Generally, war movies leave me cold. As someone interested in WWI, this trailer one leaves me even colder. No mud, no rain, no massive bombardments, no poison gas, no slit trenches, no bodies littering the landscape, one could go on and on. This is why I dislike war movies. They are usually about a war that does not exist. If wars were like Hollywood movies there would be more of them. Movies like this trailer inspire terrorists.
4
I've only seen "The Irishman" but it's magnificent.
An elegiac look back at the mob life of one of Hoffa's underlings whose main job is to bump people off.
Unlike Scorsese's earlier movies, which had glamor and punch, this moves slowly and mournfully in spite of all the car bombs and murders.
There's a constant sense of darkness, regret and coldness.
Betrayal, loneliness and mortality circling.
Great work by all the actors, especially Joe Pesci.
I thought several times while watching it that I doubt Scorsese meant there to be a message here but I couldn't help thinking that we watching a rewind of all the violence and corruption in our government and institutions going back decades. Scorsese appears to view all this with deep sadness. Perhaps there is a nod to the gross state of the current presidency that made it urgent for Scorsese to make this film now.
2
It’s amazing to me how many people can’t wait to jump in to criticize/review a movie they haven’t even seen! It’s not as good as Gallipoli! Not as good as “Parasite”! “Parasite” is overrated! It’s just “Saving Private Ryan” all over again! No, it’s as shallow as “Pearl Harbor”! Trenches weren’t like that! John Wayne isn’t in it! (Okay, nobody actually said that...)
5
No film should be able to co-opt the title "1917" that is not focused on the despicable decision of Woodrow Wilson to cajole Congress into thrusting the US into a war not of our making nor in our national interest, after running for re-election in 2016 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War".
Furthermore, any discussion of WWI that doesn't mention that the localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary metastasized into a World War solely because of a series of "mutual defense agreements" along the lines of NATO can only be interpreted as either historically ignorant or so full of Never-Trumpism as to endorse such alliances. (I voted against Trump).
1
Simmer down, Charlie, as Alfred Hitchcock said, it’s only a movie...
14
@Charles
Oh please, another comment from the peanut gallery about a movie that was not made instead of the film that was made.
It doesn't make 1917 a lesser movie because it is not the film you think should have been made. Go see it.
5
Though “1917” recalls other Oscar-winning war movies like “Saving Private Ryan” and “Dunkirk."
Methinks somebody also saw "Gallipoli." Maybe 2 or 3x, like I did.
"Run, yes, on foot, this message to the officer in the trenches to stop the suicide assault; one second too late, they -including your bff- are dead! Run, run, run!!!"
May be quite derivative of all 3 films (esp. the Peter Weir masterpiece, which may have a plagiarism case; time to fetch your Harold Bloom "Anxiety of Influence" book!), but still looks like an amazing movie experience. But unlikely to score tons of points for originality, unless it successfully distinguishes from predecessors beyond the ways indicated in the review.
6
From the preview, this looks like another Pearl Harbor - visually stunning but a lame and cliched story. And an attempt to redo Saving Private Ryan but with a far less plausible pretense.
Yes, incredibly similar to Gallipoli, by Peter Weir. (WWI soldier running through trenches and battlefield to convey messages that will spare a battalion -including a loved one- from a suicide assualt.)
9
The premise of the film (as here described) reminds me of the film "Gallipoli" with Mel Gibson.
6
@fox Exactly, nearly identical, at least with respect to the ending. And THAT was a great film!
2
Sorry Fox! Didn't see your message about the similarity to Gallipoli before posting my comment, making mine redundant! (Wonder if it's the same with Mr. Mendes!)
4
Art should not be a contest.
12
Sounds like a movie worth seeing. But how can you talk about one take movies and not mention "Russian Ark?"
13
I agree that that was Russian Ark's big achievement, but the response might be that Dunkirk, with its lengthy extended take featuring hundreds of characters precisely choreographed to achieve maximum verisimultude became the "Russian Ark" of war movies, making that the comparison reference on this type of filmmaking. That huge beach sequence is its whole raison d'etre making it a notable film and quite significant achievement. As the author notes here, 1917 builds on these two beach warfare tours de force. But Russian Ark definitely paved he way for this.
Speaking of hommage and influence, I just saw on Netflix the beginning of The Irishman. Any non-Scorcese contender will have a steep climb. In any case, the opening of the Irishman recapitulates the long take technique in Goodfellas' most famous scene, when the 2 leads walk through the innards of a nightclub's "backstage" environment. "Irishman" opens with a similar treatment of a nursing home, letting the various layers of the institution's physical environment gently unfold in one beautifully paced long take, giving you that "being there" sensation, gloriously building up to introduction of the aged Robert Deniro character. From the first scene, looks to be a major masterpiece, masterfully executed in every way.
3
oops. "These two beach warfare tours de force" refers not to "Russian Ark" and "Dunkirk," but, of course, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Dunkirk." It's interesting how both war films' amazing depictions of war in a beach environment so overshadows the rest of those films, making them seem (probably are) like the films as a whole were just cooked up to give us those beach scenes. Both films were either totally cliche ridden of otherwise just totally forgettable except for how they portrayed war at a waterfront.
1
Skip the movie, read the book.
“Death’s Men” by Denis Winter.
8
I can’t speak to 1917, but the best picture of the year has to be Parasite. It was a stunning, groundbreaking production that words can’t describe. Joker is a close second for much of the same reasons. Once Upon A Time in... Hollywood was also a great time, and Leo should pick up Best Actor.
2
Parasite is so overrated. It is quite original, but it turns into a horror film.
2
Trenches had vertical, hand-dug, walls, not gradual slopes as shown in the picture. They were as narrow as possible to minimize the chance that a grenade or mortar round would land in the trench, with catastrophic results.
No one was going to stand up like the fool in the picture, without helmet, weapon or even backpack.
25
@Jonathan Katz All quite true. If this is any indication of the quality of the historical research put into this movie the producers may be challenged to distinguish WWI from the War of the Roses.
6
@Jonathan Katz Sometimes directors are looking for an emotionally accurate mis-en-scene and not historically accurate.
6
And those uniforms, packs and shoes are way too fresh and clean.
7