Donate to the Lead Adventure Forum to keep it alive!
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.
Watched the film today. The first half i enjoyed. From the town onwards I felt it went downhill. I felt the ending was silly...As for the singing, I agree The choice of song was wrong, plus what officer would allow that many of his soldiers to bunch up that much, that close to the front???The hero was a millennial, However his sidekick seemed a lot more "of his time". I ended up hoping the hero would get killed....I can understand why they added a lot (relatively speaking) of coloured soldiers, but it did grate on me a bit...it's the historical nerd in me.
it would be intersting to ask to a sample of young people in the streets or at University or even a sample among the mass of ineducated people (90%) ..what happened in 1917?..or even when WW1 began or ended?..or maybe who were the main antagonists?...from their silence, their guttural answers and from their boiled fish look you will understand why this moovie could'nt have been done in a realistic or sophisticated way. ..and above all why the "supposed to be hero" is represented as "millenial" and not as sober, responsible, i would say also elegant true soldier of 1917 similar to the picts of my grandfather in Isonzo Front and the totality of your ancestors in various fronts
Having wargamed WW1 for the last ten years, I have an extensive collection of Osprey books on the period, some of which I have actually read, as well as even (not wishing to brag) the odd book without any pictures. So this obviously makes me a leading authority on the period. Therefore, when I the see the film tonight I shall naturally find it hard not to make known any historical inaccuracies encountered loudly and pompously for the enlightenment of my fellow cinema goers. Should I make it through the whole film without foaming at the mouth and exploding in a fit of apoplexy at any departures from historical truth, you will all have the benefit of my opinion shortly afterwards
The fabled Book Without Pictures?! I shall prostrate myself duly before your wisdom.
Should I make it through the whole film without foaming at the mouth and exploding in a fit of apoplexy at any departures from historical truth, you will all have the benefit of my opinion shortly afterwards
I think that the only ones that foam at their mouth are those so many ones that do not and cannot belong to a cultural elite