Alongside Apocalypse Now and Dunkirk, this is a very visually stunning war film, but much better than the latter of thos
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 1917
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 26, 2020 08:04 AM)
Alongside Apocalypse Now and Dunkirk, this is a very visually stunning war film, but much better than the latter of those two. Probably my third favourite film in the genre (behind Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter).
There's not much I can fault this film on, other than a few small nitpicks about occasional conveniences that just so happen to pan out for the main character and some of the people he encounters
(the eventual use for the milk, the squad with vehicles arriving just after one of the lead characters dies)
. While it never crossed over into propaganda territory, I do think the German soldiers were excessively written as savages
(the German stabbing Blake, despite trying to help him and give him water to drink, as well as another German shouting out to his ally after being captured and told to be quiet by Schofield)
. It could have been to the movie's benefit to have at least one scene that humanizes BOTH sides of the war.
The film can also drag in some scenes, with lots of lingering shots that look fantastic but could be a nuisance on repeat viewings. And that's just it. The best element of the film is that the whole thing is practically one long lingering shot, and this can also, intermittently, be seen as its weakness. But this is all just nitpicking.
While I might have spent a lot of time writing about the negatives, this shouldn't take away from the fact that if you've ever enjoyed a war movie, then this is a must-see.
It's very immersive, largely due to the cinematography, but even the conversations that characters have in the more mellow moments feel quite realistic. While the plot isn't particularly a point of interest, you do grow to care about some of the characters. 2014's Birdman did a similar thing with the "one-shot" aesthetic, and while I enjoyed the characters and themes of that film more than 1917, it's 1917 that I think has a more justified and immersive usage of the style.
7/10. -
MovieManCin2 — 6 years ago(January 26, 2020 08:06 AM)
I agree with most of what you say, but I give it an 8.5/10. And I think it's the best film of this year.
MAGA! FAFO!
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. 
-
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 26, 2020 08:11 AM)
I'd put it on par with the Joker. Both films have their flaws that weigh them down slightly, but are otherwise great. A few other movies come somewhat close. The Irishman is a film that I enjoyed more the 2nd viewing, and I still think about its themes sometimes. It's probably the most rewatchable, if I have the patience for it. But it didn't leave as much of an immediate impact as Joker or 1917.
-
-
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 26, 2020 08:24 AM)
Yeah, it can be a hurdle. A lot of the great thematic stuff also didn't really kick in until towards the end of the film, either. The rest of the movie prior to that is like a more subtle Goodfellas. Except I never really liked the Goodfellas.
That's not to say there aren't explosions and murder/violent scenes, because there are. -
Chronic_Johnson — 6 years ago(January 26, 2020 09:11 AM)
There's some actors/actresses that just have an unlikable face. I immediately enjoy a film a little less if it has Ray Liotta, Alec Baldwin, Jonah Hill, Will Ferrel, John C Reilly or Tom Cruise, for example. Not sure what it is. But his character was also irredeemably bad. Not from a writing standpoint. If the point is to leave the viewer hating the guy, then they did a great job.
He rats out his only friends (though, they were likely going to kill him) and cheats on his wife, on top of being a run-of-the-mill criminal.
I just don't care for following that character around for two and a half hours.
It may just be his arrogant face.