1917 (2019)

[Mike Blakesley]

This movie is getting a lot of attention for its style of cinematography, in that the whole thing appears to happen in one long take. It's too bad that's the big focus, because there is some outstanding acting, directing and other work here.

I am not really a war movie fan, but I decided to at least start watching this one due to that cinematography..... I just wanted to see if it was convincing. Boy, is it ever convincing. I was riveted from about two minutes in.

I don't know what's more intriguing... the story itself, the film's style, the acting, or the music score -- everything is top notch. This movie deserves all the accolades it's receiving. Although I don't understand how the two leads did not get any Oscar nominations for their acting.

I assume this is (mostly at least) a true story, and it's one of the better war movies I've seen in its depiction of exactly what it' was probably like in a war zone back in the 1917. There is no sugarcoating here, no pop songs, no showboating. And as horrific as things seem, it does not seem to be exaggerated either. Just two guys on a mission, saving each other's lives in the process, with no sure guarantee of success, and with 1600 lives hanging in the balance. The story is simple, but it pretty much happens in real time, so it moves briskly. The sound mix was tremendous. I thought, but it was like the movie as a whole -- not overbearing, but knows exactly what it's doing.

Highly recommended even in you're not really a huge fan of the genre. 4.5 out of five stars from me.

[Bobby Henderson]

Cinema: AMC Patriot 13, Lawton, OK
Screen: #7, IMAX Digital, Seat K15
Format: Dual 2K Projection, 5.1 audio
Presentation Problems: Slightly soft image quality,
-----and a bit of inconsiderate audience behavior.
Movie Rating: 3.5 out of 4

1917 is indeed a really good movie, and particularly a good movie to see in a theater with a huge screen and loud surround sound. The story and set up is very simple but the way it unfolds is tense, entertaining and pretty impressive from a technical angle. There is only one obvious scene change/cut in the whole movie. Several shots had me thinking, "how the hell did they do that!?" I'd love to see a making-of documentary about how they threaded all of this together to make it look like one shot. I suppose if you watch 1917 multiple times you might be able to see more of the "seams" between shots.

It will be disappointing if 1917 doesn't win the Production Design and Set Decoration Oscars. There have been other movies set in World War I that have had impressive sets. But a few things really make 1917 stand apart. In this production all the sets seem tied together in one long path -kind of like how a first person shooter video game is laid out. The scale of it just seemed incredible. A lot of detail was put into the real sets, models and digital effects. With this being a modern R-rated war movie they were able to include lots and lots of dead, rotting human bodies as well as various animals. Two dead horses early in the journey is a real gross-out moment. The stench in real life would have been gag-inducing. I was squirming bad or laughing at a few other disgusting moments.

The two main characters, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) delivered great performances. The roles had to be particularly tough given their actions and performances had to match from one shot sequence to the next. There's a decent number of recognizable actors appearing here and there in near-cameo roles. Sometimes a cameo from a well known actor can be a distraction though.

I couldn't quite give this movie a full 4 star "perfect" review due to a couple scenes I thought were pretty implausible.

I watched 1917 at our local "IMAX @ AMC" theater last night (taking advantage of the discount Tuesday thing). With the style of cinematography used in this feature it seemed like a good idea to see it on a really big screen. I didn't get around to watching it the first time it was on this IMAX-branded screen, but now it's doubled up with the Bad Boys sequel. I think the projection was just a tiny bit out of focus; the picture quality seemed slightly softer than usual. Oh, and the inconsiderate audience behavior was thanks to a couple of older guys one row up off to the left. They carried on a fucking out-loud conversation a good 10 minutes into the movie -until they drew angry stares and complaints from a couple other exasperated audience members (not me). One of the old farts was playing with his phone halfway through the movie. The stereotype is young people are the only assholes pulling this shit. Inconsiderate behavior and phone addiction spans all age groups.

The sound mix was pretty impressive and pretty loud. A couple of moments were holy shit startling. I'd like to see this again in an Atmos-equipped house to see how that mix differs. But I don't know if it will play again on one of the two Atmos-equipped screens in Oklahoma City. I don't get down to Dallas all that often.

[Frank Cox]

The movie looks fantastic. Certainly no expense was spared on the backgrounds and costumes and props. Downright fabulous.

I only have two complaints about it.

1. The whole story is unnecessary since they were flying planes back and forth across that area. Write the message on a paper, tie it to a handy rock and drop it on the receiving forces. Message delivered, job done. But of course there wouldn't be a movie that way. Surely they could have come up with a story that wasn't so obviously contrived. But what do I know.

2. The hero had hand grenades at the start of the mission and never used any of them. Why didn't he toss one into the room with the enemy soldier instead of opening the door to get shot?

Excellent movie overall, though. Well worth seeing. The sound sure bounces you once in a while.

[Bobby Henderson]

The biggest problem I had with 1917 was that scene with the soldier singing to his fellow troops in the forest. There didn't seem to be any perimeter, given the protagonist is able to get out of a river and walk up behind everyone and sit down, almost unnoticed.

1. The whole story is unnecessary since they were flying planes back and forth across that area. Write the message on a paper, tie it to a handy rock and drop it on the receiving forces. Message delivered, job done. But of course there wouldn't be a movie that way. Surely they could have come up with a story that wasn't so obviously contrived. But what do I know.

Airfields weren't build near the trenches on the front lines in World War I. Also a written message like that would have to be hand-delivered to the commanding officer to make sure he received it. Dropping such a message from an airplane over a trench on the front lines would be a crap shoot. There's no guarantee the message would fall into a spot where it could be safely retrieved and even if it did fall in a safe place there's no guarantee the message would be picked up and taken to the commanding officer who needed to see it. Then there was the likelihood the commanding officer would say "bullshit" to the written message and need some further convincing to take the right action (a factor that was mentioned when the two guys took their orders for the dangerous trek). Finally, the plane would have to fly pretty low to drop the message, likely drawing a lot of enemy fire. Planes had a pretty high tactical value to them. I'd hate to say one plane was worth more than the lives of a couple soldiers, but it seems to come out that way in terms of strategy.

2. The hero had hand grenades at the start of the mission and never used any of them. Why didn't he toss one into the room with the enemy soldier instead of opening the door to get shot?

IIRC, grenades from that age didn't automatically explode when hitting the ground (I could be wrong about that though). If he tossed a grenade up into the open window the enemy soldier might have had enough time to grab it and throw it out the window at the good guy. It would be pretty suicidal to try to open the interior door to the room where the enemy solider was hiding to slip in a grenade that way. Of course it was pretty stupid trying to open a door to take a rifle shot. Pretty bad situation either way.

[Mike Blakesley]

It would be pretty suicidal to try to open the interior door to the room where the enemy solider was hiding to slip in a grenade that way. Of course it was pretty stupid trying to open a door to take a rifle shot.

According to the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, he opened the door, shot the enemy soldier and then was hit by a ricocheting bullet. I need to watch it again to see if that makes sense. Could be one of those "Han shot first/Greedo shot first" moments! Anyway, the way it looked to me was that he didn't know the German was hiding in that room when he opened the door.

I guess you would also have to take into account that the protagonist was exhausted and might not have been thinking clearly when he opened that door.

It's kind of confusing how true this whole story is.... it's not billed as a true story, and the end credits say that the film is fictitious.... but it is dedicated to Sam Mendes' grandfather who "told us the stories" so I assume the movie's story is based on a composite of things that really happened, with some dramatic license taken for effect here and there.

[Bobby Henderson]

It looked to me like the guy knew he shot the German soldier. I thought he went into the building and upstairs to make sure the German soldier was dead. I'd have to see the scene again, but I thought the dude was still alive and shot back when the protagonist opened the door to finish off the German soldier.

[Mike Blakesley]

I watched it again last night -- it happens so fast that you can't really tell. I'm going to try to catch it again and will really try to watch the German guy. The whole thing takes place in shadow so that doesn't help either.

[Mike Blakesley]

I missed the scene discussed above tonight, but one other thing about this movie that really resonated with me.... no shaky-cam! Even though a lot of the film was made with hand-held cameras, the picture is rock steady the whole time. Thank God Paul Greengrass didn't make this movie, it wuold have been a real puke-fest.

The website has a couple of really cool how-they-did-it features and some behind the scenes photos. The more I watch this movie the more I'm impressed with it.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah, I'm just going to have to watch the movie again sometime. Or maybe buy a copy of the Blu-ray. One of the making-of featurettes of 1917 did show some of the camera gear and how various steadi-cammed hand-held shots were literally handed off to camera cranes. Check one of the movie's web site featurettes here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94

I laughed when the movie's director and DP said they had to shoot the whole movie in story order. Great job at digging yourself into a hole -or rather a TRENCH!! Much of the movie is freaking exteriors prone to the whims of mother nature and what kind of natural lighting she'll provide. This shooting situation just makes the camera choreography and production design all that more impressive.

[Mike Blakesley]

My wife asked me a question I couldn't answer..... why was the dirt from the trenches white-ish in the climactic scenes? Is there light-gray colored soil in some parts of the world?

[Mike Blakesley]

I did manage to catch the "who shot who" segment again tonight.... and I found a couple other spots on line where it says it's supposed to be a ricochet bullet that hits Schofield. The German soldier does not appear to aim his weapon at all.

This is the first "new" movie I've wanted to get the Blu-Ray of in about two years.

[Allan Young]

My wife asked me a question I couldn't answer..... why was the dirt from the trenches white-ish in the climactic scenes? Is there light-gray colored soil in some parts of the world?

It's chalk. Quite common in southern England (e.g. the white cliffs of Dover) and northern France.

[Jon Goeldner]

The first time I saw this movie was at the end of December, and in the front row, not ideal at all. Second time, in Dolby Cinema the image looked great, but the sound still didn't impress me. Third time, at the new Showplace ICON Tyson's Corner location on one of their four Dolby Atmos screens and it finally proved it's worth on a much better properly calibrated system. Roger Deakin's commentary track on the bluray/4k UHD release is very illuminating and worth it to hear all the secrets in how it was shot and edited.