1917

Scam said:
It's funny how when a movie is set during the war people automatically assume it is going to be a gung-ho action movie. If you'd have bothered to read the story you'd know it's about the two guys delivering a message?
Click to expand...

Haha, thought the same. I think it's a fantastic piece of cinematography and can't wait to see it.
 
I saw the film last night at the local imax. I personally thought it was a fantastic film and definitly one to see on the big screen. Comment about lack of action, i thought it was balanced quite well, was quite an assault on the senses so thought it was just about right, might be different when not viewed in a Cinema.

It's pretty no hold bars in setting the scene in terms of the grim nature of WW1 trench warfare. Really stark when they leave the area the battle was taking place and the scenery changes to semi-normality of rolling fields.

The conclusion to the German trench scene made me jump like i don't recall every jumping in a cinema even knowing you could see it coming. Again, most likely due to the in your face nature of watching in an imax rather your own tv.
 
V_R said:
My nephew wants to see this, he's 13, and looks a lot older for his age. Those that have seen it, do you think he will enjoy it or should I take him to see Star Wars instead. :D
Click to expand...
SW would be the easy win, but you can use your role as an uncle to 'educate' him with 1917 :)

poosemon said:
The conclusion to the German trench scene made me jump like i don't recall every jumping in a cinema even knowing you could see it coming. Again, most likely due to the in your face nature of watching in an imax rather your own tv.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That's where the single-shot really comes into play, you're as "trapped" into the action and experience as the soldiers.
 
The big issues I had around it might have been due to my own misconceptions of WW1.
First things first I was really enjoying it, the character development from both of the main characters was great, them moving through the scenary (won't ruin it for people) was excellent. I really enjoyed it, until the plane crash. It seems then it just all went to hell for me.

What I didn't like about it I guess what it didn't meet my preconceived / learnt understand of WW1. I couldn't place myself in this world where miles and miles of land were just open. I thought WW1 was fought with heavy lines over less than a mile apart. When they got to a empty trench which had apparently only been abandoned 2 days before, how could there be so many allied soldiers behind this so called line, wouldn't they be attacked on two fronts.
I lost a lot of respect for the story when he was stabbed by the pilot. Behind enemy lines I really struggled to believe that any allied soldier would risk his life for an enemy.
I kept being baffled why the main character kept choosing not to kill people and kept running instead of shooting.
Whilst it might be correct, it seems unlikely to me to have two large waterfall like drops in this area of France / Belgium.

I'd like to say that I am being coherent but I cant quite put into words why it just seems strange to me.
 
I'll be honest I did not like this movie ! Overrated movie, This is a prime example of a movie that had good PR..... Its a nice concept too try to make you feel as the camera never cuts but the reality is this guy only walked about a mile... The acting was pretty average as well for a cast full of such talent.... my problem with this film is we never really get to feel emotionally engaged with the cast... on that note this film doesn't do anything for me. two Star max ..... but its not a master piece not even close.

To sum the movie up a guy runs a mile to a trench to tell an officer to stop a planned attack ! boring......
 
I was also a bit confused on the basis of time across the day.
Since its a single scene in 2hrs that spans 12hrs. They spend an hr walking across NML
and then that guy dies, he then hits his head and seeming is out cold for 10hrs and its 4am in the morning
. Then when he runs from the church and hits the river, its suddenly morning. Did he have a nap on the log?
 
It would be a very long film if they showed the whole ~9 miles in a single take.

The bell rang 6 when he moved on which is why it was getting lighter.
 
I appreciate that, obviously! I just couldn't quite work out where the time was meant to be vanish from. Like Jason said, it made the film seem like he walked a mile, where obviously this wasn't the case as well, similarly with the time.
Also why would the Germans move their line backwards 10miles, regardless of huge battlements and tanks, its a really really stupid idea. It was this tarnish that ruined the films whole premise for me.
 
I enjoyed this film up until they got into the farm and then it fell off a cliff.

It just seemed like time and space dilation was on par with Skyrim or something. They said it was 9 miles away and I was thinking to myself 'you better get running then thats an average pace of 4.5 miles/hour before the film ends', but they spend ages stationary. Just reflecting back on it they do about 200m across no mans land, 50m tops getting through the German trench, 500m getting to the farm, 800m (ish) in the truck, 200m through the town to the burning church, left at the church - another 200m, jump in the river float for 500m and boom you are at the front line - a snip under 2.5km (1.5 miles). Now i understand it is a film, but that is getting on for an order of magnitude out, its not even in the same direction - it felt like the river bit was coming back on itself lol.

The triage tent at the end which was about 20m from the front line (which had been shelled) on a nice open hill was the final blow for me. They needed a few cuts to explain the passage of distance somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Damn it's not out until 31st here, I'm not liking these opinions on time and the perception of distance, it is little things like that, that can nag away in my head....

I hope it doesn't become another Dunkirk to me.
 
Watched this morning and enjoyed it, going in was surprised that they've filmed it in such a way to try being one continuous shot. Reminded me of watching Dunkirk with how the soundtrack was implemented and how sound was used.
 
I thought it was a pretty good movie. Very very well filmed, both in the trenches and the night section. Also very good with the aftermath from previous battles still showing around the battlefield.
 
I agree about the time seeming a bit off and the strange behaviour of the protagonists.

A few of the things that I recall bugging me:

If the message was so important, why rely on only two soldiers to deliver it? It would have been more plausible if they had at least tried another method as well e.g. sending a delicious plump breasted pigeon.
As they were on such an urgent mission to save his brother, why was he focused on looking for food, especially as it later turned out that the other (at least) had plenty in his pack?
Would they really have risked their lives to pull a German pilot from his burning plane? And then after they have just saved said injured pilot from burning to death and when they are in the process of fetching him water, why would he try to kill them?
Why would someone with combat experience make someone stand up when they have just been stabbed in the stomach and try to drag them to an aid station when you don't know where it is and don't have the time? Saying "You can't go on, I'll take the message and send help/come back for you" would have made way more sense.
The Germans seemed to be remarkably poor shots. The sniping scene relied on the German having slow reactions and would have made more sense if our hero had changed position and not stayed on the steps and achieved a magic shot. He could have just moved along the canal and sneaked up on the house without first managing to hit the German when he was at a disadvantage and pinned down on the steps.
Why would an experienced soldier casually wander up to enemy troops (and run away from them) when he had a perfectly good rifle in his hands?
The scene where he ends up strangling the German - I absolutely expected that to be solved at the start with a rifle butt to the jaw, but perhaps army training back then was to put down your rifle and plead and wrestle with the enemy?
If the baby wasn't hers and hadn't been fed, it seemed remarkably healthy and content.
The river journey was a bit too convenient, and then arriving to find the soldiers quietly listening to a sing song with no guards posted and no challenge as to whether this stranger might be a spy felt rather implausible. Plus he never seemed to find that he needed something he had lost - it all just worked out.
Would men about to go over the top really show so little interest in someone telling them that the attack had been cancelled?
And then the big dash across no mans land. Yes it was dramatic, but as he was already too late and the first wave was being sent in anyway, why not just use the trench once it was clear (as advised) and have more chance of delivering the message to save the rest?
 
All valid points above.

The "single shot" was staggeringly effective up until the farm and then the whole thing fell apart. I think it locked the film into a pattern that was more about that gimmick than making a a believable and coherent set of events. Why did they get the distance so wrong? If they had said it was 3 miles that would have been fine and it would have stressed just how close and dangerous the enemy really were.

Did anyone else feel like they were watching one long Call of Duty cut scene? Visually and technically stunning kind of empty and hollow at the same time.

Nice touch with him leaning against a tree as the opening and closing shots of the film.
 
Last edited:
Deserves to win the Oscars for Cinematography, Production Design, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing

It's one of those visual epic films like Gravity where the way the film is shot captures the audience as opposed to an amazing script and story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom