| Went to see 1917 earlier 19:18 - Jan 18 with 3130 views | Coastalblue |
Went to the first showing at the Imax on the South Bank so was back in time for commentary.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was a very good film with good performances but the cinematography is breathtaking.
I was aware that it's presented as an almost continuous shot and worried that might detract from it a bit but actually thought it worked really well.
Much like Saving Private Ryan I walked away thinking how the hell did those guys manage to live through that, I'm well aware many didn't.
If you're thinking about seeing it then make sure you catch it on a big screen, it deserves it. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 19:19]
|  |
| |  |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 19:54 - Jan 18 with 3026 views | factual_blue |
The waterfall scene completely ruined it for me. Where in heaven's name is there a waterfall in the flat rolling meadows of northern France?
That should be enough to stop it getting an Oscar.
Joking aside, I enjoyed it quite a bit - surprising early death. Good cameos from Strong, Scott, Firth, Scarborough and Bandicoot Cumberbund. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 19:58]
|  |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 20:36 - Jan 18 with 2917 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 19:54 - Jan 18 by factual_blue |
The waterfall scene completely ruined it for me. Where in heaven's name is there a waterfall in the flat rolling meadows of northern France?
That should be enough to stop it getting an Oscar.
Joking aside, I enjoyed it quite a bit - surprising early death. Good cameos from Strong, Scott, Firth, Scarborough and Bandicoot Cumberbund. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 19:58]
|
I went last night. It was good. Very far-fetched but the cinematography was good - the whole filming as one continuous scene and the suspense and drama were very good.
I am squeamish and genuinely squirmed a few times. Even though they were obviously about to happen, some of the shots etc really made me jump. The sound quality made you feel like you were being shot at. |  |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 20:55 - Jan 18 with 2858 views | Oxford_Blue |
Yes I’ve seen it twice. The first time it was visually stunning but I didn’t connect with the characters that much. Second time, I picked up much more - there are lots of plot forecasts and themes that I missed first time.
A very impressive portrayal of a First World War trench. |  | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 with 2813 views | BlueNomad |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 19:54 - Jan 18 by factual_blue |
The waterfall scene completely ruined it for me. Where in heaven's name is there a waterfall in the flat rolling meadows of northern France?
That should be enough to stop it getting an Oscar.
Joking aside, I enjoyed it quite a bit - surprising early death. Good cameos from Strong, Scott, Firth, Scarborough and Bandicoot Cumberbund. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 19:58]
|
Talking of far fetched:
Why not use an aircraft to drop the message? Would have saved walking and made the film shorter.
The western front consisted of opposing trenches. Why cut across to the Devons rather than just send someone round from the back of ours?
The enemy held village was just over a 25 yard canal from where the convoy drove past. Not a shot fired. |  | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 with 2811 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 20:55 - Jan 18 by Oxford_Blue |
Yes I’ve seen it twice. The first time it was visually stunning but I didn’t connect with the characters that much. Second time, I picked up much more - there are lots of plot forecasts and themes that I missed first time.
A very impressive portrayal of a First World War trench. |
I thought the portrayal of the trenches and general historical accuracy (or lack of it) was one of the biggest criticisms of it. I have no knowledge of those trenches but would be surprised if they were as clean and orderly as they appeared to be. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:09 - Jan 18 with 2804 views | Kieran_Knows |
I love a good war film, but I wasn’t that much of a fan of 1917. Just something about it wasn’t quite right for me, although couldn’t tell you what exactly that was. |  |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:12 - Jan 18 with 2792 views | factual_blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 by BlueNomad |
Talking of far fetched:
Why not use an aircraft to drop the message? Would have saved walking and made the film shorter.
The western front consisted of opposing trenches. Why cut across to the Devons rather than just send someone round from the back of ours?
The enemy held village was just over a 25 yard canal from where the convoy drove past. Not a shot fired. |
Carrier pigeon? | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:15 - Jan 18 with 2782 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 by BlueNomad |
Talking of far fetched:
Why not use an aircraft to drop the message? Would have saved walking and made the film shorter.
The western front consisted of opposing trenches. Why cut across to the Devons rather than just send someone round from the back of ours?
The enemy held village was just over a 25 yard canal from where the convoy drove past. Not a shot fired. |
SPOILER ALERT - do not read on if you want to watch it and haven't yet!
Yes, the fact it was all quiet and then just over the canal shortly after there was a town in complete barrage … also he randomly jumps over a wall to find he falls into the river with no indication it was there. He then happens to wash up exactly in the bit of wood that he needs to be in. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:16 - Jan 18 with 2775 views | factual_blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:09 - Jan 18 by Kieran_Knows |
I love a good war film, but I wasn’t that much of a fan of 1917. Just something about it wasn’t quite right for me, although couldn’t tell you what exactly that was. |
It was, like a lot of action movies, structured as though it were a video game. A succession of set piece challenges, each more complicated than the last.
Also the German pilot behaved like a WW2 SS soldier, not a young, probably aristocratic, flyer. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:37 - Jan 18 with 2723 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 by BlueNomad |
Talking of far fetched:
Why not use an aircraft to drop the message? Would have saved walking and made the film shorter.
The western front consisted of opposing trenches. Why cut across to the Devons rather than just send someone round from the back of ours?
The enemy held village was just over a 25 yard canal from where the convoy drove past. Not a shot fired. |
How on earth would an airplane get a message hand delivered to a commanding officer in the middle of a battle? And the film makes it clear the colonel wanted to fight. He almost ignored the hand delivered message. He would have certainly delivered the plane-dropped message even if it could have managed to drop a message on a trench in the middle of a battle and find one man in 1,600 | | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:41 - Jan 18 with 2717 views | jeera |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:12 - Jan 18 by factual_blue |
Carrier pigeon? |
Speckled Jim eh?
I wonder how many of those pigeons didn't deliver because they got eaten by soldiers?
I suppose it was a serious offence but the temptation must have been there. |  |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:44 - Jan 18 with 2697 views | factual_blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:41 - Jan 18 by jeera |
Speckled Jim eh?
I wonder how many of those pigeons didn't deliver because they got eaten by soldiers?
I suppose it was a serious offence but the temptation must have been there. |
4,189 | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:48 - Jan 18 with 2688 views | Coastalblue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:41 - Jan 18 by jeera |
Speckled Jim eh?
I wonder how many of those pigeons didn't deliver because they got eaten by soldiers?
I suppose it was a serious offence but the temptation must have been there. |
I was involved in a production of Journey's End a few years ago and it inspired me to do a lot of reading about WW1.
I highly reccomend the Lyn MacDonald books.
A lot of the soldiers in the trenches actually put on weight because they were eating better than they had been at home, more regularly too.
Although I know in the film that they are portrayed as being extremely hungry. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 23:19 - Jan 18 with 2587 views | BlueNomad |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:37 - Jan 18 by Oxford_Blue |
How on earth would an airplane get a message hand delivered to a commanding officer in the middle of a battle? And the film makes it clear the colonel wanted to fight. He almost ignored the hand delivered message. He would have certainly delivered the plane-dropped message even if it could have managed to drop a message on a trench in the middle of a battle and find one man in 1,600 |
I think you will find messages dropped in a bag would be passed up the chain of command don’t you? And there was no battle at that point. The Germans had withdrawn remember?
By the way: it is aeroplane in English, not the Americanism. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 23:23]
| | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 23:21 - Jan 18 with 2584 views | jeera |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:48 - Jan 18 by Coastalblue |
I was involved in a production of Journey's End a few years ago and it inspired me to do a lot of reading about WW1.
I highly reccomend the Lyn MacDonald books.
A lot of the soldiers in the trenches actually put on weight because they were eating better than they had been at home, more regularly too.
Although I know in the film that they are portrayed as being extremely hungry. |
I haven't seen that yet. Didn't realise you were involved in the industry chap.
I shall try to give that [Journey's End] a look the next few days. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 00:48 - Jan 19 with 2493 views | Guthrum |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:06 - Jan 18 by BlueNomad |
Talking of far fetched:
Why not use an aircraft to drop the message? Would have saved walking and made the film shorter.
The western front consisted of opposing trenches. Why cut across to the Devons rather than just send someone round from the back of ours?
The enemy held village was just over a 25 yard canal from where the convoy drove past. Not a shot fired. |
Runners were how messages were passed around the battlefield. Most reliable way of doing it. Telephone wires were often cut by shellfire, both that and radio could be intercepted.
Navigating an aircraft to a precise location on a battlefield where most landmarks have been battered into a uniform mush is not that easy. Plus troops are camouflaged and hiding in holes, even if you know their position accurately (they often didn't during a major action). You can't identify units from the air. That's without the risk of being shot down by enemy 'planes or ground fire.
As an illustration, Passendale village before (above) and after (below) bombardment:
 |  |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 00:51 - Jan 19 with 2478 views | Guthrum |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 21:41 - Jan 18 by jeera |
Speckled Jim eh?
I wonder how many of those pigeons didn't deliver because they got eaten by soldiers?
I suppose it was a serious offence but the temptation must have been there. |
Not many. Rations may have consisted of excessive quantities of plum and apple jam, but they were reasonably plentiful most of the time (if not always hot food at the front). | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 00:58 - Jan 19 with 2470 views | jeera |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 00:51 - Jan 19 by Guthrum |
Not many. Rations may have consisted of excessive quantities of plum and apple jam, but they were reasonably plentiful most of the time (if not always hot food at the front). |
I should think plum and apple jam would go nicely with pigeon as it goes. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 06:53 - Jan 19 with 2382 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 23:19 - Jan 18 by BlueNomad |
I think you will find messages dropped in a bag would be passed up the chain of command don’t you? And there was no battle at that point. The Germans had withdrawn remember?
By the way: it is aeroplane in English, not the Americanism. [Post edited 18 Jan 2020 23:23]
|
Don’t you think that if your suggestion was viable, it would have been used in the war by the people who knew about it? I doubt the practicability of landing a small parcel with a message in the right place in the middle of a battle, at 100mph+ from hundreds or thousands of feet and working out where to do it in a featureless environment where you wouldn’t know where the commanding officer was based. It was confusion and chaos.
And how do you know they hadn’t tried that already in the film?
Anyway, the idea of a hand delivered message is within a reasonable band of options for it work. Runners were used.
And the film is drama. You know, it is possible to accept plot ideas and so on that make the thing work. [Post edited 19 Jan 2020 6:57]
| | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 06:55 - Jan 19 with 2380 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 00:48 - Jan 19 by Guthrum |
Runners were how messages were passed around the battlefield. Most reliable way of doing it. Telephone wires were often cut by shellfire, both that and radio could be intercepted.
Navigating an aircraft to a precise location on a battlefield where most landmarks have been battered into a uniform mush is not that easy. Plus troops are camouflaged and hiding in holes, even if you know their position accurately (they often didn't during a major action). You can't identify units from the air. That's without the risk of being shot down by enemy 'planes or ground fire.
As an illustration, Passendale village before (above) and after (below) bombardment:
|
Exactly.
The other poster seems to think that it was like call of duty where you just reload each time and do it again.
Dropping a message from height and speed on a small target was extremely difficult. | | | |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 08:03 - Jan 19 with 2337 views | Coastalblue |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 23:21 - Jan 18 by jeera |
I haven't seen that yet. Didn't realise you were involved in the industry chap.
I shall try to give that [Journey's End] a look the next few days. |
I'm not, wouldn't want to mislead anybody, it was a stage production I was involved in. I've not seen the recent film either tbh, I should watch it too I think it's on one of the streaming services. | |
| |
| Went to see 1917 earlier on 10:13 - Jan 19 with 2265 views | Hciwspi |
Wife and I saw it last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it, and my wife thought it was very tense due to the illusion of it being one continuous shot. [Post edited 19 Jan 2020 23:08]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
