Yeah, I don’t think it’s a dream. But I’m not sure what to make of it. Was he shot? He fell violently backwards as if he were shot, and the sniper fired a round right at him as he opened the door, but his only wound was on the back of his head, which he most likely got tumbling down the stairs.
I thought that it clearly hits his helmet.
— Alan
I think you’re saying this is stuff you know about the war and how it was fought (and not something that was part of this movie). If that’s true, I LOVE that you mentioned this. I need to think about it a little bit more, but I love that the move subverts that kind of approach to this story, and, instead of cleaving to facts, sticks to (for me at least) the more powerful story of this man’s sense of duty to his comrade and family.
Really? The person I saw this with said that, but I didn’t catch that clue. It didn’t detract much but I did sort of wonder as we sat there staring at the dark screen.
Just saw this tonight. Was great.
How much did they pay Cumberbatch for <2 minutes of screen time though lol.
Also, super distracting.
Saw this tonight. The premise of the story was a bit weak, but my God the cinematography. Those long scenes. I kept looking for cuts but they were few and far between. Amazing.
Just like the real WWI, wot?
I wasn’t overwhelmed by this? I think in large part, my viewing experience was tarnished by having very noisy audience members on either side of me (one, an elderly woman who was hawking up phlegm every few minutes, and the other, a woman who ate her popcorn kernel by kernel, loudly scraping each one against the side of the tub for several seconds beforehand–it was literally loud enough that I missed a number of lines of dialogue) but also because of the trailer. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie where my enjoyment was sapped to such a great degree by having seen the trailer. Basically, every big setpiece is shown, and as I watched, there was a part of my mind that was just keeping a checklist of scenes from the trailer and whether those have come up yet.
That said, the visuals were great, the acting was fine (I wasn’t even bothered by the big names that showed up), and some parts were genuinely affecting.
I just wish I could have seen this blind and with a better audience.
Saw this last night. So wow. I did not expect this thing to be so good from the previews. It had its slow spots but… I have to say it was a work of cinematographic art. I won’t spoiler the camera movements and cuts, because you have to see it to believe it.
BTW just like the lord of the rings --why couldn’t the eagles drop the ring in?
Still the scenes and dialogue and WWI stuff first 2/3 of this movie were riveting and fantastic.
This movie was almost more a post-apoc movie than a war movie. And I loved it for that.
Best movie of 2019 (imhop) aside from maybe Hollywood.
Really excellent film. Highly recommended. It is sort of like Dunkirk where tension ratchets up steadily from the beginning and doesn’t let up.
This one drives that through the camera and editing more than the music. The landscape is the story in this one, so the plot-line is the perfect vehicle to tell it.
I took the kids and don’t regret it one bit. It is gruesome in parts and shows death, of course, but it is human and honest and provoked fantastic critical discussion. It is a window to WW1 in film that I do not believe has been opened before.
I’m glad it was made. I’d be incredible surprised if it does not sweep the oscars, including best movie. I’ll have to view it again, but at this point I can’t think of another war movie that tops it, including Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk.
The plot was weak, the actors were given very little to work with, and the most unforgivable part is just how many obvious cuts there were. If you base a movie purely around a technical gimmick, it had better work.
Russian trolls on Qt3
This movie was a triumph
This was my feeling too. 1917 kind of failed on all fronts for me. There was so little plot that it didn’t give much for the actors to work with. The gimmick of “one continuous take” was technically impressive but fairs poorly when compared to Birdman (Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) - IMDb) which used the same technique but had tons of great acting and pathos.
I felt bored after about 30 minutes. It was just 2 guys walking… and walking… and walking…
The scenery was neat though I guess.
Jesus H why do some of you go to movies. That biplane scene.
“1917 wasn’t The Avengers. So it sucks.”
By the time the biplane scene arrived the movie had already lost me. I didn’t feel invested in the plight of these characters. The special effects while impressive were nothing I haven’t seen a thousand times before in a thousand different movies. I exaggerate but you get the idea. Heck, the movie “Knowing” (2009) a mid-budget Nicolas Cage vehicle had an equally impressive plane crash (in terms of spectacle).
(WARNING: Graphic depiction of a plane crash - very NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gWFTv3xE8
For some reason I find myself comparing 1917 to “Gravity” (2013). Thin plot, characters in plight, driven by spectacle. However, I thoroughly enjoyed Gravity where as 1917 left me cold. I think this is in part due to the visuals being far richer (chiefly thanks to its setting) and also due to the strong performance by Sandra Bullock. I was rooting for her in a way that the 1917 characters for some reason didn’t evoke.
To have a good time with friends, and ideally to have something to talk about over beers after the movie. But that’s kind of the wrong question. The real one is “why choose to see a specific movie”. 1917 would normally have been a skip based on the trailer. But we added it to the list after seeing the featurette about how it was filmed, since it seemed like a rather audacious project. And then it turned out they couldn’t actually deliver on that particular promise, and had nothing else to replace it with.
The most obvious comparison I can make is to They Shall Not Grow Old. Also WWI, also centered around a technical gimmick that didn’t really deliver on the promise, but with far more emotional impact than 1917. It’s kind of crazy that Peter Jackson managed to build a more coherent narrative out of scraps of archive tape than the 1917 authors did when starting from scratch.
It really didn’t help that something like half the shots were just showing the backs of the characters, even when they were talking.
Fair enough. I’m sorry it didn’t work for y’all.
There were two cuts as far as I could see. And I was watching closely. And the realism and scenery gave those actors all they had to work with.
Watch the flare.