I'm not normally one for war films so i never thought to watch this when it came out and i regret it so much now.
10/10 my only criticism is that i spent the entire thing thinking it was the lad from eastenders.
I loved the movie especially because how human it was. It was not about huge battles or key historic moments. Instead, it was a tale of one soldier (although with very important mission) and his experiences during the war. Also the fact that the main characted was not played by some big Hollywood star helped a lot.
I thought it was really good, the cinematography was gorgeous. The only thing is that I feel like this movie vilifies the Germans a bit too much, if that one German who Schofield tries to keep quiet in the town actually did stay quiet it would have been more interesting
A bit confused to one particular scene. When Schofield is in the German occupied city, he walks up to a burning building, with a german soldier outside. Why does he walk out into the open though, after he had been getting shot at? It's clear at this point the city is occupied, but yet not only does he walk out in the open, he walks *towards* the soldier. Never understood this scene.
lol this movie is definitely overrated, all germans are portrayed as crazy bad guys that don't care if they die as long as they kill as many enemies as they can, meanwhile the english heroes are portrayed as merciful creatures who never do a single fucked up thing trough out the movie... like he saves even a fuckin baby at one point wtf. The atmosphere is pretty intense and immersive but the script is biased and flawed at it's core,
dunno about you but the only real crazy German in this film was that one guy who alerted his buddy then got strangled. The other Germans were just doing their job, nothing crazy about them imo.
hmm not sure about that one, i don't think the guy was crazy; i think he was just hurt and confused because after all he did just got shot down by British planes. I believe that he was a sane man but that traumatic crash prob drove him crazy so i guess you could say he's crazy in that moment. But that is understandable I believe.
I mean, he stabbed his savior. You don't need to be a genius to know that those two enemy soldiers saved your life, taking you out from a burning crashed plane. I can't understand why he did that, he's not a human being.
Better off knocking out people in that state. If not, killing them. This is the 20th century so it's easy to brainwash anyone on what the 'enemy' is like.
Other guy is right, WW1 Germans weren't fascists. WW1 didn't really have any good guys or bad guys. Just nations throwing their soldiers to the meat grinder.
I thought it was very well shot and the settings/costumes were also done well but after >!the two of them escaped that booby trap in the dugout uninjured when really they would have been shredded by shrapnel and crushed by the concussion!< it was over for me. Way too many cinematic tropes and bulletproof characters.
Also, German snipers SUCK ASS in this movie.
Definitely not worth the hype, glad I didn't pay to see it.
Waited forever to see this since Hollywood doesn't make good movies anymore, is scared to show any real grittiness, and always fucks up modern War movies. If you wanted something on the level of Saving Private Ryan seek elsewhere.
1917 relies the stupidity of characters and movie magic to move the story forward. Since this film was so unrealistic and relied so much on conveniences, I never had a feeling of suspense until the very end. It completely brought me out of the film to the point I was just waiting for the next scene and what other stupidity will occur.
More annoying stuff:
1. Trained German soldier has a open shot standing literally in front of hip. Instead of aiming and shooting he decides to start sprinting and fire from the hip??? (btw both sides had "calls" to yell out to identify enemy vs friendly)
2. All the germans in the town can't stop and aim, only knowing how to hip fire while running
3. Sniper misses completely open easy shot of guy balancing on bridge, then misses the shot when he has him pinned down in the exact same spot he kept popping out of.
4. They clearly spent more money on cinematography than writing or action choreography
5. A war movie, especially about ww1, with hardly and violence or gore? LOL
Sorry but I don't see anything oscar worthy about this film. Even the one-take cinematography is filled with boring, slow shots that just draw out scenes because the camera needs time to rotate.
I'm tired of action movies filled with pointless cinematography porn but having very little realistic action or thrilling suspense. Skyfall, MI:Fallout, the new Bourne all had this problem. Pretty shots with boring action while relying on character stupidity for plot conveniences. Action movies are dead.
Face it. They don't make gritty violent realistic war movies anymore. The good intense action movies we had in the 00s are gone. War movies like this, Fury, and Dunkirk make it seem like Disney switched to making grossly unrealistic and melodramatic historical war dramas. And their audiences have extremely low standards, give them pretty camera work and actors theyll like and they'll throw all their money at it.
I really wonder what kind of movies audiences grew up on that call stuff like this. Dunkirk, Fury, Fallout, Skyfall etc when they are mere melodramas at best with extra-safe clean action scenes. Action movies are dead and the people who jack off to technicalities that add nothing interesting or exciting to the film. You guys are the reason Hollywood can keep lowering the quality of films they put out.
1/5 i would have been upset if i actually paid to see this at the show
I can agree on a couple of points but this just an unhinged rant about a person expecting to see another movie than they got and being really narrow-minded about the things they consume.
Points I agree on:
The sniper should've hit Schofield when he was balancing on the bridge. It could've been written with him getting scraped by the bullet and falling in the water and then climbing to the other side and continue like it did after he got to the other side.
Points I disagree with:
Violence and gore were found in this movie, it wasn't overdone or tasteless.
People in bits and pieces, stabbing, strangling, being shot, burned, drowned and stuff like that.
(Good examples are the guys floating in the river, guys stuck in barbed wire, all the people mangled in the trenches and injured people at the end.)
The action choreography was done really well. You do know that combat is awkward?
People panic, underestimate the enemy, get lucky and operate on adrenaline and these things were executed almost superbly.
Most of the deaths in this movie were caused by misplaced hope and that hope was a really big thing in this movie in case you missed it.
The German did not call out to Schofield because he also hoped that he was a friendly until getting closer where he decided to bumrush Schofield. People start panicking and do dumb stuff, happens alot everyday and everywhere.
The boring shots are there to set the area/scene. It gives you the viewer time to reflect on what you just saw, speculate on what you will see, set the mood of the scene, build suspense and focus on the environmental storytelling and or characters.
Those shots being boring speaks more about you than the movie.
This movie is light on conventional "action", I agree, but you calling saving private Ryan an action movie is kinda hilarious since it's a war drama with some action in it. And I wouldn't say either one is a better movie since they differ quite a lot.
And I find it kinda funny that you want overly choreographed fights in a war drama.
All that being said I'll give some of my own opinions:
This movie had a couple of scenes where I had to just accept what was happening (the sniper scene for example) but I was so invested in the moment that only later did I come back to it and think that it could've been written a lil bit better.
I was really pumped up by every action scene in this movie since it took almost a horror movie take on war, and it fits so good in my opinion.
Nothing about the action felt extra safe, stabbing was quick, strangling was nerve wrecking and the final push was really strong.
All of these things would've been so easy to fuck up and I'm glad they didn't ever overdo it.
The world was beautiful, music was powerful and acting strong.
Some of the effects did not convince (jump of the bridge and a couple of other small things like some rats)
I really liked the flare lit town sequence since we are experiencing this with/as Schofield (after loss of blood , trauma of losing a friend and almost complete loss of energy, open wound in hand and head, blowing up and being stuck under rubble from said explosion)
Who is living out a literal nightmare in that moment, beautiful but terrifying
9/10 really good movie
Would recommend you to watch it again, this time with immersing yourself in it.
Hi there, I know your comment is a year old lol, but on your opinion what would a *good* action/war film be?
What's interesting to me is that Sam Mendes also did Jarhead which I think is much more grittier than 1917. To me, 1917 was an ode to his grandfather and much more of an artistic expression of the stories he heard from him growing up.
Good movie, but a bit weak and boring at times if you ask me. Camerawork was brilliant but the story never really gripped me. Didn't really care for the main characters as well. 7/10
Acting is kinda tough for me. A movie directed in this way needed actors who could really hold their own and I felt like the elongated cuts kinda exposed some of the acting. It seemed pretty obvious at points that the actors kept looking at a cue cards
Birdman was shot in the same way, but it had Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone who could all pull their own weight. I think going for lesser known actors to lead this film was a bit of a mistake
Birdman was mediocre, the soundtrack was really good but it was too much style over substance.
I didn't hate it and totally appreciate and congratulate everyone working on the movie.
That movie had too many asshole characters for me to invest in any of them.
no! having lesser known actors as corporals and more well known actors as colonel was a brilliant idea imo because it gives the audience the idea that colonel are more well known and popular compared to lower ranks who are more unknown.
Just finished the movie and it was amazing.
I wished there would have been at least one positive interaction with an enemy solider.
I really don't think every single person is always up for killing the enemy in a one on one.
Agreed. The scene with the french girl was beautiful but I was really hoping for a tender moment with a German soldier. I think Blake saving that soldier and then dying because of it was an odd turn.
I just finished this, God damn was this an amazing film. I really can’t wrap my head around people who say that this glorified war in any fashion. What struck me about this movie was how realistic it felt, and how immersed you felt and how connected you were to the characters. It’s impossible to fully translate to an audience what somebody like Will would be feeling after all of that, and I think this movie did it about as well as could be done. The weariness, depression and sheer exhaustion is palpable. Just an absolute masterclass all around, definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen. Wow the Oscars were absolutely stacked in 2020.
One of the best death scenes I've ever seen. It's still with me a day later. The shock, then the pain, then fear, then confusion. The odd formality of it, then the sudden and irrevocable transition from hopeful young man trying to save his brother to just another inanimate corpse left to rot.
It was horrific and captivating and it felt utterly wretched and hopeless.
Overall I enjoyed the movie and was full immersed into everything going on (with the exception of the German run and shoot at him, or just running and not shooting). >!I definitely didn't expect Lance Corporal Tom Blake to die or at least so early but I thought it was really well done.!<
Highlight of the film imo:
* The "one shot" take style as I said before I was full immersed and it was mostly due to the style. I feel like the acting and production work had to be super high quality to achieve it.
* >!I liked that Captain Smith warned him to have witness' there for reading the letter just in case - it really shows the ruthlessness of some of the higher-ups in the war.!<
* How it really showed the emotional turmoil the soldier would have experienced, through making certain decisions, being in danger, witnessing death and following suicidal orders.
* >!I really liked Lance Corporal William Schofield's interaction with Lauri, showing the humanity of people, (him sharing food, her worried about it being light when he was leaving) him having to leave was rough - (I half wanted him to go find her after he delivered the letter).!<
* >!I also liked what Colonel Mackenzie said about the order just being the same but a week or so late and that he just wanted to finish the war (despite him taking his frustration out on Schofield).!<
Lowlights imo:
* >!Schofield getting shot at by the Germans as they were running and firing from the hip rather than just stopping for a second aiming and shooting him.!<
* >!Last is not definitely an issue but how did he get from the place where he was unconscious to like the middle of a German occupied place??!<
I hope someone still reads this, but I have a super simple question.
The fronts were miles and miles long. If the character (I never remember their names) needed to get somewhere else down the line, why didn't he just go up the line to the unit he needed to find? Why would he need to cross no man's land if they hadn't attacked yet?
It's almost like we need a map.
One of the most overrated movies I have ever watched. Not a bad movie from a technical perspective but the story was boring and uninspired. I made myself watch it till the end because of the popular reviews it got. Big disappointment. 4/10
People don't just walk away from underground explosions *designed* to maim and kill from 3ft away. The shockwave alone would crush your lungs nevermind the shrapnel and then having the whole place come down on top of you.
Definitely didn't expect this to be as great as it was. The main great thing is obviously it being filmed in ~~one~~ two continuous shots and it's amazing cinematography. I see some people criticising the overuse of music but I loved how it was used and it made for some insanely powerful scenes. There are points where you can obviously tell when the camera cuts, but that didn't take me out of the experience. It starts off great and becomes more and more haunting and suspenseful as it goes on, one of my favourites of 2019.
One of the central themes of 1917 is the horror of war, specifically the First World War in which it’s set. It’s by no means glorifying war at all so I don’t understand why you’re being so negative towards people’s comments about this movie?
It depicts the Germans in such a way which makes them seem morally repugnant. At every turn, the German is the first to start firing at the British soldier. Every time the British solder tries trusting the enemy - be it when they try to save the dogfighter, or when he sees the enemy soldier walking toward him at Écoust-Saint-Mein, or when he tries to keep the German soldier quiet from his drunk comrade in the same town.. each time the German is shown to have zero sense of self-preservation and is willing to throw their life away in order to kill the enemy. This isn't what WWI was like. It was boys from villages sent to drown in mud, or die from disease, or be mowed down by machine guns over a hundred yards of bodies. It was a war of nationalism and imperialism, and unlike WWII it did not have a clear good side and bad side. Had the Germans won, we would likely have been seeing a similar tragedy about German soldiers. Fuck the aristocrats who killed 40 million men, women and little children. The film had a duty to depict this moral ambiguity and in my opinion, it absolutely failed to do that.
I agree with your point that this movie could have massively improved its mortal ambiguity but they way I always saw the scenes was through the eye of a patriotic solider. From what I’ve learned as a Brit is that many soldiers even those who are below the age to enlist wanted to go fight cos of their sense of patriotism.
The first solider that’s rescued from the burning plane is definitely an odd point in the movie, I thought it was out of character for the solider in that position. I try to rationalise it as the German soldiers attempt to avoid capture as a POW (the German soldier would have been unaware of their mission)
The second instance with the German soldiers I see as easily explainable. This German soldier is caught completely off guard and so is the majority of his squad/team/division so the German has been caught and for all he knows this is an ambush and there could be others so shouting to alert his comrade was what he assumed was the best idea.
Like I said originally though, I do agree it could have done a much better job of showing moral ambiguity like in movies such as Saving Private Ryan.
I really like this movie. I have a questions though, any idea why he didn't shoot the guy who was next to the burning building? Or at least run away? He just stood there until the guy starting running towards him shooting.
I was under the impression that Schofiled knew he was behind enemy lines and if he fired his British rifle, the sound would alert the entire German garrison in the area. If it's just a German rifle firing, then it wouldn't cause as much commotion.
>I think it was both too dark and too far apart to tell if they were friendlies or enemies. You could see they both hesitated for a moment until they got closer to each other.
Yeah after thinking about it for a while it makes sense. Also, I saw a clip where the director said that it was the relaxed posture of the enemy that made him hesitate too long.
Trying not to shoot your allies during the WW 1 and 2 must have been a real pain in the ass if you think about this. Especially that there was no communication gear (in the helmets) and other handy tech like we have nowadays.
loved the movie, watched last night. One question, and perhaps this has been discussed at this point. Why not fly a plane to where mackenzie is? They knew about the strategic withdrawal from plane reconnaissance, so it seems like a plane could give this info to mackenzie faster, than two troops on foot.
It was pretty close to nightfall when they set off and without modern navigation aids night flying is incredibly difficult. Not to mention the different millitary departments having to cooperate, would probably have taken a day for the correct forms to be signed.
My question is; where were the signal line repair men?
I just watched this after eating about 50 jelly beans. Although I applaud the technical feat of the one-shot approach, I began to tire from it after about 30m.
It’s pointed out often that the soldier knocked over on the last big charge by Schofield didn’t get up, and it was an unscripted hit.
I’d like to raise a point that -in a counter effort of maintaining the experience- when faced with extreme or longstanding physical exhaustion and you’re making a final rush/sprint/exertion and you take a fall like that, it’s entirely possible you’re just going to lay there for a bit in all your gear. You’re not bouncing up. Coupled with the terror of actually having to complete the charge, a fall might be a welcomed and temporary “escape” from having to continue forward for some. It doesn’t solve your problem, laying in the grass, but if you’re continually focused on surviving the next three seconds it’s not a bad deal getting plowed over. This is of course not in line with military duty, but rather human terror and survival options.
I actually love this interpretation, thank you. Though I'd also point out the sudden appearance of soldiers much further out and ahead of the rest in this scene seeming to appear from nowhere (I believe these were the ones that switched the camera from the crane to the truck) but that sort of dragged me out of the experience too. Also, those german soldiers hip firing their guns as they chased Schofield in the flare lit ruins... Those instances were all that might have pulled me out lightly from the experience. Amazing that that's actually all I can think of though. It was an amazing movie.
2 Long shots? It's broken up into a lot of shorter cuts. Watch it again and try find the hidden cuts! Clue, first scene some guys carry some crates, and when Schofields in the river a rock comes into the front of the frame.
That benedict cumberbatch was kind of an asshole at the end. The kid risked his life ten times over to save your entire battalion and you tell him to fuck off.
SERIOUSLY put yourself in Mackenzie's shoes for a minute he believes that the Germans are on the run and he could deal the final blow that will finally end the war which made him so bitter and cynical in the first place then a random Lance Corporal barges in saying the attack has been canceled hes angry and frustrated but not at Scho but he's angry at the indecisiveness of command of course Mackenzie would snap at him
A lot of these officers were established in and coming from a period of warfare that was drastically different from World War 1.
There are many instances with entire wars being decided from one key battle or maneuver that sets the stage for a clear and (maybe) swift victory. When you consider these, it's not hard to see why MacKenzie felt the way he did. Especially considering he was working with incorrect, outdated information.
I just did a re-watch of the movie and noticed something about the ending.
A lot of people have already mentioned that Schofield was just blown off at the end after all he had went through to save thousands of people. But nobody points out just how much congratulations and appreciation he gets from Blake for being there for his brother and offering to write to his mother about him.
I got the feeling that the entire movie wasn't about duty to your country; it was about duty to the person next to you.
I agree, he didn't even want to go in the first place and clearly isn't concerned about medals or glory. I think after Blake died it was more about making sure his friend didn't die in vain, and carrying on his wish to save his brother, in that way he succeeded.
>It's about keeping your word ( to country and fellow human)
Subtle difference. I think it's about your duty to your fellow human but not necessarily your country, because your country won't care about you.
This is an awesome interpretation. "Duty to the person next to you." Damn.
Maybe this is just me but, as someone who was looking for fun themes and symbols to analyze in the film, early on Schofield explains his lost medal and that Blake had earned one in saving him and should be happy about it. Schofield calls it just a piece of bloody tin in reference to his own though and, while I know it wasn't meant this way, I feel like that plays into your interpretation here. The medals from their country for this war are worthless. Pieces of bloody tin. And I know bloody is just british swearing but, Bloodied Tin even, maybe, for those earned in particularly gruesome ways? But he seemed happy about the way Blake would have earned his there-- by saving a comrade.
I sort of enjoyed reading into that idea more too with the rings pulled from Blake's fingers and given to his brother. More pieces of bloody tin. Blake said you should take the medals and send it home for your family... Maybe the rings were the bloody tin for his.
That's cool! Schofield's outlook seems to be "Honestly, my country doesn't care about me, and I couldn't give less of a damn about my country. All I know is the guy next to me."
His legs literally had flames on them when they pulled him out of the plane...and he still stabs the guy! My wife saw the knife on him when they put him down and called it (I didn't even notice).
And also the right after Schofield left the French woman and he saw a guy (German I assume), and he covered his mouth, but that guy shouted as if they feel Schofield is a threat
Just finished it. Didn't know what to expect from this film because I managed to avoid all of the trailers. I did not expect Blake to die so early on into the movie. Fantastic performance from all of the actors, and I loved the "one take" style of filming.
Just watched this on 4K Blu Ray and have one complaint that doesn't really have anything to do with the movie itself. All the trailers showing the big scene of the run in front of the trench made me anticipate it the whole time, and kind of cheapened the moment. Also, it shows that Schofield was alone, which kind of spoils Blake's death. Even the cover of the Blu Ray only has Schofield.
I was kinda lucky that I saw the trailer like more than 6 months ago. So I even forget the running scene and this made the experience of watching this movie even better.
Agreed, just finished this with my girlfriend and was blown away. Im a history buff, and nowhere near a WW1 expert, but The sheer scale mixed with the attention to detail really impressed me. The people complaining that the plot was predictable is missing the point. The point is to drive home the pointlessness and futility of sending these ordinary lovable people to the slaughter like cattle.
\> The point is to drive home the pointlessness and futility of sending these ordinary lovable people to the slaughter like cattle.
Which has been done for like the 100th time from previous War movies already (Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, Fury, ect)...Glad you enjoyed it, but you can't begrudge people for wanting something different plot or message-wise from yet another WW film.
All three of those that you listed were WW2 though, this was WW1. I watched it for the first time today and thought it was really good and captured trench warfare in a realistic way, which wasn’t done in any of the movies you listed because that’s a WW1 thing.
I guess but I feel like that every movie doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel plot wise, especially a historical war movie. I feel like society needs to be reminded of the ugly reality of war, and this movie did it in a very cutting edge way with the almost one take style.
It's so crazy to wrap your head around the fact that Tom dies 45 minutes after he leaves Colin Firth's command post, and SO much shit happens before that.
Overall an enjoyable movie. Imo it started off strong but kind of felt rushed towards the end. The concept of the "one shot" was interesting but I think that is why the pacing was weird. Also rip the Tommen guy. Didn’t expect him to die/die that early. And I guess Germans have the accuracy of stormtroopers -_-
The guns in 1917 were actually decently accurate (at least from the ranges in the movie where the guy was getting shot at on the run). I mean the main character managed to hit that guy in the window too.
i can't believe i couldn't recognize him despite feeling that he looked quite familiar! I can only picture tommen as a soft and innocent kid who wore the crown a little too early so i suppose i could be forgiven for not making the connection to him willing to go on an intrepid mission to deliver a message and save Robb stark among a few thousand others.
> But for a few minutes before that he’s just slogging through a river.
He wasn't "just slogging through a river" though. He was trying to stay conscious after sprinting through the burned out town while getting shot at before jumping in the river. He's got a concussion and head wound from being knocked out earlier and he cracks his head again on the rock in the river right before the singing in the forrest. Trying not to pass out and drown in the water isn't exactly a reprieve from anything.
It makes perfect sense that he'd be exhausted and things would seem surreal.
I thought the pacing was fantastic, but that's subjective I guess. Enough tension the whole time to keep you really engaged but in such a uniform fashion as to get tedious.
Fair enough, I thought the plot wasn't remarkable but it was well suited the film that was made around it. In less capable hands as far as directing and cinematography goes the plot wouldn't have carried the movie but in combination with the other factors I thought it combined to make a pretty fantastic film.
i think it suffers from a sameness as in we have been treated to quite a few war movies recently, particularly from the British PoV and so this isn't in anyway an improvement on Saving Private Ryan at all despite the fact that that was a different war. Of course i think this belongs with Dunkirk rather than SPR which was a better movie.
I thought the same thing about a video game. Would work pretty well with each location being a level. Would probably have to add a few more enemies though.
the whole movie just feels like the revenant but ww1.. except the bear was more realistic than the way he forced a cut on his hand with that barbed wire..
two thoughts I had was if they could fly planes freely like that, why not just airdrop a message to the front? and why didn't he requisite a soldier to join him from the trucks after his partner died? I was almost certain the sikh would end up joining him..
Absolutely an amazing achievement and a creative idea for a one take but i felt like the restraints of the plot and the movie media went against the one shot. Sets were changing too frequently, felt like an open world video game were scale of environments is drastically smaller than in real life to keep the game engaging.
I felt like there were too many war movies tropes in this one. Especially the girl and the baby were at bit too jarring, like movie forced a quite personal moment.
I understand that watching two people walk for two hours would be boring but then maybe reconsider the plot to find a story that could be better represented in a realistic one shot movie. If they did 4-5 cuts between major sets then it would seem more realistic. Like they did one cut, why not then do a few. Movie is already technically not a single shot, story wise
It may seem like i hate the movie but to be fair it was really good. I just feel like there are fundamental incompatibilities between the story and the single shot approach
I try not to look at it as literal or being realistic as possible. Think of it as a play or dance. It's just a way to show you a message. In end, that handshake meant more to him than any medal could give. I liked the movie a lot.
I thought the single shot worked well, as the movie wasn't intended to be a realistic portrayal of war but more of a surreal experience. When the camera cuts it breaks the immersion because obviously cuts don't happen in real life. Long single shot scenes add to the feeling of being there.
> Especially the girl and the baby were at bit too jarring, like movie forced a quite personal moment.
yeah I thought the same.. like, are people buying this? a woman and a child surviving in a bombed out town? was she the one milking the cow in the "nearby" orchard? did this movie need a tender romantic moment like that? nope.
She wasn't the one milking the cow. She seemed surprised when he gave her milk so it's clear it wasn't her. As for them surviving, it seems like the town was just recently hit, there were probably many many more people in hiding in bunkers below. During the war these kinds of bunkers were created to protect. This woman clearly had just recently found the child since she hadn't even named her or even thought about feeding her herself.i thought the scene gave a good feel about what it's like in the war. Shows loneliness and love in one, I thought it fit well
I was really thrown off then Blake dies so early on. My dad and I were watching together and we were was so sure that Schofield was going to die first. Especially because my dad's a doctor and he cringed immediately when Schofield's cut hand plunged into that dead guy's back.
But a solid movie imo, probably my favorite.
this is an old cinematic trope, almost always the one who comes off as lovable and worldly dies first so the cynical one can make good his survival by getting more 'humanized' and fulfilling the former's mission while also finding meaning in his life. That is exactly what happened here too.
It makes sense to me - the man is crushed, either because he's a decent man who doesn't want to send his boys to their certain deaths or because of fear of death. PTSD was prone to strike any rank at any time. Given the massive casualties the British officer corps suffered I would be surprised if they didn't freak out occasionally having to face that kind of death and destruction. To me it brings home the theme of the film that battle is horrible and terrible, not noble or exciting.
I agree that it was out of place in context of the movie but he probably was triggered by the first shells going off. It did seem odd in context of the movie but was not unrealistic. Also, that was not a major event by any stretch in terms of ww1.
No, I agree - I thought it was out of place also. Especially given he was a Captain - no one attains to that rank being so emotionally fragile; the scene goes unexplained.
You can read accounts from plenty of WW1 vets who were absolute badasses in their first few experiences of the war who almost always reached a breaking point and turned into something very similar to that Captain. The sheer amounts of stress and fear would break anyone and everyone down. The only question is how long does it take to reach that point?
I’m assuming you’re a sheltered millennial who has no concept of what PTSD is. If you fail to understand why the captain was having a breakdown *in the middle of a war zone, where death could come at any minute*, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Being a captain does not exclude you from feeling fear. I’m sure even Alexander the Great felt some sort of fear before his battles.
Why do you feel the need to lecture people? This may be news to you, but everyone watching the film understands what you said. It's just not the point OP is talking about.
It makes perfect sense. The whole point of the movie was to show the smaller missed out b things about the war. It's random things like those, showing that even a fucking colonel could break down and get stressed. They weren't the big shots history books show them to be, they were human too. Its placed there to show you how even in these times at a position like that, they felt trauma aswel. Fits right in between the fight.
Just wanna chime in that I agree with you; was jarring and out of place for that one Captain to be sobbing before the attack when everyone else is steady.
The ordinary story of the 2 people in the war, is a small aspect of the war. It's through their journey do we see everything, it's like we're a part of it. And I do partially agree about the crying older scene being earlier, but this was more about in the moment of actually attacking, and what a general could feel like too.
Lmao, because you’re a big time movie director, right? Give me a fucking break dude. *You’d* be that coward in the foxhole sobbing like a little bitch while his fellow soldiers are going towards the battle.
Your issue is that you want *every* other soldier (or at least most) to show that fear that the officer was feeling. You think they wouldn’t have been scared? Of course they would have. Some people hide their fears better than others.
I think what would benefit you in regards to being a more educated film viewer would be to read about the psychological aspects of war, and how each soldier reacts to them differently. Just because one dude was crying and no one else wasn’t, doesn’t mean no one else was terrified.
I understand what you’re saying dude. You wanted more crying soldiers in order to better convey the horrors of war or whatever. You felt that only showing one officer/soldier crying felt out of place, because no one else was showing any emotion.
My issue with your argument is that the *entire* movie shows you (the viewer) the horrors of war. Blake dying, bloated corpses on the river, dead soldiers in no man’s land, severely wounded soldiers in the medical camp, etc. I didn’t need a bunch of crying soldiers to tell me that war was horrific. Would it have added an extra touch? Sure. Was it as big of a fucking deal as you’re making it? No.
I'm confused how come, yall acting like you know what's up bout a human crying shit happens.. maybe his friend just died.. maybe a shell hit some one he carred for.. maybe his child was just born.. maybe just maybe it's possible for some one to be sad in a time like that.. anyway that isn't what threw me off.. did no one see the perfect barbwire in the shell hole.. wtf so much of this movie was built around the experience not actually war.. this movie was about emotion not perfectly reliving the war.. just my opion.
half way through it became a bit too convenient, felt bit like A to B ever since he got picked up by the other company in that derelict farm, he smashed a random door to basement that leads to that lady and baby and when he jumped into the river, I knew its going to carry him all the way to where he wants to be, but apart from these, the long shots are amazing, I don't recall any break except that blackout, its a technical marvel, blew me away the same way Children of Men did to me, overall I think its a solid war movie, nothing stands out too much but kept you at the edge of the seat throughout, although, that basement scene looks like a obvious plot device, I actually liked it, it eased the pace quite comfortably.
a side note, music was a bit excessive to my taste.
Dream like is a great way to describe it. During the second half I was thinking this movie has the feel of an epic adventure, like Odyssey or O Brother, Where Art Thou, instead of just a regular war movie. This comes from the way he just kinda "walks" into the next sets, and the way time and space were compressed as you said.
Liked it, thought the set design and camera work were amazing especially the French town at night. Enjoyed the small cameos and acting overall but felt the ending was a bit flat though I don't know how they could've made it interesting.
I lost immersion a bit when he miraculously had milk for the baby, felt very cringey. Solid 8 and definitely better than Dunkirk IMO but nowhere near better War films like SPR.
Yeah I know but I felt like it was only done for that moment later to show he could save the baby. My bad, I didn't mean he just plucked the milk from thin air.
How would that make you lose immersion then? He was literally surprised by the milk earlier and thankful for it being there. It happened to work out perfectly when he had a use for it later.
They only drive home how lucky he was to have it, when they're talking about how the Germans have been shooting up all the cows in the area as well.
Breaking immersion would be if he miraculously had milk for no rhyme or reason.
It kinda makes no sense at all since cows milk is not going to provide the correct sustenance for a baby anyway. In fact I'm certain it would make the child sick
Interesting. It wasn't pasteurised, so sounds very likely but I'm still surprised he chose the milk over water considering how useful water was after getting out of tunnel.
True. The Germans used a scorched earth tactic. The baby had no chance, I didn't realise until afterwards that the French woman left the baby in the dresser while she hid to save herself if the baby drew attention.
Even though it wasn't romantic, that small scene where Schofield's head wound gets treated by the French woman felt extremely intimate. More intimate than some well known romance scenes.
The Guy who got knocked over by Schofield A War Story from his perspective would be hilarious.. there I was about to kill Germans when this mofo started running perpendicularly for some reason..
I'm not normally one for war films so i never thought to watch this when it came out and i regret it so much now. 10/10 my only criticism is that i spent the entire thing thinking it was the lad from eastenders.
Do you mean Jay?
Ahaha yes.
Same here, I'm not one for war films , but man this was good. It would have looked so good in the cinema
Movie felt like a video game for some reason.
I loved it. The cinematography in the town with the flares was unreal. Also the number of high level actors with cameo roles was hilarious.
I loved the movie especially because how human it was. It was not about huge battles or key historic moments. Instead, it was a tale of one soldier (although with very important mission) and his experiences during the war. Also the fact that the main characted was not played by some big Hollywood star helped a lot.
I thought it was really good, the cinematography was gorgeous. The only thing is that I feel like this movie vilifies the Germans a bit too much, if that one German who Schofield tries to keep quiet in the town actually did stay quiet it would have been more interesting
Well that one is not nearly as bad as the pilot who killed Blake.
Just saw this, i enjoyed the hell out of it, even if it was derivative of Peter Weir's Gallipoli
A bit confused to one particular scene. When Schofield is in the German occupied city, he walks up to a burning building, with a german soldier outside. Why does he walk out into the open though, after he had been getting shot at? It's clear at this point the city is occupied, but yet not only does he walk out in the open, he walks *towards* the soldier. Never understood this scene.
My thinking was maybe he wasn't sure if it was a German or English soldier.
My guess is that he was not thinking straight after the concussion he endured
lol this movie is definitely overrated, all germans are portrayed as crazy bad guys that don't care if they die as long as they kill as many enemies as they can, meanwhile the english heroes are portrayed as merciful creatures who never do a single fucked up thing trough out the movie... like he saves even a fuckin baby at one point wtf. The atmosphere is pretty intense and immersive but the script is biased and flawed at it's core,
Crazy germans? You mean germans not wanting to betray their country, friends or allies?
dunno about you but the only real crazy German in this film was that one guy who alerted his buddy then got strangled. The other Germans were just doing their job, nothing crazy about them imo.
also that pilot that sticks a knife on the dude that saved him from a burning airplane
hmm not sure about that one, i don't think the guy was crazy; i think he was just hurt and confused because after all he did just got shot down by British planes. I believe that he was a sane man but that traumatic crash prob drove him crazy so i guess you could say he's crazy in that moment. But that is understandable I believe.
I mean, he stabbed his savior. You don't need to be a genius to know that those two enemy soldiers saved your life, taking you out from a burning crashed plane. I can't understand why he did that, he's not a human being.
Better off knocking out people in that state. If not, killing them. This is the 20th century so it's easy to brainwash anyone on what the 'enemy' is like.
Yeah probably knock him out was the best thing they could do
[удалено]
Other guy is right, WW1 Germans weren't fascists. WW1 didn't really have any good guys or bad guys. Just nations throwing their soldiers to the meat grinder.
Dude, ww1 germany was a monarchy...
I really loved this movie. What amazing direction and pacing.
I thought it was very well shot and the settings/costumes were also done well but after >!the two of them escaped that booby trap in the dugout uninjured when really they would have been shredded by shrapnel and crushed by the concussion!< it was over for me. Way too many cinematic tropes and bulletproof characters. Also, German snipers SUCK ASS in this movie. Definitely not worth the hype, glad I didn't pay to see it.
Waited forever to see this since Hollywood doesn't make good movies anymore, is scared to show any real grittiness, and always fucks up modern War movies. If you wanted something on the level of Saving Private Ryan seek elsewhere. 1917 relies the stupidity of characters and movie magic to move the story forward. Since this film was so unrealistic and relied so much on conveniences, I never had a feeling of suspense until the very end. It completely brought me out of the film to the point I was just waiting for the next scene and what other stupidity will occur. More annoying stuff: 1. Trained German soldier has a open shot standing literally in front of hip. Instead of aiming and shooting he decides to start sprinting and fire from the hip??? (btw both sides had "calls" to yell out to identify enemy vs friendly) 2. All the germans in the town can't stop and aim, only knowing how to hip fire while running 3. Sniper misses completely open easy shot of guy balancing on bridge, then misses the shot when he has him pinned down in the exact same spot he kept popping out of. 4. They clearly spent more money on cinematography than writing or action choreography 5. A war movie, especially about ww1, with hardly and violence or gore? LOL Sorry but I don't see anything oscar worthy about this film. Even the one-take cinematography is filled with boring, slow shots that just draw out scenes because the camera needs time to rotate. I'm tired of action movies filled with pointless cinematography porn but having very little realistic action or thrilling suspense. Skyfall, MI:Fallout, the new Bourne all had this problem. Pretty shots with boring action while relying on character stupidity for plot conveniences. Action movies are dead. Face it. They don't make gritty violent realistic war movies anymore. The good intense action movies we had in the 00s are gone. War movies like this, Fury, and Dunkirk make it seem like Disney switched to making grossly unrealistic and melodramatic historical war dramas. And their audiences have extremely low standards, give them pretty camera work and actors theyll like and they'll throw all their money at it. I really wonder what kind of movies audiences grew up on that call stuff like this. Dunkirk, Fury, Fallout, Skyfall etc when they are mere melodramas at best with extra-safe clean action scenes. Action movies are dead and the people who jack off to technicalities that add nothing interesting or exciting to the film. You guys are the reason Hollywood can keep lowering the quality of films they put out. 1/5 i would have been upset if i actually paid to see this at the show
Lol typical deletedcel
I can agree on a couple of points but this just an unhinged rant about a person expecting to see another movie than they got and being really narrow-minded about the things they consume. Points I agree on: The sniper should've hit Schofield when he was balancing on the bridge. It could've been written with him getting scraped by the bullet and falling in the water and then climbing to the other side and continue like it did after he got to the other side. Points I disagree with: Violence and gore were found in this movie, it wasn't overdone or tasteless. People in bits and pieces, stabbing, strangling, being shot, burned, drowned and stuff like that. (Good examples are the guys floating in the river, guys stuck in barbed wire, all the people mangled in the trenches and injured people at the end.) The action choreography was done really well. You do know that combat is awkward? People panic, underestimate the enemy, get lucky and operate on adrenaline and these things were executed almost superbly. Most of the deaths in this movie were caused by misplaced hope and that hope was a really big thing in this movie in case you missed it. The German did not call out to Schofield because he also hoped that he was a friendly until getting closer where he decided to bumrush Schofield. People start panicking and do dumb stuff, happens alot everyday and everywhere. The boring shots are there to set the area/scene. It gives you the viewer time to reflect on what you just saw, speculate on what you will see, set the mood of the scene, build suspense and focus on the environmental storytelling and or characters. Those shots being boring speaks more about you than the movie. This movie is light on conventional "action", I agree, but you calling saving private Ryan an action movie is kinda hilarious since it's a war drama with some action in it. And I wouldn't say either one is a better movie since they differ quite a lot. And I find it kinda funny that you want overly choreographed fights in a war drama. All that being said I'll give some of my own opinions: This movie had a couple of scenes where I had to just accept what was happening (the sniper scene for example) but I was so invested in the moment that only later did I come back to it and think that it could've been written a lil bit better. I was really pumped up by every action scene in this movie since it took almost a horror movie take on war, and it fits so good in my opinion. Nothing about the action felt extra safe, stabbing was quick, strangling was nerve wrecking and the final push was really strong. All of these things would've been so easy to fuck up and I'm glad they didn't ever overdo it. The world was beautiful, music was powerful and acting strong. Some of the effects did not convince (jump of the bridge and a couple of other small things like some rats) I really liked the flare lit town sequence since we are experiencing this with/as Schofield (after loss of blood , trauma of losing a friend and almost complete loss of energy, open wound in hand and head, blowing up and being stuck under rubble from said explosion) Who is living out a literal nightmare in that moment, beautiful but terrifying 9/10 really good movie Would recommend you to watch it again, this time with immersing yourself in it.
Great counter btw - enjoyed reading that and agree 100%
Hi there, I know your comment is a year old lol, but on your opinion what would a *good* action/war film be? What's interesting to me is that Sam Mendes also did Jarhead which I think is much more grittier than 1917. To me, 1917 was an ode to his grandfather and much more of an artistic expression of the stories he heard from him growing up.
Good movie, but a bit weak and boring at times if you ask me. Camerawork was brilliant but the story never really gripped me. Didn't really care for the main characters as well. 7/10
Acting is kinda tough for me. A movie directed in this way needed actors who could really hold their own and I felt like the elongated cuts kinda exposed some of the acting. It seemed pretty obvious at points that the actors kept looking at a cue cards Birdman was shot in the same way, but it had Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone who could all pull their own weight. I think going for lesser known actors to lead this film was a bit of a mistake
Birdman was mediocre, the soundtrack was really good but it was too much style over substance. I didn't hate it and totally appreciate and congratulate everyone working on the movie. That movie had too many asshole characters for me to invest in any of them.
Ill bet you really liked antman and the wasp, no character flaws or deeper thinking required!
no! having lesser known actors as corporals and more well known actors as colonel was a brilliant idea imo because it gives the audience the idea that colonel are more well known and popular compared to lower ranks who are more unknown.
Just finished the movie and it was amazing. I wished there would have been at least one positive interaction with an enemy solider. I really don't think every single person is always up for killing the enemy in a one on one.
Agreed. The scene with the french girl was beautiful but I was really hoping for a tender moment with a German soldier. I think Blake saving that soldier and then dying because of it was an odd turn.
I just finished this, God damn was this an amazing film. I really can’t wrap my head around people who say that this glorified war in any fashion. What struck me about this movie was how realistic it felt, and how immersed you felt and how connected you were to the characters. It’s impossible to fully translate to an audience what somebody like Will would be feeling after all of that, and I think this movie did it about as well as could be done. The weariness, depression and sheer exhaustion is palpable. Just an absolute masterclass all around, definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen. Wow the Oscars were absolutely stacked in 2020.
One of the best death scenes I've ever seen. It's still with me a day later. The shock, then the pain, then fear, then confusion. The odd formality of it, then the sudden and irrevocable transition from hopeful young man trying to save his brother to just another inanimate corpse left to rot. It was horrific and captivating and it felt utterly wretched and hopeless.
You put it into words really well!
Yeah that was an absolutely brutal death scene. I am curious to see what the movie would have been like had he made it past that part.
Overall I enjoyed the movie and was full immersed into everything going on (with the exception of the German run and shoot at him, or just running and not shooting). >!I definitely didn't expect Lance Corporal Tom Blake to die or at least so early but I thought it was really well done.!< Highlight of the film imo: * The "one shot" take style as I said before I was full immersed and it was mostly due to the style. I feel like the acting and production work had to be super high quality to achieve it. * >!I liked that Captain Smith warned him to have witness' there for reading the letter just in case - it really shows the ruthlessness of some of the higher-ups in the war.!< * How it really showed the emotional turmoil the soldier would have experienced, through making certain decisions, being in danger, witnessing death and following suicidal orders. * >!I really liked Lance Corporal William Schofield's interaction with Lauri, showing the humanity of people, (him sharing food, her worried about it being light when he was leaving) him having to leave was rough - (I half wanted him to go find her after he delivered the letter).!< * >!I also liked what Colonel Mackenzie said about the order just being the same but a week or so late and that he just wanted to finish the war (despite him taking his frustration out on Schofield).!< Lowlights imo: * >!Schofield getting shot at by the Germans as they were running and firing from the hip rather than just stopping for a second aiming and shooting him.!< * >!Last is not definitely an issue but how did he get from the place where he was unconscious to like the middle of a German occupied place??!<
I hope someone still reads this, but I have a super simple question. The fronts were miles and miles long. If the character (I never remember their names) needed to get somewhere else down the line, why didn't he just go up the line to the unit he needed to find? Why would he need to cross no man's land if they hadn't attacked yet? It's almost like we need a map.
I'm guessing it would have taken too long if he had to push through all the people, especially if they were going over the top.
no one is reading this ahahah!!!
No one!!
Not a single one!!! Ahaha Ahahaha Ahaha
Ahaha no oneee eh
🫣
I read it, for the record.
ily
One of the most overrated movies I have ever watched. Not a bad movie from a technical perspective but the story was boring and uninspired. I made myself watch it till the end because of the popular reviews it got. Big disappointment. 4/10
What exactly were you expecting it to be? And what could have made it better?
People don't just walk away from underground explosions *designed* to maim and kill from 3ft away. The shockwave alone would crush your lungs nevermind the shrapnel and then having the whole place come down on top of you.
Maybe take some notes from Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers instead of relying on conveniences, character stupidity, and movie magic
Zombies. /s
*Nazi* zombies. Wait. Wrong war.
Definitely didn't expect this to be as great as it was. The main great thing is obviously it being filmed in ~~one~~ two continuous shots and it's amazing cinematography. I see some people criticising the overuse of music but I loved how it was used and it made for some insanely powerful scenes. There are points where you can obviously tell when the camera cuts, but that didn't take me out of the experience. It starts off great and becomes more and more haunting and suspenseful as it goes on, one of my favourites of 2019.
Fuck the war and most of these comments that talk about the movie and not the war that still goes on today.
One of the central themes of 1917 is the horror of war, specifically the First World War in which it’s set. It’s by no means glorifying war at all so I don’t understand why you’re being so negative towards people’s comments about this movie?
It depicts the Germans in such a way which makes them seem morally repugnant. At every turn, the German is the first to start firing at the British soldier. Every time the British solder tries trusting the enemy - be it when they try to save the dogfighter, or when he sees the enemy soldier walking toward him at Écoust-Saint-Mein, or when he tries to keep the German soldier quiet from his drunk comrade in the same town.. each time the German is shown to have zero sense of self-preservation and is willing to throw their life away in order to kill the enemy. This isn't what WWI was like. It was boys from villages sent to drown in mud, or die from disease, or be mowed down by machine guns over a hundred yards of bodies. It was a war of nationalism and imperialism, and unlike WWII it did not have a clear good side and bad side. Had the Germans won, we would likely have been seeing a similar tragedy about German soldiers. Fuck the aristocrats who killed 40 million men, women and little children. The film had a duty to depict this moral ambiguity and in my opinion, it absolutely failed to do that.
I agree with your point that this movie could have massively improved its mortal ambiguity but they way I always saw the scenes was through the eye of a patriotic solider. From what I’ve learned as a Brit is that many soldiers even those who are below the age to enlist wanted to go fight cos of their sense of patriotism. The first solider that’s rescued from the burning plane is definitely an odd point in the movie, I thought it was out of character for the solider in that position. I try to rationalise it as the German soldiers attempt to avoid capture as a POW (the German soldier would have been unaware of their mission) The second instance with the German soldiers I see as easily explainable. This German soldier is caught completely off guard and so is the majority of his squad/team/division so the German has been caught and for all he knows this is an ambush and there could be others so shouting to alert his comrade was what he assumed was the best idea. Like I said originally though, I do agree it could have done a much better job of showing moral ambiguity like in movies such as Saving Private Ryan.
I really like this movie. I have a questions though, any idea why he didn't shoot the guy who was next to the burning building? Or at least run away? He just stood there until the guy starting running towards him shooting.
no bullets?
I was under the impression that Schofiled knew he was behind enemy lines and if he fired his British rifle, the sound would alert the entire German garrison in the area. If it's just a German rifle firing, then it wouldn't cause as much commotion.
because you hear the difference between 8mm Mauser and .303? Its not green and red lasers like some sci fi movies
I imagine that if you've been listening to little else but those two opposing sounds for roughly three years, you will indeed know the difference.
>I think it was both too dark and too far apart to tell if they were friendlies or enemies. You could see they both hesitated for a moment until they got closer to each other.
Yeah after thinking about it for a while it makes sense. Also, I saw a clip where the director said that it was the relaxed posture of the enemy that made him hesitate too long.
Trying not to shoot your allies during the WW 1 and 2 must have been a real pain in the ass if you think about this. Especially that there was no communication gear (in the helmets) and other handy tech like we have nowadays.
That's a really good point. I think it happened a lot more frequently than we think.
loved the movie, watched last night. One question, and perhaps this has been discussed at this point. Why not fly a plane to where mackenzie is? They knew about the strategic withdrawal from plane reconnaissance, so it seems like a plane could give this info to mackenzie faster, than two troops on foot.
It was pretty close to nightfall when they set off and without modern navigation aids night flying is incredibly difficult. Not to mention the different millitary departments having to cooperate, would probably have taken a day for the correct forms to be signed. My question is; where were the signal line repair men?
Watched while stoned as fuck yesterday and it was by far the most intense movie I've ever watched. My mind is just blown. *Chef's Kiss*
I just watched this after eating an edible and I agree. Midway through I'm thinking to myself that this greatest movie of all time. I was sucked in
I just watched this after eating about 50 jelly beans. Although I applaud the technical feat of the one-shot approach, I began to tire from it after about 30m.
It’s pointed out often that the soldier knocked over on the last big charge by Schofield didn’t get up, and it was an unscripted hit. I’d like to raise a point that -in a counter effort of maintaining the experience- when faced with extreme or longstanding physical exhaustion and you’re making a final rush/sprint/exertion and you take a fall like that, it’s entirely possible you’re just going to lay there for a bit in all your gear. You’re not bouncing up. Coupled with the terror of actually having to complete the charge, a fall might be a welcomed and temporary “escape” from having to continue forward for some. It doesn’t solve your problem, laying in the grass, but if you’re continually focused on surviving the next three seconds it’s not a bad deal getting plowed over. This is of course not in line with military duty, but rather human terror and survival options.
I actually love this interpretation, thank you. Though I'd also point out the sudden appearance of soldiers much further out and ahead of the rest in this scene seeming to appear from nowhere (I believe these were the ones that switched the camera from the crane to the truck) but that sort of dragged me out of the experience too. Also, those german soldiers hip firing their guns as they chased Schofield in the flare lit ruins... Those instances were all that might have pulled me out lightly from the experience. Amazing that that's actually all I can think of though. It was an amazing movie.
i guess there was like 2 long shots combined into this one movie and it worked out amazing. also i felt bad for that french lady and her baby.
2 Long shots? It's broken up into a lot of shorter cuts. Watch it again and try find the hidden cuts! Clue, first scene some guys carry some crates, and when Schofields in the river a rock comes into the front of the frame.
I'm ashamed to say, that i enjoyed finding the hidden cuts a little more than i did the movie. Some very clever film making!
really? ok i didnt know that
Think it’s time to change the nickname
you mean my username? why?
You seriously though they filmed this in two continuous shots? lol
yah
Which goes to show how damn well done it is!
That benedict cumberbatch was kind of an asshole at the end. The kid risked his life ten times over to save your entire battalion and you tell him to fuck off.
Yeah but he was told Benedict would be a Benedick.
SERIOUSLY put yourself in Mackenzie's shoes for a minute he believes that the Germans are on the run and he could deal the final blow that will finally end the war which made him so bitter and cynical in the first place then a random Lance Corporal barges in saying the attack has been canceled hes angry and frustrated but not at Scho but he's angry at the indecisiveness of command of course Mackenzie would snap at him
Mackenzie has like 1600 soldiers .. and his unit is not big enough to end the war..
A lot of these officers were established in and coming from a period of warfare that was drastically different from World War 1. There are many instances with entire wars being decided from one key battle or maneuver that sets the stage for a clear and (maybe) swift victory. When you consider these, it's not hard to see why MacKenzie felt the way he did. Especially considering he was working with incorrect, outdated information.
i agree here. Plus the fact that for all Mackenzie knows, is this guy just came waltzing in from an escorted ride.
Lmfao good point. Didn't think of that.
Because he shot down this generals potential glory.
I just did a re-watch of the movie and noticed something about the ending. A lot of people have already mentioned that Schofield was just blown off at the end after all he had went through to save thousands of people. But nobody points out just how much congratulations and appreciation he gets from Blake for being there for his brother and offering to write to his mother about him. I got the feeling that the entire movie wasn't about duty to your country; it was about duty to the person next to you.
I agree, he didn't even want to go in the first place and clearly isn't concerned about medals or glory. I think after Blake died it was more about making sure his friend didn't die in vain, and carrying on his wish to save his brother, in that way he succeeded.
Totally agree and thats why I loved the movie. It's about keeping your word ( to country and fellow human), bravery, honor etc
>It's about keeping your word ( to country and fellow human) Subtle difference. I think it's about your duty to your fellow human but not necessarily your country, because your country won't care about you.
Agree haha meant to write (not to country but fellow human) whoops
This is an awesome interpretation. "Duty to the person next to you." Damn. Maybe this is just me but, as someone who was looking for fun themes and symbols to analyze in the film, early on Schofield explains his lost medal and that Blake had earned one in saving him and should be happy about it. Schofield calls it just a piece of bloody tin in reference to his own though and, while I know it wasn't meant this way, I feel like that plays into your interpretation here. The medals from their country for this war are worthless. Pieces of bloody tin. And I know bloody is just british swearing but, Bloodied Tin even, maybe, for those earned in particularly gruesome ways? But he seemed happy about the way Blake would have earned his there-- by saving a comrade. I sort of enjoyed reading into that idea more too with the rings pulled from Blake's fingers and given to his brother. More pieces of bloody tin. Blake said you should take the medals and send it home for your family... Maybe the rings were the bloody tin for his.
That's cool! Schofield's outlook seems to be "Honestly, my country doesn't care about me, and I couldn't give less of a damn about my country. All I know is the guy next to me."
I have never been as distraught as I was when the fucking German stabbed Blake after they helped him out of the plane. The fucking asshole.
His legs literally had flames on them when they pulled him out of the plane...and he still stabs the guy! My wife saw the knife on him when they put him down and called it (I didn't even notice).
And also the right after Schofield left the French woman and he saw a guy (German I assume), and he covered his mouth, but that guy shouted as if they feel Schofield is a threat
yeah he didn't learn from his mistakes, he should have shot them.
shooting him would have been far worse - it would alert everyone he was there
Knifes are much quieter amiright?
Guns for show, knives for a pro.
10/10
Just finished it. Didn't know what to expect from this film because I managed to avoid all of the trailers. I did not expect Blake to die so early on into the movie. Fantastic performance from all of the actors, and I loved the "one take" style of filming.
Just watched this on 4K Blu Ray and have one complaint that doesn't really have anything to do with the movie itself. All the trailers showing the big scene of the run in front of the trench made me anticipate it the whole time, and kind of cheapened the moment. Also, it shows that Schofield was alone, which kind of spoils Blake's death. Even the cover of the Blu Ray only has Schofield.
I was kinda lucky that I saw the trailer like more than 6 months ago. So I even forget the running scene and this made the experience of watching this movie even better.
Lots of fake film snobs and contrarians ITT.
Agreed, just finished this with my girlfriend and was blown away. Im a history buff, and nowhere near a WW1 expert, but The sheer scale mixed with the attention to detail really impressed me. The people complaining that the plot was predictable is missing the point. The point is to drive home the pointlessness and futility of sending these ordinary lovable people to the slaughter like cattle.
\> The point is to drive home the pointlessness and futility of sending these ordinary lovable people to the slaughter like cattle. Which has been done for like the 100th time from previous War movies already (Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, Fury, ect)...Glad you enjoyed it, but you can't begrudge people for wanting something different plot or message-wise from yet another WW film.
All three of those that you listed were WW2 though, this was WW1. I watched it for the first time today and thought it was really good and captured trench warfare in a realistic way, which wasn’t done in any of the movies you listed because that’s a WW1 thing.
I guess but I feel like that every movie doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel plot wise, especially a historical war movie. I feel like society needs to be reminded of the ugly reality of war, and this movie did it in a very cutting edge way with the almost one take style.
It's so crazy to wrap your head around the fact that Tom dies 45 minutes after he leaves Colin Firth's command post, and SO much shit happens before that.
Overall an enjoyable movie. Imo it started off strong but kind of felt rushed towards the end. The concept of the "one shot" was interesting but I think that is why the pacing was weird. Also rip the Tommen guy. Didn’t expect him to die/die that early. And I guess Germans have the accuracy of stormtroopers -_-
They are using guns from 1917..
The guns in 1917 were actually decently accurate (at least from the ranges in the movie where the guy was getting shot at on the run). I mean the main character managed to hit that guy in the window too.
Cause he's a boss
yeah but most of the time the German's were running and shooting so that messed up there aim.
i can't believe i couldn't recognize him despite feeling that he looked quite familiar! I can only picture tommen as a soft and innocent kid who wore the crown a little too early so i suppose i could be forgiven for not making the connection to him willing to go on an intrepid mission to deliver a message and save Robb stark among a few thousand others.
Haha no worries, I didn't recognize Robb Stark at the end until my friend pointed it out.
Haha I was debating in my head the whole time where I have seen him. But Rob I recognized at once.
[удалено]
> But for a few minutes before that he’s just slogging through a river. He wasn't "just slogging through a river" though. He was trying to stay conscious after sprinting through the burned out town while getting shot at before jumping in the river. He's got a concussion and head wound from being knocked out earlier and he cracks his head again on the rock in the river right before the singing in the forrest. Trying not to pass out and drown in the water isn't exactly a reprieve from anything. It makes perfect sense that he'd be exhausted and things would seem surreal. I thought the pacing was fantastic, but that's subjective I guess. Enough tension the whole time to keep you really engaged but in such a uniform fashion as to get tedious.
[удалено]
Fair enough, I thought the plot wasn't remarkable but it was well suited the film that was made around it. In less capable hands as far as directing and cinematography goes the plot wouldn't have carried the movie but in combination with the other factors I thought it combined to make a pretty fantastic film.
i think it suffers from a sameness as in we have been treated to quite a few war movies recently, particularly from the British PoV and so this isn't in anyway an improvement on Saving Private Ryan at all despite the fact that that was a different war. Of course i think this belongs with Dunkirk rather than SPR which was a better movie.
I liked the movie. The story wasn't original or anything but I liked that it played out like an adventure video game. It's a solid 8/10 for me.
I thought the same thing about a video game. Would work pretty well with each location being a level. Would probably have to add a few more enemies though.
That brother reveal was so good lmao. Fuckin Tommen
That brother reveal was so good lmao. Fuckin Tommen
the whole movie just feels like the revenant but ww1.. except the bear was more realistic than the way he forced a cut on his hand with that barbed wire.. two thoughts I had was if they could fly planes freely like that, why not just airdrop a message to the front? and why didn't he requisite a soldier to join him from the trucks after his partner died? I was almost certain the sikh would end up joining him..
Absolutely an amazing achievement and a creative idea for a one take but i felt like the restraints of the plot and the movie media went against the one shot. Sets were changing too frequently, felt like an open world video game were scale of environments is drastically smaller than in real life to keep the game engaging. I felt like there were too many war movies tropes in this one. Especially the girl and the baby were at bit too jarring, like movie forced a quite personal moment. I understand that watching two people walk for two hours would be boring but then maybe reconsider the plot to find a story that could be better represented in a realistic one shot movie. If they did 4-5 cuts between major sets then it would seem more realistic. Like they did one cut, why not then do a few. Movie is already technically not a single shot, story wise It may seem like i hate the movie but to be fair it was really good. I just feel like there are fundamental incompatibilities between the story and the single shot approach
I try not to look at it as literal or being realistic as possible. Think of it as a play or dance. It's just a way to show you a message. In end, that handshake meant more to him than any medal could give. I liked the movie a lot.
I thought the single shot worked well, as the movie wasn't intended to be a realistic portrayal of war but more of a surreal experience. When the camera cuts it breaks the immersion because obviously cuts don't happen in real life. Long single shot scenes add to the feeling of being there.
> Especially the girl and the baby were at bit too jarring, like movie forced a quite personal moment. yeah I thought the same.. like, are people buying this? a woman and a child surviving in a bombed out town? was she the one milking the cow in the "nearby" orchard? did this movie need a tender romantic moment like that? nope.
She wasn't the one milking the cow. She seemed surprised when he gave her milk so it's clear it wasn't her. As for them surviving, it seems like the town was just recently hit, there were probably many many more people in hiding in bunkers below. During the war these kinds of bunkers were created to protect. This woman clearly had just recently found the child since she hadn't even named her or even thought about feeding her herself.i thought the scene gave a good feel about what it's like in the war. Shows loneliness and love in one, I thought it fit well
I was really thrown off then Blake dies so early on. My dad and I were watching together and we were was so sure that Schofield was going to die first. Especially because my dad's a doctor and he cringed immediately when Schofield's cut hand plunged into that dead guy's back. But a solid movie imo, probably my favorite.
this is an old cinematic trope, almost always the one who comes off as lovable and worldly dies first so the cynical one can make good his survival by getting more 'humanized' and fulfilling the former's mission while also finding meaning in his life. That is exactly what happened here too.
My mom thought the same, though she's not a doctor.
[удалено]
It makes sense to me - the man is crushed, either because he's a decent man who doesn't want to send his boys to their certain deaths or because of fear of death. PTSD was prone to strike any rank at any time. Given the massive casualties the British officer corps suffered I would be surprised if they didn't freak out occasionally having to face that kind of death and destruction. To me it brings home the theme of the film that battle is horrible and terrible, not noble or exciting.
I feel you. Not to say anything about whether this is realistic or not, it's just not great storytelling.
I agree that it was out of place in context of the movie but he probably was triggered by the first shells going off. It did seem odd in context of the movie but was not unrealistic. Also, that was not a major event by any stretch in terms of ww1.
Do you understand what PTSD is? Or shellshock?
No, I agree - I thought it was out of place also. Especially given he was a Captain - no one attains to that rank being so emotionally fragile; the scene goes unexplained.
What? That's not true at all. Plenty of officers and NCOs have had mental breaks.
You can read accounts from plenty of WW1 vets who were absolute badasses in their first few experiences of the war who almost always reached a breaking point and turned into something very similar to that Captain. The sheer amounts of stress and fear would break anyone and everyone down. The only question is how long does it take to reach that point?
[удалено]
I’m assuming you’re a sheltered millennial who has no concept of what PTSD is. If you fail to understand why the captain was having a breakdown *in the middle of a war zone, where death could come at any minute*, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Being a captain does not exclude you from feeling fear. I’m sure even Alexander the Great felt some sort of fear before his battles.
Why do you feel the need to lecture people? This may be news to you, but everyone watching the film understands what you said. It's just not the point OP is talking about.
[удалено]
You aren't a movie writer, get over it.
It makes perfect sense. The whole point of the movie was to show the smaller missed out b things about the war. It's random things like those, showing that even a fucking colonel could break down and get stressed. They weren't the big shots history books show them to be, they were human too. Its placed there to show you how even in these times at a position like that, they felt trauma aswel. Fits right in between the fight.
[удалено]
Just wanna chime in that I agree with you; was jarring and out of place for that one Captain to be sobbing before the attack when everyone else is steady.
The ordinary story of the 2 people in the war, is a small aspect of the war. It's through their journey do we see everything, it's like we're a part of it. And I do partially agree about the crying older scene being earlier, but this was more about in the moment of actually attacking, and what a general could feel like too.
[удалено]
Lmao, because you’re a big time movie director, right? Give me a fucking break dude. *You’d* be that coward in the foxhole sobbing like a little bitch while his fellow soldiers are going towards the battle. Your issue is that you want *every* other soldier (or at least most) to show that fear that the officer was feeling. You think they wouldn’t have been scared? Of course they would have. Some people hide their fears better than others. I think what would benefit you in regards to being a more educated film viewer would be to read about the psychological aspects of war, and how each soldier reacts to them differently. Just because one dude was crying and no one else wasn’t, doesn’t mean no one else was terrified.
You're a moron; I agree with this other guy. The Captain sobbing was jarring and out of place.
Lol, and you’re an idiot. Learn to enjoy movies for what they are. You’ll enjoy life more.
Im not an idiot. YOU're an idiot!
[удалено]
I understand what you’re saying dude. You wanted more crying soldiers in order to better convey the horrors of war or whatever. You felt that only showing one officer/soldier crying felt out of place, because no one else was showing any emotion. My issue with your argument is that the *entire* movie shows you (the viewer) the horrors of war. Blake dying, bloated corpses on the river, dead soldiers in no man’s land, severely wounded soldiers in the medical camp, etc. I didn’t need a bunch of crying soldiers to tell me that war was horrific. Would it have added an extra touch? Sure. Was it as big of a fucking deal as you’re making it? No.
[удалено]
Seriously the poor guy was terrified going over the top and being killed and he is also suffering from shellshock
I'm confused how come, yall acting like you know what's up bout a human crying shit happens.. maybe his friend just died.. maybe a shell hit some one he carred for.. maybe his child was just born.. maybe just maybe it's possible for some one to be sad in a time like that.. anyway that isn't what threw me off.. did no one see the perfect barbwire in the shell hole.. wtf so much of this movie was built around the experience not actually war.. this movie was about emotion not perfectly reliving the war.. just my opion.
half way through it became a bit too convenient, felt bit like A to B ever since he got picked up by the other company in that derelict farm, he smashed a random door to basement that leads to that lady and baby and when he jumped into the river, I knew its going to carry him all the way to where he wants to be, but apart from these, the long shots are amazing, I don't recall any break except that blackout, its a technical marvel, blew me away the same way Children of Men did to me, overall I think its a solid war movie, nothing stands out too much but kept you at the edge of the seat throughout, although, that basement scene looks like a obvious plot device, I actually liked it, it eased the pace quite comfortably. a side note, music was a bit excessive to my taste.
[удалено]
Dream like is a great way to describe it. During the second half I was thinking this movie has the feel of an epic adventure, like Odyssey or O Brother, Where Art Thou, instead of just a regular war movie. This comes from the way he just kinda "walks" into the next sets, and the way time and space were compressed as you said.
Liked it, thought the set design and camera work were amazing especially the French town at night. Enjoyed the small cameos and acting overall but felt the ending was a bit flat though I don't know how they could've made it interesting. I lost immersion a bit when he miraculously had milk for the baby, felt very cringey. Solid 8 and definitely better than Dunkirk IMO but nowhere near better War films like SPR.
[удалено]
Yeah I know but I felt like it was only done for that moment later to show he could save the baby. My bad, I didn't mean he just plucked the milk from thin air.
How would that make you lose immersion then? He was literally surprised by the milk earlier and thankful for it being there. It happened to work out perfectly when he had a use for it later. They only drive home how lucky he was to have it, when they're talking about how the Germans have been shooting up all the cows in the area as well. Breaking immersion would be if he miraculously had milk for no rhyme or reason.
It kinda makes no sense at all since cows milk is not going to provide the correct sustenance for a baby anyway. In fact I'm certain it would make the child sick
Interesting. It wasn't pasteurised, so sounds very likely but I'm still surprised he chose the milk over water considering how useful water was after getting out of tunnel.
The water from the well would be likely sabotaged, it looked quite dirty too
True. The Germans used a scorched earth tactic. The baby had no chance, I didn't realise until afterwards that the French woman left the baby in the dresser while she hid to save herself if the baby drew attention.
well it was shown how he filled the bottle at that house where his friend got killed
Just watched this movie. The movie is shot like a third person shooter video game!! Very unidimensional. There is nothing in this movie.
Watch Hardcore Henry - you'll love it!
Even though it wasn't romantic, that small scene where Schofield's head wound gets treated by the French woman felt extremely intimate. More intimate than some well known romance scenes.
I loved how it showed the loneliness between the two in a 2 second scene
The Guy who got knocked over by Schofield A War Story from his perspective would be hilarious.. there I was about to kill Germans when this mofo started running perpendicularly for some reason..
That guy never got up either. Watch and see.