Discuss 1917
Discuss → Movies → 1917 → General
I found this a rather dull and plodding affair. The "single take" was interesting then pointless. A cut or two to interrupt the faux realism might have even improved the goings on. My attention strayed wondering how much of the background and even the masses of soldiers was CGI. Probably much of it. Two major events seemed lifted straight out of Saving Private Ryan a film I have little love even like for unlike most people. Other events were there just to tie up plot expectations.
The film even struck me as a WWI first person shooter video game. The German side were just the usual faceless Hun. WWI was a massive slaughter for the sake of inches or feet of land drawn on maps by the fading empires that commited collective suicide for the benefit of history. If war is hell was the theme along with the brotherhood of soldiers, then those are themes shared with most war films.
Reply by tmdb33747247
on January 21, 2020 at 8:11 PM
I've heard mixed reviews for this one. But nothing has really interested me enough to sit down and watch it for myself. The whole 'done in a single take' thing has been done before, and usually strikes me as more of a gimmick to make a relatively uninteresting story a little more exciting.
Reply by znexyish
on January 21, 2020 at 11:14 PM
There is hardly a story. Just a set up where two soldiers are sent to deliver a message across the no man's land between one side and the other. Situations occur, a couple predictable, a couple contrived. Along the way there is a lot of death and destruction to take in and look at.
The point of view of the camera is odd. I suppose it represents a soldiers eye view. To me it looked like just the camera always moving ahead and around the action. No real point to it to me other than that.
Reply by Nexus71
on January 27, 2020 at 5:54 PM
If one wants an engaging single take shot watch the openings scene in Kubrick's Paths Of Glory
Reply by znexyish
on January 27, 2020 at 6:16 PM
Or the opening shot of Welle's Touch of Evil
Reply by Nexus71
on January 27, 2020 at 6:20 PM
Yeah good example as well Great movie despite the fact Welles didn't want to make the movie but had to because of contractual obligations.Although Heston playing a Mexican would be considered racist nowadays.But one mentioned Kubrick because both 1917 and POG deal with WW I .
Reply by revengine
on February 3, 2020 at 6:24 AM
I wouldn't call it great but I wouldn't call it mediocre either - maybe somewhere in between. More of a technical achievement than anything else I suppose, but not a bad movie over all. The lack of back story or "slice of life" reminded me of Dunkirk.
Reply by manfromatlantis
on March 13, 2020 at 12:20 AM
I found it fairly decent/
Reply by Nexus71
on March 14, 2020 at 8:00 AM
I found Dunkirk a bit of a bore.I found the original Dunkirk from the 50's more engaging despite it being shot in black and white
Reply by Steve
on April 11, 2020 at 12:28 PM
Found it a bit heartless. The blood and violence seemed like a video game. In fact the whole one camera shot seemed to be a first-person shooter. Like when he's given something only to use it out of his inventory later (like the milk). I wanted to love it but it was a technical achievement but I never got pulled in.
Reply by CheekyMonkey
on May 10, 2020 at 5:33 PM
Lacks the intensity, dread and helplessness that Dunkirk had...
Also, Dunkirk's distant, detached cinama style seemed better at conveying the coldness of war then 1917... As much as I liked 1917, it had an odd combination of sentimentality and video game-y (FPS) feel that in a way calls too much attention to itself...
I know some people feel the same way about the long one-shot in Atonement... As if it's the director showing off... but with that movie it didn't really take me out of the experience... perhaps because it had a more varied visual style and pacing in the earlier scenes...