1917

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,007
3,398
Has anyone had a chance to see this yet?

I went to watch this last night at an IMAX and thought it was an incredible film. I do enjoy history anyway but it's unquestionably the best war film I've ever seen, the cinematography is stunning, the acting is really good and it's just full of drama and suspense, without falling into the usual traps. I'd definitely recommend seeing at an IMAX if possible but I'm sure it's just as brilliant on a regular screen. It's well worth checking out. I can't remember seeing a film at the cinema that I enjoyed more than this, it's an incredible film.
 

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
60,720
20,549
The House that Peterbilt
Im interested..............

Have you read any Lyn MacDonald?

The title reminds me of her '1915' and I thought the film might be based on one of her works when I first saw the poster for it............
 
Jun 5, 2013
10,842
8,152
Oz
I’m going to watch it today but there are no iMax screens near me, so it’s Vmax instead. Looks epic.
 
Last edited:

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,007
3,398
Im interested..............

Have you read any Lyn MacDonald?

The title reminds me of her '1915' and I thought the film might be based on one of her works when I first saw the poster for it............
I think it's loosely based off stories by the grandfather of Sam Mendes who directed it, but it's historical accuracy wouldn't really have any bearing on the film because of the way it's shot. I don't think this is a spoiler because it's mentioned in the trailer but two soldiers are sent on a mission across no mans land, and it follows them from the moment they get the instruction until the end of the film, so it's set like you watch every second of what happened. There are no cuts between characters or moving from one location to another, it's just all in there, from beginning to end. It definitely gives you a strong representation of how brutal and gritty the war was though, it portrays it excellently and there's nothing that stands out as being inaccurate for history buffs.

I've never seen a film which portrays the obvious emotion of war better than this does. Maybe it's because it's shot over a short space of time and does highlight everything, but you definitely come away understanding of why war, and World War I in particular, is so devastating.
 

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
60,720
20,549
The House that Peterbilt
I think it's loosely based off stories by the grandfather of Sam Mendes who directed it, but it's historical accuracy wouldn't really have any bearing on the film because of the way it's shot. I don't think this is a spoiler because it's mentioned in the trailer but two soldiers are sent on a mission across no mans land, and it follows them from the moment they get the instruction until the end of the film, so it's set like you watch every second of what happened. There are no cuts between characters or moving from one location to another, it's just all in there, from beginning to end. It definitely gives you a strong representation of how brutal and gritty the war was though, it portrays it excellently and there's nothing that stands out as being inaccurate for history buffs.

I've never seen a film which portrays the obvious emotion of war better than this does. Maybe it's because it's shot over a short space of time and does highlight everything, but you definitely come away understanding of why war, and World War I in particular, is so devastating.
Ill see if I convince the lady friend to go see it with me................
 

WaltzingMatilda

BANNED AGAIN
Nov 29, 2015
2,998
984
Unless it portrays Australia & their brilliant General John Monash winning the war it’s pretty much inaccurate so I’m not sure I’ll bother, I’ll see
 

WaltzingMatilda

BANNED AGAIN
Nov 29, 2015
2,998
984
Dunkirk was terrible..epic fail.

this one I hope has it all..gassing shit.

The war to remind us that white people starts all the stupid shit..

stupid alliances and such. I’ll give it another 20 years when America has to save these clowns again.


All the stupid shit?

you might want to tell the Navy people at Pearl Harbour that
 

NSFW

Freedom Fighter
May 14, 2013
23,620
12,330
Castle Duckula.
I saw the trailer and a bit where I think a guy jumps into a waterfall and thought nah. Sure it will be a great visual experience like Dunkirk, but I'll be surprised if it doesn't carry the same problems that film did in terms that it was all about the director showing off and not about anything else.
 
May 17, 2013
5,653
1,046
Not seen it yet, I did read its not actually related to any real story which is a bit of a shame. I also would love to see a war film based on the eastern front of ww1, where unlike the west, the vast distances made it very un trench like in many areas, and where the smaller German army ran rings round the vast giant that was the imperial Russian army, and gave them a kicking.

Throw in the Austrian - Hungarian empire who the Germans had to basically prop up such was there shitness, massive manpower, but so many different nationality's forced to fight for them, due to being forced to be part of there empire, it was a recipe for the disaster it was when they invaded Serbia at start of www1. The balkan area which was the worst part to control, would refracture in the 1990s into a brutal civil war to.
 
Last edited:

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA *funded by Soros*
Dec 6, 2019
5,128
3,952
20
Varaždin, Hrvaška
This film succeeded everywhere where Dunkirk failed.

Where as Dunkirk gave the impression that there were 100 Brits lined up orderly on the beaches of Dunkirk for 3 days, this film gives you the impression there are thousands of soldiers and somehow manages to give them all a face.

***Minor spoilers There's a scene where a British soldier is trying to give orders to an army commander and he has to trek through a British trench just before an attack is due to take place and the camera follows him as he's trying to wade through a sea of men.

Of course like Dunkirk it's a beautiful film with amazing cinematography and music, but unlike Dunkirk there is actual action and violence to supplement the similar feelings of anxiety you get watching both films. However, you actually never see a full scale battle take place which could be a critisicm if you were looking more for Saving Private Ryan.

Also, I don't understand why some critics are saying the main characters aren't fleshed out enough. There are 2 main characters and by the end you come to understand who they are and also who their families are. They even have various British companies the main characters run into with some Sikh soldiers included and I'm certain if you are British you can pick out the various accents of the soldiers as they comment on them in the film but your average American won't pick those out.

The only real criticisms of the film I have would be they should've made the main characters runners instead of having them go on this mission because it's the one guys brother. I'm sure it's within the realm of possibility and Mendes states it was based on various stories his grandpa told him but for most audiences it will be unbelievable. Just make them runners which were considered one of the most dangerous jobs in WW1. **MAJOR SPOILERS Although, I did like at the end with Benedict Cumberbatch states how even if the attack is stopped now they'll probably be ordered to attack tomorrow or the next day so I'm the overall war effort it doesn't really matter but it matters for the main characters because of the personal ties they have.

Also I think they should've started the film with a trench battle, it's a real slow burn for a large portion of the beginning of the film before it ramps up. I know Saving Private Ryan made opening destructive and violent battles cliche but it would've really worked to set the mood.



9/10. Must see. 2nd best war film of the year next to Midway
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al and NSFW
May 23, 2013
8,486
1,078
tahiti
Not seen it yet, I did read its not actually related to any real story which is a bit of a shame. I also would love to see a war film based on the eastern front of ww1, where unlike the west, the vast distances made it very un trench like in many areas, and where the smaller German army ran rings round the vast giant that was the imperial Russian army, and gave them a kicking.

Throw in the Austrian - Hungarian empire who the Germans had to basically prop up such was there shitness, massive manpower, but so many different nationality's forced to fight for them, due to being forced to be part of there empire, it was a recipe for the disaster it was when they invaded Serbia at start of www1. The balkan area which was the worst part to control, would refracture in the 1990s into a brutal civil war to.
German fighting in ww1 in the east was brilliant (battle of tannenberg for instance).

Just as in ww2 the germans where unlucky with their companions.
Both austria-hungary and italy sucked...
 
Reactions: joe33
May 8, 2013
8,914
3,857
Why ???
You Guys spell for example a foreign city also in english aka the hague in stead of den haag.
So why can’t we say harbour instead of harbor
Because it is an inaccurate rendition of a proper noun, you mong. NOTE: I do NOT agree with the English-speaking world renaming towns away from their original. Munchen should not be called Munich, etc. The only issue is that we do not have umlauts in our alphabet, but that could be ignored.
 
May 23, 2013
8,486
1,078
tahiti
Because it is an inaccurate rendition of a proper noun, you mong. NOTE: I do NOT agree with the English-speaking world renaming towns away from their original. Munchen should not be called Munich, etc. The only issue is that we do not have umlauts in our alphabet, but that could be ignored.
First : whats with the namecalling ?
I can’t remember the last time i insulted you,
So answer normal or don’t answer at all.
Its a matter of respect and being polite.

Second : proper noun etc etc sure could be.
But when i was in school be teached english we learned harbour instead of harbor.
So maybe things change in time ????
 
May 8, 2013
8,914
3,857
First : whats with the namecalling ?
I can’t remember the last time i insulted you,
So answer normal or don’t answer at all.
Its a matter of respect and being polite.

Second : proper noun etc etc sure could be.
But when i was in school be teached english we learned harbour instead of harbor.

So maybe things change in time ????
Gee, you have never called me a name ever I guess. :wall

Anyway, don't be so sensitive, I was kidding.

"Harbour" is correct for proper nouns in the UK and Oz, and possibly Canada too.

"Harbor" is the correct US spelling, and Pearl Harbor is in the US. "Pearl Harbour" does not technically exist.