1917 (2019)

Probable Score

Not Enough Info

Your Score

(0 - 100)

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. (imdb)

More Information and Actions

Cast and Information

Directed By: Sam Mendes

Written By: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Starring: Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Daniel Mays, Andrew Scott, George MacKay, Adrian Scarborough, Richard Madden, Pip Carter, Dean-Charles Chapman, Gerran Howell, Claire Duburcq

Genres: Drama, War

Country: UK, USA

Where to Stream

Invalid Trailer

Ratings

Collections

Stats

Loading...
loading

1917 belongs to 48 collections

1. Academy Award - Oscar - Best Picture and Nominees (public: moderated by smviper00 - 41 stars)

2. Academy Award - Oscar - ALL Best Picture, Directing, Acting & Screenplay Nominees (public - 22 stars)

3. Oscar: Best Cinematography (public: moderated by CCLZA - 20 stars)

4. Best of criticker: Drama (public: moderated by avgcrtckr - 17 stars)

5. Films available in HD (public: moderated by kubricksucks - 12 stars)

6. #1 at the US Box Office (public: moderated by BeeDub - 10 stars)

7. Best of criticker: War (public: moderated by avgcrtckr - 6 stars)

8. Great Long Takes (public: moderated by PerryStroika - 6 stars)

9. World War 1 (public: moderated by td888 - 5 stars)

10. Roger Deakins, Cinematographer (public: moderated by iconogassed - 5 stars)

11. Golden Globes: Best Picture - Drama (public: moderated by CCLZA - 4 stars)

12. 1910s period film (public: moderated by djross - 4 stars)

13. Oscar: Best Visual Effects (public: moderated by BeeDub - 3 stars)

14. Golden Globes: Best Director (public - 2 stars)

15. Best Original screenplay (public: moderated by Roman_Herbom - 2 stars)

16. 4k Ultra HD discs (public: moderated by dumbjaw - 1 star)

17. 2020 Academy Awards- Nominated Feature Films (Non-Documentary) (public: moderated by joel-w-m - 1 star)

18. British director (public: moderated by iconogassed - 1 star)

19. Best of criticker: 2019 (public: moderated by avgcrtckr)

20. Friendly Fire Podcast subject films (public: moderated by jimmyjazz)

21. DtC Doubling the Canon 2021 Nominees (public: moderated by lineuphere)

22. War Movies I've Seen (public: moderated by ReinaJ)

23. Top 3000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 5 stars)

24. Best by different standards (private: sesito71 - 5 stars)

25. Top 1000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 3 stars)

26. Top 2000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 2 stars)

27. 92nd Academy Awards: Nominated (2020) ? (private: 5Z5qjRCfM2 - 1 star)

28. Visti al cinema (private: Rubens)

29. Curzon Ripon (private: mandy)

30. Films I saw in the cinema (private: Malcym)

31. My Movie Collection (private: elhenzo)

32. Laptop (private: Jason212)

33. Mini Reviewed (private: Adds)

34. Cast aAwayAdam (private: rnest)

35. seen in 2020 (private: sproost)

36. Movies I watched in 2020 (private: Dunstan-xxx)

37. Oscar Nominations 2020 (private: Adds)

38. 2020-2022 (private: cash)

39. War (private: f_ranzen)

40. Visually stunning (private: f_ranzen)

41. 90+ (private: Daria)

42. C-2010 (private: cantahta)

43. Dämon 2020 (private: caffe)

44. My ratings (private: tpbradbury)

45. Movies on Hard Drive (private: normalman)

46. The Critical Drinker: The Drinker Recommends... (private: BeeDub)

47. 4K UHD Collection (private: TripEuphoric)

48. Blu-ray Collection (private: TripEuphoric)

Browse the full list of collections

Show:

All Ratings | With Reviews

Order by:

TCI | Percentile | Date Rated | # Stars (Reviews)

Stars	User	Rating
15	BillyShears	90 _92%
WWI was so gross and dirty (me the historian), I spent 2 hours panicking over how infected that hand is going to be. I wish there wasnt a musical score, the clenching of all ours butts should’ve been enough.
13	Mentaculus	87 _85%
Demanding and tense. The shot design may look like a gimmick from far away but when you're in the trenches it makes perfect sense, elevating the material up to an always-on agitation that makes every moment a menace - the unpredictability and constant threat feel authentic to the war experience. One of the best directed, shot, and acted films of the year that demands your biggest screen and fullest attention.
11	terrymac	80 _84%
The format gave it a sense of immediacy, and drew me into the journey. When I see the name Roger Deakins on a film I know there'll be something special happening from a visual perspective. Performances were good. This was tense and atmospheric, even if at time the narrative felt forced to accommodate the format (the intermittent brief appearances from a series of notable Brit character actors was a bit video game-ish), and was at the same time bleak and uplifting. Definitely worth seeing.
11	Paxton	80 _87%
You're going to read a lot on here about the long take gimmick and cinematography, but that's not why you come to Paxton for reviews. You need in-depth groundbreaking hot takes. So lets talk about the film's storied weather consultant. Yes, let's talk about Dr. Richard Wild, a man that was walking around college with the name Dick Wild and decided he was going to work to get his doctorate, focus on his passion of meteorology but not have that stop him from working in the movie business. A legend
9	jacobclark12	85 _80%
1917 is perhaps the most meditative war film I have ever seen because of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins's mastery of mood, and Thomas Newman's score certainly doesn't hurt in adding to it. However, the one-shot technique feels unnecessary to the actual flow and plot of the film, though it certainly is an achievement. Gimmickry aside, this is an astounding film that is worthy of praise because of its central messaging about heroism, unbridled aggression, and who really ends up fighting our wars.
9	Leonardis	96 _91%
I was very mesmerized. The one-shot-style direction fits the film well, and Newman's score and the cinematography are beautiful and make the film seem all the more dreadful and hard-hitting. Production design is top notch if I do say so myself. I loved the story too. I even cried at the end. Definitely one of the best of 2019 and probably one of the most beautiful films I've seen in awhile. Definitely check this out in the theatre of you can.
8	MadMan	98 _93%
Moving, intense and beautifully shot. One of the year's best.
8	Luna6ix	88 _95%
Employing a single take illusion, Mendes does an excellent job illustrating the spectacle of WWI, in all of its awe and horror. It seems that were seeing a trend of redredging the emphasis on cinematography in war movies over the gritty realism that's taken hold on the past twenty years. If your a war movie buff, this is a must watch.
8	feublo	90 _90%
Devoted to it's demanding style, 1917 may be the most incredibly paced war-feature film that captures the tragedies of these young soldiers. Truly remarkable with it's cinematic features and how it emotionally attaches an audience to the war experience. A new favourite from 2019.
8	TheDiceman	50 _35%
Amazing camera work, not a lot else.
8	KasperL	85 _93%
Mendes has basically made a World War I theme park ride. With some lyrical touches here and there. Newman's score is mightily effective, and Deakins' cinematography is wildly impressive. Sure, the simulated one-take is a gimmick, but I found it more immersive than distancing. Now, if I were a gambling man (and ever had any money to speak of), I'd be willing to wager a very large sum that the guys who did the hugely elaborate production design have an Oscar coming their way. [They got snubbed!]
7	Jerky	75 _93%
Some good camera trickery to make it look like one long shot with great directing. How many takes did they do? Still very impressive. There was some great cinematography, especially during the night scene in the bombed out village with the flares going off overhead. Absolutely beautiful. There were also some very tense moments as they ventured forward into the unknown.
7	Corbad	95 _99%
Utterly compelling. Schofield's real-time journey is profound and deeply layered in its thrills, horrors, and moments of catharsis; George MacKay is superb. The cinematography and direction deserve every accolade, as does every aspect of design. Captivating from start to finish, with numerous transcendent moments ("Wayfaring Stranger", the sprint to the finish, and Richard Madden being three particularly choice scenes, but honestly, every moment is choice).
6	deaddilly	85 _84%
1917's format transcends its own technical brilliance as it traps the viewers gaze and forces the audience to truly endure the anxiety of the soldiers. It is an action film at its core and plays more like a ride, or a video game, and while this may make the film shallow to some I think Mendes' dedication to remain cinematic pays off with a truly masterful blockbuster to end 2019.
6	Hawkins	68 _40%
Works okay when the concept isn't drawing attention to itself. I feel like during a war movie I should be thinking about war more than film-making technique and that breaks every time I notice some critical thing that could screw up the take and think shit like "how did they ensure the rat would run the right direction on cue? wow he reloaded that rifle flawlessly 20 mins in I would have messed that up!" and then it's only impressive as a kind of cinematic Rube Goldberg machine.
6	DavidBlast	85 _88%
Two lovable chums take a leisurely stroll through picturesque France. During World War I.
6	ribcage	95 _97%
a ruined city is lit up by flares, looking very much like a hellish cemetary.yet indescribable in beauty as the red light plays shadows across the crumbling edifices.the last remnants of what could be recognized as a city before it's gone. Into this destruction our protagonist messenger enters, his face a cycle of fear and hope set hard with determination. Meanwhile the music builds, reflecting his determination and hope in equal parts as he moves through this deathly, unyielding landscape.
6	Mist600	73 _36%
V Stiff upper-lip, Brit reserve. Impressive, antiseptic, clean, crisp? poss my ???but ? moving. Eg Pilot scene is shock yet not V emotional: Tone MUST = Delib \| Brother part same \| 4 ME Film 2 often mirrors lead's wan wraith vibe \| When Propulsive ? ? most tension & emotion it has \| ?: Yellow hue: sniper..ruins..girl Seq = best \| +V Imp tracking shots thru-out film \| Milk + Cherries payoff \|\|\| Parallels 2 Apoc Now & so much less gripping \| Oscars won + not = 100% right
6	nobamba	85 _92%
I kept looking for the edits but gave up after awhile which made enjoying this easier. I would have preferred more bantering with 2 leads rather than a mostly silent protagonist after the first act. Would also have preferred a mostly abandoned landscape like initially crossing the no man's land instead of hero dodging bullets or surviving mortal wounds. Didn't care for magical French girl. Cardio is key. 1917's strength is in the cinematography. Fav scene: nighttime was beautiful.
6	apm2091	80 _77%
Birdman Goes to WWI
6	JLFM	64 _35%
Mostly empty spectacle. Intermittently gripping and occasionally visually striking, but the "one-shot" (sort of) gimmick deflates the narrative as often as it helps it. I found myself searching for the cuts rather than being invested in the drama, which is either a sign that the gimmick is too distracting or the film itself isn't engaging. 1917 isn't hurting in the crafts or acting department, but (occasionally) remarkable filmmaking does not a remarkable film make.
6	Filligan	97 _96%
For the first half of the film, I had a similar reaction to most critics: this is technically brilliant, but I'm not being drawn in, I'm not getting emotionally invested, and it's not doing much on a thematic scale. But by the halfway mark, either the film transformed or I did, and I found myself teary-eyed for the full remainder. It remained not just striking and impossibly well made, but I also found tethers to the characters, to the circumstance, to the nightmare. This is the real deal.
6	FrederikA	85 _92%
Roger Deakins, Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman prove that war is (one) hell (of a great ride). Superb moviemaking right here.
5	fenixdown	82 _83%
A masterpiece of visual effects. The story is a bit Hollywoodish, but the setting feels authentic.
5	Bown	83 _68%
Corporal Schofield and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
5	Dakota99	8 _88%
I absolutely love this. The cinematography and sound capture might be the best I've ever seen. The grainy, dirty, and muddy spectacle and tone, carried by the slow burn of a movie that continually teases the dark and disturbing parts of war is magnificent. The only discredit is the character development is semi dull, leaving the emotional and depressing scenes somewhat empty. Mendes really nailed it though. This film deserves all the praise it has gotten and will continue to get.
5	FoxyRussian	95 _90%
A beautiful war film shot in a "one take" style elevates this above most war films. Unlike Birdman, the most famous "one take" movie, the cuts in the "one take" are sometimes obvious, but that doesn't take away from the film. Great performances from the relatively unknown leads and nice cameos by established actors allow the view to focus on the horrors of war and the battlefield. Best Cinematography of the year. Sam Mendes can film better night scenes then any currently living director.
5	frederic_g54	6 _35%
Could've been great had the whole thing not been so blatantly orchestrated like a multilevel video game. The craft is there, but the characterization was lacking and the execution felt disappointingly artificial. It was basically the antithesis of this quote from The Prestige: "You're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because... You want to be fooled."
5	Hofschneider	60 _13%
This movie is a showboating version of that Kombucha-meme: War - bad. But wait. 1917 hits every war-movie trope possible and has the audacity to claim that it doesn't. French women plus baby plus milk my ass. Deakins is fine, sure. But my gosh, cherry leaves, old photographs, injury porn, backstabbing Germans, British acting royals to tell us, that this is important stuff. Leave me alone with your video game propaganda. The water level, yeah, but the church burning level was my favorite. Puke!
5	natebarrios	70 _56%
i dig it, even though i know it's an 'accomplishment movie' and all i'm really left to talk about is the filmmaking 'how-did-it-get-done'-part of it. but i like the way all the big name actors just flex for 2 minutes each while the younger ones carry the movie, and that climactic scene near the end up to the very end worked on me. Roger Deakins really just says 'fuck it, mask off'
5	VinegarBob	40 _17%
This movie feels very artificial. Set-pieces are arranged at regular intervals, simply to break up the monotony of watching someone trudge from one place to another - which is essentially all this movie is - and the 'single take' gimmick works against viewer engagement because not only does the camerawork get annoying after a while, but you start to play 'spot the edit' in lieu of being invested in the characters or what's happening. Because there are no characters and nothing is happening.
5	timmo	95 _88%
Spectacular and brilliant. The gimmick serves the story with exuberance and heft. I look forward to watching it again to figure out how, exactly, Mendes put this togetherI'm not talking about the cuts, either; those are obvious, but don't detract from the narrative or the action. See this film in a big, loud theater.
4	Kortee	93 _98%
If you know what I like about movies, you know I'd love this one. A masterpiece I can't get over.
4	antidood1	80 _84%
In one word: very impressive. Especially the technical aspects (camerawork, lighting, sets) stand out. The story is both less cheesy than I expected, but also more cheesy than it could've been. The logic of big-budget American movies does creep in, especially in the pacing (I personally could've done with a few more 'dull' moments). Still, this is a movie that I would recommend to almost anyone, while it's unlikely to leave you indifferent. A rare feat for sure.
4	begoniabol	85 _87%
This movie fast paced, thrilling, horrific and haunting. The acting is really good and the camera work and directing are outstanding. You don't really realise it's almost one shot, because there's so much going on constantly and very fluid. Great watch.
4	astrakhan	83 _89%
I was hoping for a war film as gripping and essential as Come and See, and I got something different but not far off the mark. The film looks stunning, hits you in the stomach with sensations and emotions, and keeps up a riveting pace which makes the 2 hours fly by. The performances by the leads, particularly Mackay, were a fitting blend of innocence and shell-shock. The intricate camerawork and tracking shots stood out, but I didn't notice the editor was pretending to do a one-shot. Polished.
4	jswinder	81 _68%
Everyone knows that children fight wars. A couple scenes were unashamedly assertive in hammering this message. The flowery solo in the woods and milk drinking were a bit obvious. The overall delivery also seemed borrowed from WWI betters (Paths, Gallipoli). Today, it feels directors depend too heavily on making sure the viewers get a face full of dead horse to really convey the mayhem and desperation. Not necessary to squeeze the juice every single time. Very solid contrasting performances.
4	TheRealJ-Ro	80 _70%
I respect this movie a lot, not only for how it was made (I always enjoy watching the various camera gimmicks and tricks used to create the single-shot illusion), but also because of what it represents: something of a love letter to the stories of Sam Mendes' grandfather. Chapman and MacKay are both good while neither steps into being spectacular, and while this certainly would have landed on my Best of 2019 list had I seen it in time, it's a solid kickoff to 2020. Not in love, but I enjoyed it.
4	msprague	80 _84%
Looks great in almost every way and the cast is great.
4	braddad68	100 _97%
One of the best, if not the best, of the year, especially for cinematography. Powerful performances, intense action and emotional scenes.
4	plvenice	10 _96%
Incredible. Absolutely the best war movie since Dunkirk, and frankly I liked it better.
4	joel-w-m	10 _97%
A riveting journey from quiet beginning to cathartic and captivating end. The real-time, one-shot concept is effective but would not have worked as well as it did without the excellent camerawork, production design, and performances. Far from a mere technical exercise, here the fear, the mud, the tears, and the blood are all too real and heart-wrenching (stand-out moments include no-man's land, tragedy at the farm, the petals on the river [sob], talking to baby, surreal song in the forest).
4	Nathan S	3 _45%
A masterfully designed film, up-close-and-personal, firmly embedding dirty flesh in the anxious confines of ticking time and hostile space. It's a linear propulsion which bears a certain video gamey quality in its structure and pace, which I like. There are a few genuinely sad passages, but its horrors-of-war ideals feel rather standard, and the overriding sentiment hews too close to being an act of heroic achievement, which might have been mitigated if the strings didn't swell so strongly.
4	eCitizen	85 _88%
Undoubtedly a very good movie. It is frequently depressing and sad but also awe inspiring. It concentrates on one small piece of the war but effectively displays the carnage, desperation, irony, the futility as well as incredible heroism and character. It is a movie that will stay with you long after you have viewed it. Strong performances throughout. Excellent filmology and sound. Superior sets and locations. It was very immersive and seemed like a single long take with hardly a break.
4	td888	60 _58%
I'll be honest, it was quite disappointing. The cinematography is amazing, but story wise it's very shallow. About halfway I lost complete interest. Also, where's the farmer who milked the cow? Why didn't the army group he met halfway send a couple of guys with him if the mission was so important? So many questions unanswered.
3	mattorama12	80 _88%
Happy I went to see this one in IMAX. It mixes great intensity and contemplation in a way that put you right in the trenches. And really fine acting all around. Finally, the single shot technique was insanely impressive (and a force multipier with the stunning production design), though I'm not sure it made the film any better than it would have been shot more traditionally.
3	PerryStroika	65 _68%
The one take style isn't gimmickry; the story is about a journey and the film's impact is all in how we traverse the space with the characters step by step, second by second, immersing ourselves in the time and place. While the spectacular second half doesn't feel as alive as the intimate and immediate first half and the bombastic score spoils some scenes where a diegetic soundtrack would have been more immersive, 1917 more than justifies itself among the crowded ranks of war films.
3	lena_c	5 _92%
Following the characters like that with only 2-3 "breaks" in 2 hours is SO intense! It was real and authentic. Amazing job by MacKay and huge applause to Mendes! Minor details "missing", but sure; bring home some Oscars! *Very good
3	Velvet Crowe	72 _78%
In terms of script and plot, this movie is weak. But the cinematography is beautiful and often says far more than what any writing could convey. The film is aware of this - much of the movie is silent, letting its scenery speak for itself. It doesn't completely salvage what is ultimately a generic war film, but it certainly elevates it beyond typical tripe.
3	magdabag	95 _95%
I'm not sure how I missed this in 2019, but It's a shame I did. This was truly a masterpiece of a film. Every aspect was flawless and done to perfection. I seriously have never seen directing like this before and It blew me away. The cinematography and set/costume/sound design were some of the best I've ever seen. The acting performances were also something wonderful. Thomas Newman's score was beautiful as usual and I couldn't get enough. I have no complaints. I give 9 dogfights out of 10.
3	anilscn	52 _49%
SPOİLER 5 saat bayılacak kadar yaralanıp sonra hiçbir şey olmamış gibi devam eden asker, tuzla buz olmuş şehirde tek yaşayan bir kadın-çocuk, ses çıkarmadan 1000 kişilik arabayla gelen bir ordu, lineer saat ile 80 dakikada seyirci sıkılmasın diye başına 15 farklı olay gelen karakterler, 50 kurşundan isabet almayan asker, iyiliğe saldırıyla karşılık veren almanlar var. Kelimenin tam anlamıyla görüntüyü yapalım senaryoyu, alt metni siktir et filmi.
3	semioticus	91 _93%
Brilliant. There really isn't much else to say. P.S.: I'll write what I disagree with. The acting isn't hammy -except for maybe the cameos-. The one-shot thing isn't trickery, this is a story that can only be told with that technique effectively. That's the whole point. Even if the plot is "thin", it has enough colors.
3	IFeelTooMuch	92 _72%
Not a perfect film, lacks in its ending and its entirety, but has so many amazing moments, especially from the first two thirds, that make it deserve its place as one of the best war films of all time. Breathtaking cinematographic and powerful moments that nearly made me throw my fist in the air. Phenomenal acting by the leading actor, who surprisingly wasn't nominated. Run to watch it in cinema. And you will be haunted
3	Alex Watkins	3 _38%
Despite Mendes' best efforts to deglamorize WWI, I can't help but feel there's an even better film to be unlocked here. He needed to lean even harder into the anonymous cruelty, absurdity and ultimate horror of it all - such as when our heroes first go over the top and snake their way through an alien landscape of mangled corpses. It's undeniably thrilling, but perhaps doesn't sting enough.
3	Difontaine	90 _96%
The one-shot thing may be a gimmick, but it's very effective. George MacKay was unlucky not to be nominated for some big prizes, The rest of the cast are also excellent. Ideally see it on a big screen.
3	Icarus	50 _14%
Every time the movie stopped and let the protagonists be in a place, it flirted with being interesting. The bulk of it, however, strikes me as 90 minutes of Forrest Gump's 'I Was Running' montage.
3	Rafael Reis	93 _81%
Masterful.
3	whatismyname	70 _77%
The cinematography was on point, beautifully executed first part of the film. Just wished they cleaned up other aspects of the film (i.e. nonsensical fight scenes, unnecessary events).
3	Angliche92	72 _44%
Technically impressive but it's basically a script inspired by a Super Mario game.
3	MontyCircus	40 _37%
Kind of like the trench version of Dunkirk. At least this time there are 2 characters with some lines. But it felt like 80% of the film was them running towards camera with explosions in the background.
3	Ofterdingen	67 _69%
Impressive but my heart wasn't in it.
3	Yiannos	58 _41%
Tries hard to create immersion and interest through formal means, but like most, if not all, contemporary US films that employ a long take approach, its potential 'radicalism' is neutralised by an utterly conventional story and the rather limited goal of achieving verisimilitude, which is undercut here by the use of non-diagetic sound to heighten the tension and drama rather mechanically. Consequently, it's technique over artistry, closer to prose than poetry. Watch Dunkirk instead.
2	Sadman	80 _62%
In Deakins we trust. A momentous feat of filmmaking that uses all of it's technical horsepower to power a simple but effective script. I would have liked if it was a little more gruesome and dirty to really emphasize the absolute horror of war. I was a little detached from the movie up until the farm scene and by the end I was appropriately rattled and shaken. Not a profound movie by any stretch and not sure how I feel about the "rollercoastering" of war, but I can't deny the potency of it.
2	Quintonjamin	100 _97%
Good acting and story combined with it being one of the most beautifully shot films I've seen make 1917 my favorite film of 2019 I've seen so far. This is a movie I probably wouldn't have liked as much had I not seen it in theaters.
2	Ametrine	10 _91%
This is a film of many great elements, but it may very well have the most incredible usage of lighting I've ever seen in a film. I feel justified in having originally predicted this would win Best Picture before having seen it, even if I do agree with the Academy's choice. Both are absolute masterpieces.
2	LordBeefJerk	70 _70%
On a pure aesthetic level this is nothing short of stunning - the story itself left much to be desired however.
2	guy piranha	75 _81%
Sam mendes' gramps tells insanely accurate WWI stories, while us germans need to come to terms with having been evil nazis even before we became evil nazis. Damn, that deakins-guy can shoot, he should be famous or something.
2	NothingsGood	80 _89%
Proof that your movie needs to be more than just cinematography, art direction and score. Not much more, but more. The night sequence might be the coolest thing ever filmed.
2	luord	94 _99%
Masterfully directed, powerfully acted and perfectly paced, this figurative journey through hell is a must watch.
2	JaiGuy	75 _39%
This was a rare technical achievement. I'm not sure if it had anything new to add to war movies other than stunning long takes.
2	okayfrog	40 _10%
Your favorite FPS campaign now on the big screen!
2	vgnpwrz	93 _98%
Great movie. Hard-hitting single shot type film with tons of style. Who knew WWI uniforms were so damn gorgeous. It was so similar to a beautiful video game. Everywhere you need to go is right next to you and everyone you need to meet is right there. These gifts are also its curses in some aspects. Covenience and surrealism detract from its tone. Although, it pulls the emotion right out of you with achingly touching performances that make you connect with being human pure and simple.
2	torbern	55 _16%
The "one-shot" style does nothing to enhance the storytelling, and instead frustrates any ability to get closer -- literally and figuratively -- to the characters. We're often behind them, or hanging on a medium shot when we should be right up in their face, experiencing their fears and hopes intimately.
2	Yoshinaruto	80 _90%
I’m bumping my score up because I know a theater experience would’ve been better (IMAX would probably be unbelievable). 1917 does hold up for home viewings though, but it requires full attention. Glancing down at your phone or pausing will take away from the magic of the filming style used like in Birdman and Silent House. It’s an experience. I also loved the novelty of this taking on WW1 and not being the 9000th WW2 film.
2	myfavchords	81 _80%
This is a well made war film. The director, Sam Mendes does a good job at putting the story and the action together. The cast also do great work here. Overall I would certainly recommend this film.
2	RuruSmasher	85 _50%
I don't like war films, I'm bored with them usually, but this was a pretty immersive experience, a visceral one. Sam Mendes did a flex: 'look at what I can do'. It says nothing new, but it's quite beautiful in spots and I liked the central performance. And Andrew Scott is a treasure. Some parts were pretty much contrived though. (Got milk?)
2	schnofel	85 _95%
Admittedly, it's a WWI theme park. But the one-take effect is so strange and hallucinatory, so emblematic of the flow of random chance and death that is a trench war. It distances us in the more received sequences but heightens the thrill and agony in the turmoil of an agitated crowd. Deakins' lighting suggests a limbo for barred souls whose only and sustained wish is to finally "come home".
2	Darren	30 _8%
Will this one be added to the pantheon of acceptable bro cry fests. Saw quite a few as I was exiting the theatre
2	sellis	70 _38%
Impressive but flashy visuals paired with a mediocre script and mostly hammy performances. I believe a big reason for my emotional indifference is that this could be set in any war prior to digital communication. I was constantly aware of its one-shot gimmick. I felt time pass in a non-immersive way, whereas a Children of Men keeps me engaged with anticipation and awe of the world and plight of its characters - rather than what an achievement it is. An awful score ensures its lack of subtlety.
2	Kavu	90 _94%
The story is a bit thin, but offers enough. Brilliant shooting and directing. One for the big screen, this.
2	cagedwisdom	75 _65%
Technically flawless. I'm pretty sure it's the most well made film of the year. That doesn't mean it's the best movie, and other aspects of 1917 are mediocre - but I will credit it with quite a few all-around fantastic scenes sprinkled throughout. Could have used more fleshed out characters, although I do get the point being made. I feel like it might catch me on the second viewing, and at the same time I have absolutely no desire to ever see it again.
2	ABUNCHOFCATS	90 _85%
Really well shot, really tense, really cool to see in theatres.
2	Excelsior	20 _20%
In its reluctance to openly showcase its cuts, the movie attempts to build tension by strong-arming its sound cues. It doesn't work, and the first half is subpar. It's the second half that I can't stand. At that point, the overly dramatic action setpieces give way to burning churches and flower petals over corpses. They're expressionistic symbols of vague profundity, obsessed with being "evocative" rather than actually saying anything. This is a very, very serious work of art, after all.
2	Obdurate	85 _80%
I have to give a lot of credit to the music because it made certain moments very harrowing, but it was great all around. Also have to give love to the cinematography/direction, obviously, because it is fantastic; it feels both immediate and intimate, perfectly suited for the type of environment that the action takes place in. Seriously, just watching people walk in trenches was exhilarating. Performances weren't especially great but the star here is the story being told, not the actors.
2	psim	88 _96%
Suspenseful, thrilling, harrowing, yet also beautiful. This movie is a great achievement on a technical level, but also delivers a very satisfying war story. The one-shot approach is not just a gimmick, but invites you to share the main characters' experience.
2	Tavington	2 _37%
This is one-trick-pony and it gets away because there is no competition. If you take away continuous shot gimmick, very little remains. The story is pretty plain, characters are kinda shallow and flow is quite slow. Instead of real conflict or tension that would keep the viewer hooked, there is just tiresome grasping for focus within the shot. There's no denying it was a feat making this movie but I do not think it was a good call. If anything, the short(er) format would be more suitable.
2	twincinema	80 _75%
One of the last scenes in this felt like me when I have to walk through the busy train station in the city when I go to work. One of the difficult things to do in a war film is to show war for what it is and not glamorize it. This film felt muddy and gross, and if the time ever came to sign up for the First World War, I would pass.
2	TheDude774	80 _41%
#1 Soulless technical achievement Direction - 2.5/2.5 Sound/Editing - 2.5/2.5 Acting - 2/2.5 Writing - 1/2.5
2	Zealot185	85 _81%
An entertaining ride that is more than a one-shot gimmick.
2	bentien	67 _65%
Ofterdingen said it: "Impressive but my heart wasn't in it."
2	glumpy_99	85 _72%
Gripping war movie does an effective job of capturing the bewildering, random terror of life in the trenches - the "one-shot" gimmick never really works in any context and doesn't work here (almost shooting the movie in the foot on several occasions), but MacKay's dogged determination makes him a great hero to root for, and helps forgive some necessary wonky camera angles and efforts to hide the cuts. In spite of that, well crafted by Mendes; scattered cameos seem a bit of a waste of time.
2	ephedrin	75 _81%
Continually high blood pressure with perfect cinematography.
2	drawkward86	90 _78%
No, the one-shot thing doesn't feel gimmicky (I barely even thought about it). No, it's not emotionally unsatisfying, I was in it the whole time "Yes, I think you are" might be the emotional gut punch of the year. No, the actors aren't just toy soldiers, the cast is excellent across the board, and the lead performance is especially good. No, it's not just Dunkirk but worse, nor is it just Birdman with explosions. The backlash makes very little sense to me.
1	Snufkin88	68 _29%
The one/two shot technique is used to good effect here, serving to reflect the immediacy of death and chaos in the race against time. Unfortunately the two protagonists haven't been given any character story and are impossible to care about. This film really does dissipate from the memory within hours.
1	angrypierre	87 _88%
Magnificently shot. Doesn't go in for the over-the-top heroism cliche of many war films, instead giving a bit more of a realistic depiction of the terrifying ordeals many men were put through. The brief interjections by various big name UK talent, particularly Andrew Scott, feel well observed and truly memorable.
1	Jimmy Suede	82 _77%
Kind of a smooth artististicness that reminded me of The Thin Red Line, and hearkened back to The Big Parade. Enjoyable war movie, for sure.
1	sjullymg	88 _9%
Great technic, production and actors; cliche story.
1	Zangin	80 _85%
Obviously technically masterful. Impressively though, and unlike many other films that attempt the single shot gimmick, the technical choices of 1917 feel narratively necessary - they really immerse you in the tension of the battlefield in a way I don't think I've seen from other war films. I'm not totally sold on the ending, but otherwise it's a fantastic film.
1	walkabout	65 _53%
It's all fine, but is it just me or whenever someone's out of the frame, do they seem to vanish into thin air? 'Cause they don't interact with anything the hero's been going through once they're out, even if someone's shooting at him.
1	Iamdwg (Interpreting the Stars)	97 _97%
Talk about an incredible cinematic experience. This film is undeniably one of the best, if not best, war films ever made, and I'm usually a huge critic of war films. If I don't love it, I usually hate it, and thankfully, I love this movie and can watch it days on end. And a few hundred characters isn't enough to properly review this movie.
1	KingArturo	100 _98%
This movie is a masterpiece
1	iqcumber	59 _21%
The one shot trick makes sense for a war movie in theory, but somehow I felt hyper-aware that I was watching a construction, and distanced rather than immersed. Aside from the trick, not enough new or different, and ultimately I didn't feel much. The dialogue was weak, and the actors didn't engage me. Most reminiscent of a mediocre amusement park ride.
1	Narg	55 _49%
From the list of metaphors describing how this isn't a "real" movie (that came out more harsh than I meant it to) I am a fan of viewing this film as a rollercoaster. The audience is either going up the hill or down the hill. The going up the hill is a fake calm in that you are anticipating the coming speed and you are tense and not paying attention to that French lady who is asking for your help because "Oh my God here comes the drop" and "whooooooo". So it was alright is what I'm saying.
1	darkman	90 _98%
Amazing cinematography.
1	djross	55 _52%
A highly impressive feat of planning, technology and skill, but the story is too obviously concocted in order to fit the pre-existing idea of the movie that the filmmaker wants to make, rather than the reverse, and the consequence is that the intended realism is undercut by a formulaic "on an urgent mission" narrative that mechanically alternates between action scenes in which a challenge must be faced and poignant scenes in which the audience is invited to reflect on the heckishness of war.
1	Moribunny	35 _19%
Perhaps more than any other genre, war movies put on display Hollywood's often staggering gap between absurdly expensive, lavish production values, and total bullshit scripts.
1	DMCrimson	84 _87%
Good, simple, strong story that naturally supports the one-shot direction which, gotta be honest, feels refreshing after watching a landfill of found-footage horror movies with the same gimmick executed poorly. Roger Deakins is undefeatable.
1	Adds	65 _51%
I'll completely forget this by tomorrow.
1	morphinapg	85 _81%
Really impressive movie, at least technically. Beautiful cinematography, just jaw dropping at times, which added to the way it was shot as a virtual one take, is just incredible. Some of the lighting is also incredibly well done. The music is also fantastic. I would say the story alone in any other format would still be pretty good, but it doesn't quite match the heights of the technical aspects. One drawback with the format though is the amount of time just following people walking.
1	seeayesix	39 _9%
Worst. Soldiers. Ever.
1	gatoquente	97 _90%
This brings death & war's folly up close & personal. I cringed on my seat emphatizing with the actor's pain, regrets, fears, love & hopes while he slowly passes away due to loss of blood. The movie reminds us that nobody wins a war: It's simply a horrible waste of human potential, resources, & all. A glitch: When the hero crossed the bridge & was shot, why didn't his mates nearby run to defend him? MY SCORING: 99-96=Great; 95-90=Very good; 89-85=Good; 84-80=So-so; 79-70=Boring; 69-1=Forget it
1	OlivVerdys	50 _72%
Video Game meets Birdman meets WWI. Not just style over substance . There is no substance, no soul.
1	kyleknapp	85 _82%
No, the oner thing doesn't feel gimmicky. No, it's not emotionally unsatisfying, I was in it the whole time ("Yes, I think you are" might be the emotional gut punch of the year). No, the actors aren't just toy soldiers, the cast is excellent across the board, and the lead performance is especially good. No, it's not just Dunkirk but worse, nor is it just Birdman with explosions. The backlash makes very little sense to me.
1	SnoutUp	70 _28%
Pretty, but shallow.
1	jigglypufff	70 _51%
overrated
1	ralyto	67 _29%
Felt like a video game. Nice musical theme. Annoying cameos.
1	Vandelay1	70 _75%
good movie
1	Age Jellema	79 _76%
I expected a bit more from this one. It was good but it didn't really catch me. MacKay also left no crushing impression on me.
1	omgfridge	6 _53%
Drunk mustard coloured and plane crash scene were completely absorbing. Despite the obviously great camerawork this didn't offer a hole lot more for me. Just refer to the dialogue towards old mates brother for more details.
1	Mr.Cinema	68 _79%
What a crazy camera!!! unblivable . amazing & Bright Filming!!! but that's a pity screenplay is poor and very Hollywood style!!! ?????????? ???? ????? ? ??????!!! ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????????!!
1	hajikarimi	89 _46%
nice job but not that good.
1	burkayadalig	90 _88%
2 saat tek çekim hissi veren, nefessiz ve göz kırpmadan izlenen çok güçlü bir film
1	AgentSnipe	85 _88%
Really good. A fun experience to watch at least once. Impressive cinematography and production design.
1	Telemecus	75 _89%
Brother where art thou or lord of the rings journey film set in first world war. Luckily our hero meets some of the worst shots in the whole German army. Very visual with dreamlike sequences
1	d_r_e_s_	3 _65%
I definitely applaud this from a technical point of view. This was beautiful to watch, however I still found myself losing a bit of concentration throughout. A bit too many plot holes and things to contemplate. *Good
1	Sweekoden	92 _96%
Insanely well made and captivating.
1	mandy	7 _74%
Very well crafted to pack an emotional punch.
1	shalev	80 _50%
Sucks to be a soldier.
1	aaasolanki	74 _36%
After Dunkirk this was another war movie that didn't meet the hype. Make no mistake that it is a decent movie. It is just not something you would gush about. I guess Saving Private Ryan and Enemy At The Gates set the bar too high when it comes to war movies.
1	Okkervil	88 _94%
Technically glorious, beautifully paced and performed.
1	CosmicMonkey	85 _85%
The most similar film to 1917 in recent years is Dunkirk, and I definitely preferred this to the latter. I find Nolan's films to have a tendency be very cold and impersonal, while this had a warm, human touch with characters I actually connected to and liked. And while Dunkirk's editing was certainly impressive, 1917 has GODDAMN ROGER DEAKINS doing the best work of his entire career, no joke. (Plus, unlike Dunkirk, 1917 actually has People of Colour in it, with multiple lines of dialogue too)
1	Ross	90 _93%
Masterful filmmaking. This is probably my favorite war films. It moved me, scared me and impressed me.
1	oskarhu	79 _69%
Nicely shot and looks realistic as a depiction of the WWI era. The acting and casting are also decent.
1	eric-jan	85 _94%
One of the best movies of this year! The movie is like one big scene.. very awesome soundtrack, constant (and interesting) action, a beautiful story, a very very original movie and easy to get into. Must watch.
1	gogolit	84 _88%
Does exactly what it sets out to do - visceral, claustrophobic, suffocating, intense, heroic. Very unique
1	Adam P-D	60 _71%
A series of impressive long shots cut together with the appearance of one shot - like Alfred Hitchcock's Rope or Peter Wolf's Come As You Are. Unfortunately the constantly moving mid/wide shots didn't give me enough time to sit down and get to know the characters, giving the movie a game/ride experience and so my empathy was also kept at arm's length. It did settle down a couple of times near the end helping to pick up the finale but the first half did little for me.
1	zwyk	75 _74%
The production really creates a unique WWI view. The story isn't something incredible, but the narrative develops very naturally, It's actually surprising that this is an original story. Very effective without getting to the point of being too much of a homage (like Nolan's Dunkirk). Focus more on trying to create empathy and compassion rather than trying to push an excessive sentimental tone (this is one of the greatest qualities of the movie).
1	amazedemon	67 _75%
1917 is an engaging war drama that uses its cinematography to great effect. The lighting, music, sound design and even the main plot are all very good. Unfortunately, the film indulges in a few too many instances of the "close-call" trope, not to realistically drive the plot forward but to slow it down and add temper the pace. MacKay is great. Chapman looks like he's spent too long in make-up. And the brief screen-time for the more famous actors was clever casting. Flawed, but ends well.
1	philamental	73 _65%
Technically impressive and very immersive which can draw in the viewer successfully for most of the run time. However despite worthy performances for the most part, the realism the filmmakers sought to achieve and the necessity to only show a single perspective leads to a fairly run of the mill narrative that prevents 1917 from being a true classic.
1	dst7175	85 _92%
Damn I love good war movies.
1	Detox	74 _48%
Pretty intense in some parts but I couldn't get rid of the feeling that everything I felt was exactly planned out my Mendes and his crew. The focus her seemed to provide a thrilling experience but everything else was lacking. It should have cared more about the war machine which devours the individuals and the absurdity of war in general. I believe in doing so the movie would have had even more impact.
1	Wiche	81 _82%
This is masterful filming, to say the least. There are some wonderful shots in this film, for example when the first wave starts. Marvelous shot. The one-shot technique is incredible. On the other hand, this is the biggest plus. Storywise, it's quite thin and the film even lacks some pace towards the end. It's good, especially in a technical way, but it's certainly no masterpiece.
1	SpeedMarque	40 _27%
cinematography is great and will give it a score of 80, even though I'm not a fan of the one take close up. Story however is quite bland. Found it without suspense and also certain scenes forced and untrustworthy. The plane, and village scene in particular.
1	EvilMangoes	96 _90%
A
1	jarobmul	87 _95%
The way this was shot is insane, makes you feel super weird watching it. I became super aware of how much I blinked or not.

Average Percentile 67.65% from 3001 Ratings