Movie Theater 1917 - Anyone?
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
I was lucky enough to get this one out of my local video store on DVD! It would be the best format to own it in, the scene selection is good (and has a cute guitar break over it 
). It's easy to see why this one is a classic. The plot is ... my goodness!!! a plot! The subtle irony of the plot will be lost on a lot of people.
Debbie's Mom won't support her being a cheerleader because she thinks it is "outdoor burlesque". Debbie gets offered a position in the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleading Team (a team that is renowned for its good-girl image) and so to raise money she pimps out her friends to people around town.... and at the end she finds out that all the loyal sacrificing that her friends have been making aren't worth anything as they now have a sole sponsor!!! I thought it was a cool film with a good pace... and the now ever so used carwash scene was fun. Keep it up Debbie!
Wait,... what movie do you want me to review?
). It's easy to see why this one is a classic. The plot is ... my goodness!!! a plot! The subtle irony of the plot will be lost on a lot of people.Debbie's Mom won't support her being a cheerleader because she thinks it is "outdoor burlesque". Debbie gets offered a position in the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleading Team (a team that is renowned for its good-girl image) and so to raise money she pimps out her friends to people around town.... and at the end she finds out that all the loyal sacrificing that her friends have been making aren't worth anything as they now have a sole sponsor!!! I thought it was a cool film with a good pace... and the now ever so used carwash scene was fun. Keep it up Debbie!
Wait,... what movie do you want me to review?
I am actually super stoked to go see this when it hits here. Unfortunately, that's not until Jan 9th.
Saw it tonight in IMAX. It's a wonderful film. So disclaimer this is not Saving Private Ryan and anyone who compares it to it on any basis in regards to action is being paid or just biased as hell. Just a warning so you don't go in expecting to see trench warfare and huge set pieces. It's relatable to Saving Private Ryan because a someone is delivering a message to someone else. Otherwise this is classic Mendes showing the struggles of characters in dire situations. The acting by the main character is top notch, dunno who he is (it's not the GOT kid) but he's phenomenal.
From a production standpoint it is nearly perfection. Which is of no surprise, Mendes, Deakins, Newman, and a list of A+ english actors that's hard to screw up. I've seen one other film that was shot with one take or setup to imitate a continuous shot and i wasn't a fan. I respected it (birdman) but couldn't get into it. This film however is shot so gorgeously that you don't even have to be into cinematography to appreciate it. If you've seen any of the special features in the way they shot this it is downright impressive. The recreation of WWI setting i thought was done incredibly well.
Overall i enjoyed it and so did the other 10 or so of my classmates that went with me from Dental School but some lamented that it was "lame" cause of no action. It is very much not a BHD or SPR. Honestly might be more akin to Fury with less action.
I guess i'll close and say if you don't need action to watch a movie trying to reenact historical relevance of WWI or WWII you will love it. If you do, might want to wait. If you liked Dunkirk you'll like this, if you disliked Dunkirk for it's lack of dialogue but enjoyed it other wise you will like this, if you didn't like Dunkirk at all and found it boring you might not like this.
From a production standpoint it is nearly perfection. Which is of no surprise, Mendes, Deakins, Newman, and a list of A+ english actors that's hard to screw up. I've seen one other film that was shot with one take or setup to imitate a continuous shot and i wasn't a fan. I respected it (birdman) but couldn't get into it. This film however is shot so gorgeously that you don't even have to be into cinematography to appreciate it. If you've seen any of the special features in the way they shot this it is downright impressive. The recreation of WWI setting i thought was done incredibly well.
Overall i enjoyed it and so did the other 10 or so of my classmates that went with me from Dental School but some lamented that it was "lame" cause of no action. It is very much not a BHD or SPR. Honestly might be more akin to Fury with less action.
I guess i'll close and say if you don't need action to watch a movie trying to reenact historical relevance of WWI or WWII you will love it. If you do, might want to wait. If you liked Dunkirk you'll like this, if you disliked Dunkirk for it's lack of dialogue but enjoyed it other wise you will like this, if you didn't like Dunkirk at all and found it boring you might not like this.
Thank God they don't fight wars like they used to. Waste of human life, you only see the after effects of artillery, bodies in mud. It's pretty lonely, a couple of guys working across no-mans land to deliver a message. I didn't feel like there was a lot of character development. I'd give it 6/10.
I think it just depends on what you were expecting. People hyping it up were misleading. It was exactly what i expected but that's just Mendes IMO.
The hype was very misleading, I mean this can only be considered a war movie because the story takes place during a war. My 15yo son is a WWI & II geek, he has a great knowledge base of battles, equipment, strategies, he was very disappointed at the lack of actual battle scenes. I mean WWII has been well portrayed in countless films, butt WWI not so much. Then when we finally get one it doesn't even have one machine gun or one operating tank on camera, both of which were absolute game-changers first deployed during this time. I mean the story is good but hey make it an hour longer and give us some shock and awe. 5/10
That sucks. I guess I'll wait to see it when its open for rental on Itunes. There really hasn't been a movie I've been interested in seeing for a long time. Midway was a let down as well.
All that's been released seems to be PC comedies, sanitized war films, action movies written by kids who lost their ADHD meds, kid movies, live action remakes of kid movies. and marvel movies. I have to be missing out on something decent. Maybe I'm just getting old...
All that's been released seems to be PC comedies, sanitized war films, action movies written by kids who lost their ADHD meds, kid movies, live action remakes of kid movies. and marvel movies. I have to be missing out on something decent. Maybe I'm just getting old...
Saw it this afternoon. Really liked it. The continuous camera shot is amazing and hard to figure out they did it. Always interested in well done WWI movies .
Marvel movies are a fad.
So was Star Wars.
So was Buzby Berkely.
All things pass... Some take too long.
So was Star Wars.
So was Buzby Berkely.
All things pass... Some take too long.
I liked the movie even though it violated my #1 rule for doing bullshit in the military. STAY ON TASK! Fuckers always die when they are doing stupid extraneous bullshit unrelated to the task they have been assigned to do.
If you are in a zombie movie and your dog runs away, who gives a shit? Do not rescue the fucking dog, zombies do not eat dogs.
If you are on a messenger run and the lives of 1,600 men depend on you not screwing the pooch, stay on task. If planes fall from the sky, hookers need help or random bullshit unrelated to accomplishing your mission occurs, keep your ass moving.
If movies worked like my world they would all be 35 minutes long, no wandering off to sniff panties in the middle of a world ending disaster, no 35 minute speeches in gunfights and no ideological discussions with terrorists or whatever is needing to die.
I liked this movie, I just dislike the fact that in nearly every movie ever made, the main characters get distracted by everything from butterflies to wandering mules and never stay on fucking task.
If you are in a zombie movie and your dog runs away, who gives a shit? Do not rescue the fucking dog, zombies do not eat dogs.
If you are on a messenger run and the lives of 1,600 men depend on you not screwing the pooch, stay on task. If planes fall from the sky, hookers need help or random bullshit unrelated to accomplishing your mission occurs, keep your ass moving.
If movies worked like my world they would all be 35 minutes long, no wandering off to sniff panties in the middle of a world ending disaster, no 35 minute speeches in gunfights and no ideological discussions with terrorists or whatever is needing to die.
I liked this movie, I just dislike the fact that in nearly every movie ever made, the main characters get distracted by everything from butterflies to wandering mules and never stay on fucking task.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It is right on with working with what is availabe. In this case a couple of messengers. I traced the route. The trenches Sauchiehall Street and Paradise Alley (jumping off point) were near Thiepval Wood and they had to get to Croisilles Wood via Ecoust.
www.google.com
Thiepval to Croisilles
www.google.com
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
BTW, it appears to be half the distance the Warriors had to fight their way back to Coney Island from the Bronx.
Not too far off... I also saw things ripped from Saving Private Ryan.... and The Lord of the Rings.... and the plane crash was retarded. and the whole thing felt like someone playing Call of Duty, but not shooting much. Alleys, falling down buildings, clearing bunkers with SMLE's held up at eye level with flashlights.... which was not really part of the tactics of the day.
I thought they did a decent job showing the extent of the trenches... neat shots as they dragged through the British trenches. Having been on actual excavations... it was neat to see it done up so well for the movie. And they got the british (Wet) trenches vs the German (High ground and dry) trenches right. And the artillery position really was good. While, to your point Caveman, they didn't show much in the way of Maxim's... it was artillery that was the big killer in WW1. The machine guns did a lot in the 'over the top' charges early. But later it was airburst and shrapnel shells. One battlefield I walked/excavated at Combles had dozens of balls per square yard. And this was on a field that had been picked every year. Every step we found a ball, a fragment, a fuze ring, a driving band or a Mills Bomb (grenade). The sheer scale was well-portrayed in the gun pit scene. So it was a different part of the story... but not wrong, per-se.
It was a good story. The most interesting was the first two frames of the credits at the end. I won't give that away. But watch them. You may understand the story better.
Overall, it was a good movie on the big screen. I think it would be lost on the small screen. Worth seeing and way better than watching the stupid Superbowl!
Cheers,
Sirhr
It kept you on edge the whole movie. Compared to what we are getting with Star Wars and Marvel Disney Feelgoodism... It was a breath of fresh air in a Movie.
I saw it Saturday. I thought it was a really good movie, with a small story to tell (small in relation to the overall story of WWI), that most have never even heard. I loved the continuous one shot take of the film. I was trying to watch to see how it was stitched together, but I just couldn't.
I think the girl next to me crapped her drawers when the bomb went off in the German bunker.
I think the girl next to me crapped her drawers when the bomb went off in the German bunker.
Wife and I went to see it in theaters and we both really liked it.
Spoiler Alert:
Should have named it “1917: How to Fuck Your Battle Buddy”
Spoiler Alert:
Should have named it “1917: How to Fuck Your Battle Buddy”
I thought the film was great. The filming style is what sold it though. The appearance of only two scenes for the entire movie really added a lot. I thought it was fantastic. Not much action, but then again that wasn't really the focus of it either.
The tractor in the German gun pits was an odd choice. IHC/Farmall 8-16 kerosene tractor. Especially as there were only 38 produced in the first year of production. They were introduced in 1917-1922. I don't see the German army having managed to get that. Dead horses would have been a better more correct choice. Sorry maybe too nitpicky, I don't know, it took me out of the scene though.
Last edited:
Well, honestly, I don't think today's audiences could handle a full-on representation of WWI battles. I mean, people had so many problems with the opening scene of SPR, there's no way they could even begin to handle an average WWI infantry charge.
That said, have you seen Gallipoli? It's not Europe, but rather Aussie troops fighting in Churchill's ill fated thrust into Turkey, but it's a pretty reasonable representation of the method of battle... if filmed in the 80s with the prevalent cinematography and special effects of the day...
Just about to see Peter Jackson’s For they shall not Grow Old.
seeing it with 300 military academy’s then doing a discussion after. Should be interesting!
cheers, Sirhr
seeing it with 300 military academy’s then doing a discussion after. Should be interesting!
cheers, Sirhr
The recent Great War movie entitled “1917”, especially the first twenty to twenty-five minutes, is exceptional – the viewer could likely watch the opening scene numerous times and not get bored. It had the same impact as the opening scene for “Saving Private Ryan”.
Great War history buffs will enjoy the movie, and especially, the detailed historical and technical detail of battlefield and the scattered and broken articles of war. The computer-generated imagery (CGI) is very detailed and fits seamlessly with the actual film product. It is difficult to determine where the actual film breaks with the CGI.
Unfortunately, when a director/executive director is personally and emotionally involved in their movie, one experiences sections in a film which tend towards the pedantic and/or melodramatic. Where “less is more” and a good axiom to follow; this film drifts off at times.
The same situation came forward in both Paul Gross’ film “Passchendaele” and the more recent Elton John movie “Rocket Man”. In the former movie, the extended scene involving “Golgotha” is an unnecessary distraction. Similarly, Elton John’s movie was perhaps 15 minutes too long as he struggled to dot all the “I’s and cross the “T’s” in his biographical epitome.
Did the movie warrant the title of Best Picture, probably not?
However, from a technical, historical, set-decoration and cinematic perspective – it is a masterpiece. Military historians for the period will enjoy the film and the CGI work establishes a new and subtle high benchmark in its realism.
I recommend members try to view the film – it is worth your time and money. However, no war movie can ever be totally accurate - that is left for very good documentaries such as Burn's Vietnam series.
Great War history buffs will enjoy the movie, and especially, the detailed historical and technical detail of battlefield and the scattered and broken articles of war. The computer-generated imagery (CGI) is very detailed and fits seamlessly with the actual film product. It is difficult to determine where the actual film breaks with the CGI.
Unfortunately, when a director/executive director is personally and emotionally involved in their movie, one experiences sections in a film which tend towards the pedantic and/or melodramatic. Where “less is more” and a good axiom to follow; this film drifts off at times.
The same situation came forward in both Paul Gross’ film “Passchendaele” and the more recent Elton John movie “Rocket Man”. In the former movie, the extended scene involving “Golgotha” is an unnecessary distraction. Similarly, Elton John’s movie was perhaps 15 minutes too long as he struggled to dot all the “I’s and cross the “T’s” in his biographical epitome.
Did the movie warrant the title of Best Picture, probably not?
However, from a technical, historical, set-decoration and cinematic perspective – it is a masterpiece. Military historians for the period will enjoy the film and the CGI work establishes a new and subtle high benchmark in its realism.
I recommend members try to view the film – it is worth your time and money. However, no war movie can ever be totally accurate - that is left for very good documentaries such as Burn's Vietnam series.
Excellent review
I did not like Dunkirk
this movie 1917 had fantastic production values. The acting was good. The treanch camerawork was nausea inducing and repetitious. for me it was a good story, overhyped by hollywood, but 3/5 overall.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It goes by quick because it is single shot cinematography. It is just the characters immediate area. What they can see or experience right there in the moment. Like a comic book in a way. Also, not having even a basic understanding of the overall carnage and chaos will leave some people thinking why didn't they just use the planes. Well, that is easy. The planes we see were assets not available to that particular commander. Bureaucracy of war. And guess what? Right in the middle of a level 5 influenza pandemic, lol.
Last edited by a moderator:
I really enjoyed it. Great cinematography and compelling story. Wish I could have seen it in theaters but still good. Was bugging me when they failed to search the German pilot but what followed really surprised me.
Well worth the watch, they nailed much of the history and feel from what I have read.
Well worth the watch, they nailed much of the history and feel from what I have read.
Correct; little story or dialogue from any of the characters – and this most likely was the true intent of the director. With most wars and battles - individuals really matter for little and most heroic actions in the field are never recorded or rewarded. Discount the Hollywood versions of war.
Whereas a typical James Bond film or a Star Wars film is packed with visual treats (technical and sometimes female in the former), and a smattering of dialogue as a cinematic bridge – their ultimate aim follows the simple American cowboy movie: Good guys and bad guys - with right overcoming might. This is a tried and true formula to both entertain and make money.
For the movie “1917”; from a technical, historical, set-decoration and cinematic perspective, it is very well done. It is less about entertainment and more about showing the viewer what it was possibly like, and perhaps, convey how messy war can be. Each soldier has a duty – and it is more important that they do their duty than survive.
Whereas a typical James Bond film or a Star Wars film is packed with visual treats (technical and sometimes female in the former), and a smattering of dialogue as a cinematic bridge – their ultimate aim follows the simple American cowboy movie: Good guys and bad guys - with right overcoming might. This is a tried and true formula to both entertain and make money.
For the movie “1917”; from a technical, historical, set-decoration and cinematic perspective, it is very well done. It is less about entertainment and more about showing the viewer what it was possibly like, and perhaps, convey how messy war can be. Each soldier has a duty – and it is more important that they do their duty than survive.
Similar threads
