Author Topic: 1917 by Sam Mendes  (Read 721 times)

Offline macsporran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
1917 by Sam Mendes
« on: January 19, 2020, 06:01:34 PM »
Went to Stirling Vue Cinema last night to see this movie with the family. Wow!
In fact, Double Wow! What a film.
It's all run in one continuous take from the two soldiers receiving their orders at the start, then with them all the way through the trenches, across no-man's land, through enemy lines, a ruined city and finally across the line of a massed attack. We couldn't take our eyes away for a moment for the whole two hours.
A masterpiece: if this doesn't clean up at the Oscars it'll be a travesty. The scene of the crashing Albatros is superb.
Sorry to rant, but really you must see this!

Offline Robin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2020, 07:20:37 PM »
I liked it also, but the huge amount of easily avoidable "unlikeliness" and outright wrongs was disappointing. 
Mainly after the "Albatros event" I think the story and scenery became pure fantasy.

Silly example...there simply is no waterfall anywhere near. :o
Found my mojo and clipped it's wings, so it won't fly away.

Offline macsporran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2020, 10:22:46 PM »
Of course you are right, Robin.
There is no place for dramatic licence in such a tale. We should shun Shakespeare because of those pesky clocks in Julius Caesar etc.
We should save our cinematic accolades for the historical accuracy of the Marvel Universe, GoT and Lord of the Rings.

It's a movie for Pete's sake, why not have a waterfall if it works dramatically?

Offline pepperman42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3392
  • Sergeant, my brown pants.......
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2020, 06:49:02 AM »
Funny, Lord of the Rings and 1917 have more in common than at first glance although I found Frodo's feet not hairy enough.

Steve
I was clean,shaved and sober and I didnt care who knew it.

Offline GrahamB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2020, 08:56:32 AM »
 I posted this on another site and I agree with  Robin's comments. Of course it is "just a film" (Macsporran et al) but for me it lacked any real intensity (despite all the hype) especially after the crash scene, and the ending (from Schofield running in front of the jump-off trench to the out-in-the open/a few yards back casualty clearing station), was risible. I much prefer Journey's End and this is one of my favourite films of all.

"I saw it yesterday and was generally impressed but thought the ending was rather flat. Why it needed the dismal Cumberbatch to utter a few banal and cliched lines beats me as well. It was very ambitious (perhaps too ambitious) in its scope and I thought the trench scenes most effective. The most jarring scene (spoiler alert) was the fall into the raging torrential river that a few minutes before was a navigable canal-like feature. This, together with the large waterfall and hard upland rocks and vegetation, was somewhat gratuitous and is also becoming a movie cliche. Schofield climbs out then walks through the wood to come across a chalk downland vista. Mmmm...

Anyway, good too see WW1 being depicted in a mainstream movie and the British as the main military characters. I can't recall any family members being involved in WW1 (grandfathers too young, great-grandfathers too old) apart from a great uncle who was a fitter in the RFC."

Cheers, GrahamB

Offline Borsos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2020, 03:39:30 PM »
The only true WWI movie is the “Red Baron” featuring Matthias Schweighöfer. They got each and every tiny detail right.

Andreas

P. S.: Those unicorns were cool, weren’t they?

 :)
"Deux armées aux prises, c'est une grande armée qui se suicide."
Barbusse.
"Ein Berg in Deutschland kann doch einen Berg in Frankreich nicht beleidigen. Oder ein Fluß oder ein Wald oder ein Weizenfeld."
Remarque.

Offline Dave Brewer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2020, 04:53:30 PM »
I too was ambivalent about it,it's certainly worth seeing for the cinematography but there certainly were a few silly elements that jarred,probably not that the general viewing public would pick up on them;it seems to be a runaway success.I'm with Graham about Journey's End,a wholly absorbing and insightful story.

Dave.

Offline macsporran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2020, 06:18:56 PM »
Journey's End, the play by RC Sherriff, was of course also the basis for the 1976 Aces High film. I'm sure the Stampe SE5s etc there can cause problems too, but hey-ho, I prefer to see cups half full.

Offline GrahamB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2020, 04:56:27 AM »
I'm sure the Stampe SE5s etc there can cause problems too,

Macsporran - you are really being childish. My relatively few gripes with the film are do do with the narrative being out-of-kilter in places and its playing for effects (torrent river, nightime blazing village etc) when they were not necessary or could have been done with greater subtlety and a better script. Nothing to do with nit-picking over details. In fact the military side (trench scenes, no-man's land etc) looked very good and a bigger impact than in Journey's End because of the larger scale.

Have a nice day.
GrahamB  (an almost real name)


Offline macsporran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2020, 06:16:56 AM »
Whoa, Graham - I'm sorry if I've caused you any offence, I certainly didn't mean to.

I'm just trying to say that I think it perfectly reasonable to allow a few minor historical inaccuracies in a movie if it tightens the drama, works in favour of the storyline and doesn't misrepresent what largely happened. (Unlike Tarantino!)
Others may disagree and that's fine, but a movie isn't a documentary - (although the number of times I see Blenheims being called Heinkels and B17s called Lancasters in such 'factual' shows makes me wonder at the distinction.)

Anyway live and let live. I just posted the thread as a heads-up in case any of us WWI enthusiasts might miss it.
Sandy

Offline Dave W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 887
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2020, 10:50:13 AM »
Gentlemen

I have yet to see "1917" but I did see "Aces High" and thought it evoked the period well but ( personally) was a let down due to the aircraft used. Roger Corman's "Von Richthofen and Brown" had great flying sequences but some plot inconsistencies (!) but for me the best commercial WW1 movie ever will always be "The Blue Max".

Is Ursula Andress in "1917"? I do hope so. And don't tell me Bruno Stachel was flying that Albatros in the film.

Just to keep the topic in the air, the best EVER WW1 flying sequences are in a film you have to go to the Australian War Memorial to see- Sir Peter Jackson's jaw dropping multi screen movie about the Australian Flying Corps using the best CGI ever seen in a WW1 flying movie and TVAL's collection of real aircraft. Best viewed sitting underneath the SE5a seated beside the Albatros in the museum WW1 aviation hall.

cheers

Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia
Owner and Administrator of ww1aircraftmodels.com and forum.ww1aircraftmodels.com

Offline Jeff K

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2020, 04:43:45 PM »
haven't seen this yet, but of more recent films, i liked Beneath Hill 60.

Borsos, that Red Baron movie was too accurate for me i had to turn it off halfway through :p

Offline lcarroll

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7595
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2020, 01:08:19 AM »
     ....... it all ended with "The Blue Max"! :(
Cheers!
Lance

Offline GrahamB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2020, 04:17:35 AM »
No worries about my previous post. A case of cross-purposes really. Accuracy wasn't my theme. 1917 clearly went to great lengths here but the whole didn't gel with me. I can't see myself wanting to view it again, unlike many others. After seeing Journey's End I bought the DVD and have watched it at least half a dozen times - even got a copy of the play and the book about the 9/East Surrey Regt. My other top war/military films (regardless of any "accuracy" issues) are Thin Red Line, The Cruel Sea, The Enemy Below, Das Boot, Atonement, Life & Time of Colonel Blimp, Colonel Redl, and Tunes of Glory. The last is a gem of a film, and I can have teary eyes at the ending even after seeing it many times.

Back to WW1 aviation, here is a thought: as 1917 was set during "Bloody April" perhaps poor young Blake should have been killed by the crash of a shot-down RFC plane, perhaps a DH2 or BE2c struggling back to the British lines - or even by the Albatros coming in a for a coup of grace strafe?
Cheers, GrahamB.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 04:47:53 AM by GrahamB »

Offline Gisbod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
Re: 1917 by Sam Mendes
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2020, 06:56:52 PM »
I’m going to see it at the weekend  :)

I’m expecting to be disappointed as I do tend to see the faults in any war film, particularly a period I’m so engaged in.

I didn’t enjoy Dunkirk much because a couple of laughable errors..

Guy