Jump to content
Parliament

1917. Sam Mendes makes a war movie with Benedict Cumberbatch in it.

Recommended Posts

Whatever people did or didn’t like about Sam Mendes’ choices or the emotional distance he puts between the audience and the principal character(s), it’s just incredible filmmaking.
5/5 for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it today and I was more impressed by the sound than the visuals. 

I could feel the kick of his rifle when firing on the German sniper's position. 

That and every artillery blast practically made my ears ring.

Amazing film and so glad I saw it in the theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first 30-40 minutes was epic. Sort of landed with a thud, but that's okay I still really enjoyed this film. Agree with Future that the burning city/night parts were pretty lame and the woman/child thing seemed like Sam knew the movie was light on emotional and character attachment so let's shoe-horn something in the weird part.

All that being said, I read nothing about this movie except it was nominated so was pleasantly surprised (and thought the fat guy was going to be the protagonist and the blonde guy was going to die; should have known fat kids didn't make it through the war).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first 30-40 minutes was epic. Sort of landed with a thud, but that's okay I still really enjoyed this film. Agree with Future that the burning city/night parts were pretty lame and the woman/child thing seemed like Sam knew the movie was light on emotional and character attachment so let's shoe-horn something in the weird part.
All that being said, I read nothing about this movie except it was nominated so was pleasantly surprised (and thought the fat guy was going to be the protagonist and the blonde guy was going to die; should have known fat kids didn't make it through the war).
 

f3bbd92c84721266061ce3cbaef43153.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally saw it tonight and loved it. First movie I’ve seen in a long time that I want to see again immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredibly shot and incredibly boring. Should win all of the cinematography/visuals/sound, but out of the 7 best picture noms I have seen thus far (haven’t seen marriage story or Ford v Ferrari yet), this was my least favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 4:13 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Holy Shit.   Holy Sheeit.

Some of you probably remember how Russian Ark was filmed in one single 96-minute take?   

 

Yeah, that movie haunts me like a weird fever dream to this day, and I didn't even see it at Dobie or any theater. Just on DVD or maybe even VHS at home.

As for 1917, Saving Private Gallipoli is about right. Visually stunning but not as anti-war as some war movies, especially WW1 movies like All Quiet on the Western Front. It was less a war is hell flick than a Dulce et Decorum Est pro Patria mori movie. Like Mendes made a movie based on the title of Wilfred Owen's poem instead of the main body:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
 
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
 
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
 
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
But the war poets are where you really should go if you need to be reminded war is hell.If you want it presented as a thrill-ride this one does a bang-up job of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, KingBobo81 said:

Incredibly shot and incredibly boring. Should win all of the cinematography/visuals/sound, but out of the 7 best picture noms I have seen thus far (haven’t seen marriage story or Ford v Ferrari yet), this was my least favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1917 will probably win Cinematography and that's a shame. Ford vs Ferrari has some one of a kind shots that can't be ignored. They didn't lean on CGI. If FvF loses in the sound categories it's a crying shame. Joker is going to sweep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KingBobo81 said:

Incredibly shot and incredibly boring. Should win all of the cinematography/visuals/sound, but out of the 7 best picture noms I have seen thus far (haven’t seen marriage story or Ford v Ferrari yet), this was my least favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's boring about it ? Just curious to hear other perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Finally saw it tonight and loved it. First movie I’ve seen in a long time that I want to see again immediately. 

I saw it twice and kind of enjoyed it more the second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only part I could see as boring was the part with the girl, but it wasn’t even that long. The rest felt pretty action packed to me or at least in suspense knowing something was about to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yall do realize the vast majority of World War 1 had very little to no fighting right? As in, people just sat in the same trenches months at a time

 

the people complaining about the borning-ness of this movie are prolly the same people complaining that Jarhead didnt have any action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What's boring about it ? Just curious to hear other perspectives.

You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Parliament said:

You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

This was a common complaint about Dunkirk as well and I never understood it. I don't need a lot of backstory for the characters. They're in the middle of war and they are trying to survive, complete the mission, and get home to their loved ones. What else do you need to know? I for one love not having to sit through a Michael Bay-type scene where the characters talk about their girl back home, the time they got lucky in the back of their pick-up, or their mom's fried chicken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Parliament said:

You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

Fair enough, but I don't agree. You move from scene to scene with the 2 main characters. The plot shift heightens the emotions. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

This was a common complaint about Dunkirk as well and I never understood it. I don't need a lot of backstory for the characters. They're in the middle of war and they are trying to survive, complete the mission, and get home to their loved ones. What else do you need to know? I for one love not having to sit through a Michael Bay-type scene where the characters talk about their girl back home, the time they got lucky in the back of their pick-up, or their mom's fried chicken. 

It is possible to do both.  Blackhawk Down and Saving Private Ryan did it.  For that matter, Bay himself did OK at it in 13 Hours.  Hit me in the feels when Tyrone Woods got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching They Shall Not Grow Old before seeing 1917 made it more enjoyable to me.  The rats, the niches cut into the trench walls for sleeping, the documentary made all that more poignant.    

Spoiler

I never got the battalion with transport trucks just showing up after losing his buddy.  Weren't they all under the same general?  Wouldn't the general know they were out there and just have sent  those two to hook up with them before crossing the line?  

Also, the sniper.  Why was he still there?  Just by himself?  That battalion couldn't have gone that far after he jumped on the bridge.  Seems they would have been watching, given him cover fire when the sniper started.    Also couldn't understand why he insisted on going after the sniper at all.  Just go on around him and eventually get out of range would seem more feasible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Watching They Shall Not Grow Old before seeing 1917 made it more enjoyable to me.  The rats, the niches cut into the trench walls for sleeping, the documentary made all that more poignant.    

  Reveal hidden contents

I never got the battalion with transport trucks just showing up after losing his buddy.  Weren't they all under the same general?  Wouldn't the general know they were out there and just have sent  those two to hook up with them before crossing the line?  

Also, the sniper.  Why was he still there?  Just by himself?  That battalion couldn't have gone that far after he jumped on the bridge.  Seems they would have been watching, given him cover fire when the sniper started.    Also couldn't understand why he insisted on going after the sniper at all.  Just go on around him and eventually get out of range would seem more feasible.

 

 

Spoiler

I agree, that was one in a series of events that was a little puzzling to me. First, a plane crashes right in front of them. Ok, I get it, it's a movie. Then, 20 minutes later, an entire fucking battalion strolls in. Fine. Then, as he leaves the battalion, the worst sniper in the history of snipers starts firing away at him in what seems like an otherwise abandoned area (side note, why did he fly backwards down the stairs if he wasn't shot?). Then, several hours later, he wakes up in the middle of an all out fucking battle. Then, he stumbles on to a woman and child?  I don't know, it was a little much for me.  But, the filming was cool.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Parliament said:

You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

i think this was intentional. we never knew the guy had a family until the end. 

if you've ever been in a situation where you had "disposable acquaintances" it might make more sense. they were brothers in arms, but knew very little about each other, because the horror of the war meant that they could not get to emotionally invested in one another. that war, especially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Parliament said:

You never got invested in the characters.  Just jumped from one scene to the next (stitched together with CGI.)  The part with the girl is the only thing that came close get getting me invested.

That scene was one of the weakest in the whole movie in terms of realism IMO.  She's in a bombed out, German occupied city, with a baby (babies cry) has candles, and a fire burning (lights that an enemy would surely see) in a seemingly intact building in the middle of that chaos ?  I called BS the entire (touching if maudlin scene).  Then, and as he was walking into the town smack dab in the middle of the fire lit street where you have no idea who you might confront.

Other than that it was pretty much exactly the movie I expected. I don't need back stories of wives, family or other character development. The premise for the no mans land dash, great action, and the sense of urgency were well developed in that movie, along with the stunning visuals.  It was a moment/day captured in time during war brilliantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 12:45 PM, pyrohornIII said:

Watching They Shall Not Grow Old before seeing 1917 made it more enjoyable to me.  The rats, the niches cut into the trench walls for sleeping, the documentary made all that more poignant.    

  Reveal hidden contents

I never got the battalion with transport trucks just showing up after losing his buddy.  Weren't they all under the same general?  Wouldn't the general know they were out there and just have sent  those two to hook up with them before crossing the line?  

Also, the sniper.  Why was he still there?  Just by himself?  That battalion couldn't have gone that far after he jumped on the bridge.  Seems they would have been watching, given him cover fire when the sniper started.    Also couldn't understand why he insisted on going after the sniper at all.  Just go on around him and eventually get out of range would seem more feasible.

 

Previously viewing They Shall Not Grow Old had the opposite affect on me.  The documentary pulled together great, colorized film footage that made the recreated scenes in 1917 took like a joke.  Even the characters were better developed as you follow the "lads" through training, the war, and finally their surprise reception back home.  All I got from 1917 was that apparently Germany lost the war because their snipers didn't know how to shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yall do realize the vast majority of World War 1 had very little to no fighting right? As in, people just sat in the same trenches months at a time
 
the people complaining about the borning-ness of this movie are prolly the same people complaining that Jarhead didnt have any action


I didn’t think 1917 was boring but defending a movie‘s boringness because the subject matter isn’t action packed is stupid. Plenty of great movies have been made about unexciting things, including some of the best from the last decade (The Social Network, The Big Short, The Martian, Boyhood).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a great movie and had more depth than a lot of you give it credit for. I think the emotional distance of the character was intentional. He seemed largely emotionally uninvested in the larger task of stopping the attack, which to an outsider seems like something incredibly important. The only thing that seemingly kept him going was seeking out the brother. If not for that emotional attachment he'd probably have given up a number of times (downed bridge, French chick, in the river), and a lot of people would have died.

 

We as a species sort of plod along and perform tasks because that's what we do, but it's the emotional connections that we form that truly push us to greater things.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what my dad told me from his war experiences, I’m pretty certain that one or both of those two guys in the beginning of movie would have quickly vomited from the smell alone when they climbed into the crater filled with decomposing dead bodies.   But the painful death scene from the stabbing realistic because my dad said nothing was worse death for solider than in the gut.  He saw a lot of soldiers from both sides die.

Edited by Horn80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 10:51 PM, KingBobo81 said:

Incredibly shot and incredibly boring. Should win all of the cinematography/visuals/sound, but out of the 7 best picture noms I have seen thus far (haven’t seen marriage story or Ford v Ferrari yet), this was my least favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same thing on both counts.  During the final sequence looking for the colonel, I'm like "just get there already."  It took like 10 minutes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Great War nerd, and I really liked it. I thought visually it was a great depiction. It would have loved for them to have tried to replicate a artillery barrage, but I'm not sure that's possible. Plot wise, the things that I thought were kind of wacky were the German pilot and the sniper. There was so much war fatigue by 1917, particularly in France and Germany, I kind of suspect the pilot would have been grateful they saved him and shared a drink, and the sniper probably would just chill until he could re-unite with his division.

But whatever - I'll take almost any WW1 movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I am a Great War nerd, and I really liked it. I thought visually it was a great depiction. It would have loved for them to have tried to replicate a artillery barrage, but I'm not sure that's possible. Plot wise, the things that I thought were kind of wacky were the German pilot and the sniper. There was so much war fatigue by 1917, particularly in France and Germany, I kind of suspect the pilot would have been grateful they saved him and shared a drink, and the sniper probably would just chill until he could re-unite with his division.

But whatever - I'll take almost any WW1 movie.

The pilot scene bothered me as well. Flyers were warriors in the air, and gentlemen on the ground (I thought). I think he would have probably spoken some English, and known they were trying to save him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pilot scene bothered me as well. Flyers were warriors in the air, and gentlemen on the ground (I thought). I think he would have probably spoken some English, and known they were trying to save him.


That part felt pretty contrived to me as well. Knight of the air gonna stab the same guy who pulled him out of his burning coffin of a plane a few moments before? Unlikely.

But if that doesn’t happen then you don’t get the lone hero saving his mates brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

 


That part felt pretty contrived to me as well. Knight of the air gonna stab the same guy who pulled him out of his burning coffin of a plane a few moments before? Unlikely.

But if that doesn’t happen then you don’t get the lone hero saving his mates brother.

 

True,  another plot device would have been better then probably.  That may just be one of the chinks in the movies armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The pilot scene bothered me as well. Flyers were warriors in the air, and gentlemen on the ground (I thought). I think he would have probably spoken some English, and known they were trying to save him.

Maybe.  Probably.  Or he was just in shock and freaked out.  All in all, I loved it.  Great movie.  I agree with the sentiment that conjoining it with 'And they shall never grow old' is a great recipe.  They should be companion pieces.  It was shocking how accurate that footage is to 1917 and also shocking what they went through in that war. 

The best thing for me about 1917 was the cinematic aspect of being filmed as one complete never ending shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe.  Probably.  Or he was just in shock and freaked out.  All in all, I loved it.  Great movie.  I agree with the sentiment that conjoining it with 'And they shall never grow old' is a great recipe.  They should be companion pieces.  It was shocking how accurate that footage is to 1917 and also shocking what they went through in that war. 

The best thing for me about 1917 was the cinematic aspect of being filmed as one complete never ending shot. 

Yep, shock could have been playing a part for sure. It just seemed a little weak not showing why the flyer freaked, and stabbed our up to that point main character.

Aside from the single shot device I like movies that aren't simply star vehicles.  The story/plot line is the main character.  Capturing a "day in the life," when it's done as well as 1917 is always fun to watch. Master and Commander had a similar feel, even though Russel Crowe stars. He doesn't come across as a movie star, he's a character more than star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep, shock could have been playing a part for sure. It just seemed a little weak not showing why the flyer freaked, and stabbed our up to that point main character.

That might be the point - extending the shock and bewilderment the main character experienced to the audience.  The sheer senselessness of the act, and the ramifications.  

Quote

The story/plot line is the main character. 

Agreed.  Which is why movies like the Then Red Line and Dunkirk were flops to me.  A movie that creates a star, vs. relying upon them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That might be the point - extending the shock and bewilderment the main character experienced to the audience.  The sheer senselessness of the act, and the ramifications.  

Agreed.  Which is why movies like the Then Red Line and Dunkirk were flops to me.  A movie that creates a star, vs. relying upon them.  

Yep,  could have been a shock, war is a senseless, unpredictable, violence thing.

I did enjoy The Thin Red Line, but Dunkirk seems so disjointed, and there really wasn't a character you could follow thru the story line. Too many disjointed, out of sequence stories for me.

 I love Tom Hardy, but that fighter pilot scene really sucked IMO.  I did like the boat flotilla scenes, those created a humanity in the movie, more so than the soldiers on the Quay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep,  could have been a shock, war is a senseless, unpredictable, violence thing.

I did enjoy The Thin Red Line, but Dunkirk seems so disjointed, and there really wasn't a character you could follow thru the story line. Too many disjointed, out of sequence stories for me.

 I love Tom Hardy, but that fighter pilot scene really sucked IMO.  I did like the boat flotilla scenes, those created a humanity in the movie, more so than the soldiers on the Quay.

I really, really wanted to like Dunkirk.  I did.  But it was just such a mess of ominous music and overlapped story lines.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I really, really wanted to like Dunkirk.  I did.  But it was just such a mess of ominous music and overlapped story lines.  

Ditto.  So many people had/have never known about that opening chapter of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

I know im in the minority, but i think Thin Red Line is better than the last 1 hr and 40 min of SPR

Agree and Nick Nolte should have won an Oscar for his role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of actors who were filmed in The Thin Red Line: 

 

Jim Cavaziel

Nick Nolte

Thomas Jane

George Clooney

Jared Leto

Adrien Brody

John Travolta

Nick Stahl

John C Reilly

Bill Pullman

Mickey Rourke

Sean Penn

Elias Koteas

John Cusack

Woody Harrelson

Miranda Otto

John Savage

Tim Blake Nelson

Billy Bob Thornton

Ben Chaplin

 

 

5-6 of em even got cut out of the movie. Id kill for a 4-5hr directors cut of that movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 1:01 PM, GreenspointTexas said:

I know im in the minority, but i think Thin Red Line is better than the last 1 hr and 40 min of SPR

I tend to agree.  But they really are different kinds of movies.  They just happen to be set during the same time period half a world apart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally caught it today on the big screen. Very pleasant surprise. I was worried about the Dunkirk comparisons, but I found it compelling throughout. I think the sequence where the burned out town is lit by flares is an excellent example of how they brought the period to life. 

Loved it. Great year for movies or at least nominees. I don't know how to compare 1917 with Parasite or Jojo Rabbit. They're so different. Not that anybody cares, but I'd give the nod to Jojo as my favorite if I had to choose. Parasite keeps rattling around in my head which is a very good sign for a movie. 1917 achieved its goals and brought to life on of the more horrifying/fascinating wars in the last 200 years.

I thoroughly enjoyed hitting the theaters and TV the last four weeks to catch all the nominated movies. Little Women was the only one that's forgetable.

Maybe the studios will loosen the purse strings a little for movies of a smaller scale with more human stakes.

Happy viewing, my friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched it last night... Very good but a few obvious plot holes as discussed.

The girl/baby made no sense (I currently have a baby). The girl isn’t the mother, doesn’t have milk, and the baby can’t eat food. Unless she found that baby an hour ago, it would be screaming

Worth the watch for sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HoustonFrog said:

Watched it last night... Very good but a few obvious plot holes as discussed.

The girl/baby made no sense (I currently have a baby). The girl isn’t the mother, doesn’t have milk, and the baby can’t eat food. Unless she found that baby an hour ago, it would be screaming

Worth the watch for sure

Really, my only problem with it and I was bored during that scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HoustonFrog said:

Watched it last night... Very good but a few obvious plot holes as discussed.

The girl/baby made no sense (I currently have a baby). The girl isn’t the mother, doesn’t have milk, and the baby can’t eat food. Unless she found that baby an hour ago, it would be screaming

Worth the watch for sure

The whole town sequence bugged me. Walking out in the middle of a street at night in a potentially hostile area, then finding the mother in a basement with lights and a fire  (sure to draw the interest of anyone walking by), and the food thing.  

Stranger things have happened in war though so I don't hold it against the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was captivated, but ultimately seemed like a Sims, WW1 Edition.

It wasn't Paths of Glory, and that is okay.

It was like one of the trench scenes in Paths of Glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...