Rent 1917 (2019)

Excellent piece of cinema, historically implausible, however - 1917 review by Philip in Paradiso

This is an excellent film, and quite a unique one in terms of its pace, its suspense, and the quality of the acting and storyline. As a film, it is faultless and I strongly recommend it.

As a historical drama, however, it is implausible in more ways than one. The inaccuracies are listed in the relevant section of the Wikipedia article on the film: the high command would not have cared two hoots whether 1,600 men were going to get killed or not (given the scale of the slaughter in WWI: a drop -- of blood -- in the bucket); the front was static and the troops were cooped up in trenches, whereas the movie shows 2 soldiers on the move at all times, showing initiative and coping all by themselves -- so, the entire film is built upon a false premise that is a-historical. The officers, except one, are surprisingly humane and approachable -- a good few of them at any rate. I think this is also pure fiction.

There are also details that are absurd. E.g.: an Indian soldier is part of an all-British unit of infantry. In reality, Indian troops were in separate regiments, as part of the Indian Army, which did fight on the Western front, but was pulled out in 1916. This is just a politically correct gimmick, in other words. And letters carried in envelopes do not seem to get wet and the ink doesn't run, even after they've been immersed in water. (When you see the film, you will understand what I mean.)

Having said all this, watch the film and you will enjoy it. It is excellent as a film. It looks highly realistic, even though it is not realistic at all -- not one bit. However, the depiction of no man's land is suitably macabre and memorable.

Over-rated and Oddly Flat, Overly pc/woke WWI Quest Film with a Top-Notch British Cast. - 1917 review by PV

OK so the technical side of creating this movie with very long takes and no editing was a masterful use of technology - watch the EXTRA documentaries on the DVD about this.

But and it is a big but, the film and story oddly fail to really engage - and the CGI is massively used (done in India I see from the credits). Maybe because it's a thin story - 2 soldiers on a mission into enemy territory to deliver a message to stop a deadly doomed attach by the British on the Germans in 1917 (not a spoiler - the blurb states this). So that is what it is. 2 hours of it.

A great cast including the wonderful young actor George Mackay almost unrecognisable for his role in Pride as a young shy teen. One to watch - an Oscar one day for him, I am sure. BUT this over-rated and over-praised movie is not the one.

A couple of niggles. I HATED the superhero movie soundtrack - it really spoilt so many scenes (and no I do not care what won a BAFTA).

Secondly, it is wrong to show Indian soldiers mixed in with young British men - it did not happen like that. There were Indian units, for sure, separated - by colour, yes, but mostly by religion due to deep ancient hatreds of Indians by Indians (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh). That is another film, so show that. Ditto for the black soldiers - there were separated West Indian units in WWI (not WWII in the UK - in the US< yes) as well as a TINY number of British-born blacks reflecting the tiny number of blacks in the UK in 1917 to join up. There are too many here and yes it does matter as it would matter if white faces were shown in a film about Zulus or native Indians, non? It seems to me people pick and choose colourblind casting as it suits them and their agenda. If it doesnlt they yell about 'authentic casting' - well this casting was not authentic and it spoilt the film as it is promoting a pc woke imagined and wished-for truth rather than a historical one. Shame.

3 stars. A bit meh and feels oddly lacking in emotion and flat. I cannot work out why.

Looks great...but it has some issues - 1917 review by LC

Visually this film is stunning, and worth a watch just on that level, with amazing sets, camerawork and cinematography. However, the flipside is that everything is so artfully composed that it ends up losing any sense of reality, with the constant smooth gliding of the camera giving the feel of either a computer game, or a sanitised, glossy Hollywood production, rather than more gritty war films of the past. The script also tends towards Hollywood sentimentality at times, whilst both the lead characters make baffling decisions when confronted with the enemy, on multiple occasions putting their lives in danger, rather than actually do the obvious thing of raising their guns and immediately shooting their opponents. Still - worth watching just for the eye candy. (3.5 out of 5)

Excellent WW1 film - 1917 review by AW

Superbly acted and filmed. An interesting and fast moving story with great sound and visual effects. Well worth watching and a film to remember and watch again.

1917 - 1917 review by AW

This film truly captures the brutality and horrors of the First World War. The cinematography is outstanding, with the camera work giving the viewer a real sense of the devastation and chaos of the battlefield.

The plot follows two young soldiers, Blake and Schofield, who are sent on a dangerous mission to deliver a message that could save the lives of 1,600 men. The journey is perilous and fraught with danger, as the two men must navigate enemy lines and treacherous terrain to reach their destination. One aspect of the film that truly impressed me was the way it portrayed the futility of war. The soldiers are depicted as pawns in a larger game, with their lives being sacrificed for the sake of political and strategic goals. This message is conveyed without being overly preachy or didactic, and it serves as a powerful reminder of the human cost of conflict.

The performances of the actors are also noteworthy. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman deliver excellent performances as Blake and Schofield, respectively. The supporting cast, which includes Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Mark Strong, also give strong performances. Overall, I highly recommend 1917 to anyone who is interested in history, war movies, or just great filmmaking in general. It is a gripping and emotional journey that will leave you breathless and with a newfound appreciation for the sacrifices made by those who fought in the Great War.

Highly Recommended - 1917 review by GI

Sam Mendes has delivered an exhilarating war film that has a sense of adventure about it. For the most part the film is one long take with only a couple of obvious edits making this a journey of discovery type narrative. On the western front Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George McKay) are given a mission to cross the German lines to reach a large contingent of British soldiers poised to launch an attack the next day. Fresh intelligence has revealed the Germans have laid a trap and the men will be massacred unless they're warned to stop their advance. As an added incentive Blake's brother is one of the soldiers who will die if they fail. From the moment they receive their orders the camera follows their passage through No Mans Land and beyond and along the way there are shocks and surprises. Some of the set pieces are very impressive and whilst there are some gruesome images the film isn't particularly bloody or violent and it's closer in style to Dunkirk (2017) than Saving Private Ryan (1998). There are some lovely tender moments as well as gritty combat scenes. An impressive war film with a great supporting cast including Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott and Richard Madden and certainly one of the best set during the First World War and definitely one to see at the cinema if you get a chance. Highly recommended.

Nail biting action movie but... - 1917 review by MB

1917 is a proper nail-biting, edge-of-the-seat action movie. The film-making / camera work is superb and my brain hurts just trying to work out how Mendes and his crew did it so well. The storyline is proper 'boys own' and you really are rooting for the main characters to be successful.

There has to be an element of 'near-missism' but some of the capers were a little far fetched for such a serious film.

The three stars as opposed to four, for me, was mainly because of the Am-Dram-esque acting. The way the characters delivered their lines was as if they were performing at the local church hall performance of 'Far from the Madding Crowd' or something, rather than in the middle of a 2020 movie about the worst bloodbath in human history! Other, more learned scholars, may well disagree with me but that's how I saw it.