1917

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moving, intense and beautifully shot. One of the year's best.

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!]

Amazing camera work, not a lot else.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Birdman Goes to WWI

Two lovable chums take a leisurely stroll through picturesque France. During World War I.

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