I, too was interested, as the topic WW1 isn´t that common in big movies. The director/author told that there is quite some biographical part of his ancestor in it. I´ve heard that his (great?-) grandfather in the movie must have been some kind of James Bond so I believe the action must be somehow over the top? What do those say who saw it?
-
-
Three of my "gun" buddies saw it this week. They all said it was not worth watching. I will wait until it comes out on cable.Comment
-
A good film, certainly not a "masterpiece" or "exceptional " as many industry critics are saying. The no mans land and trench bits at the start were very well done, full of foreboding, but as far as the plot is concerned, nothing surprising really.Comment
-
1917 - Had mixed feelings about this one (overweight "Blake" character who looked like he'd been shoveling Pizza down every night not WW1 rations...
), but as others have said it's a film and mean't to entertain. A lot of money was spent no doubt, the sets and kit were excellent but I think it could have been better. Nevertheless it helps to keep history alive and triggers interest in the period so that's a good thing! 
For WW1 film buffs I would also suggest taking a look at this recently made film:-
Journey's End:-
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3780500/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo
The story has been filmed several times (theatre plays too) since the 1920's, but this latest version is not a bad interpretation IMHO, having read the screenplay and the book. Based upon the recollections of a serving WW1 British Officer (East Surrey Regiment) who was wounded in 1917 it has a feel of authenticity about it having been written by someone 'who was there'.
Along with the book the story gives an excellent overview of the unit rotations and the sheer depth of the 'front line' by the latter part of the war on the Western Front. I recommend it.
Regards, PaulLast edited by PaulW; 01-30-2020, 08:35 PM.Comment
-
I liked it . Possibly too much pastoral landscape near the front. Worth watching on cable is "Our World War" . three film stories about VC winners. Well done IMO.Comment
-
Just got home from watching 1917.
As Stonemint and others have pointed out, it has its weaknesses, but personally, I have to say that they didn't much diminish my enjoyment of the film.
How they managed to pull off that "one-take-style" was extremely clever and almost worth the price of admission alone (although if one consciously pays attention, it is not that hard to spot where the cuts - or at least most of them - were hidden). Also, I dare say that it is not just a gratuitous gimmick, but really helps to keep us viewers right in the middle of it all, as if we were following the protagonists along.
It's technically brilliant in every other way, too, especially the sets, props and locations. They really take you to that war-torn hellscape of those days.
(By the way, my favorite bit was the nighttime run through the destroyed French town, where the apocalyptic scenery, the ever-changing lights and shadows created by a rain of by flares and the brilliant music create a bizarre, terrible beauty.)
By all means, do check it out.Comment
-
Yep I agree. And for Christ sake guys, it really wasn’t bad at all. Great story, sets, CGI, and pretty entertaining. Johnno.Originally posted by HPL2008 View PostComment
-
It won the Academy Awards for Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects and Best Sound Mixing.Last edited by HPL2008; 02-10-2020, 02:01 AM.Comment
-
Storm Dennis kept me indoors over the weekend so I succumbed to boredom and watched this movie.
The whole seamless, continuous take idea was totally lost on me because it felt like a sequence of random scenes stitched together so didn't understand the point at all.
As for the plot, well it was as ridiculous as I feared it would be. On the plus side, the music during the night time village scene was probably the most interesting and haunting piece of music I've heard in a long time and the uniforms and kit were really good.
It's a shame because they had the resources and technical skill to make a really great movie but it ended being yet another disappointment which I won't watch a second time.Comment
-
Comment
-
1917
Perhaps only marginally more entertaining than 1917 is all the negative nit picking that can be read hear. Like, come on. It's not a documentary. It's fiction that happens to do a really good job of telling a story from a conflict that is rarely represented well in film.
The details looked really good.
The scenery was similarly interesting and I think both pays homage to the "classic" images of the WWI, but also breaks some clichés by showing some variety.
The plot, it's okay. I mean, every fictional plot is made up and probably not bullet proof.
The way it was filmed was both novel and highly successful, the perfect film to try to do something like that.
Action, also good and judiciously presented. How many war movies can capture your attention this well without hearing the first shot until over an hour into it?
Score was right on, perfect fit.
Acting, good and believable with a balance of naïve but motivated, reserved, ambition, and cautious wisdom well represented.
Pick any other fictional war movie that isn't at least as contrived and full of holes.
And if it's just that bad, well, stick to the documentaries, which we all know are without fault, factual, and without omissions, biases, and sometimes misleading.
IMO, 1917 was the best WWI film since the Blue Max, though I am not ready to say it was better than the Blue Max because that one carries a lot of nostalgia for me.
Beyond those two, probably Paths of Glory is the only other one that really sticks it in my book.Comment
Comment