting debate about WW1 and its surroundings, instead, he makes a beautiful and technically impeccable movie,1917 has one of the best photographies and editing that Hollywood has ever seen, but Sam Mendes doesn't make a good plot or an interesting debate about WW1 and its surroundings, instead, he makes a beautiful and technically impeccable movie, but with an almost unimportant story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Legit_LeeJan 18, 2021

Every time a heard a gun shot i shat my pants, it tasted like my custom made cum pancakes ;)

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

JordanLaytonApr 28, 2020

This movie is nearly pure spectacle. Jaw-dropping scenes of the journey of these two soldiers across a war torn France only break for small spurts of effective pathos injections a handful of times. Otherwise, this movie is a beautiful andThis movie is nearly pure spectacle. Jaw-dropping scenes of the journey of these two soldiers across a war torn France only break for small spurts of effective pathos injections a handful of times. Otherwise, this movie is a beautiful and technically impressive ride through WWI. Being made to look like it was done in one shot puts you directly into the shoes of the soldiers but I'm not sure that makes up for the cost of losing the emotion that regular editing usually conveys. 1917 pushes the boundaries of what is possible in film making, but I just didn't connect to it quite as much as I wanted to.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

AuthoJan 17, 2021

In my opinion, it was pretty tense and entertaining. Although maybe it was because I watched it on a plane, with a massive headache.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Gamzguy17Aug 21, 2021

Playing like Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" where the film is simulated to be all done in one take, "1917" could have easily been more gritty and ambitious with its subject matter and film techniques, but it nonetheless delivers as a characterPlaying like Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" where the film is simulated to be all done in one take, "1917" could have easily been more gritty and ambitious with its subject matter and film techniques, but it nonetheless delivers as a character study with a solid grasp on the awful historic war.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

DarkwingSchmuckJul 27, 2023

1917 is as much of a showcase for Roger Deakins as anything -- as if he needed it. This is very much deserving of its comparisons to Dunkirk, or even something like The Revenant or Gravity; a film to watch for its technical merits, historical1917 is as much of a showcase for Roger Deakins as anything -- as if he needed it. This is very much deserving of its comparisons to Dunkirk, or even something like The Revenant or Gravity; a film to watch for its technical merits, historical significance, and high stakes action more so than for any sort of strong emotional core or story thread.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

RekiazJan 17, 2023

Solo los efectos y fotografía me encantaron, lo demás es bueno, pero no memorable para mí.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

CarlElmoreNov 22, 2022

The cinematography and lighting are absolutely amazing but the characters and writing are just okay.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

ObsessedMeatJun 6, 2023

This movie is OK. Many movies on World War I were made, and many are better than this, even if its enjoyable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

leraje9Sep 9, 2023

The fact that it was recorded in one take is already an achievement, excellent acting

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

RTMJan 5, 2020

The movie was tense, and gorgeously shot, but with so many limitations. I see where Mendes was going with this, in the way of wanting the viewer to see art, and the tension accomplished with the one long take. The problem is the long singleThe movie was tense, and gorgeously shot, but with so many limitations. I see where Mendes was going with this, in the way of wanting the viewer to see art, and the tension accomplished with the one long take. The problem is the long single shot approach here, can be exhausting, and not particularly enjoyable with this narrative. Great performances by the two young boys. But again, the development of the characters was minimal. I found myself just wanting it to be over, and not caring about them much. Lastly, for a war time movie, it was actually boring. Not enough to keep the viewer engaged. I witnessed many in the theater squirming and getting restless. Not exactly the reaction I'd expect. Overall a good movie that I wanted to be great. In the end I found myself looking for a "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Thin Red Line" type of movie.… Expand

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

6

CMCFeb 9, 2020

Typical Hollywood fare, one long video game, overly sentimental manipulative music that does not even manipulate well, a series of contrived shots art-directed to give the cinematography visual opportunities, deeply unsatisfyingTypical Hollywood fare, one long video game, overly sentimental manipulative music that does not even manipulate well, a series of contrived shots art-directed to give the cinematography visual opportunities, deeply unsatisfying underdeveloped characters, lost opportunities for character interactions that could have communicated something deeper, predictable plot. The reviews by the New Yorker, Roger Ebert, New York Times and Los Angeles Times are all spot-on. How could so many other reviewers say those stupid things and award the movie a 100 score? I give it a 6 only because it is more watchable than most movies, but these days that sure is not saying much. Many cite Saying Private Ryan, but that film had much more humanity to it. It does not hold a candle to The Thin Red Line, or possibly more importantly, Paths of Glory.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

premium_sauceApr 14, 2020

It’s a shame I was really looking forward to watching this movie. Extremely strong start, great first 40min and then it all went downhill.. the pilot scene for example, why would the German stab Schofield’s friend? Already outnumbered, BritsIt’s a shame I was really looking forward to watching this movie. Extremely strong start, great first 40min and then it all went downhill.. the pilot scene for example, why would the German stab Schofield’s friend? Already outnumbered, Brits showed empathy yet any human being wouldn’t be stupid enough to commit an act that gets you killed but rather opt to get captured. Écoust city plot sealed it off for me, how can the Germans miss so many shots, run behind a guy without even bothering aiming… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

GreatMartinJan 10, 2020

Right now "1917" having already winning the Best Picture Golden Globe is the front runner for Best Picture Oscar. After seeing the picture it is obvious that the visual technique of director's Sam Mendes's collaboration with cinematographerRight now "1917" having already winning the Best Picture Golden Globe is the front runner for Best Picture Oscar. After seeing the picture it is obvious that the visual technique of director's Sam Mendes's collaboration with cinematographer Roger Deakins is what makes this movie rate so high. It looks like the picture has been made in one continuous take with 2-3 exceptions which are carefully explained in the script by Sam Mendes, with the help of Krysty-Wilson Cairns and based on stories told by his uncle Alfred Mendes.

The story is a basic one of two young British soldiers who have to deliver a message to stop a raid which would be a deathtrap for 1600 men, one being a brother of one of the soldiers. One of the illogical parts of the script is that the two men are are too inexperienced to take on a task but 1) going to the movies in most cases you have to park your logic out in the lobby and 2) this takes place at the beginning of the movie when you are caught up in the film's technique so by the time you get involved with the story itself they have picked up much needed experience along with many coincidences that might not ring true.

The two leads, Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, are more than adequate, with one carrying a heavier load than the other, while there are many cameos from such actors as Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden, Daniel Mays and Claire Duburcq.

"1917" is interesting for the way it appears to have been filmed but there have been much better war movies in the past and certainly better movies in 2019.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

6

foxgroveJan 12, 2020

A film demonstrating style and technique over strong story telling. The result is actually quite slow and, dare one say, boring. This is a movie that does not match the sum of its parts. George Mackay is very good in the lead and Sam MendesA film demonstrating style and technique over strong story telling. The result is actually quite slow and, dare one say, boring. This is a movie that does not match the sum of its parts. George Mackay is very good in the lead and Sam Mendes direction, whilst to be applauded on an aesthetic level, is lacking in pace. He has to take the blame for this as the one shot gimmick leaves little room to blame it on the editing. Roger Deakins' cinematography is an amazing achievement, and the production design looks like it should for a war zone/ battlefield. Sound is great when dealing with planes and explosions but simple dialogue is sometimes hard to understand. The score, although not hummable, works very well within the film and is very effective in underlying what is going on screen.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

VickimageMar 7, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 1917 is a gimmicky disappointment. The one-continuous-take conceit doesn’t work because the film ends up looking like a Call of Duty video game. You never feel any real connection with the two central characters on their dangerous mission. The other issue is that having different set pieces every 20 minutes or so - in which characters are in inevitable peril - feels contrived and undermines the film’s supposed authenticity. A stunt involving a plane has been pinched straight from Hitchcock’s North By Northwest. The first 15 minutes - in which the characters go through no man’s land - is the best in the picture. After that it is downhill.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

vitortfvDec 16, 2020

The story itself does not bring many surprises and the fact that it continues to be shot in sequence, perhaps has attracted the attention of many. In addition, beautiful photography.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

AxeTJan 17, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The simplest storyline against the backdrop of great war it's more an exercise in high concept moving camera bravura filmmaking than a moving great war movie. Wisely given a mission plot which creates suspense it also tries hard for emotion with the tried and true brothers in arms sentiment, but it seems the main motivation was to make a seemingly seamless one shot feature length motion picture with no editing which has been done before going back to at least Hitchcock but perhaps never to this level of technical achievement traveling through such distance and complex choreographed action. While very impressive it doesn't make for the most impactful experience which cutting across time and space affords. (There is one obvious cut and several transitions that certainly were used to disguise cuts, besides ability of VFX to now eliminate such.) Hands down it should win the Oscar for Best Cinematography, but with big British stars only in cameos and unknowns in the leads the ride is somewhat diminished.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

thatpowerFeb 5, 2020

Great soundtrack, cinematography and visuals. Generic and uninteresting plot.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

Mauro_LanariJan 24, 2020

(Mauro Lanari)
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play" ("Wargames": Badham, 1983)
A (suicide?) mission as an existential journey in the "no man's land" between two (enemy?) trenches, a "zone" which lies between the ghostly(Mauro Lanari)
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play" ("Wargames": Badham, 1983)
A (suicide?) mission as an existential journey in the "no man's land" between two (enemy?) trenches, a "zone" which lies between the ghostly landscape of "Stalker" (Tarkovskij, 1979) and the endopsychic one of "The Dead Zone" (King, 1979; Cronenberg, 1983), a borderline area between life and death. This is the fascinating fulcrum of "1917", not the inevitable technical virtuosity in "Oscar bait" function and still less a too often shameless playstation perspective, but the odyssey to deliver the counter-order to cancel an attack, the sense of spatiotemporal suspension, the deliberate following of (almost) empty moments, the persisted stalemates, "The Wrong Move" ("False Bewegung") of circularity, and that's what differentiates it from the journey of the soldier Bardamu, of Captain Willard, of Commander Bowman, of Captain Miller (Spielberg continues to produce Mendes with DreamWorks). "I am a poor wayfaring stranger / While traveling thru this world of woe". A little beyond sufficiency.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

Jason_bJan 9, 2020

This move does a lot of things really really well. The continuous shot concept is inventive and at times spectacular. Insanely detailed sets on a huge scale. MacKay and Chapman's performances are excellent. Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins createThis move does a lot of things really really well. The continuous shot concept is inventive and at times spectacular. Insanely detailed sets on a huge scale. MacKay and Chapman's performances are excellent. Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins create an intensely suspenseful and shockingly realistic version of World War I. However, it lags in a few crucial areas. Namely overall tone: It drums up a lot of suspense but then it also has a lot of repetitive and boring walking scenes. Production: The continuous shot concept kind of falls apart when it's not a huge action sequence. Especially when there's a lot of conversations happening at once. It's missing natural transitions and breaks in conversations. I get that it's based on a true story but aside from the soon to be famous climax this was a sort of interesting take on a largely uneventful story.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

6

LawrenceCJan 13, 2020

Beautiful cinematography, but apart from it, it's only Call of Duty feat. Woody and chubby Leo DiCaprio

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

andyfilm24Feb 16, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Finally got to see 1917. A film I was hoping to see in IMAX. Thank goodness I didn't. It was a real disappointment. Great visual effects and art direction, but I lean more to watching a good story, with characters I care about. 1917, didn't have the latter. I think more time was spent on the blocking and building eye-popping sets than on the script. The character of Lance Corporal Blake was killed off WAY too soon. I would have like to have seen more time with him interacting with his friend, Lance Corporal Schofield. I think this made the film mostly cold and unfeeling. I didn't really make me feel anything when Blake was killed or the meeting of Blake's older brother. Want to see a good, emotional war flick? See Saving Private Ryan, or try to find Gallipoli.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

zmgalen2000Dec 28, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Allow me to start with a disclaimer: 1917 is an excellently-acted and directed film whose aesthetics are visually captivating. It truly is worthy of the cinematic praise it is receiving. However, where it falls short is its historical significance and missed-out enlightening opportunities. With a one-dimensional plot solely focused on the trek of one soldier to deliver a letter (sans providing any relevant historical context), 1917 is a suspenseful, gripping film whose appeal slowly fades throughout its repetitive runtime of just under two hours. Don't get me wrong -- the film is a fabulous source of entertainment and certainly a cinematic masterpiece. As a historical piece, however, 1917 lacks the poignancy that would have made the film a complete home-run, stopping at around third base.… Expand

3 of 11 users found this helpful38

All this user's reviews

5

OlivierPielJan 18, 2020

Why set this movie in 1917? That year was the most immobile miserable part of the war on the Western front! Setting this aside, we are constantly reminded of the technical prowess ("look at this trenchline that goes on forever", "what aWhy set this movie in 1917? That year was the most immobile miserable part of the war on the Western front! Setting this aside, we are constantly reminded of the technical prowess ("look at this trenchline that goes on forever", "what a beautifully lit night scene"...) at the expense of any real sense of involvement and feelings apart from the death of the first protagonist. Some scenes are so caricatural and preposterous it reminded me of the worst in the Revenant. Some reviewers felt like in a computer game, and they are right!… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

5

DeanomiteJan 17, 2020

Roger Deakins is the most famous cinematographer working today, he gets movies made (finally got an oscar after numerous Coen movies, for BladeRunner 2049). The big thing here is that it's supposed to be 1 long take, Birdman pulled it off aRoger Deakins is the most famous cinematographer working today, he gets movies made (finally got an oscar after numerous Coen movies, for BladeRunner 2049). The big thing here is that it's supposed to be 1 long take, Birdman pulled it off a few years ago to great trophies, Children of Men is the gold standard of long takes. Sam Mendes is a talented guy, he made the gorgeous Road to Perdition, then a lot of forgettable Bond movies, this is not impressive as a work of direction. Colin Firth is always brilliant (best movie is A Single Man). Honestly i got bored about 20 minutes in and just stayed there, the song ending the second act really drove that home. I liked the Rudyard Kipling quote "He travels fastest who travels alone." A much much better recent WW1 thing was They Shall Not Grow Old, it was amazing by Peter Jackson.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

DeathravenJan 26, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Mediocre
TL;DR Dull and boring but nice cinematography.
Fail to make me feel the horros of war.
Have a lot of cliche like every river in any movie have a waterfall.
They basicaly walk.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

5

xlt3000Jan 28, 2020

Has some good moments, but overall overrated.
It's not really interesting watching two men run all over the battlefield, surviving when they really shouldn't, and portraying the enemy in the typical way they are portrayed in the past 60 yearsHas some good moments, but overall overrated.
It's not really interesting watching two men run all over the battlefield, surviving when they really shouldn't, and portraying the enemy in the typical way they are portrayed in the past 60 years (automatons that can't shoot straight, are evil, and drop dead when the hero shoots at them once). If you're looking for a gritty realistic WW1 film, this isn't it.
And it's a bloody shame, because the director obviously was aware of how to create great war cinematography. The large scale assaults are great to look at. If only the film had been more of a classic realistic war film with such scenes, rather than a largely boring film of a single man running through Germans in enemy held territory like James Bond.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

ahmettvanMar 12, 2020

A regular movie that has the same strengths and weaknesses but I recommend watching the movie.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

hnestlyontheslyMar 2, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 1917 was designed to make you feel really, really sad and hate rats more than you already did, but the fact that it has received so much critical love I think requires us to think more deeply about whether or not it understands contemporary cultural anxieties relative to the other films we have had on offer this year. We're doing a full review with spoilers. Sam Mendes's take on the war film genre isn't especially novel, but some of his approach shows that an update was a long time coming. 1917 fits nicely into the zeitgeist of nihilistic skepticism. It is a war film that for the most part does away with any heroic shoot-em-up scenes. After our first protagonist, played by the fabulous best-friend Dean-Charles Chapman from Blinded by the Light, dies in a particularly grisly way, stabbed in the belly by a German pilot as he tends to the pilot's burns--this death reduced Wife to tears for the next two hours--she said to me, "I don't want to watch anymore," and when I asked her if she wanted to leave, she said, "No"--talk about complicated feelings about a movie--the focus shifts to our new main guy played by George MacKay. MacKay spends most of the rest of the film running ignobly as fast as his feet will carry him through the rubble of bombed out cities, scurrying past patrols with stormtrooper-like aim, even pushing his way past his his own men after his arrives late-but-not-too-late to the first wave of soldiers being sent off to certain doom. Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) is set up originally as the grisled vet who's seen worse days at the beginning of the film. LC Blake moons over Schofield's participation in a storied past battle and cannot seem to understand how and why Schofield might have lost his medal from those days. Schofield seems like he is destined to die in order to create stakes for the growth of our young idealist who needs to grow up in the 48 hours it'll take for him to reach the new front and save his brother, but instead, the film inverts our expectations by gutting the innocent younger brother character before the mission has really even begun. Even Schofield's finest hour, his shoot-out with the sniper after receiving way, way too much advice from a very chatty Mark Strong, is bookended by a bit of a slapstick moment from the trailer where he's knocked back down the stairs as he comes upon the injured German. The glamor of his kill is undercut by the way that his fall disrupts the continuity of the take and possibly dooms the mission, as an inexplicable amount of time has passed while he's been out. The objective presentation of corpses in 1917 is an accomplishment. They are not used as spectacle or in order to evoke moral outrage, rather, they serve to strengthen a sense of disconnect between soldiers and their humanity. Blake stares as curiously at the carcass of a dead horse just before No Man's Land as Schofield does when he's making his way through muck and accidentally shoves his arm chest deep into a human corpse. Schofield's sudden dip into the river would have been a pretty standard juxtaposition of the madness of battle with the peace of nature, cherry blossoms coating the surface of a calm stream leading into a lake. It would have recalled Blake's powerful pronouncement about the cherry trees cut down at the farm in his final scene: when the fruit rots and the seeds sprout, there'll be more trees than ever here. But that added twist of the knife, having Schofield tearfully clamber over floating corpses to get his footing is really what ties the two experiences together: not only is the river a means of connecting us with Schofield's memory of his friend or a haven from the chaos, but it is also littered with dozens of indiscernible bodies of young men from both sides, blocking the "sieve" from his bedtime story to the child in town. Only now, the sieve is not a ship unready for sea, a symbol for the hopelessness and cruelty of powers beyond these young men's control, but the men themselves are the sieve. Generally, I'm pleased with the direction, the cinematography, the action, and the pacing, but I don't see what is so innovative about this form of storytelling or even its cultural significance relative to some of the other films made this year. It's a film made up of an almost entirely white cast, bankable English stars whose cameos are either awkwardly long or puzzlingly short, and its only female character's actions are basically 1) act frightened, 2) care for stranger's baby, 3) thank soldier for milk, 4) unsuccessfully ask him to stay in her hovel. I want to resist making comparisons to Dunkirk, because I don't want to inadvertantly compliment Dunkirk by placing it next to another film on the same level of slightly disappointing, but what I will say is that the structural complexity of Dunkirk enabled it to tell a much less conventional story. 1917 is a little bit trapped by its own cinematic limitations. Much more review on the site.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Dcuniverse101Feb 19, 2020

The cinematography is beautiful and the single shot visual is an amazing feat, however with this comes a long winded plot with a lot of empty unnecessary scenes which deeply affects the overall pacing of the film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

jovincenMay 2, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Beautiful movie focuses on amazing scenery and themes and characters. Supporting characters were well written and great. The main characters.... and are horribly flawed and a massive let down.

I really wanted to enjoy the movie but found the 2 main characters totally ruined the movie for me. I found their story ark, decision making and follow through very frustrating... First 30 minutes was the best part of the movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

EmmalynnJun 23, 2021

Outstanding story, a story you could hear from one of your relatives and such a sad truth about the time and the horrific times of world war 1. Best cinematography I’ve seen in awhile, and amazing performances by whole cast.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

ibbsteDec 26, 2019

Typically, if you're going to employ an ostentatious filmmaking device it should be to serve a story. Unfortunately, in 1917, the story is completely perfunctory in the service of a gimmick that got old after Hitchcock already perfected it inTypically, if you're going to employ an ostentatious filmmaking device it should be to serve a story. Unfortunately, in 1917, the story is completely perfunctory in the service of a gimmick that got old after Hitchcock already perfected it in Rope. Deakins' consistency in tracking is impressive, I suppose, and there are some interesting images, but it is far from being one of the more interesting photographic achievements in film this year, and it really did feel like watching friends playing a video game right down to adjusting angles/perspectives and the occasionally random side characters say throwaway lines and breaks where you hear some random superior officer give expository dialogue directing the player on where they should be headed next.

As a history buff, I do think there's a valuable opportunity to present a proper World War I film to audiences who otherwise know very little about the context that led to the second World War, of which the marketplace is saturated with by comparison. There were some details that give context to the event, but it does little to nothing to offer audiences a substantive idea of the true horrors of the war other than the occasionally panning to a decomposing body part or blunt exposition in a speaking manner that no soldier of the time would speak like. The characters were supposed to show camaraderie but acted like any display of affection or sympathy for one another would have come with a fear of a contemporary "no homo" from their fellow soldiers (by comparison, see 1927's "Wings" where the men practically make out with each other in the end). Your friend is dying and not even a hug or kiss on the forehead before leaving him? You meet someone coming to terms with profound loss and a simple handshake suffices? Men in that time were not that self-conscious.

The climax of the film is the only sequence of the film I felt was truly gripping and felt any real stakes, until it goes right back into Saving Private Richard Madden at the end. Is the story *at all* interesting? No. Is it well made? Not particularly, unless a "well made" film is divorced from any sense of purpose or meaning to filming something logistically challenging! Sadly I thought this film was rather silly and a profoundly missed opportunity.… Expand

4 of 14 users found this helpful410

All this user's reviews

4

GinaKJan 17, 2020

A very long, very dull, more or less competent war movie. The only reason I made it through was the acting, which was believable if a bit naive in style and often bordered on the sentimental. Anyone who manages to sit through this movieA very long, very dull, more or less competent war movie. The only reason I made it through was the acting, which was believable if a bit naive in style and often bordered on the sentimental. Anyone who manages to sit through this movie deserves an Academy Award more than the director.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

KamamuraFeb 29, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Alice in Wonderland, this time in WW1 settings. Wrap three layers of plot armor around your body and stumble with your invulnerable main protagonist through drunken-like series of seductive, yet hard-to-believe but Oscar-ready imagery where most characters are just paper-thin cut-outs of this artificially dramatized Betlem of strangely sanitary war horrors, finished with liberal helpings of ham-fisted symbolism. Sakura blossoms falling into the river signifying the vanity of human efforts and hopes? Check, got those! Maria with innocent child, saved by a field flask of milk randomly filled from a fly-infested burnt farm? Check! Although the Sam/Frodo dynamics dies early with the demise of Sam who learns the hard way about the risks of saving big Germans from crashed planes, Frodo is not alone on his quest for Mordor - others went "the other way around the barn", and strangely get way ahead of him, to hand him a helping hand, a helpful truck ride and useful info as needed, so that next computer-generated marvel can seamlessly pick up the drama where the last moment left off. From miles and miles of barren farmland to immediately adjacent ruins filled with devious snipers, to ruined houses filled with desperate survivors to lush forest full of troops getting ready for that last push, not bothering even to post simple sentries. Run parallel to charging troops through the frontline, through both friendly and enemy fire, because what the heck, we are the camera wrapped up in plot armor. Be there just in time to save private Ryan to finally rest against the Silver Tree of Lothlorien. So much drama and pretty choreography (at the expense of believable story, historical accuracy and well, common sense). What, no Oscar? Blimey, mate, maybe next time, eh?… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

GazMoviesOct 16, 2020

Was pretty slow and boring for the most part. I didn't really care for this considering all the hype it got. There a lot of massive name actors in this that only play a small part in the movie. It's one of those films for me that I don'tWas pretty slow and boring for the most part. I didn't really care for this considering all the hype it got. There a lot of massive name actors in this that only play a small part in the movie. It's one of those films for me that I don't think I will be bothering to watch again.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

TwiTuMar 18, 2020

The main actors are good and believable, except for a few situations that werent authentic, like soldiers in WW1 would have reacted.
And thats the only good thing about this movie.
The rest reminded me of the plot of bad video games (incl.The main actors are good and believable, except for a few situations that werent authentic, like soldiers in WW1 would have reacted.
And thats the only good thing about this movie.
The rest reminded me of the plot of bad video games (incl. massive plot holes, like one area being extremely muddy and wet and then they only move a few hundred meters further on and its suddenly dry as a desert with dust blowing up, etc.).
The action scenes were basically exactly like a video game where the main guy doesnt get hit at all (or if he does, he doesnt care much, because he just gets a healthkit) and his enemies dont know how to use a rifle or how to stop a human at all.
Especially the scenes in Écoust are extremely unrealistic, and literally reminded me of a certain video game. And the sniper scene was so bad that that German sniper should have shot that guy 20 times. Especially at the last shot, where he knew EXACTLY where the guy was gonna pop up again.
Also the main guy going out without seeking cover in a flare-lit town where everyone can see him was face palm inducing. Again he wasnt hit at all.

Also there are many reports that made all the reactions in this movie look weird: Soldiers actually were very often reluctant to shoot or otherwise kill people. Especially in situations where they didnt have peer pressure or pressure from an officer (and thats why military training was massively altered after WW1, to make people more willing to shoot other people), which happen often in this movie. But even then they wouldnt try to kill people. Does the movie try to explain the bad shots with this? If so, that would be stupid, because especially in the scene where he is caught alone by a lone soldier, they wouldnt have fired at him at all, since he didnt even make an effort to shoot at them either. Him shooting first, trying to get cover and shooting back, instead of hoping that these guys were utter bad shots, would have made sense, since hes on such an important mission. But he didnt. The funny thing is, the drunk guy was the one that placed his shot as close to him as the sniper did, while all others couldnt hit a barn door from point blank.

Then theres the scene with the airplane crash that simply was stupid. Why would the pilot act that way? It made no sense whatsoever. Pilots on both sides were actually one of the most honorable people back then. They had mutual "fair play" rules that would be impossible nowadays or even in WW2. Totally unbelievable.

All in all the movie felt a lot like Fury. Fury also had many of these unrealistic situations that simply could not be true, which made it seem like a propaganda film right out of that time.
Same with this movie.
But they obviously made a huge effort to find out if there were really many racial minorities serving in Europe in the British Army. Should have put that effort into other research, too. For example the accuracy of German rifles and the differences in training of German and British soldiers.… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

3

netflicJan 14, 2020

The latest movie from a talented director Sam Mendes, who made "American Beauty", one of my most favorite movies. Nominated for 10 Oscars, it just won Golden Globe award. Our expectations were high, obviously.

How could Sam Mendes, afterThe latest movie from a talented director Sam Mendes, who made "American Beauty", one of my most favorite movies. Nominated for 10 Oscars, it just won Golden Globe award. Our expectations were high, obviously.

How could Sam Mendes, after "American Beauty", make a film like "1917"?
A question comes to my mind, Did the director watch that movie?
It only made sense when comparing to Nikita Mikhalkov.
A film that was supposed to be a serious war drama turned out to be a video game filled with all kinds of cliches.
"Saving Private Ryan" - 2 it is not.
To begin with the episode inside German bunker which made me think something like "WTF?!"
Two protagonists enter it, notice it is rigged with explosives, and immediately there is an explosion. Half of the bunker falls on top of one of the two, with pieces up to two feet each. He lied there, trapped under those rocks, not breathing. The other one starts digging him out. The way he was handling those rocks, their weight had to be a pound or two, with density of a pillow. When the first guy was finally completely out, he could not either move or see. In a few minutes his vision was back, and he could even run. As a person with first-hand knowledge what falling rocks do to a human body, my suspicion was more that justified.

Closer to the end of the movie, the same protagonist jumps into a river that looked like a calm small city river that after the jump turned into a white water torrent. Not every experienced rafter would be able to get out of it, not even mentioning wearing a backpack and high boots. Then the guy gets into a waterfall, falls 100 or so feet down and then quietly swims ashore in a nice freestyle stroke.
Even corpses of soldiers here and there cause laughter instead of horror. I do not think it was intended. A movie about WWI, a horrific and senseless slaughterhouse, that gobbled the whole generation, deserves better than a-la Indiana Jones style flick.
If you want to see what WWI really looked like, there is a documentary "They shall never grow old" made completely out of restored reels of that times.… Expand

2 of 9 users found this helpful27

All this user's reviews

3

Phix105Apr 7, 2021

Cinematography was horrible. I felt like they were going to run the camera up the butt of the actors any minute, plus it was shake, and make me dizzy. The story was boring. I don't know why it was rated so high. To each their own. I made itCinematography was horrible. I felt like they were going to run the camera up the butt of the actors any minute, plus it was shake, and make me dizzy. The story was boring. I don't know why it was rated so high. To each their own. I made it to the sniper, and turned it off.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

lunanulJan 20, 2020

Overall, this was an epic dud with an abundance of carefully-constructed visuals and set pieces that are mostly devoid of emotional impact (with a few solid exceptions, to be fair). File under 'one shot wonder': a filming technique that isOverall, this was an epic dud with an abundance of carefully-constructed visuals and set pieces that are mostly devoid of emotional impact (with a few solid exceptions, to be fair). File under 'one shot wonder': a filming technique that is practically guaranteed to land the director in the Oscars pool, regardless of content. Much of the time, the viewing experience was akin to watching a video game; sometimes, a quite silly, unrealistic video game. Those interested in WWI are advised to check out the superior "They Shall Not Grow Old" - a documentary on WWI by Peter Jackson.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

3

BroyaxMay 16, 2020

C'est l'un des films de guerre les plus reposants qu'on puisse voir, voire même un peu soporifique... mais un peu seulement ! je ne voudrais pas entendre ou sous-entendre qu'il s'agit d'un film chiant à dormir debout, non pas, que nenni...C'est l'un des films de guerre les plus reposants qu'on puisse voir, voire même un peu soporifique... mais un peu seulement ! je ne voudrais pas entendre ou sous-entendre qu'il s'agit d'un film chiant à dormir debout, non pas, que nenni... (malgré tout de même quelques lenteurs inquiétantes) ! mais sa réalisation et son approche font que l'on survole tout cela de plus ou moins haut, détaché, ce qui conduit je présume à l'effet inverse de celui qui était recherché : loin d'être immersif, "1917" reste impersonnel et déconnecté des évènements...

Comment est-ce possible lorsqu'il s'agit pourtant ici de l'une des guerres les plus sales, dégueulasses, meurtrières du XXème siècle ? eh bien, tout simplement à casue de ce long, très long plan-séquence de presque deux heures ! on a des films qui sont surdécoupés et montés comme des merdes, genre clip MTV kikoolol ou sale publicité pour je ne sais quel sous-produit de mon cul (emballé dans du papier-cadeau, s'il-vous-plaît) et ici, c'est tout l'excès inverse...

On suit comme un hydroglisseur ou comme sur un tapis volant ces deux gars qui traversent la dévastation de la guerre totale : caméra souple et fluide, cadrage impeccable, travellings parfaits... mais pendant deux plombes ? on finit par se lasser et pourtant, c'est vraiment reposant... et un peu soporifique... à force. Mais quel beau défi technologique en tout cas, c'est assez sidérant à voir cette fluidité de tous les instants !...

Hélas, la forme a fait oublier le fond, le propos et l'écriture elle-même... comme je le disais au début, on en ressort détaché et peu ou pas concerné... sauf peut-être à la toute fin, seul moment du film où l'on se sent connecté à ce monde (horrible !). Par ailleurs, on s'étonne de trouver ici un tel manichéisme, voire carrément une diabolisation, une stigmatisation des Allemands à chaque plan, chaque séquence... c'est réducteur et regrettable. C'est avec cet "état d'esprit" que la Seconde a vu le jour...

Du coup, ça fait encore un peu plus baisser la note... car après tout, que reste-t-il à ce film à part son reposant plan-séquence exceptionnellement long ? pas grand-chose...… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

GimbuJan 15, 2020

3. Not much different than your average war movie..................................

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

3

Hbrass23Mar 9, 2022

Movie is kinda boring outside of being artsy and it's hard to enjoy an artsy movie with really bad editing. There's multiple points where people are being shot at and the bullets are magically flying from the opposite direction

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

GeoaveneJan 1, 2020

O filme tem uma paisagem linda, elenco incrível. Mas a narrativa não me chamou atenção, o filme é confuso.

0 of 18 users found this helpful018

All this user's reviews

1

WhySoSerious54Nov 24, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An unoriginal WW1 version of Saving Private Ryan. Like Force Awakens and Ghostbusters Afterlife you feel you've seen this before and better. The single shot technique makes the movie feel drawn out and boring. I felt like a few quick edits and a flashback or two similar to All Quite while using a new original story would have helped. I watched it a second time and couldn't finish due to the obvious set up sequences that attempt to shift tone and fails. Typically you're not thrilled when falls. This i was like thankfully this annoyance is gone.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

DoxdivaJan 24, 2020

After 45 minutes of boredom, we left. What we saw was painfully slow and uninteresting...the dialogue stilted. American Beauty on the other hand was so cleverly designed and executed...what happened, Sam?

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

1

WhitepopeMay 1, 2020

So WW1 biggest war of history....
no action... in the biggest war of history No politics as every army had mutinies in WW1. People were slaughtered by millions for kings and generals. The WW1 ended with russian and german revolution. ThisSo WW1 biggest war of history....
no action... in the biggest war of history No politics as every army had mutinies in WW1. People were slaughtered by millions for kings and generals. The WW1 ended with russian and german revolution. This movie has nothing of WW1. Lost 2 hours of my life.

They should have used this movie for indiana jones instead of aliens. THis is isn't a war movie ... or a movie . It's a spam… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

antoniomitJan 13, 2020

Muy mala la pelicula, justo llega el momento que crees que habra algo mas y cae en picado

3 of 25 users found this helpful322

All this user's reviews

0

lukelewisMar 11, 2020

Very boring. Do not waste your time/money. I wanted to scream this movie sucks about half way through.

3 of 19 users found this helpful316

All this user's reviews