1917 Reviews

  • Rita
    1m ago

    The movie was great. Story and execution was great. Very intense which kept you on edge. Only thing for me was how they filmed it, it made me motion sick, especially in the trenches where I had ti close my eyes.

    The movie was great. Story and execution was great. Very intense which kept you on edge. Only thing for me was how they filmed it, it made me motion sick, especially in the trenches where I had ti close my eyes.

  • 1m ago

    The attention to detail is both solid and striking the whole entire picture. From the barbed wire to the large greasy rats that inherit the wasteland and all the mud and all the blood, this imagery is solid. And all the details really come to life mainly through the beautiful cinematography by the great Roger Deacons. The entire film looks exactly like one long shot and all I have to say about it is that I absolutely loved the way this movie was filmed and I hope to see more films shot in this way. Of note check out Birdman because apparently it is also a one long shot kind of film. But this isn't a dark comedy or an existential comedy or a dramedy or a romcom, nope, this is a ww1 movie. That being said the way this film is shot takes its toll on the story which is a little to shall we say understated for my taste. And the takeaway seems to be the age old theme best said by the Fallout videogame series: "War, war never changes" or perhaps like the lyrics from that song that I don't think is particularly good, "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, hooo!" But here in this movie our takeaway line is something like, "In war only the last man standing survives" or something like that. And the entire main theme of the film is about survival. About trying to survive, trying to help others survive, and how such an effort might be a wasted or useless one. My main issue with the movie is that I think it romanticizes us too much. It does so in an overall effort to try to breach the gap between an us versus them mentality. Interestingly enough when one is not brutal towards the enemy, one is killed by their enemy. And what I say is kill them before they kill you. But the movie never seems to embrace this notion. Instead it becomes rather sombre and weepy. It sort of becomes miserable and wants company. Not to mention the story takes a turn that I didn't like. Couldn't we have one good war scene where our hero goes on a killing spree? We do get an equally great scene though. And we witness our hero being selfless and brave in an extremely meaningful way in a scene that is absolutely breathtaking to behold. So there's that.

    The attention to detail is both solid and striking the whole entire picture. From the barbed wire to the large greasy rats that inherit the wasteland and all the mud and all the blood, this imagery is solid. And all the details really come to life mainly through the beautiful cinematography by the great Roger Deacons. The entire film looks exactly like one long shot and all I have to say about it is that I absolutely loved the way this movie was filmed and I hope to see more films shot in this way. Of note check out Birdman because apparently it is also a one long shot kind of film. But this isn't a dark comedy or an existential comedy or a dramedy or a romcom, nope, this is a ww1 movie. That being said the way this film is shot takes its toll on the story which is a little to shall we say understated for my taste. And the takeaway seems to be the age old theme best said by the Fallout videogame series: "War, war never changes" or perhaps like the lyrics from that song that I don't think is particularly good, "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, hooo!" But here in this movie our takeaway line is something like, "In war only the last man standing survives" or something like that. And the entire main theme of the film is about survival. About trying to survive, trying to help others survive, and how such an effort might be a wasted or useless one. My main issue with the movie is that I think it romanticizes us too much. It does so in an overall effort to try to breach the gap between an us versus them mentality. Interestingly enough when one is not brutal towards the enemy, one is killed by their enemy. And what I say is kill them before they kill you. But the movie never seems to embrace this notion. Instead it becomes rather sombre and weepy. It sort of becomes miserable and wants company. Not to mention the story takes a turn that I didn't like. Couldn't we have one good war scene where our hero goes on a killing spree? We do get an equally great scene though. And we witness our hero being selfless and brave in an extremely meaningful way in a scene that is absolutely breathtaking to behold. So there's that.

  • 4m ago

    Wait for the DVD. Sort of boring old plot. Historically very realistic, that's the only reason for two stars.

    Wait for the DVD. Sort of boring old plot. Historically very realistic, that's the only reason for two stars.

  • kim
    9m ago

    Not as dramatic as all the hype graphics were great

    Not as dramatic as all the hype graphics were great

  • Frank C
    14m ago

    A revealing commentary on loyalty, brotherhood and compassion set within the gruesome and senseless trench warfare of World War I.

    A revealing commentary on loyalty, brotherhood and compassion set within the gruesome and senseless trench warfare of World War I.

  • 15m ago

    Moving. This one word describes the essence of 1917. With real heart at its core. The camera is continuously moving, appearing to be shot in just one sweep. Mesmerising. This constant movement paints the personal story of 1917, a couple of un-miraculous blokes navigating World War 1 France. Superb acting moves the audience, making simple scenes hit like artillery shells. The way the tension is ratcheted up with our protagonsists urgently darting through the trenches to the front line and finally across No Man's Land had me physically on edge. Dread filled me, waiting for something awful to happen, a similar sentiment to those lives being depicted. Yet, this was tempered with moments of light banter, dark humour shared between blokes trying to get through this terrible experience. This movie moved me to sobbing tears, an experience last felt during the wonderful Dunkirk. The futility of war was highlighted so beautifully, as was the glimmers of hope and kindness. Strangers sharing rations, drinks or even hope. I urge you to move yourself to a cinema, sit down and be swept away by Sam Mendes' stirring tribute to his grandfather.

    Moving. This one word describes the essence of 1917. With real heart at its core. The camera is continuously moving, appearing to be shot in just one sweep. Mesmerising. This constant movement paints the personal story of 1917, a couple of un-miraculous blokes navigating World War 1 France. Superb acting moves the audience, making simple scenes hit like artillery shells. The way the tension is ratcheted up with our protagonsists urgently darting through the trenches to the front line and finally across No Man's Land had me physically on edge. Dread filled me, waiting for something awful to happen, a similar sentiment to those lives being depicted. Yet, this was tempered with moments of light banter, dark humour shared between blokes trying to get through this terrible experience. This movie moved me to sobbing tears, an experience last felt during the wonderful Dunkirk. The futility of war was highlighted so beautifully, as was the glimmers of hope and kindness. Strangers sharing rations, drinks or even hope. I urge you to move yourself to a cinema, sit down and be swept away by Sam Mendes' stirring tribute to his grandfather.

  • BK
    17m ago

    The story is not as compelling as the movie as a whole. In other words, a lot of the point is the way it was filmed to appear as nearly just one single scene. While that was nearly perfectly achieved, it does not allow for a great a story or tension as was achieved for Dunkirk. 1917 should be seen on a movie screen, as the benefits of the filmmakers approach will be reduced substantially even on a large television screen.

    The story is not as compelling as the movie as a whole. In other words, a lot of the point is the way it was filmed to appear as nearly just one single scene. While that was nearly perfectly achieved, it does not allow for a great a story or tension as was achieved for Dunkirk. 1917 should be seen on a movie screen, as the benefits of the filmmakers approach will be reduced substantially even on a large television screen.

  • Joanne R
    21m ago

    Every adult should see this movie, because every human should be asking why we can't seem to learn the most basic lesson that has been presented to us over and over again.

    Every adult should see this movie, because every human should be asking why we can't seem to learn the most basic lesson that has been presented to us over and over again.

  • Hollis Mulwray
    31m ago

    Went in with very high expectations.....great score and cinematography....the "stunt" of the single shot was distracting for a buff, but wow! Script paper thin and needed a stronger lead actor. Parasite also failed to meet expectations...Joker is still best of year.

    Went in with very high expectations.....great score and cinematography....the "stunt" of the single shot was distracting for a buff, but wow! Script paper thin and needed a stronger lead actor. Parasite also failed to meet expectations...Joker is still best of year.

  • David F
    49m ago

    The cinematography alone is worth the price of the ticket. Great job, Sam Mendes!

    The cinematography alone is worth the price of the ticket. Great job, Sam Mendes!