1917 (WWI movie)
Discussion
tangerine_sedge said:
skinnyman said:
Having seen reviewers giving it 10/10 everywhere I went in with high expectations, and left disappointed. I found myself bored through large parts of the film, and the plot holes became ridiculous.
I don't know how spoiler tags work, but admin feel free to add them.
Booby trap explodes literally at their feet, strong enough to collapse an entire tunnel system, but all they get is some dust in their eyes.
Abandoned farm, completely derelict, yet a single cow and fresh milk.........
Pull an enemy soldier from a plane, definitely don't immediately disarm him, you know, incase he attacks you.
Despite sneaking over no mans land because the Germans literally just left, 3 trucks full of soldiers turn up, by magic.
How he managed to shoot the sniper, was nonsense.
Being chased by a German soldier through the ruined city, goes through a horizontal door, German soldier walks straight pass, like some poor sneaking mechanics in a video game.
Barrels down a river and just so happens to end up exactly where he needs to be.
He approaches the soldiers sat chilling out, completely unchallenged.
During the final trench scene the German artillery is actually reaching the trenches, so god know hows they managed to dig them, or why the Germans stopped firing.
I'm seeing comments like "best films I've seen in years", I just found myself bored and switched off by the nonsense plot.
Perhaps drama isn't for you. I'm sure *anyone* could nitpick *any* film to the same level as this. This film is not a documentary, it's a drama and takes suitable dramatic liberties.I don't know how spoiler tags work, but admin feel free to add them.
Booby trap explodes literally at their feet, strong enough to collapse an entire tunnel system, but all they get is some dust in their eyes.
Abandoned farm, completely derelict, yet a single cow and fresh milk.........
Pull an enemy soldier from a plane, definitely don't immediately disarm him, you know, incase he attacks you.
Despite sneaking over no mans land because the Germans literally just left, 3 trucks full of soldiers turn up, by magic.
How he managed to shoot the sniper, was nonsense.
Being chased by a German soldier through the ruined city, goes through a horizontal door, German soldier walks straight pass, like some poor sneaking mechanics in a video game.
Barrels down a river and just so happens to end up exactly where he needs to be.
He approaches the soldiers sat chilling out, completely unchallenged.
During the final trench scene the German artillery is actually reaching the trenches, so god know hows they managed to dig them, or why the Germans stopped firing.
I'm seeing comments like "best films I've seen in years", I just found myself bored and switched off by the nonsense plot.
skinnyman said:
It's failed as a drama. The lack of character building and conviction from the actors meant I didn't really care for them, the plot caused me to never feel the peril was real, and as a result I found myself nodding off at times
I'm sorry that you feel like that, it obviously works as a great drama for many people, real punters and critics alike.Adam B said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Thanks for more input to this topic
Been over to reddit to view what others think and read a topic 2017 V Dunkirk, there were mixed opinions
Decided not to watch 2017
As mentioned earlier, found Dunkirk was a bad movie in every way
Other than being a century out you sound a bit black and white, so you are right to not bother I suspectBeen over to reddit to view what others think and read a topic 2017 V Dunkirk, there were mixed opinions
Decided not to watch 2017
As mentioned earlier, found Dunkirk was a bad movie in every way
Spotted
I know it's been posted before, but in case you haven't seen it:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94&fe...
(The waterfall scenes were filmed near Low Force on the River Tees, and some of the battlefield scenes at Hankley common, also used in Skyfall)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94&fe...
(The waterfall scenes were filmed near Low Force on the River Tees, and some of the battlefield scenes at Hankley common, also used in Skyfall)
I generally agree with most of the comments here, as well as the various "picks". I enjoyed watching it but it stretched the "willing suspension of belief" quite a bit. The hero managed all that with never a bite to eat and nothing to drink? The trench bits were pretty well done, I thought, but no sign of any Lewis guns, which were pretty common by then. Getting out into the countryside was maybe accurate as the Germans did withdraw in April 1917 to the Hindenburg Line, I think, and up to 40 miles in some sections, leaving as much destruction as possible as an obstacle. I didn't like the "Madonna and Child" bit in the empty town - thought it predictable and sentimental, also the milk had survived remarkably well - longlife, I suppose?
The German pilot was a bit of a rotter, wasn't he, not to mention tough at surviving the crash?
Another thing I wondered about was the shellfire attacking the soldiers when they went over, as I've always thought that airburst shrapnel was used against troops in the open, and shellfire killed more than rifle fire.
The lorry engine sounded pretty modern when it revved up - a real one would disintegrate run like that!
As I said, I enjoyed the film as a story, so worth the ticket. I'm of that generation who had relatives in the war - Grandfather survived Gallipoli in time to go on the Somme (Third Wave). He didn't speak all that much about it, but I have a few memories. I also had a Great Uncle who was a Lewis gunner. He wasn't allowed to keep a diary in the trenches (Ypres Salient/Passchedaele) but wrote his memoirs around 1930 in the form of short stories. They are by turns brutal and funny, sometimes surprising. For example he describes hunting for souvenirs on dead Fritzes with dispassionate humour, which considering that he was 20 at the time brings home the brutalising effect of war. Interestingly, his descriptions of the light from flares echo precisely the effects in the film, so that was right enough.
The German pilot was a bit of a rotter, wasn't he, not to mention tough at surviving the crash?
Another thing I wondered about was the shellfire attacking the soldiers when they went over, as I've always thought that airburst shrapnel was used against troops in the open, and shellfire killed more than rifle fire.
The lorry engine sounded pretty modern when it revved up - a real one would disintegrate run like that!
As I said, I enjoyed the film as a story, so worth the ticket. I'm of that generation who had relatives in the war - Grandfather survived Gallipoli in time to go on the Somme (Third Wave). He didn't speak all that much about it, but I have a few memories. I also had a Great Uncle who was a Lewis gunner. He wasn't allowed to keep a diary in the trenches (Ypres Salient/Passchedaele) but wrote his memoirs around 1930 in the form of short stories. They are by turns brutal and funny, sometimes surprising. For example he describes hunting for souvenirs on dead Fritzes with dispassionate humour, which considering that he was 20 at the time brings home the brutalising effect of war. Interestingly, his descriptions of the light from flares echo precisely the effects in the film, so that was right enough.
I thought the corpses in shell-holes were particularly realistic. Think he may have needed a tetanus shot after putting his open wound into a decayed gut!
The thing I found oddest was the relationship between officers and men. They addressed him directly and he spoke to them in the same way. Surely NCOs would never have dared to address a very senior officer in that way? Any communication would have been through a junior officer. Lower ranks "knew their place".
The thing I found oddest was the relationship between officers and men. They addressed him directly and he spoke to them in the same way. Surely NCOs would never have dared to address a very senior officer in that way? Any communication would have been through a junior officer. Lower ranks "knew their place".
skinnyman said:
Having seen reviewers giving it 10/10 everywhere I went in with high expectations, and left disappointed. I found myself bored through large parts of the film, and the plot holes became ridiculous.
I don't know how spoiler tags work, but admin feel free to add them.
Booby trap explodes literally at their feet, strong enough to collapse an entire tunnel system, but all they get is some dust in their eyes.
Abandoned farm, completely derelict, yet a single cow and fresh milk.........
Pull an enemy soldier from a plane, definitely don't immediately disarm him, you know, incase he attacks you.
Despite sneaking over no mans land because the Germans literally just left, 3 trucks full of soldiers turn up, by magic.
How he managed to shoot the sniper, was nonsense.
Being chased by a German soldier through the ruined city, goes through a horizontal door, German soldier walks straight pass, like some poor sneaking mechanics in a video game.
Barrels down a river and just so happens to end up exactly where he needs to be.
He approaches the soldiers sat chilling out, completely unchallenged.
During the final trench scene the German artillery is actually reaching the trenches, so god know hows they managed to dig them, or why the Germans stopped firing.
I'm seeing comments like "best films I've seen in years", I just found myself bored and switched off by the nonsense plot.
Agree with most of that and before I start ripping the film to pieces let me just say it was better than Dunkirk in every way.I don't know how spoiler tags work, but admin feel free to add them.
Booby trap explodes literally at their feet, strong enough to collapse an entire tunnel system, but all they get is some dust in their eyes.
Abandoned farm, completely derelict, yet a single cow and fresh milk.........
Pull an enemy soldier from a plane, definitely don't immediately disarm him, you know, incase he attacks you.
Despite sneaking over no mans land because the Germans literally just left, 3 trucks full of soldiers turn up, by magic.
How he managed to shoot the sniper, was nonsense.
Being chased by a German soldier through the ruined city, goes through a horizontal door, German soldier walks straight pass, like some poor sneaking mechanics in a video game.
Barrels down a river and just so happens to end up exactly where he needs to be.
He approaches the soldiers sat chilling out, completely unchallenged.
During the final trench scene the German artillery is actually reaching the trenches, so god know hows they managed to dig them, or why the Germans stopped firing.
I'm seeing comments like "best films I've seen in years", I just found myself bored and switched off by the nonsense plot.
The opening scene next to the tree and lovely long grass and daisy riddled field - this is supposed to be a front line trench, surely there wouldn't have been a blade of grass in sight.
I thought the language used during the confrontation in the trench near the start was a bit too modern - 'who the f*ck do you think you are...' - did they really speak like that back then? Don't think so.
The acting of the accomplice that gets stabbed was a bit ham. Some of his lines were said as if he was just reading aloud from the script.
They were speaking too loud and walking too casually for a pair on a special mission approaching enemy lines that they really weren't sure the Germans had pulled back from.
The tunnel collapse went on for a bit too long, and the white dust on the buried soldier's uniform disappeared a bit too sharpish afterwards.
The troop lorry getting stuck in the mud bit was a bit pathetic.
Every round he fired at the sniper seemed to hit a different part of the window frame and not the target.
Would you walk into the square of a burning town like it was a Sunday afternoon if you knew the enemy was in the area? Nope.
Every round the Germans shot at the main character (and there were plenty of them) - missed. Were that really that bad a shot?
Some of the terrain around the crisply dug chalk trenches at the end was untouched by some of the explosions, meaning they were clearly CGI.
Apart from that, it held me more than Dunkirk did.
6.5/10
Cobnapint said:
Agree with most of that and before I start ripping the film to pieces let me just say it was better than Dunkirk in every way.
The opening scene next to the tree and lovely long grass and daisy riddled field - this is supposed to be a front line trench, surely there wouldn't have been a blade of grass in sight.
I thought the language used during the confrontation in the trench near the start was a bit too modern - 'who the f*ck do you think you are...' - did they really speak like that back then? Don't think so.
The acting of the accomplice that gets stabbed was a bit ham. Some of his lines were said as if he was just reading aloud from the script.
They were speaking too loud and walking too casually for a pair on a special mission approaching enemy lines that they really weren't sure the Germans had pulled back from.
The tunnel collapse went on for a bit too long, and the white dust on the buried soldier's uniform disappeared a bit too sharpish afterwards.
The troop lorry getting stuck in the mud bit was a bit pathetic.
Every round he fired at the sniper seemed to hit a different part of the window frame and not the target.
Would you walk into the square of a burning town like it was a Sunday afternoon if you knew the enemy was in the area? Nope.
Every round the Germans shot at the main character (and there were plenty of them) - missed. Were that really that bad a shot?
Some of the terrain around the crisply dug chalk trenches at the end was untouched by some of the explosions, meaning they were clearly CGI.
Apart from that, it held me more than Dunkirk did.
6.5/10
That sounds like a list of things where you've assumed what it would have been like, and therefore decided that the film was wrong because it showed something different.The opening scene next to the tree and lovely long grass and daisy riddled field - this is supposed to be a front line trench, surely there wouldn't have been a blade of grass in sight.
I thought the language used during the confrontation in the trench near the start was a bit too modern - 'who the f*ck do you think you are...' - did they really speak like that back then? Don't think so.
The acting of the accomplice that gets stabbed was a bit ham. Some of his lines were said as if he was just reading aloud from the script.
They were speaking too loud and walking too casually for a pair on a special mission approaching enemy lines that they really weren't sure the Germans had pulled back from.
The tunnel collapse went on for a bit too long, and the white dust on the buried soldier's uniform disappeared a bit too sharpish afterwards.
The troop lorry getting stuck in the mud bit was a bit pathetic.
Every round he fired at the sniper seemed to hit a different part of the window frame and not the target.
Would you walk into the square of a burning town like it was a Sunday afternoon if you knew the enemy was in the area? Nope.
Every round the Germans shot at the main character (and there were plenty of them) - missed. Were that really that bad a shot?
Some of the terrain around the crisply dug chalk trenches at the end was untouched by some of the explosions, meaning they were clearly CGI.
Apart from that, it held me more than Dunkirk did.
6.5/10
CrutyRammers said:
Cobnapint said:
Agree with most of that and before I start ripping the film to pieces let me just say it was better than Dunkirk in every way.
The opening scene next to the tree and lovely long grass and daisy riddled field - this is supposed to be a front line trench, surely there wouldn't have been a blade of grass in sight.
I thought the language used during the confrontation in the trench near the start was a bit too modern - 'who the f*ck do you think you are...' - did they really speak like that back then? Don't think so.
The acting of the accomplice that gets stabbed was a bit ham. Some of his lines were said as if he was just reading aloud from the script.
They were speaking too loud and walking too casually for a pair on a special mission approaching enemy lines that they really weren't sure the Germans had pulled back from.
The tunnel collapse went on for a bit too long, and the white dust on the buried soldier's uniform disappeared a bit too sharpish afterwards.
The troop lorry getting stuck in the mud bit was a bit pathetic.
Every round he fired at the sniper seemed to hit a different part of the window frame and not the target.
Would you walk into the square of a burning town like it was a Sunday afternoon if you knew the enemy was in the area? Nope.
Every round the Germans shot at the main character (and there were plenty of them) - missed. Were that really that bad a shot?
Some of the terrain around the crisply dug chalk trenches at the end was untouched by some of the explosions, meaning they were clearly CGI.
Apart from that, it held me more than Dunkirk did.
6.5/10
That sounds like a list of things where you've assumed what it would have been like, and therefore decided that the film was wrong because it showed something different.The opening scene next to the tree and lovely long grass and daisy riddled field - this is supposed to be a front line trench, surely there wouldn't have been a blade of grass in sight.
I thought the language used during the confrontation in the trench near the start was a bit too modern - 'who the f*ck do you think you are...' - did they really speak like that back then? Don't think so.
The acting of the accomplice that gets stabbed was a bit ham. Some of his lines were said as if he was just reading aloud from the script.
They were speaking too loud and walking too casually for a pair on a special mission approaching enemy lines that they really weren't sure the Germans had pulled back from.
The tunnel collapse went on for a bit too long, and the white dust on the buried soldier's uniform disappeared a bit too sharpish afterwards.
The troop lorry getting stuck in the mud bit was a bit pathetic.
Every round he fired at the sniper seemed to hit a different part of the window frame and not the target.
Would you walk into the square of a burning town like it was a Sunday afternoon if you knew the enemy was in the area? Nope.
Every round the Germans shot at the main character (and there were plenty of them) - missed. Were that really that bad a shot?
Some of the terrain around the crisply dug chalk trenches at the end was untouched by some of the explosions, meaning they were clearly CGI.
Apart from that, it held me more than Dunkirk did.
6.5/10
Entirely believable.
CrutyRammers said:
That sounds like a list of things where you've assumed what it would have been like, and therefore decided that the film was wrong because it showed something different.
This is the chap who was military advisor, and judging by his bio, he knows a thing or two about WW1....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Robertshaw
Gadgetmac said:
As has been explained by somebody in the forces on this thread previously shooting during a war, even at close range, is very likely to end up not being a "hit".
Entirely believable.
Oh I agree, but that many times....?Entirely believable.
I think the biggest problem when films involving a British director like this are released is the hype that comes with it. It raises expectations to a level the film cannot hope to reach.
It's similar to when JLR release a new model.
ukaskew said:
If anyone thinks this site isn't the old white male version of Mumsnet I'd just like to aim them at this thread! Honestly, there is nitpicking and then there is just trying to justify what could be holes in the film based on very little evidence whatsoever.
This is worth a readhttps://ospreypublishing.com/blog/hindenburg_line_...
If you look at the map, you cannot imagine a location where you would climb out of a friendly trench towards, pass through enemy trenches, then stumble across a friendly motorised unit to reach more friendly divisions further advanced who were unknowingly about to attack the heavily fortified Hindenburg line.
It’s not nitpicking, it’s just plain wrong.
rdjohn said:
This is worth a read
https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/hindenburg_line_...
If you look at the map, you cannot imagine a location where you would climb out of a friendly trench towards, pass through enemy trenches, then stumble across a friendly motorised unit to reach more friendly divisions further advanced who were unknowingly about to attack the heavily fortified Hindenburg line.
It’s not nitpicking, it’s just plain wrong.
So now we're looking at historical maps trying to find the exact place where a made up story happened? And that's not nitpicking? Okaaaay.https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/hindenburg_line_...
If you look at the map, you cannot imagine a location where you would climb out of a friendly trench towards, pass through enemy trenches, then stumble across a friendly motorised unit to reach more friendly divisions further advanced who were unknowingly about to attack the heavily fortified Hindenburg line.
It’s not nitpicking, it’s just plain wrong.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff