1917 (1 Viewer)

[El Caliente]

What an amazing movie. Mendes did an amazing job of telling his grandfather’s story.

The way that they shot the film, the camera just following the actors with no stopping and picking up in another scene. It was just amazing. I don’t know if my description is doing it justice, it was just amazing.

Trench warfare, just...wow. How long were they digging trenches for? Those thing looked like they were sturdy, so they couldn’t have been built over night. When did warfare move away from being trench based?

I’m surprised that there wasn’t use of mustard gas (or more gruesome). Wasn’t WW1 considered the most gruesome due to the advances of warfare at the time?

That entire war was wild (just how battle lines were drawn), and obviously this movies story wasn’t to tell the story of the war, but it did a hell of a job of telling an amazing part of the war.

Great stuff, go watch it.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Should be catching it tomorrow

Warfare became much more fluid in WW2 with the a$ ancements in tanks and close air support. Still even today soldiers do dog foxholes, but nowhere near the complex trench systems seen in WW1

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

Great movie. If you are expecting a shoot-em-up type of war movie- this ain't it chief. This is about the storyline and cinematography. Excellent flick!

I was telling my wife that I'm glad that someone produced a film about the First World War. Seldom do you see movies about WW1.

 

[Consigliere]

Trench warfare, just...wow. How long were they digging trenches for? Those thing looked like they were sturdy, so they couldn’t have been built over night. When did warfare move away from being trench based?

The main precedent was the battle of Petersburg in the ACW, but the Europeans did not learn from it because they disrespected American military expertise. Trenches were still used in the 1930s (Spanish Civil War) but were rendered obsolete by mechanized transport (jeeps, tanks, planes). The Germans learned that, the French did not.

I’m surprised that there wasn’t use of mustard gas (or more gruesome). Wasn’t WW1 considered the most gruesome due to the advances of warfare at the time?

Yes, surprisingly, WWI was the first war in which more soldiers died from battle rather than disease and exposure. Machine guns and artillery were far more advanced than the mid-19th century wars. Numerous young men were unfortunately wounded by mustard gas, including one German corporal who was unfortunately not wounded enough.

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

The main precedent was the battle of Petersburg in the ACW, but the Europeans did not learn from it because they disrespected American military expertise. Trenches were still used in the 1930s (Spanish Civil War) but were rendered obsolete by mechanized transport (jeeps, tanks, planes). The Germans learned that, the French did not.

Yes, surprisingly, WWI was the first war in which more soldiers died from battle rather than disease and exposure. Machine guns and artillery were far more advanced than the mid-19th century wars. Numerous young men were unfortunately wounded by mustard gas, including one German corporal who was unfortunately not wounded enough.

Hitler. Yes, too bad.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Just caught it yesterday. Good movie, not really great. Some really wicked scenes.

Another point on trench warfare - while it was used all over the Western front, it was not used on the Eastern front much. So it was also the circumstances that dictated the use of trenches.

Also, trenches were used in WW2 and even today. But it was nowhere near the extensive, almost static trench network of WW1. By WW2 the focus had switched to developing strongpoints held by smaller units, at the level of roughly a battalion, that could not be flanked and were not linked. Also still their were permanent fortifications such as the Maginot line and the Atlantikwall, and the Siegfried lne. All of which accomplished only delaying an eventual defeat. More forward thinking generals like von Manstein understood this, and the idea was to always be on the move, and looking towards the next offensive, and not be stuck in a static situation for long.

 

[Jeff Miller]

One of the best movies i have ever seen.

 

[Joe OKC]

Glad to see a post here about it.. Believe it or not I was gonna start one... Tried to go last night but the movie theater had only one employee and the ticket line was out the door.. Drove to another movie theater and their prices were through the roof... But you can bet I see it very soon.

 

[El Caliente]

If your looking for Saving Private Ryan (or Saving Ryan’s Privates if you’re into that sort of thang) this ain’t your film. There is action, but not enough to confuse you for Sole Survivor.

 

[Joe OKC]

Well... I just got back from seeing it... let me tell ya... The Disappointment is huge.. This is NOT the film of the year by no means...

and Cinematography.. Terrible... Almost everything was a blurr... Fuzzy and out of focus. It seemed to me that all movement made everything blurry.

This is not about it not being a shoot em up movie... But the tale is just so basic and flat... I don't hate it... It is definitely not the worst war movie that I ever saw... Fury has that title... But this thing is just flat...

Honestly.. If I had not have paid the money.. I was actually contemplating just walking out of the theater because it sure was going nowhere fast.

I think the only good scene was the airplane scene and that was it...

 

[jasonsw]

Well... I just got back from seeing it... let me tell ya... The Disappointment is huge.. This is NOT the film of the year by no means...

and Cinematography.. Terrible... Almost everything was a blurr... Fuzzy and out of focus. It seemed to me that all movement made everything blurry.

This is not about it not being a shoot em up movie... But the tale is just so basic and flat... I don't hate it... It is definitely not the worst war movie that I ever saw... Fury has that title... But this thing is just flat...

Honestly.. If I had not have paid the money.. I was actually contemplating just walking out of the theater because it sure was going nowhere fast.

I think the only good scene was the airplane scene and that was it...

Well I'm glad I didn't go watch. That was going to be date day with the wife. Instead we stayed in and watched the Joker. We enjoyed the Joker.

As a Field Artillery vet/Shout out to 1/5 FA 1st Infantry Big Red One. Don't enjoy artsy fartsy war movies. Saw one two years ago on DVd. Durkin I think it was. It involved the Germans taking over something little action and even less bullets fired

 

[zeetes]

i have seen absolutely nothing compelling to make me want to watch.

wwi, wwii, vietnam, all movies are almost the same plot: squad of heroes does something spectacular that, for some reason, plays a major part in the outcome.

it is awesome to see this style of script played out the first few times, but anyone trying to make a film like this, needs to make it so awesome that it separates itself from anything.

korean war, now there is a place for a spectacular movie to be made.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I think the above criticisms are a bit too harsh. During the movie, i was in suspense as to what the precise outcome was going to be. I've seen war movies go many different ways. For a real mindfork, watch Journey's End, also takes place in WWI.

 

[Joe OKC]

I think the above criticisms are a bit too harsh. During the movie, i was in suspense as to what the precise outcome was going to be. I've seen war movies go many different ways. For a real mindfork, watch Journey's End, also takes place in WWI.

This is what I am not getting. what everyone is seeing that makes it so great.

There really was nothing to the storyline at all... Send two guys on a mission to deliver a message and they run into trouble, the enemy and then deliver message and attack called off.

There was really nothing unpredictable, exciting or anything... No great dialog... Nothing...

I am using the term Flat to describe this movie... Flat.. because it just lays there and does nothing.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

This is what I am not getting. what everyone is seeing that makes it so great.

There really was nothing to the storyline at all... Send two guys on a mission to deliver a message and they run into trouble, the enemy and then deliver message and attack called off.

There was really nothing unpredictable, exciting or anything... No great dialog... Nothing...

I am using the term Flat to describe this movie... Flat.. because it just lays there and does nothing.

Actually he did get there late, though the second wave hadn't attacked yet, so mission was only a partial success.

Were you absolutely certain he was going to get there in time? Or the Colonel wouldn't just tell him to fork off? Or that Lt. Blake would still be alive? So I think there was some suspense built up to the final scenes. Thats why i said good but not great.