1917 Review: This Movie Is Incredible

Sam Mendes, the acclaimed director of Skyfall (among other films, but most average audiences only really know his James Bond shit), decided to tackle the subject matter of World War 1 with his thriller 1917. Which is really damn good, in all honesty.
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/thealmi...

[@pyrrhusofepirus8491]

One of my favourite parts is when he’s finally done it, he’s completed his goal, after all that he succeeded and what reward does he get? He gets told to dress his wounds, and fuck off. Like it’s another day, because it’s just another day.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

To be fair thats exactly how a Lt. Colonel would treat a Lance Corporal

[@joshuaortiz2031]

They're soldiers they dont need a pat on the back its their job. The main character understands what is at stake and there was a guy that tells him well done. An older NCO tells him well done after the Lt Colonel tells him to fuck off.

[@kenken8765]

Well he was also told to go get hot chow in the mess hall. That's something. Better than eating flattened who knows how old ham sandwich from your coat pocket.

[@kenken8765]

"He fought in the Somme." And he survived. That one sentence alone, if you know anything about WW1, is enough to tell what horror he has already faced. Absolutely one of my favorite WW1 films next to "Paths of Glory", "All Quiet in the Western Front" (German perspective of the war), and "A Very Long Engagement".

[@seeinred]

WW1 movie? Oh my. Now that goes into my watch list.

[@Calebe428]

best movie of the decade so far :\

[@stormeaglegaming5395]

This is one of my favorite ww1 movies.

[@John-uy4jx]

My top 3 are Beneath Hill 60, 1917 and Flyboys.

[@jonlocke7112]

yourmoviesucks has a lot of good points in his reviews but I feel like he watches so many films and has such a niche taste for what he enjoys he comes off elitist and pedantic.

[@Grasses0n]

Yeah I only really enjoy listening to him shit on movies that are actually bad.

[@kylefloyd7556]

The only emotional moment I had was towards the end when that wave went over the top to certain death.

[@madcat789]

I remember a guy broke down in the seat in the front of me.

[@ben_sisko2149]

One thing you didn't mention about what's interesting about WWI (you don't have a history channel so... understandable) is that, as we can see in the trailers that's in the background of the video: most soldier (on each side) were really, really young. Some people have even dubbed the war "The War of the Children". Most guys were around 19 and there were even younger soldiers. It's a pity this war is so underrepresented in movies; you've got a ton to work with, honestly. as you said, it's a much nuanced scenario.

[@Subsaibot2526]

I'll be checking this out when I can.

[@Benadryllionaire]

If you really liked the one-shot style you must absolutely check out Birdman.

[@seneschalorcberg1338]

Watched the movie today and I loved it. I swore it was just 2 hard cuts for the entire movie but it turns out there are a lot of them hidden from the stuff passing through Blake and Schofield. The darkness in the film were not 'Hollywood' kind, but actual darkness, with the lights came from manmade sources in the movie. Thanks, Loli.

[@garrettkujo26]

I really liked the misdirect of who the main character was, especially in the trailers, I thought one character was the main character then he gets killed off for trying to help, and it just felt real. It was definitely one of my favorite movies of the year, I also liked the who's who of UK actors playing major officers in the British Army. All around great movie

[@jasonmaclean719]

I have a few friends who work at Universal (one even was an assistant to Speilberg years back crazy enough), and when I said I thought this was better than Saving Private Ryan they were PISSED. I explained 1917 actually made me feel fear and I cried. Ryan never did that. Guess they couldn't see passed their bias.

[@abp.dorime7943]

This movie was phenomenal.

[@SmokesKwazukii]

i'd love to see a series (or play a very hands off choose your own adventure game) with super high production value, basically exactly like 1917 but you can choose their paths and decisions at points and see how the movie plays out. like for instance they both die and you just watch the battle unfold. god that would be cool

[@skrrromlett5815]

paused at min. 3, watched the film, its rly rly goooooood ty

[@geraldmiller5260]

A truly great movie...

[@fathimilhem9206]

You know wat would be cool if they took that start of battlefield 1 in the introduction where u die and switch to another person ig it would lack story but it wouldve been cool

[@ralphdonn9518]

A good movie

[@Varner410]

They weren't Evan grunts. Grunts are infantry, those guys were just messangers. That's why they where made fun of by the grunts.

[@josedorsaith5261]

Of course mermaids man didn't like it. Probably didn't feel 'current year' enough for his tastes

[@jamesebola1250]

Film was great technically. It lacked few things to make it perfect. First, from the start we know nothing about the two main characters, there is no character development. For me, it's hard to get attached or to care about someone I know nothing about. Second, in trench warfare, if a soldier poked his head up just a bit, snipers from the other side would immediately take shots. Yet here, these two guys walk casually across the "no man's land" and no one notices? Third, in the final scene we see the man protagonist running like mad parallel to the trench with troops going over the top tripping and falling. It would make more logical sense to run on the opposite side of the trench, in same direction. The only thing that was great and original was the cinematography. Film stole other ideas from "Saving Private Ryan", "The thin read line", "Nothing new on the western front", "Band of brothers", to name a few.

[@TheAlmightyLoli]

Eh, some of that is actually explained in the movie. They could walk across No Man's Land because the Germans weren't there. Also, the guy running across the trench was doing so out of utter desperation to reach the commander's bunker in time. The lack of backstories is a stylistic thing, so that comes down to personal preference. Personally, I like having to piece together who a character is without having their entire backstory shoved down my throat. Also, I feel like it has enough fresh ideas on its own without ripping anything off.

[@dryfesands1367]

Someone doesn't know their history . . . Look up the withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line and Operation Alberich. Hell this is even referenced in the opening briefing.

[@jamesebola1250]

@@dryfesands1367 I do know my history. I had family members fight on both sides of this war. You learned yours from books written by those who won...

[@dryfesands1367]

@@jamesebola1250 well it's evident you absolutely don't. Embarrassing for you.

[@jamesebola1250]

@@TheAlmightyLoli If Germans were gone from no man's land why didn't all of the British troops go over the top together? Why stay in trenches? Also, at the end, desperation or not, why would anyone with functioning brain run in front of armed people and risk being shot by his own men, or trampled? Yea, it may look cool in film...but too much liberty with facts and common sense can ruin things.

[@mrtriffid]

Cinematography aside, I was amazed by how BAD this film was as a representation of WWI. By 1917, were there really any green fields of grass left around the trenches?!?!? Nice, flat, virgin fields? After tons of high explosives saturated hundreds of square miles? Was the British command REALLY that concerned about saving "1600 men's lives" when they had already squandered hundreds of thousands? Could the Germans REALLY move tens of thousands of men, equipment and artillery without being observed by constant air surveillance?!?!? Could 1600 men actually effect the rout (break through) that would hasten the end of the war when the opposing armies were routinely slaughtering MILLIONS in battles that lasted MONTHS?!?!? Were ALL the Germans HOMICIDAL MANIACS who just couldn't suppress their urge to KILL the British, even after they had literally SAVED THEIR LIVES?!?!?!? (BTW, were ALL German pilots taught to "aim for the barn" when making a forced landing?!?!?!?) And when the final attack was launched, and met by an ARTILLERY BARRAGE, wouldn't that give the British a clue that they DID NOT HAVE THE GERMANS ON THE RUN?!?!?!? Did they really say "f---" that BLOODY OFTEN!?!?!? Seems like this movie was crafted for video-game addicts more than anyone else. If you want to see a GREAT WWI movie, check out Kubrick's "Paths of Glory," a movie that actually makes a powerful and coherent indictment of war. There is NO comparison!

[@codycombs8873]

First, the background of this movie (the German withdrawal) is based on an actual German Operation Alberich - a German operation to shorten the length of the Western Front by 25 miles by withdrawing an average of 9.3 miles from the Noyon Salient in Northern France to the prepared defenses of the Hindenburg line, between February 9 and March 17 of 1917. Yes, the Germans really did move tens of thousands of troops and guns over a period of around a month with the Allies having limited ability to accurately survey the retreat and new positions from the air. (The Germans had fighter planes too you know). Second, yes, the trenches we see at the end of the movie would have really had grass around them, because they were brand new. The fighting on the Western Front that had been going on for years resulted in that trench we see at the beginning of the film - the Noyon Salient - and these trenches are muddy, have dead bodies (which would have been left by allied offenses against the German line as recently as December, 19116), and have improvements like wooden planks on the bottom and sandbags. Then the Germans withdrew 10 or more miles, shifting the new lines to ground that had never been fought over or shelled. That's why the trench we see at the end has no planks, is rather shallow, has freshly dug up dirt, and rather gentle slopes rather than the vertical sides we see on every other trench. It was literally just made the night before the protagonist shows up. Why wouldn't British operations want to save 1600 men? This caricature of British command as a bunch of homicidal madmen with less regard for British lives than for the dirt on their shoes is just that - a caricature invented by Hollywood. It's fun to watch this cartoon villain portrayal of British generals in Blackadder, but Blackadder isn't history. Yes, British High Command was willing to trade British lives for German lives in many operations, because they understood that the war was a war of attrition, where no breakthrough was possible, and it was necessary to wear down the enemy, because there was absolutely no path to victory otherwise. They may have been stupid at times, but they weren't braindead. They knew they had limited resources. Of course they'd send two messengers to save the lives of 1600 British soldiers from needlessly dying. That's 1600 soldiers who could die killing 1600 Germans, and thus get the British Empire slightly closer to owning former German and Ottoman colonial territories. And maybe, just maybe, a general or two on the western front really did care about human life. Weirder things have happened. I'll go through a short list of rebuttals on the German pilot - his plane dips below a hill before pulling up and crashing, so maybe he didn't see the barn in time to steer it, maybe he lost all control before crashing. His plane on fire, of course he couldn't move it much. For the stabbing, he could have misunderstood Blake's intent and thought he would kill or torture him. The pilot doesn't speak English and Blake doesn't speak German. The pilot could have been dazed by the crash and thus thought Blake more dangerous than he was. He may just have had no intention at all of going to a POW camp and so decided to kill the guys he is paid to kill rather than be captured. It's also possible that guy was a perfidious jerk. This is really a silly criticism, as of course soldiers kill enemy soldiers in a war, and even if it didn't make sense this is a nitpick. The most valid criticism in this comment is whether Colonel Mackenzie's motivation makes sense. Even here, I have to note that Yes, there were indeed instances during Operation Alberich where Allied Commanders outran allied artillery support, attacked the retreating Germans, found out the Germans were able to deploy machine guns and artillery, and suffered hundreds of casualties as a result. This is taken from the Wikipedia entry for Hindenburg Line: "The attack [of the second Australian Division] was repulsed with 331 casualties and an advance on Ecoust and Croisilles by infantry of the 18th (Eastern) Division with cavalry and artillery on the flanks was repulsed by fire from about fifteen machine-guns and six field guns; Gough ordered that attacks on the German outpost line were to stop until more artillery was available." Of course, Colonel Mackenzie in 1917 is a bit more deluded. Perhaps he thinks that if he cuts into unprepared German lines, then other parts of the allied armies will join him. His character is about the dangerous power of hope. It's not necessarily a perfectly realistic depiction of human action, but it does show something by it's exaggeration. 1917 being about the journey of one or two soldiers to stop a dangerous rogue colonel in the middle of a war reminds me of Apocalypse now and Colonel Kurtz. Kurtz isn't a realistic character, but his madness does say something about war and human experience, and that movie is great regardless. Mackenzie at least makes a little more sense and is a little more realistic than Kurtz. Maybe that trade in realism for thematic statement is worthwhile to you, and maybe it isn't. De gustibus non est disputandum. Either way, please at least read the Wikipedia entry for the movie before making factually incorrect criticisms. I found almost all of the above with two clicks from the page for 1917 (2019 film).

[@mrtriffid]

@@codycombs8873 Of course Operation Alberich was real, but defending this screenplay on that basis is a very thin defense. You've made many attempts to explain how the events in the screenplay are 'conceivable,' but given the realities of WWI, they are incredibly improbable. Like 'Apocalypse Now,' '1917' is a FICTION which does little to convey the actual experiences of the war. And for all your meticulous rebuttal, you failed to answer the crucial question: "Did they really say "f---" that BLOODY OFTEN!?!?!?" In vino veritas.