‘1917’ Review: Paths of Technical Glory

$100 million for a 2 hour movie about two young guys, running a literal war zone minefield, to deliver a message...during WWI?? Where have I seen this plot before?....hmmm....Saving Private Ryan??....but with less CGI, and more storyline?? Seen this plotline way too many times already. No thanks.

In my opinion, and as an Army vet, as much as I enjoy good movies and series about combat and war, such as Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Generation War, etc. They Shall Not Grow Old set the mark for me. Real footage and a grunt’s perspective from the trenches.

Who were the good guys and heroes in World War I? As the United Kingdom dissolves into Brexit, the sun never sets on the great myths of the British past. World War II wasn't enough nostalgia. Now it is World War I. My great uncle fought in The Great War aka World War I while black African American from South Carolina. He was a blacksmith by trade. And his talents were used for taking care of the needs of horses. Because the white supremacist nationalist prejudiced right-wing bigot son of the Confederate Virginia Thomas Woodrow Wilson didn't recognize him as a divinely naturally created equal person with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he was mostly loaned out to the France. Wilson glorified the white supremacist propaganda of ' The Birth of a Nation' while making Jim Crow official federal government policy and practice. The historically greatest generations of Americans have always been the black Africans who fought for a nation that denied their humanity during their enslavement and their separate and unequal American status thereafter. While France and Great Britain exploited their African colonial empires for human blood and natural resources treasure to fight in The Great War.

"1917" is the Best Film of the year. It will win many awards, and deserves all of them. It is a harrowing, upsetting depiction of warfare that is made all the more immediate through the use of a single camera lens, a feat that awakens a generation numbed to violence from school shootings to "Star Wars," "Transformers," and "The Joker." The level of effort that went into the creation of this artwork is astounding. Author/Director Sam Mendes has reinvented the War Picture. It's a _Thriller,_ a film that has more in common with Hitchcock than with, say, "Sink The Bismarck," a fact that Ms. Dargis fails to mention. I'm an author with three books currently in print. Each time I deliver a new work of art into the universe, I lead with my chin, hoping that my work will find acceptance and appreciation. "1917" has a far-higher profile than any creation I've tackled. If I were Sam Mendes and read the crucifixion of my artistry by the gleeful NYT reviewer ("an exercise in preening showmanship"), I might never get out of bed! What thrill does Ms. Dargis get from demeaning one of our most accomplished filmmakers (whose name will land on the shortlist for a Tony Award as well as an Oscar in the coming weeks)? When she can no longer appreciate artistry, she needs a different job. This is the moment to quote the late, great Mike Nichols: "Reviewers are eunuchs at an orgy - to be ignored at all times!"

If you were looking for the cuts, your review was already written.

Smug, sterile, film making. As tedious as Nolan's Dunkirk.

Got to see a sneak preview of 1917. It is breathtakingly riveting. Blake's over-the-shoulder-banter leading Schofield through the trenches in the opening long shot is honestly amazing and a perfect foil for what's to come. Minds greater than mine can rip this movie but I say go see it on the big screen and then let me know what you think.

My feeling was that this would be another loud, boring war film like "Dunkirk." Apparently I was right. Technical expertise and special effects is no substitute for a plausible story line, good writing, and an understanding of the actual conditions of the time.

For those interested in more movies focusing on WWI, 'A Very Long Engagement' is a great and more recent film if you are okay with reading subtitles (or speak French).

I agree with Helen. I didn't fully grasp the enormity of WWI until I hitchhiked through Europe in 1969 and saw the lists of the fallen in every town, large and small, much longer than WWII, which I was more familiar with. Also countless amputees, both middle-aged and elderly. I realized that peace must not be taken for granted.

I’m still not convinced who are the bad guys and who are the good guys in WWI. The more I research it the more confused I get.

An essential companion to any movie that attempts to depict the tragedy of World War I is Paul Fussell's extraordinary "The Great War and Modern Memory." It documents how the futility and resulting carnage of trench warfare forever shattered traditional ideals of honor and glory and forced artists to find new ways to describe the indescribable.

I welcome this movie which helps to correct the imbalance between WWI and WWII movies. Other than that, it really looks like the critic is looking hard for a reason to... criticize. Everybody uses special effects these days: do they make Titanic less of a great movie? and what's wrong with one-shot? The Russian Ark was immemorable. That being said, I agree that the video games feeling can destroy the best movies. USS Indianapolis was a pathetic example of it.

I always liked the 1941 "Seargent York", starring Gary Cooper. A great piece of propaganda, but essentially true, about WWI hero Alvin York, a rabble-rousing hillbilly, farmer, and marksman in Tennessee who finds religion only to be drafted into WWI. York registers as a conscientious objector but the army, witnessing his astounding skill with a rifle sends him home for a couple of weeks to think it over. The famous scene with York, his gun, his dog and his Bible on a ridge, as he looks for a sign, is memorable.

It was another film about WW1 that brought this then lad to his senses about war. It was “Oh What a Lovely War”, 50 years ago. Adapted from and filmed as a musical, my recollection of it these decades later is strong. My recollection is not necessarily the plot, or scenes, but rather how it affected my view on war. Up until then, it was still the viewpoint of a boy, barley removed in age from playing Army with sticks and stuff like that. Somehow, this film solidified my changing views, a maturation to its realities, all within the course of its running. I don’t recollect gore, death or dismemberment in its scenes. It was its presentation of it in a farcical way that was more effective at that time. We were already witnessing enough gore and death on the nightly news as Vietnam raged on. Despite the apparently not so favorable review, I’ll go out and see this film.

I’m glad that World War 1 is finally getting the attention it deserves. The absolute carnage and horror has all too often been ignored in favor of World War 2 hero stories. I’d recommend reading Wilfred Owen’ poems, written from the trenches in France I first read them as a teenager; when ever I feel sorry for myself, I open the book of his poems and re read them. They put everything into perspective.

Interesting to see how this goes over with the young, many of whom believe that time began on that miraculous day they were born. To really understand the 20th century you have to begin with the Great War.

One movie I decided on not watching this year. I've had it with Brits and their endless do-overs of WW1 and WW2. We got the message; you were amazing and saved the world by being behind enough water to keep the Germans out.

Hitchcock's film, Rope, also mimicked a single take (it too had hidden cuts). But the purpose was clear, to enhance the claustrophobia as the net closed around the protagonists. The same may be said for Russian Ark, a one take pursuit of history through the passageways and galleries of the Hermitage. The fluidity of the shot was like unstoppable time as it made history with inhabitants of the building. Robert Altman spoofs the long take with, what else, a long take at the beginning of The Player. But I just don't see the connection between technique and meaning in 1917.

Oh great. Yet another pat on the back movie shot WW1 or WW2. After all it's the only two wars the allies have fought in where they were arguably at zero fault. Given it's history, I find the movies from a British perspective especially hollow. I'll pass.

Verdun is a short right turn when heading towards Paris from Germany as one passes Metz, France. The monuments to the dead are so historical and in some ways calming in the setting of the French countryside where ten of thousands died. Like the American cemetery at Normandy, those at Verdun or Somme are equally powerful. Also visited the front in Korbaid, Slovenia where Hemingway as a young ambulance driver was wounded and later wrote Farewell to Arms. I only wish leaders would visit these historical places as a reminder of war is like..for many who talk tough have never endured a wartime experience. (And lastly) for those who wonder what the "AA" is on the left shoulder sleeve of trooprs from the 82nd..it means "All American"..the only division from the US which was all American Soldiers, whereas other brigades and such were attached to allied divisions. Airborne..All the Way!

what a cranky review! There was too much press in advance about the film's attempt to appear as if shot in one 'take' and perhaps you were paying far too much attention to the technical difficulties involved rather than allowing yourself to be caught up in a terrific, and terrifically moving story. Your loss, I fear.

Brilliant review! It's 'A Boy's Own Adventure' with technical histrionics that lack any real emotional depth. One day there will be an Oscar for longest tracking shot in a trench. And Mendes unashamedly (and not as moving) appropriated the last scene of Paths of Glory where 'The Faithful Hussar' is sung to French soldiers by a German woman.

I think you will probably want to revisit this review one day. I think it is a great movie.

“The Crimson Field” is a miniseries that ran earlier this year on PBS. It’s about a casualty clearing station so you don’t see battles but, instead, the aftermath when female nurses in ankle length skirts have to deal with man’s inhumanity to man.

"[D]emonstrative self-reflexivity". Seriously? And then dare to speak of "grandstanding" in the same breath?

You wanna see a WWI movie in all its 'glory'? Go see 'They Shall Not Grow Old'. Amazing and frightening...

Wasn't this plot already done in the movie, "Gallipoli"? That movie is a masterpiece and does not rely on massive CGI to give its gruesome cautionary tale.

This movie very moving— in an action movie way, and a moving way. But the review was a a little harsh, in that while historical background (for a horrific and stupidly avoidable war) is missing, there is real drama and suspense. But, with the exception of “All’s Quiet,” the best WW1 films have localized. Think “Paths of Glory “ and “The Dawn Patrol.” I think the “big context” issue for a conflict like this is shown through these characters. What they encountered is spot on in terms context.

Making a movie about World War One without anyone getting blown to pieces is quite extraordinary. Perhaps it is worth it just so people know more about the war. But it’s not representative, is it?

Sounds like the end of Gallipoli without the preceding 1.5 hours of character development and buildup.

While it was a very impressive movie, I agree that it did feel like a video game. The production crew should definitely receive some accolades. This however is not how our memories work, they are fragments with highlights of the best and worst. Small stories played out in our heads. Jokes told in a certain cadence. The rest is just filler, ready to be forgotten. Stories should be told in the same way, the editor having just as much say as the director as what makes it to the screen and what falls to the floor.

Though I do admire the work of Sam Mendes, I have to agree with this review. I found that the longer the movie went on, the more it reminded me of a video game. Nameless, faceless antagonists, with exceptionally bad aim, rush out from every nook and cranny, as our heroes run from one brief set up to another. Even one of these incredible situations would have been more than enough, but the filmmakers seem compelled to throw as many at us as will fit the allotted time.

Saving Private Ryan it ain’t. Too bad.

I have to wonder if there is an essential problem in depicting wars that happened far enough in the past that the pain is no longer personal. Nobody alive has a a friend or relative lost or permanently maimed in WWI so there are fewer brakes on using the conflict as a set piece for an adventure tale.

“…than in the human costs of war or the attendant subjects — sacrifice, patriotism and so on…” I didn’t know there were rules about what needs to be in a war picture. Thanks for clarifying. I’m looking forward to the “1917” movie you’ll be making as a corrective.