1917

Bigslug

Went to see this with the fam last night.  WOW!

Regardless of your level of WWI interest, this is an amazing piece of moviemaking.  Much like Dunkirk, it's shot from the narrow perspective of a small number of participants, and while there are maybe 5-8 places where it's fairly obvious the director said "CUT!", the attempt was to make the movie seem like the whole two hours was done in one take with one camera.

The battlefield and trench complex sets are possibly beyond anything cinematic I've ever seen.  Utterly convincing that you're looking at the color-reality that was captured in 100 year old grainy B&W photographs.  Artillery bursts that looked like artillery bursts instead of someone lighting off a can of gasoline.  At least a couple iterations of S.M.L.E that I saw (with and without mag cutoff), which says their prop people understood there would be a mix of kit.  I'm a happy moviegoer!

Zee

Going to see it today. 

GunNut

Excellent!  I’ll be a headed to the theater soon.  Thanks for the review.

Linefinder

The wife and I are going to see it tomorrow.

Thanks for the review.

Mike

Zee

Saw it tonight. 

A very good movie in a sobering kind of way. Not the CGI dramatic action of Midway. But, a very well made dark movie of a dark moment in time and the cinematography is absolutely amazing!!

There is only ONE lapse in time that occurs in the movie. The rest of it is “real-time” from start to finish. Pretty darn cool.  It’s like the viewpoint from ONE camera the whole time. 

Think of it as a very well made docu-drama of war. 

ojr

I also wish to see this but in a theater so I guess its a waiting game down here.
Thanks as well for the reviews.

zorba

Very well done.

GunNut

Hope I can find a hole in my wife's packed weekend schedule to drag her to the theater.  If it's playing in IMAX I'll drag her even against her will.

zorba

We skipped the iMax - wanted to see the movie, not be in it! But you'll enjoy it either way.

GunNut

zorba said:

We skipped the iMax - wanted to see the movie, not be in it! But you'll enjoy it either way.

Well I waited too long.  It's not on IMAX anymore anyway.  I did see Dunkirk in IMAX and I can tell you it was worth the experience.  You could hear bullets buzzing past your head...

zorba

Its still in iMax here, or was earlier this week when we saw it. Doesn't matter, you'll enjoy the film - it was one of the better war movies I've seen in quite a while - very poignant ending.

Spk

zorba said:

Its still in iMax here, or was earlier this week when we saw it. Doesn't matter, you'll enjoy the film - it was one of the better war movies I've seen in quite a while - very poignant ending.

You went to a movie theater?????

zorba

What? You think I'd watch the film on a smartphone?

Spk

I thought you'd be watching it on your GE 19" black and white TV (with rabbit ears).

Aka: The Big Screen

Seriously though, I thought you swore off movie theaters.

I haven't been to one since the early 90's.

Zee

Spk said:

zorba said:

Its still in iMax here, or was earlier this week when we saw it. Doesn't matter, you'll enjoy the film - it was one of the better war movies I've seen in quite a while - very poignant ending.

You went to a movie theater?????

You mean.....Zorba gripes about movie theaters too?!?  How on earth did I miss that?
😒

Linefinder

Zee said:

Saw it tonight. 

A very good movie in a sobering kind of way. Not the CGI dramatic action of Midway. But, a very well made dark movie of a dark moment in time and the cinematography is absolutely amazing!!

There is only ONE lapse in time that occurs in the movie. The rest of it is “real-time” from start to finish. Pretty darn cool.  It’s like the viewpoint from ONE camera the whole time. 

Think of it as a very well made docu-drama of war. 

Gotta agree with that all those points, but the one camera "real-time" effect totally blew me away.

Mike

zorba

I never recollected griping about a movie theatre - I enjoy them. Musta been somebody else, I know there's a couple or three here. *serious*

As for the TV, I used to work on those!

Bigslug

Well, now that we're mostly past the "spoilers" stage. . .

A minor gripe I had was the same one I had with Dunkirk  - the presence of a handful of high profile actors - Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott - reminds one that you're watching a movie.  Not that I don't enjoy those actor's work (all great in this film), you've seen them in so many other things it distracts a bit.

The only technical gripe I had was that it took probably too little time for our two lance corporals to make it from the rear to the front - forgivable in the interest of time.  Getting from a place you couldn't readily be shelled or machine-gunned through communication and support trenches was more than a five minute hike.

We were wondering about CGI vs. "casting" for the extra large rats.  My brother in law had the answer - "The camera adds ten pounds"

zorba

Like the rat that tripped the wire?

Spk

Bigslug said:

Well, now that we're mostly past the "spoilers" stage. . .

A minor gripe I had was the same one I had with Dunkirk  - the presence of a handful of high profile actors - Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott - reminds one that you're watching a movie.  Not that I don't enjoy those actor's work (all great in this film), you've seen them in so many other things it distracts a bit.

...

We were wondering about CGI vs. "casting" for the extra large rats.  My brother in law had the answer - "The camera adds ten pounds"

Unless it's Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis or Keanu Reeves faking a British accent, I'll give them a pass. (Keanu sounds terrible faking a British accent)

I know Sylvester Stallone would've opted for the CGI rats in First Blood (he got bit and scratched numerous times during the mine scene).

Just wondering but how big can rats get?

The one in the harness is searching for mines.

Gila

I've seen packs of rats the size of cats.  (and the rhyme was not intentional)

CHIRO1989

Very good cinematography, costumes and weapons seemed correct, very intense film

CHIRO1989

and since we are past the spoiler stage, I am pretty sure if the charge will cave in the bunker, the folks inside are going to be concussed beyond popping up and running down a tunnel outside.

Bigslug

CHIRO1989 said:

and since we are past the spoiler stage, I am pretty sure if the charge will cave in the bunker, the folks inside are going to be concussed beyond popping up and running down a tunnel outside.

Flip a coin on that one.  One thing the movie got right: the German strategic move that defined the Western Front early on; when it became clear things were headed for a stalemate, was to move up or fall back to high ground.  This resulted in the very different trench engineering which we saw - more "proper" construction of wood framing and concrete for the Germans, and a lot of "mud abatement" for the Allies.  So you're right that it's probably going to take more than a firecracker to take down a German dugout complex.

Then again, it turned into a war defined by engineering.  Good engineering, bad engineering, engineering to deceive and delay, and of course, engineering to defeat the other guy's engineering.  Call it by whatever convenient plot device you want - elaborate boobytrapping, abandonment of a compromised trench (that biggest crater they crossed was probably from an underground mine, not a shell), or minor boobytrapping combining unexpectedly with cumulative unseen damage from previous explosions.  Plenty of examples in that war of people dying strangely or escaping miraculously - I'm OK with it.

CHIRO1989

Good points, I thought some of those craters were pretty big for the artillery of the day, especially in the spring mud. It is valid to consider that bunker complex had the attention of allied artillery, especially with air spotters, and may have been shelled to the point it was weakened.