1917 (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Sat near him at the screening. Mendes too.

You've been in the presence of a god...or at the very least a guy that should have many more awards and has my eternal gratitude for contributing greatly to some beautiful filmmaking.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Just got screener for this; looking forward to it!

 

[MartinP.]

I saw this film last Sunday. I'd recommend seeing it in a theatre.

The film is riveting, touching, surprising and masterfully directed by Sam Mendes. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. I don't want to say THE best of the year yet, but it's certainly one of them.

The lead actors aren't known, so they won't get any award attention, but deserve to. I recognized George Mackay from a couple things I've seen before like Captain Fantastic and Pride.

As for the film shot as though it's one long take/shot, I'd rather not have known that as I was paying attention to it for longer than I needed to, but I quickly forgot about it. Is the film better for it? Since we are basically following two characters from Point A to Point B throughout, my answer is Yes.

A+ in my book.

 

[Tino]

Just got screener for this; looking forward to it!

No!!!! You must see it in a theater if you have any love of cinema. It begs to be seen on the biggest screen available.

 

[Edwin-S]

I was kind of anticipating watching this film; however, while watching the trailer in front of "Knives Out" I couldn't help but get the feeling that it was like "Saving Private Ryan: WW1 edition" and that the premise was, basically, hard to believe considering the historical record of the Officer corps of that time.

The idea that an officer corp, that had no problem getting 60,000 massacred in a single battle, being concerned about the massacre of 1600 is unbelievable to me

 

[Tino]

I was kind of anticipating watching this film; however, while watching the trailer in front of "Knives Out" I couldn't help but get the feeling that it was like "Saving Private Ryan: WW1 edition" and that the premise was, basically, hard to believe considering the historical record of the Officer corps of that time.

The idea that an officer corp, that had no problem getting 60,000 massacred in a single battle, being concerned about the massacre of 1600 is unbelievable to me

That’s not an accurate description of the film. It has very little in common with SPR. I can’t say more.

 

[Edwin-S]

That’s not an accurate description of the film. It has very little in common with SPR. I can’t say more.

I have not claimed that it is. It is the impression I got based on the trailer.

As far as the concerned officer corp wanting to prevent a massacre, I still consider it unrealistic for that war. The incompetents didn't care about the massacre of thousands, so them supposedly trying to prevent the massacre of 1600 comes across as contrived.

 

[Tino]

I have not claimed that it is. It is the impression I got based on the trailer.

Understood. I was just clarifying.

Of course I don’t expect everyone to agree with my assessment of the film, I’m just anxious to start discussing it with you guys.

 

[AshJW]

I have to wait another month.

 

[skylark68]

I recognized George Mackay from a couple things I've seen before like Captain Fantastic and Pride.

Yes, that's the only main actor I recognized, I really liked his work in 11.22.63 with James Franco, he did a great job.

I'm really looking forward to this picture. Anything WW1 is extremely interesting to me. Strange that such an event as the "Great War" that was so pivotal in World history is almost a foot note to WW2, etc. that probably wouldn't even have happened without WW1 occurring.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Remarkable film. No spoilers: But the technical achievement of this film 'appearing' as a seamless one take makes Birdman and Children of Men look like tepid warm-up acts. Deakins is an absolute wizard and the one-take approach (widely reported) is so essential to maintaining the tension throughout, almost as if you are in a first person shooter game (but better). I couldn't relax one muscle until it was over. An amazing production and easily one of the best films of the year.

I would definitely recommend seeing it in IMAX (if you can handle it), if not on the big screen. I'm stuck with home theater (hey, this is the home theater forum) due to mobility issues related to onset of a crippling autoimmune disorder. Sucks. But at least it doesn't stop me from seeing films like this.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[MartinP.]

As far as the concerned officer corp wanting to prevent a massacre, I still consider it unrealistic for that war. The incompetents didn't care about the massacre of thousands, so them supposedly trying to prevent the massacre of 1600 comes across as contrived.

I want to ask you something, but it might be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it, so I'll put it in a spoiler quote.

Spoiler

Since I don't exactly know what you're referencing about the not caring about the massacre of thousands, may I ask... Perhaps the not caring showed itself in the way they put the troops into battle. In the case of the film, they absolutely know that the troops will be running into a trap and be slaughtered. Are you saying that they would have let them regardless if they knew that or not? Regardless, the film is not based on any specific event, as many war films aren't, so if that is a deal breaker with you that is your choice.

Interesting article:
https://www.amctheatres.com/amc-scene/1917-is-sam-mendes-new-wwi-movie-based-on-a-true-story

 

[Tino]

I would definitely recommend seeing it in IMAX (if you can handle it), if not on the big screen. I'm stuck with home theater (hey, this is the home theater forum) due to mobility issues related to onset of a crippling autoimmune disorder. Sucks. But at least it doesn't stop me from seeing films like this.

In retrospect now, I’m sorry if my comment about seeing it in a theater came off harsh. Hope you feel better.

 

[Tino]

As far as the concerned officer corp wanting to prevent a massacre, I still consider it unrealistic for that war. The incompetents didn't care about the massacre of thousands, so them supposedly trying to prevent the massacre of 1600 comes across as contrived.

The storyline is actually based on true events. Did you know that? Does that change your opinion?

1917 WAS INSPIRED BY A TRUE STORY SAM MENDES' GRANDFATHER TOLD TO HIM

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/1917/

 

[MartinP.]

SIDEBAR:

Do you know there's a movie titled "1918" ?

Horton Foote wrote a cycle of nine plays called the Orphans' Home Cycle. The central three plays were Courtship, On Valentine's Day and 1918. The latter was made into a 1985 film with Matthew Broderick and the other two followed in 1986 and 1987, so they were made in reverse order for some reason. They're not for everyone to be sure. Also, curiously, On Valentine's Day takes place almost entirely at Christmas. Strictly for Horton Foote enthusiasts.

 

[Edwin-S]

I want to ask you something, but it might be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it, so I'll put it in a spoiler quote.

Spoiler

Since I don't exactly know what you're referencing about the not caring about the massacre of thousands, may I ask... Perhaps the not caring showed itself in the way they put the troops into battle. In the case of the film, they absolutely know that the troops will be running into a trap and be slaughtered. Are you saying that they would have let them regardless if they knew that or not? Regardless, the film is not based on any specific event, as many war films aren't, so if that is a deal breaker with you that is your choice.

Interesting article:
https://www.amctheatres.com/amc-scene/1917-is-sam-mendes-new-wwi-movie-based-on-a-true-story

The British and French High Commands were incompetent. They would plan and launch attacks that they knew would fail, but carry them out anyway because their planning had gone so far that they were unwilling to cancel their operations. Their incompetence and lack of concern for their men resulted in the massacre of thousands in one go.

The French were so bad that the men in their army literally mutinied.

There was one battle I read about where the British High Command planned an attack based on a salient in the German lines. They took so long planning it that the Germans had time to audit their lines, discover the bulge and eliminate it by straightening their line. The BHC knew that any reason for launching the attack had long vanished but went ahead and did it anyway, knowing it would be a massacre and a failure. All they cared about was they had put it into motion and were not about to stop it. The lives of their men were the last thing they were concerned about. I wish I could remember which battle it was?

Did you know that during the "Battle of Vimy Ridge", the Canadians involved in the attack were running from shell hole to shell hole, taking cover wherever they could. The British Army unit on their flank (IIRC, Scottish Highlanders) were walking upright in a straight line because they were trained and ordered to do so. Canadian soldiers involved in the battle were literally stunned by what they were seeing. They could hardly believe it. Those men got mowed down due to the stupidity that was rampant in the British Officer Corp.

That is why I find the premise hard to swallow of a British command being concerned about 1600 men, no matter what they were walking into. The French and British Commands were nothing but war criminals and the Germans were not far behind.

"Paths of Glory" showed the true face of the French and British commands in WW1. They were venal, incompetent and criminal.

All that being said, I'm not saying the film is going to be bad. I most likely will go to see it anyway I just will find anything involving "caring" British commanders to be hard to swallow.

 

[MartinP.]

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?"

 

[Malcolm R]

The storyline is actually based on true events. Did you know that? Does that change your opinion?

1917 WAS INSPIRED BY A TRUE STORY SAM MENDES' GRANDFATHER TOLD TO HIM

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/1917/

The only part that says is true is "a soldier carrying a message." Beyond that all the scenarios and consequences are fictitious.

 

[Edwin-S]

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?"