1917

[buddyhu]

I didn’t like the film. It was a little bit too far-fetched, going from one crisis to another, one heart tug to another. A bit too much like an Indiana Jones movie, and some of the elements definitely seemed like imitations of scenes from Indiana Jones.

Also thought they overused the music track....good acting deserves space, should have its own effect; saturating most of the dramatic moments with a prominent movie track may seem more “immersive” to some, but I found it to be a distraction a good portion of the time.

I guess I am in the minority here. However, none of the other three people that I went with could understand why it has gotten such acclaim either.

[Wade Hampton]

I liked "1917" a lot, as well.

Rich, I think it's one of the those movies that you either really like or don't like at all. A couple of summers ago I enjoyed "Dunkirk," and while most people who joined the thread I started about it liked the movie, too, there was also a contingent of folks who just flat disliked it and made no bones about it. It's the same thing as we have here.

No harm, no foul.


whm

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I liked "1917" a lot, as well.

Rich, I think it's one of the those movies that you either really like or don't like at all. A couple of summers ago I enjoyed "Dunkirk," and while most people who joined the thread I started about it liked the movie, too, there was also a contingent of folks who just flat disliked it and made no bones about it. It's the same thing as we have here.

No harm, no foul.


whm

I liked Dunkirk but felt that it didn’t allow the viewer to get to know the characters. As a pilot, I was bothered by the extent to which the glide capability of the Spitfire was exaggerated. Still, I enjoyed it and was glad I saw it in a theater. In other words, it was worth the price of a ticket plus the cost of popcorn and a Coke as opposed to the price of watching it on TV.

I think, overall, 1917 was a more satisfying movie for me.

[Silly Moustache]

I will no longer go to the large commercial cinemas with the stinky junk food eaters and phone zombies. We go to a small private cinema where you can sit quietly with the other grey haired old shufflers quietly sipping a Sauvignon blanc, but when I popped in to book my ticket (Nanny Jane dos.t want to see it) the auditorium (maybe 100 seats) was nearly fuill so Henry (the chap who runs it assured me that after the BAFTAs (or whatever) it would be returning.

I have long been interested in WW1, and 1917 is of special interest to me as it was when my grandfather was decapitated by the first German raid on London using aeroplanes rather than dirigibles. (13/6/17).

It was also the worst year for the Royal Flying Corps - hence "Bloody April"

[rokdog49]

We can go to the matinees on Sunday afternoons in the nice newly remodeled “commercial” theaters with ultra-comfortable seats for the senior’s discounted tickets.
Generally at least in our experience, there are none of those “stinky junk food eaters“ and “phone zombies”

Must be a British thing.

[TJE"]

It's a great film. But many would need a strong stomach, because some sequences show what must have been the horror of 'No Man's' land,between the trenches, with rotting corpses and the consequent vermin.

[rjathon]

1917 is a decent film but “Beneath Hill 60” is, imho, a much better WWI movie. It is based on a true and spectacular story.

If you like 1917 you will love Beneath Hill 60.

Russ