@WanderingSocial is right. The singularly best sequence of the flick is ruined by a tremdously bad visual effect that looked like something out of a video game 20 years ago.
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.
Looks great, but ultimately it's a war movie with a gimmick. Did you know war is bad?
In a year with Irishman, Hollywood, and Parasite, the fact that this is now somehow the front runner continues to demonstrate how behind the times the Oscars are. As great as Deakins' eye is here, it doesn't feel like anything new like Lighthouse or even Joker (or the even more frenetic Uncut Gems).
Meh. Terribly overrated. Were it not for the single shot trickery (that's been done before), it would have been a very run of the mill movie where not much happens.
Although the story is simple and some conviniences…..the only englisch speaking French woman :-)…….great war movie. Tense and gorgeously shot and made.
To make any cookie-cutter WW1 movie after "all quiet on the western front"- especially a stupendously gimmicky one - is both unnecessary and revolting.
I swear my friend had seen this way before he actually did (today), so we argued about it earlier. I thought he was trolling me and trying to undermine my already poor memory, but he's only just ticked it on here so it's possible I was in the wrong rather than he.
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.
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.
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.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 29
topichtennis
I don't get it.jmunro91
Dull, dull, dull.lachyas
If this was the best they could do they really should have tried a second take.boxojoi
Beautiful but unfortunately not very interesting...Adrian B AWESOME
@WanderingSocial is right. The singularly best sequence of the flick is ruined by a tremdously bad visual effect that looked like something out of a video game 20 years ago.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.Adrian B AWESOME
Looks great, but ultimately it's a war movie with a gimmick. Did you know war is bad?In a year with Irishman, Hollywood, and Parasite, the fact that this is now somehow the front runner continues to demonstrate how behind the times the Oscars are. As great as Deakins' eye is here, it doesn't feel like anything new like Lighthouse or even Joker (or the even more frenetic Uncut Gems).
BadFluffy
Meh. Terribly overrated. Were it not for the single shot trickery (that's been done before), it would have been a very run of the mill movie where not much happens.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.
Earring72
Although the story is simple and some conviniences…..the only englisch speaking French woman :-)…….great war movie. Tense and gorgeously shot and made.dantheman89
To make any cookie-cutter WW1 movie after "all quiet on the western front"- especially a stupendously gimmicky one - is both unnecessary and revolting.Toljus
I swear my friend had seen this way before he actually did (today), so we argued about it earlier. I thought he was trolling me and trying to undermine my already poor memory, but he's only just ticked it on here so it's possible I was in the wrong rather than he.Still, the film is great. 8/10 at least.
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.
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
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.Showing items 1 – 15 of 29