ADVERTISEMENT

1917/The movie/What was the big deal?

Titus Andronicus

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 26, 2002
12,437
3,700
113
77
Las Vegas, NV
I watched this movie last night after looking forward to it for awhile now. I really had come to believe that this was the cinema event of the year. ... however:

I was amazed at the thin story line and frankly found it dull, slow moving, and boring.

The whole story involved a General delegating an extremely important message/order in letter form to a corporal for delivery to the commanding officer of troops in a forward position. It was urgent that this message be delivered; there was no room for error and yet it was given to a corporal and his pal to deliver over nine miles of battlefield on foot!! The two corporals had 36 hours to get it there and most of the movie was how they dodged bullets, an airplane, and a zillion natural roadblocks. Throughout this time, other troops appeared to be moving around in motorized convoys. There were even airplanes flying above.

The corporal was selected seemingly because he had a brother in the front-line unit who he could then visit after delivering the message. Supposedly the communications lines had been cut, but still there were any number of more sure-fire and safer ways for a messenger to deliver this all-important message.

.... So first of all, the premise was ridiculous, and then it just became a tedious adventure while the two soldiers encountered a series of enemy soldiers (who really should not have even been there since the area had British troops both at the front and and in rear in reserve.) and various other roadblocks. When a dogfight took place above them, the enemy flyer crashed no more than 20 feet from them and then shot one of the two messengers when they saved him from a burning plane.

Tom Hanks would never have allowed him to get that close; he would have shot him instead of saving him. (Saving Private Ryan)

The filming was great; In fact the whole film captured an imaginative vision of the Western Front in 1917. That however was about it.

The story was lame, They worked a girl and a baby into the story. We got to watch a three bi-planes fight it out in the skies above France, One of the two messengers fell into a river and got wet, but managed to keep the letter dry.

There just was not much there. ... and this was one of best movies of recent times??

...............................................

My recommendation:

Skip this movie and watch the first 10 minutes of Kenneth Branagh's "The Magic Flute" which also features wide screen aerial shots of the Front during WWI. If you like opera, you can watch the whole movie. There are also some dancing/cavorting nuns along the way and lots of Mozart.

 
Last edited:
It's a big screen movie, watching it at home does not do it justice. Cinematography made up for the thin story line in a theater experience imo. I'm a sucker for long shots and cinematography though.

Everyone should know by now to just ignore the hype on things and enjoy the things you enjoy. Our culture speaks in superlatives and over hypes the shit out of everything. Somehow, every show on every network is the #1 show in America. It's amazing how that happens.

Also, comparing every war movie to Saving Private Ryan (especially if you saw the movie in the time frame when it released) is always going to leave you deflated. That's like comparing every basketball player to Michael Jordan, it's basically impossible to live up to.
 
I watched this movie last night after looking forward to it for awhile now. I really had come to believe that this was the cinema event of the year. ... however:

I was amazed at the thin story line and frankly found it dull, slow moving, and boring.

The whole story involved a General delegating an extremely important message/order in letter form to a corporal for delivery to the commanding officer of troops in a forward position. It was urgent that this message be delivered; there was no room for error and yet it was given to a corporal and his pal to deliver over nine miles of battlefield on foot!! The two corporals had 36 hours to get it there and most of the movie was how they dodged bullets, an airplane, and a zillion natural roadblocks. Throughout this time, other troops appeared to be moving around in motorized convoys. There were even airplanes flying above.

The corporal was selected seemingly because he had a brother in the front-line unit who he could then visit after delivering the message. Supposedly the communications lines had been cut, but still there were any number of more sure-fire and safer ways for a messenger to deliver this all-important message.

.... So first of all, the premise was ridiculous, and then it just became a tedious adventure while the two soldiers encountered a series of enemy soldiers (who really should not have even been there since the area had British troops both at the front and and in rear in reserve.) and various other roadblocks. When a dogfight took place above them, the enemy flyer crashed no more than 20 feet from them and then shot one of the two messengers when they saved him from a burning plane.

Tom Hanks would never have allowed him to get that close; he would have shot him instead of saving him. (Saving Private Ryan)

The filming was great; In fact the whole film captured an imaginative vision of the Western Front in 1917. That however was about it.

The story was lame, They worked a girl and a baby into the story. We got to watch a three bi-planes fight it out in the skies above France, One of the two messengers fell into a river and got wet, but managed to keep the letter dry.

There just was not much there. ... and this was one of best movies of recent times??

I agree. I saw it in theaters and was very underwhelmed.
 
We've had this thread before.

In a nutshell, what made the film get so much attention was the gimmicky cinematography.

I liked the film, and that was mainly the reason. But the plot was fuller of holes than a Spad pounced upon by the Red Baron, and the acting wasn't all that great.
 
It went south for me when the guy jumped into the river then delivered a perfect message to the other brother.
The letter had to be destroyed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
Tommen was in it.
The faked continuous shot was pretty well done, but it was fairly obvious where the cuts were and when the CGI used to cover them. I still enjoyed it.
I’m a sucker for war movies.
 
Very solid movie. Accept things for what they are sometimes. It wasn’t perfect, but I didn’t feel cheated in any way that nobody thought to fly a plane over the 2nd Devons and drop them a note versus implausibly sending two men through miles of enemy held territory.
But, then HROT would fight over the implausibility of using a plane....
 
I didn’t think the movie was great and there are so many better WWI stories to be told. But I did appreciate the more restrained aspects of the movie. So many times in war movies the main characters mow down dozens of mindless enemy soldiers. Of course in war movies against the Germans that stands out as the Germans were constantly outnumbered, outgunned, yet inflicted much higher losses on the forces opposing them. Saving Private Ryan is a good example of that with the last battle along the Vire River or the last battle in Fury for another example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JupiterHawk
Very solid movie. Accept things for what they are sometimes. It wasn’t perfect, but I didn’t feel cheated in any way that nobody thought to fly a plane over the 2nd Devons and drop them a note versus implausibly sending two men through miles of enemy held territory.
But, then HROT would fight over the implausibility of using a plane....

Fair commentary, all ...

At least in Apocalypse Now, they sent a fellow officer to do their errand. ... and they could have plopped him into the river much closer to his destination, but as you suggest, it would not have been a movie then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Just got back. Not a movie aficionado by any means but I thought it was outstanding. The cinematography is really unique since it’s basically shot with one camera and two very long scenes so you really don’t have time to take a breath.

I think it does a better job than Saving Private Ryan of making the audience share some of the emotions that the soldiers would have, especially fear (going into no-mans-land would be scary af).

Having said that, I think you almost have to see in the theatre to get the full experience. Don’t think it will hold up as classically as Private Ryan has.

Great film though.
Probably one you should see in the theater as well
It's a big screen movie, watching it at home does not do it justice. Cinematography made up for the thin story line in a theater experience imo. I'm a sucker for long shots and cinematography though.

Everyone should know by now to just ignore the hype on things and enjoy the things you enjoy. Our culture speaks in superlatives and over hypes the shit out of everything. Somehow, every show on every network is the #1 show in America. It's amazing how that happens.

Also, comparing every war movie to Saving Private Ryan (especially if you saw the movie in the time frame when it released) is always going to leave you deflated. That's like comparing every basketball player to Michael Jordan, it's basically impossible to live up to.
Loved it in the theater but I can tell it wouldn’t be nearly as good on tv.


We are about to watch this on Showtime on Prime (finally) and am trying to convince the wife and teenager to watch this on the basement big screen with surround sound and sound bar, rather than on just the living room TV. Thanks for these posts convincing me that I’m right.
 
Speaking of war movie’s....anyone see Greyhound? It’s on Apple TV
Reviews are mixed but looks interesting
 
I watched this movie last night after looking forward to it for awhile now. I really had come to believe that this was the cinema event of the year. ... however:

I was amazed at the thin story line and frankly found it dull, slow moving, and boring.

The whole story involved a General delegating an extremely important message/order in letter form to a corporal for delivery to the commanding officer of troops in a forward position. It was urgent that this message be delivered; there was no room for error and yet it was given to a corporal and his pal to deliver over nine miles of battlefield on foot!! The two corporals had 36 hours to get it there and most of the movie was how they dodged bullets, an airplane, and a zillion natural roadblocks. Throughout this time, other troops appeared to be moving around in motorized convoys. There were even airplanes flying above.

The corporal was selected seemingly because he had a brother in the front-line unit who he could then visit after delivering the message. Supposedly the communications lines had been cut, but still there were any number of more sure-fire and safer ways for a messenger to deliver this all-important message.

.... So first of all, the premise was ridiculous, and then it just became a tedious adventure while the two soldiers encountered a series of enemy soldiers (who really should not have even been there since the area had British troops both at the front and and in rear in reserve.) and various other roadblocks. When a dogfight took place above them, the enemy flyer crashed no more than 20 feet from them and then shot one of the two messengers when they saved him from a burning plane.

Tom Hanks would never have allowed him to get that close; he would have shot him instead of saving him. (Saving Private Ryan)

The filming was great; In fact the whole film captured an imaginative vision of the Western Front in 1917. That however was about it.

The story was lame, They worked a girl and a baby into the story. We got to watch a three bi-planes fight it out in the skies above France, One of the two messengers fell into a river and got wet, but managed to keep the letter dry.

There just was not much there. ... and this was one of best movies of recent times??

...............................................

My recommendation:

Skip this movie and watch the first 10 minutes of Kenneth Branagh's "The Magic Flute" which also features wide screen aerial shots of the Front during WWI. If you like opera, you can watch the whole movie. There are also some dancing/cavorting nuns along the way and lots of Mozart.

1917 > your version of 1917

Deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
Speaking of war movie’s....anyone see Greyhound? It’s on apple tv

It’s my fifth favorite WW2 movie behind Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Bast@rds and Das Boot in that order. And ahead of otherwise great WW2 movies like Enemy at the Gates, Warriors of the Rainbow, Dunkirk, Tora Tora Tora, Patton, Defiance, Stalingrad, Letters from Iowa Jima, Unknown Soldier, and Days of Glory.
 
Trench warfare. God that would’ve sucked. Not that any war would be fun, but that would’ve been brutal

The first 1/3 of the movie showing first the ramshackle British trenches, then the No Mans Land, then the highly developed German trenches was the best part of the movie in my opinion. Pretty historically accurate from what I understand.

Also, the premise of the story is based on stories told to the director by family members who fought in the war, so not totally based on a specific battle, but loosely based on some of the events surrounding the German withdrawal to new lines to conserve manpower that led to the British army overextended in places.
 
The first 1/3 of the movie showing first the ramshackle British trenches, then the No Mans Land, then the highly developed German trenches was the best part of the movie in my opinion. Pretty historically accurate from what I understand.

Also, the premise of the story is based on stories told to the director by family members who fought in the war, so not totally based on a specific battle, but loosely based on some of the events surrounding the German withdrawal to new lines to conserve manpower that led to the British army overextended in places.



 
We've had this thread before.

In a nutshell, what made the film get so much attention was the gimmicky cinematography.

I liked the film, and that was mainly the reason. But the plot was fuller of holes than a Spad pounced upon by the Red Baron, and the acting wasn't all that great.
You are correct. It was the cinematography. Much like Citizen Kane (rated by some as one of the greatest movies of all time) and the way it was filmed, this film falls into a different sort of category. The fact that the "initial scene" was filmed in total continuity where it was a continuous shoot, up until the time the main character loses consciousness, it was something different. The story itself was nothing special.
 
You are correct. It was the cinematography. Much like Citizen Kane (rated by some as one of the greatest movies of all time) and the way it was filmed, this film falls into a different sort of category. The fact that the "initial scene" was filmed in total continuity where it was a continuous shoot, up until the time the main character loses consciousness, it was something different. The story itself was nothing special.


Very few movies "have it all". You just have to appreciate things that are excellent in each of them. Particularly war movies. Saving Private Ryan is tough one to beat.

I mean, I like Platoon, but when I go back and watch it now, I'm like this is shit compared to the stuff that has come out since.But Thin Red Line, Letters from Iwo Jima, Dunkirk, Letters from Iwo Jima, Breaker Morant, Patton, etc....all way better war movies. Before and after.
 
It’s my fifth favorite WW2 movie behind Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Bast@rds and Das Boot in that order. And ahead of otherwise great WW2 movies like Enemy at the Gates, Warriors of the Rainbow, Dunkirk, Tora Tora Tora, Patton, Defiance, Stalingrad, Letters from Iowa Jima, Unknown Soldier, and Days of Glory.
Good to hear...hopefully it’s available on something other than Apple TV soon
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSUTribe76
It’s my fifth favorite WW2 movie behind Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Bast@rds and Das Boot in that order. And ahead of otherwise great WW2 movies like Enemy at the Gates, Warriors of the Rainbow, Dunkirk, Tora Tora Tora, Patton, Defiance, Stalingrad, Letters from Iowa Jima, Unknown Soldier, and Days of Glory.
Letters from Iowa Jima?

I really liked the Chirashi bowl from Oyama. Is that place still around Iowa Jima City?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pink shizzle
You are correct. It was the cinematography. Much like Citizen Kane (rated by some as one of the greatest movies of all time) and the way it was filmed, this film falls into a different sort of category. The fact that the "initial scene" was filmed in total continuity where it was a continuous shoot, up until the time the main character loses consciousness, it was something different. The story itself was nothing special.

Citizen Kane was great for more than it's great cinematography. It was also a powerful story with great acting. It didn't have holes like 1917 did -- and 1917 had gaping holes. Also, the acting was bleh. This is the last time those two movies should ever be compared unless belittling 1917 is the goal. Not fair to 1917, which is fine as a pop-war picture.

The reason everyone is disappointed with the movie is because it was billed as an all-time great. It's not even close to being in that category. If you can ignore the storytelling, fast forward through those scenes, then the battle scenes are interesting visually. But without the story or acting, it's just an aesthetically pleasing bit of visual violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nole Lou
It’s my fifth favorite WW2 movie behind Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Inglorious Bast@rds and Das Boot in that order. And ahead of otherwise great WW2 movies like Enemy at the Gates, Warriors of the Rainbow, Dunkirk, Tora Tora Tora, Patton, Defiance, Stalingrad, Letters from Iowa Jima, Unknown Soldier, and Days of Glory.

pretty solid list. I really didn't care for Fury but of course everyone has their preferences.

My list would be in no particularly order:
Downfall
The Great Escape
Letters from Iwo Jima
Das Boot
The Longest Day
The Enemy Below
The Pianist and Schindler's List {for a different side of the war}
 
as for WWI movies I think the best are the original All Quiet on the Western front and Paths of Glory. Recently a German studio announced they are doing a big budget remake of All Quiet on the Western Front. Really looking forward to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
Speaking of war movie’s....anyone see Greyhound? It’s on Apple TV
Reviews are mixed but looks interesting

I just feel like Tom Hanks war movies should start and end with Saving Private Ryan. In regards to war movies is there any way to go up from there for Hanks?
 
as for WWI movies I think the best are the original All Quiet on the Western front and Paths of Glory. Recently a German studio announced they are doing a big budget remake of All Quiet on the Western Front. Really looking forward to it.
To them I would add The Big Parade (silent) and La Grande Illusion (prisoner of war film). And Lawrence of Arabia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: preshlock
I loved it. I thought the cinematopgraphy was obviously great. I enjoyed the nuanced isolation of the story. Where most war movies feature chaotic battle scenes - there is also individual desperation.

Dunkirk is also a favorite.
 
Speaking of war movie’s....anyone see Greyhound? It’s on Apple TV
Reviews are mixed but looks interesting

Greyhound is a little like 1917, in that the cinemaphotography is front and center, along with great acting by Tom Hanks.

There really is no back story to the movie - or at least nothing that is important.

I liked it. It felt very real.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT