![1917](https://www.criticker.com/img/films/posters/80/1917-2019.webp?1717654664)
1917
2019
Drama
War
1h 59m
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)
Directed by:
Your probable score
?
1917
2019
Drama
War
1h 59m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 67.55% from 3460 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews
(3505)
Compact view
Compact view
Show
Sort
Rated 17 Jan 2020
90
92nd
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.
Rated 17 Jan 2020
Rated 23 Dec 2019
87
85th
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.
Rated 23 Dec 2019
Rated 05 Feb 2020
90
90th
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
Rated 05 Feb 2020
Rated 09 Nov 2020
80
84th
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.
Rated 09 Nov 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
85
79th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 31 Jan 2020
96
89th
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.
Rated 31 Jan 2020
Rated 10 May 2020
88
95th
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.
Rated 10 May 2020
Rated 10 Jan 2020
98
93rd
Moving, intense and beautifully shot. One of the year's best.
Rated 10 Jan 2020
Rated 30 Dec 2019
50
35th
Amazing camera work, not a lot else.
Rated 30 Dec 2019
Rated 01 Jan 2020
90
90th
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.
Rated 01 Jan 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
85
94th
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!]
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Apr 2020
75
93rd
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.
Rated 13 Apr 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
95
99th
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).
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 27 Apr 2020
73
36th
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
Rated 27 Apr 2020
Rated 17 Feb 2020
85
92nd
Roger Deakins, Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman prove that war is (one) hell (of a great ride). Superb moviemaking right here.
Rated 17 Feb 2020
Rated 31 Dec 2019
85
84th
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.
Rated 31 Dec 2019
Rated 01 Mar 2020
85
92nd
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.
Rated 01 Mar 2020
Rated 06 Feb 2020
95
97th
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.
Rated 06 Feb 2020
Rated 16 Feb 2020
85
88th
Two lovable chums take a leisurely stroll through picturesque France. During World War I.
Rated 16 Feb 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
64
35th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 12 Jan 2020
97
96th
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.
Rated 12 Jan 2020
Rated 27 Jun 2020
68
41st
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.
Rated 27 Jun 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
6
35th
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."
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 30 Dec 2019
60
33rd
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.'
Rated 30 Dec 2019
Rated 10 Jan 2020
95
88th
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.
Rated 10 Jan 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
8
87th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
81
68th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
60
13th
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!
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
95
90th
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.
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 12 Jan 2020
82
83rd
A masterpiece of visual effects. The story is a bit Hollywoodish, but the setting feels authentic.
Rated 12 Jan 2020
Rated 12 Jan 2020
83
67th
Corporal Schofield and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Rated 12 Jan 2020
Rated 24 Jan 2020
40
17th
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.
Rated 24 Jan 2020
Rated 12 Jan 2020
96
97th
Incredible. Absolutely the best war movie since Dunkirk, and frankly I liked it better.
Rated 12 Jan 2020
Rated 04 Feb 2020
60
57th
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.
Rated 04 Feb 2020
Rated 18 Jan 2020
80
70th
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.
Rated 18 Jan 2020
Rated 18 Jan 2020
10
98th
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).
Rated 18 Jan 2020
Rated 10 Apr 2020
85
87th
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.
Rated 10 Apr 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
93
98th
If you know what I like about movies, you know I'd love this one. A masterpiece I can't get over.
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 14 Jan 2020
80
84th
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.
Rated 14 Jan 2020
Rated 14 Jan 2020
83
89th
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.
Rated 14 Jan 2020
Rated 15 Jan 2020
100
97th
One of the best, if not the best, of the year, especially for cinematography. Powerful performances, intense action and emotional scenes.
Rated 15 Jan 2020
Rated 20 Jan 2020
80
85th
Looks great in almost every way and the cast is great.
Rated 20 Jan 2020
Rated 24 Jan 2020
3
45th
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.
Rated 24 Jan 2020
Rated 23 Feb 2020
85
88th
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.
Rated 23 Feb 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
92
72nd
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
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
40
38th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 02 Feb 2020
80
89th
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.
Rated 02 Feb 2020
Rated 15 Apr 2020
70
77th
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).
Rated 15 Apr 2020
Rated 14 Jan 2020
72
78th
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.
Rated 14 Jan 2020
Rated 14 Jan 2020
5
92nd
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
Rated 14 Jan 2020
Rated 15 Jan 2020
65
67th
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.
Rated 15 Jan 2020
Rated 15 Jan 2020
67
70th
Impressive but my heart wasn't in it.
Rated 15 Jan 2020
Rated 19 Jan 2020
93
81st
Masterful.
Rated 19 Jan 2020
Rated 10 Nov 2021
95
95th
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.
Rated 10 Nov 2021
Rated 20 Jan 2020
91
94th
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.
Rated 20 Jan 2020
Rated 09 Feb 2020
50
48th
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.
Rated 09 Feb 2020
Rated 02 Mar 2020
90
96th
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.
Rated 02 Mar 2020
Rated 08 Aug 2020
58
42nd
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.
Rated 08 Aug 2020
Rated 26 Jan 2020
3
38th
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.
Rated 26 Jan 2020
Rated 24 Feb 2020
50
14th
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.
Rated 24 Feb 2020
Rated 09 Feb 2020
72
42nd
Technically impressive but it's basically a script inspired by a Super Mario game.
Rated 09 Feb 2020
Rated 03 Feb 2020
75
81st
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.
Rated 03 Feb 2020
Rated 09 Feb 2020
80
63rd
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.
Rated 09 Feb 2020
Rated 09 Feb 2020
85
81st
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.
Rated 09 Feb 2020
Rated 04 Mar 2020
90
85th
Really well shot, really tense, really cool to see in theatres.
Rated 04 Mar 2020
Rated 02 Feb 2020
70
70th
On a pure aesthetic level this is nothing short of stunning - the story itself left much to be desired however.
Rated 02 Feb 2020
Rated 25 Jan 2020
100
98th
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.
Rated 25 Jan 2020
Rated 03 Feb 2020
55
16th
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.
Rated 03 Feb 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
88
96th
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.
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Apr 2020
85
81st
An entertaining ride that is more than a one-shot gimmick.
Rated 13 Apr 2020
Rated 17 Feb 2020
20
20th
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.
Rated 17 Feb 2020
Rated 18 Jan 2020
75
39th
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.
Rated 18 Jan 2020
Rated 29 Apr 2020
10
91st
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.
Rated 29 Apr 2020
Rated 11 Jan 2020
80
41st
#1 Soulless technical achievement Direction - 2.5/2.5 Sound/Editing - 2.5/2.5 Acting - 2/2.5 Writing - 1/2.5
Rated 11 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
70
36th
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.
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 23 Jun 2020
35
19th
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. I'm not convinced that the fake uninterrupted shot style (it actually does have cuts) is as crucial here as for some other films, but it's impressive, and I've seen historians lauding the generally good historicity of the sets, but the story is far-fetched and lackluster with low-grade dialogue.
Rated 23 Jun 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
85
50th
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?)
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 16 Jan 2020
40
9th
Your favorite FPS campaign now on the big screen!
Rated 16 Jan 2020
Rated 17 Jan 2020
100
97th
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.
Rated 17 Jan 2020
Rated 17 Jan 2020
75
83rd
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.
Rated 17 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Dec 2021
55
53rd
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.
Rated 13 Dec 2021
Rated 29 Dec 2020
81
83rd
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.
Rated 29 Dec 2020
Rated 18 Jan 2020
2
37th
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.
Rated 18 Jan 2020
Rated 18 Jan 2020
85
95th
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".
Rated 18 Jan 2020
Rated 20 Jan 2020
30
8th
Will this one be added to the pantheon of acceptable bro cry fests. Saw quite a few as I was exiting the theatre
Rated 20 Jan 2020
Rated 07 Feb 2020
85
76th
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.
Rated 07 Feb 2020
Rated 22 Jan 2020
75
65th
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.
Rated 22 Jan 2020
Rated 02 Feb 2020
80
75th
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.
Rated 02 Feb 2020
Rated 23 Jan 2020
97
99th
Masterfully directed, powerfully acted and perfectly paced, this figurative journey through hell is a must watch.
Rated 23 Jan 2020
Rated 24 Jan 2020
67
65th
Ofterdingen said it: "Impressive but my heart wasn't in it."
Rated 24 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Apr 2020
75
81st
Continually high blood pressure with perfect cinematography.
Rated 13 Apr 2020
Rated 27 Jan 2020
90
78th
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.
Rated 27 Jan 2020
Rated 12 Mar 2020
80
90th
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.
Rated 12 Mar 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
90
94th
The story is a bit thin, but offers enough. Brilliant shooting and directing. One for the big screen, this.
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 04 Mar 2020
80
87th
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.
Rated 04 Mar 2020
Rated 29 Jan 2020
3
65th
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
Rated 29 Jan 2020
Rated 13 Jan 2020
79
69th
Nicely shot and looks realistic as a depiction of the WWI era. The acting and casting are also decent.
Rated 13 Jan 2020
Rated 18 Feb 2020
6
52nd
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.
Rated 18 Feb 2020
Rated 20 Jan 2020
73
65th
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.
Rated 20 Jan 2020
Cast & Info
Directed by:
Collections
Loading ...
Similar Titles
Loading ...
Statistics
Loading ...
Trailer
Loading ...
PSI
?