1917 Film

[armchairgeneral]

Just seen this trailer. Looking good 

[Cubs]

That does look interesting. Looks to have more depth and understanding than the usual 'posh officers = stupid and uncaring, poor infantry = brave and exploited' fare about WW1.

[has.been]

Interesting.

[Cameronian]

Seen that, good movie.  Thingie is good as the company commander.

[flatpack]

One of my sons has picked up on the trailer, and says he is looking forward to seeing it.
Somewhere on the internet, he showed me a good documentary on how they made it, with the camera being hand carried behind the main character, to add that “personal” feel to the film. It also pointed out that it was filmed in real time, and that they had to keep waiting round for good weather, none of this piecing it together with a bit from here and a bit from there.
Looks good.

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

I thought the trailer was rather spoilt by the scene with the officer running along the front of the trench line, and each section of troops waiting until he had passed to "go over the top" whereas in reality they would all have been "up and over" in one sequence at the same time.  All war films, but especially WW1 films, seem to have to sacrifice realistic/historically accurate tactics to whatever "looks good" to the director.

[Doug ex-em4]

From the bit of the trailer I saw, the plot seemed to be a WW1 variation on the Saving Private Ryan theme but I could be wrong....

Doug

[DintheDin]

Realistic landscape and must have a lot of suspense!

[Andrew_McGuire]

From the bit of the trailer I saw, the plot seemed to be a WW1 variation on the Saving Private Ryan theme but I could be wrong....

Doug

Synopsis from IMDB: "Two young British privates during the First World War are given an impossible mission: deliver a message deep in enemy territory that will stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldier's brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap."

It sounds on the face of it a somewhat contrived premise, which needn't prevent it being a decent film. Not unlike Saving Private Ryan, in fact. We shall see.

[Manchu]

Saw it this afternoon.

Fantastic! Tremendously satisfying movie.

I am convinced there were some minis gamers working on this production.

[carlos marighela]

Reviews so far are good, although the question is begged as to why you would send two men rather than a patrol. The real time thing is a bit of Oscar bait as is the one take schtick. The events apparently take place over nine hours and the film has been carefully edited to look like a single take. Logistically improbable if not impossible to actually do so.

[bergschotten]

Realistic landscape and must have a lot of suspense!

Portions were filmed at the Graving docks in Govan Glasgow.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Quay and I thought it was fantastic cinema.

[Captain Blood]

Just saw it. Loved it.

It’s full of implausible things - you could argue that the whole central premise is basically flawed. Given that the nature of the Western Front was that the front lines were essentially continuous and unbroken, without gaps the enemy could exploit (which was the whole reason for almost 5 years of stalemate slaughter) why would you have to send two runners FORWARD across No Man’s Land and through the abandoned German lines in order to reach another British Division? Because they’re not going to be on their own, ten miles out in front of the rest of your lines. Why wouldn’t you just go along the line? Makes no sense at all.
And then there are several other lesser points at which you go ‘well that doesn’t make any sense’ and a few nerdy military history buff moments where you go ‘well that’s not right’.

But none of that really matters, because it doesn’t really detract too much from the movie once you let your suspension of disbelief kick in.
Despite some hyper realistic depictions of the horrors of No Man’s Land and the trenches, it’s not really a realistic film. Rather like Apocalypse Now, it’s got that kind of nightmarish, unreal flavour. It’s a kind of visual fugue on the theme of the horrors of the Great War, rather than a realistic depiction.

It’s gripping, moving, well acted, and full of stunning, jaw-dropping cinematography and incredible visuals. I’d highly recommend watching it.

TBH the whole ‘it’s all shot in one take’ thing, wasn’t all that noticeable to me, or that significant. Although I guess it does give it that immediacy and the immersive, up close and personal feel.

[FifteensAway]

On the 'to see' list. 

Movies only work with our "willing suspension of disbelief".  We want to believe.  For those who don't, especially for the 'rivet counters' going to see a 'historical' movie is a waste of life force.  A movie is not - and is never actually intended to be - 'realistic'; it is the telling of a story.  If you enjoyed the movie, I'd guess you enjoyed the story. 

First historian on the movie Titanic got fired, second historian (local lad) got hired because when asked the critical question by Cameron, he gave the right answer:

Cameraon: In a battle between art or history, which wins.

Historian: Art.

Paycheck!

[tuco74]

TBH the whole ‘it’s all shot in one take’ thing, wasn’t all that noticeable to me, or that significant. Although I guess it does give it that immediacy and the immersive, up close and personal feel.

That's what makes it work so well as a film - it doesn't feel like a gimmick, it just points you 'in' the action.
I thought it was superb.