1917 Trailer (2019) (Dir by: Sam Mendes) (Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth)

[Poetical Poltergeist]

It's impressive and frequently astonishing...but on the whole pretty thin. Has me on a kick of watching/rewatching other WWI films, and there's so much to mined from the specific horrors of that war. Disappointing that this one only bushes up against that potential in the most fleeting and subtle moments.

But fukk does it look good

Good films look good.

 

[FlyRy]

I wish they hadn't put the money shots in the trailer but understand they had to. Still was exciting to see the plane and especially him running across the field

 

[Sensitive Christian Grey]

Good film. When I have time I'll say what I appreciated and didn't but I'd recommend it

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The really did all that with just 2 scenes. Goat level cinematography.

Spoiler

That scene where he was running thru the town trying to escape was amazing

Very good film 8/10. Which Oscars nominations is it nominated for?

Someone told Me to go see this and she was saying that the entire Movie is 2 Scenes and left it at that.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

I wish they hadn't put the money shots in the trailer but understand they had to. Still was exciting to see the plane and especially him running across the field

That's why I avoid trailers for movies I know I'm going to see as much as possible.

 

[HHR]

I wish they hadn't put the money shots in the trailer but understand they had to. Still was exciting to see the plane and especially him running across the field

#Unsullied

 

[Jmare007]

Cinematography was on another fukking level, holy shyt

Dope movie. But even though it has a very legit argument for best of the year, I wouldn't say it's by far the best or a lock to deserve the Oscar.

 

[KING WILL]

Good film

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

Any good war movies (in recent times) that feature black and other non-white soldiers?

Not trying to hate, but we don't get enough of our experiences up on screen as heroes. I do appreciate a WWI movie though. We have way too many WW2 movies. Surprised we don't have any Korean War flicks.

 

[Able Archer 83]

I saw it; I liked it, with reservations.

There was a tension between its influences and the story it wanted to tell. Like pretty much every war movie made in the last twenty years, it takes its visual language i.e desaturated film from Saving Private Ryan...but it's ultimately not as bloody as SPR, much to its detriment. You can't ostensibly make a movie about the horror of war, and show people simply collapsing when an artillery shell explodes six feet away from them. Do you know what shrapnel does to an unshielded human body? It's not as sterile as 1917 shows.

Also, the whole thing was too fukking quiet. When British soldiers stepped off the boat onto the continent, the first thing they noticed was the feel of a persistent rumble beneath their feet, because of the constant shelling of artillery all along the front. The stillness and silence in 1917 was alien to the experience of the First World War.

It also did the old-timey war movie gimmick of having with cameos and dramatically revealing them...only the effect was kind of ridiculous. Like waiting forever to show the face of the captain, and it turns out that it's Mark Strong! I mean, the guy's a good actor, but why the suspense?

On the plus side, the scenery was amazing, and Roger Deakins as always was on point. I also like that it wasn't as simplistic as most World War I movies were in re: the mentality of command, the bullshyt "lions led by donkeys" cliche.

So maybe a 7 out of 10.

 

[Able Archer 83]

Any good war movies (in recent times) that feature black and other non-white soldiers?

Not trying to hate, but we don't get enough of our experiences up on screen as heroes. I do appreciate a WWI movie though. We have way too many WW2 movies. Surprised we don't have any Korean War flicks.

There were a bunch in the fifties. The problem with making a modern KW film are threefold:

1. It's hard to make any kind of statement about the Korean War; it straddles the line between WW2 and Vietnam, and it doesn't really signify anything. If you wanted to make a point about American values and heroism, you might as well just make a WW2 movie. If you wanted to make a movie about the pointlessness of war and cynicism of American values, you might as well make a Vietnam War movie.

2. At most it was a distraction during the post-war boom; it didn't dominate American society and culture the way WW2 and Vietnam did.

3. The Chinese were the enemy. Given the international concerns and--most importantly--international financing of the modern film industry, no studio would dare make a movie with a Chinese foe. Good luck getting Huawei to chip in to a movie about their countrymen being mowed down en masse.

 

[Able Archer 83]

but I did leave wondering if the movie couldn't be just as effective without the forced 'one shot' gimmick (that the movie already does abandon somewhat at one point for narrative purposes).

Yeah, I felt the same way. I also felt the same way about Dunkirk, with its stupid multiple timelines structure. It ultimately turns the movie from a story about the war and a tribute to the participants into a story about the director and a tribute to his cleverness.

 

[Sensitive Christian Grey]

I saw it; I liked it, with reservations.

There was a tension between its influences and the story it wanted to tell. Like pretty much every war movie made in the last twenty years, it takes its visual language i.e desaturated film from Saving Private Ryan...but it's ultimately not as bloody as SPR, much to its detriment. You can't ostensibly make a movie about the horror of war, and show people simply collapsing when an artillery shell explodes six feet away from them. Do you know what shrapnel does to an unshielded human body? It's not as sterile as 1917 shows.

Also, the whole thing was too fukking quiet. When British soldiers stepped off the boat onto the continent, the first thing they noticed was the feel of a persistent rumble beneath their feet, because of the constant shelling of artillery all along the front. The stillness and silence in 1917 was alien to the experience of the First World War.

It also did the old-timey war movie gimmick of having with cameos and dramatically revealing them...only the effect was kind of ridiculous. Like waiting forever to show the face of the captain, and it turns out that it's Mark Strong! I mean, the guy's a good actor, but why the suspense?

On the plus side, the scenery was amazing, and Roger Deakins as always was on point. I also like that it wasn't as simplistic as most World War I movies were in re: the mentality of command, the bullshyt "lions led by donkeys" cliche.

So maybe a 7 out of 10.

Nail on the head.

For myself, I'm kinda appreciating this more technical approach of 'war as a physical experience' seen here and in Dunkirk, without trying to forge a particularly strong narrative or character. It's like the opposite of something of Hacksaw Ridge - what's the point of trying to tell a story if you're just gonna give the audience that old 'war is hell, here's the innocence of the heroes' type of thing.

That said, this technical experience meant that cliches and even things that characterised the war came off as forced and rushed to me, especially in the beginning walking through the trench before setting off. If there were a narrative and no one shot take then items in the background can pop up more naturally, rather than "And this happened and there's this and...". From what I can remember the most prominent example is when they stumble into unburied body pieces where the soldiers live in the trench, and I think if this had the narrative and cuts of a regular film, you'd be able to build up and recognise the disgustingness of that.

The rest I enjoyed but I'd be surprised if it won Best Picture. It'd probably win off the slim chance of the voters thinking "We don't have WW1 films around often, it's just been the centenary and it's a very well done technical achievement" but I doubt it.

Spoiler

Also, Tommen stays dying like a young boy. He's gonna be 30 years old getting killed as a 14 year old

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

There were a bunch in the fifties. The problem with making a modern KW film are threefold:

1. It's hard to make any kind of statement about the Korean War; it straddles the line between WW2 and Vietnam, and it doesn't really signify anything. If you wanted to make a point about American values and heroism, you might as well just make a WW2 movie. If you wanted to make a movie about the pointlessness of war and cynicism of American values, you might as well make a Vietnam War movie.

2. At most it was a distraction during the post-war boom; it didn't dominate American society and culture the way WW2 and Vietnam did.

3. The Chinese were the enemy. Given the international concerns and--most importantly--international financing of the modern film industry, no studio would dare make a movie with a Chinese foe. Good luck getting Huawei to chip in to a movie about their countrymen being mowed down en masse.

Good points.

 

[Deltron]

so when he's running and trips a few times on other soldiers was that on purpose, or the result of the one shot gimmick