Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 15 of 22

Siskoid's avatar

Siskoid

Is 1917 a good title for something that takes place over a day? (And indeed, is almost 2 hours in real time given the one-shot conceit, though director Sam Mendes does find ways to contract time.) Lets talk about that conceit because it exacerbates the completely legitimate comparison to an MMO side-quest. The story is so streamlined - it's this one, very simple mission - that it's basically an NPC giving the player a quest and off we go. With the camera never cutting away from the main character and following him through the adventure, often over the shoulder, the visual vocabulary is somewhat like that of a third-person sandbox/shooter. Does it really intensify immersion into the story? Maybe. I kind of think Mendes gave himself and his cast and crew a big challenge for us to marvel at as TECHNIQUE and that's all there is to it, but that's fine. We DO marvel at it. If there is a point to the single shot, it may be to show war as a continuous and relentless experience, here crunched into 24/2 hours for our convenience, a temporal prison for men who just want to go home but are afraid they can't connect to that other timeline. More importantly and all that said, it works, with a couple of stand-out moments (the flare run and the final sequence through to the end and bookend especially) and given the brief scenes with the characters NOT on the mission (you can't exactly go back to keep track of them), it's especially wonderful that they each leave such impressions (and not just the ones who are name-brand actors). My personal favorites are the hilarious Andrew Scott and that big fat rat.
5 months 3 weeks ago
aniforprez's avatar

aniforprez

Absolutely incredible. An exhausting, somber, grim war movie made with some of the best talent on all fronts especially the cinematography done by the absolutely brilliant Roger Deakins
5 months 2 weeks ago
baraka92's avatar

baraka92

Finally someone not named Cuarón or Lubezki knows how to use the one shot ”gimmick” effectively in an action setting. There’s a deeply humane idea behind it.

This deserves to be watch on the biggest screen with the best sound you can find.
5 months 2 weeks ago
Forzelius's avatar

Forzelius

So after missing out on the first 12 or whatever it was, Deakins is gonna make it 2 Oscars in 3 years
5 months 3 weeks ago
Michael12's avatar

Michael12

Possibly the best film of the year. While some may say that editing the movie to seem like one shot is a “gimmick”, I wholeheartedly disagree. This technique allows the audience to become fully immersed in the world, you feel as if your in the trenches, on the battle field, etc. Plenty of twists and turns, even moments I knew were coming based on the trailers still caused me to jump out of my seat. Highly recommend this film, and see it in theaters while you can.
5 months 2 weeks ago
bathkuyp's avatar

bathkuyp

I really enjoyed the first shot.
4 months 3 weeks ago
airi86ja's avatar

airi86ja

beautifuly filmed +
soundrack made the film even more majestic
5 months ago
Withnail33's avatar

Withnail33

great cinematography but other than that, it's just okay. The plot adds nothing unique and it hits all the tropes and all the same beats of a standard war movie. The film has a lot of familiar faces but they start to feel like cameos. There's been a lot of hype over this "one-take" style but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The scenes where they traverse through no-man's land and the scene in the ruined village work very well for the one-take. Other scenes where they're just walking through the trenches or talking in the truck makes the movie drag (I get that they can't edit those because that would ruin the "one-take").

I give Sam Mendes an A for effort. The film looks good and there are some great scenes but if this was done without the one-take, it turns into your run-of-the-mill war movie.
5 months 2 weeks ago
TreadwayNathan's avatar

TreadwayNathan

Don't go in expecting a huge war spectacle; it plays more as a road movie than a war movie. The journey the two leads go on is in the forefront, and the war is mainly a background, and serves as a plot device that provides a few obstacles. The battle scenes are brief and few and far between, and there really isn't a whole lot of explosions either.
5 months 3 weeks ago
Ice Bean's avatar

Ice Bean

I absolutely love this movie
5 months ago
frankqb's avatar

frankqb

Absolutely delightful as a visual feast and filmmaking accomplishment, the hero's journey is echoed by the heroic effort of making the film. Shame there's no message other than War is Hell.

5 stars
5 months ago
chunkylefunga's avatar

chunkylefunga

Visually it's absolutely stunning, and the one take is well done (though certainly not perfect).

Ultimately though the storyline just doesn't have that much substance, George MacKay as the lead role was poorly chosen and Mendes just had to add pc nonsense that sadly simply wasn't the reality of 1917 Europe.

Cameos were fantastically picked though.
3 months 1 week ago
ebogga's avatar

ebogga

Really left me wondering could they not get any capable actors for the two lead parts? I guess the long takes must be really time consuming difficult on the lead cast, so probably that could have ruled out any name actors. I wasn't longing for Tom Hanks, but atleast someone with more than one facial expression.
4 months 2 weeks ago
nowhereman136's avatar

nowhereman136

Possibly the best war film since Saving Private Ryan and the best WW1 film since Wings
5 months 3 weeks ago
Limbesdautomne's avatar

Limbesdautomne

It is important to choose the right device to make a film. For 1917, the one-take is perfectly justified.

Further explanation in French on La Saveur des goûts amers.
5 months ago

Showing items 1 – 15 of 22

View comments