Didn't see it in theaters, but when I finally saw it, I thought it was meh.

The making of and behind the scenes rabbit holes on youtube and elsewhere were truly fascinating to me. Some really cool stuff about the timing (choreography as it were), planning, the one jump cut, and a few accidents they decided to keep in the film because of $. I've probably watched 10 or 15 and absolutely enjoyed them.

Very overrated, an incredible achievement in film making....but very meh movie overall

The Dunkirk comparison is appropriate. Like Dunkirk, 1917 was a great theater movie to watch, but also like Dunkirk, it just didn't work as well on the TV screen. Still, I thought both were among the best movies of the years during which they were released.

I thought it was a good movie other than the soundtrack, which was irritating and monotonous.

It's an amazing movie, but after seeing it that first time in the theater, I feel that the movie would have been better if it had been done as a series of long takes rather than just the two.

It was a nice "gimmick" but I think it was relied on too much.

Still a great film.

didn't see it in theater, only on 65inch screen at home,, enjoyed it for what it was, including the uniqueness of the "single" shot. otherwise relatively forgettable, i'd put it in category of 'watch it every 5-10 years'

I agree that WWII is a far easier history to understand to the typical audience member. WWI has so much more intricacy to it - what caused it to start, who the combatants were and the connections between ally groups, etc - but in a story such as 1917, it wasn't really interested in the origins of the war. It was easy enough to ascertain the British and the Germans, and I believe even a general understanding of the history allows one to know they were opposing forces.

I'd love to see a series that explores deep into the history of WWI, something akin to Band of Brothers or The Pacific.

Really impressive in the theater. Can't really compare it to anything else. Nowhere near my favorite war film but it was still good.

Not sure how it'd do watching on the tv at home.

I desperately want a Saving Private Ryan version of WW1. It was such a brutal war, but I feel like it's been forgotten or ignored. I don't even recall learning about it in high school or college history classes. It's like 1870-1930 didn't exist.

If you haven't already, go watch the Canadian WW1 film Passchendaele.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

I desperately want a Saving Private Ryan version of WW1. It was such a brutal war, but I feel like it's been forgotten or ignored. I don't even recall learning about it in high school or college history classes. It's like 1870-1930 didn't exist.

---

I agree with this. I bet there is a bit more understanding of WWI in Europe.

One of my biggest pet peeves with others is ignorance of history. I feel like for so many Americans, if you put this timeline on a piece of paper and asked them to write about it, they wouldn't know what to do hardly. Some would know nothing, others could bookend it with the Civil War and WWII.

1860 - 1945

This is off topic, but do y'all think Americans are generally poor with history because we have such a short country history to begin with? May be fuel for a History board post.

1917 was a good film. No doubt about that. But I bought into the hype and allowed myself to be let down. It was good and I sure as **** can respect the technical aspects but as just pure entertainment, it was just good to me. And not even excited good. I am also positive it was a one and done for me. I doubt I will ever seek to watch it again of my own volition.

Was better than Dunkirk though by a comfortable margin.

Chipotlemonger said:

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

I desperately want a Saving Private Ryan version of WW1. It was such a brutal war, but I feel like it's been forgotten or ignored. I don't even recall learning about it in high school or college history classes. It's like 1870-1930 didn't exist.

---

I agree with this. I bet there is a bit more understanding of WWI in Europe.

One of my biggest pet peeves with others is ignorance of history. I feel like for so many Americans, if you put this timeline on a piece of paper and asked them to write about it, they wouldn't know what to do hardly. Some would know nothing, others could bookend it with the Civil War and WWII.

1860 - 1945

This is off topic, but do y'all think Americans are generally poor with history because we have such a short country history to begin with? May be fuel for a History board post.

---

I don't know enough about the historical knowledge of the average person in other countries to be 100% confident in asserting that we know less about history on average. The only foreigners I ever see talking about history are professional historians.

If I had to posit a theory, it would go something like:

1. it's been a lot longer since we had a war fought on our soil, so it's less immediate

2. As countries go, our national myth certainly has a historical element, but I think it has a much bigger emphasis on what we are now and where we are going. We are a superpower right now, almost everyone else has to look back to find their zenith.

3. There is a lot of critical focus on parsing the actions of our national heroes. All of our national heroes come from a time with copious documentation, and many of them from the age of slavery. Most everyone in the 20th century on is viewed pretty ambivalently, probably because we've never really had put backs to the wall. Almost impossible to romanticize our past.

4. Ancient history is way cooler than modern history, and we have a lot less physical evidence of ancient history. People in hundreds of cities around the world walk past buildings every day that were built before Columbus set sail. We have a few mounds and outlines of native american settlements along the Mississippi, but anyone in Europe can visit the Pantheon, Parthenon, Stonehenge, or Hagia Sophia tomorrow.

Very interesting comments on your part.

Quote:

---

3. There is a lot of critical focus on parsing the actions of our national heroes. All of our national heroes come from a time with copious documentation, and many of them from the age of slavery. Most everyone in the 20th century on is viewed pretty ambivalently...

---

Would be interested on you expounding on your comments. Seems we in the USA have acknowledged many military members as war heroes, from Audie Murphy to many many Generals/Admirals.

h1ag said:

---

I think it suffers from the fact that you kind of have to know how the sausage is made to fully appreciate it. "One" long shot across the whole film is remarkable, but that can only go so far if the story isn't compelling. That said, I did like the story, but I could be convinced it was a pretty run of the mill war movie outside of the cinematography.

---

Isn't that part of what makes a film great though? Take any great movie and shoot it poorly and it's not going to be as good. As mentioned the idea of a single take is part of the story as well, continuously following that character's journey through this world.

That being said I think 1917 was a great theater experience kind of film and really good overall, but I can totally see it not holding up as well on the small screen.

jeffk said:

---

If you haven't already, go watch the Canadian WW1 film Passchendaele.

---

Great film.

Hey Nav said:

---

Very interesting comments on your part.

Quote:

---

3. There is a lot of critical focus on parsing the actions of our national heroes. All of our national heroes come from a time with copious documentation, and many of them from the age of slavery. Most everyone in the 20th century on is viewed pretty ambivalently...

---

Would be interested on you expounding on your comments. Seems we in the USA have acknowledged many military members as war heroes, from Audie Murphy to many many Generals/Admirals.

---

There is probably a generational difference. People educated in the 90s on likely have a pretty different experience.

Trying not to get too political, but I think there has been a broad push (not always coordinated, but still broad) to replace military heroes with political ones. I don't think Audie Murphy was mentioned in my formal education, for example. Military success is kind of icky now, even in a "good" conflict like WWII.

The Civil War would probably have generated more national heroes, except that the underdog with all the best generals was the south / "bad guys". The north won because of a massive advantage in population and industrial base, and that isn't a story that grabs people.

Modern political figures, especially some of the controversial ones, are not all that inspiring. Kids don't get excited about lists of legislation passed. We don't really have mythologized figures like Richard Lion Heart, Zheng He, El Cid, Pericles, Frederick, Napoleon, or Musashi. The images presented to students of our biggest "romantic" heroes have been endlessly inspected and revised; in the interests of presenting both sides, every flaw is magnified. Not saying it's wrong, just not as effective at inculcating a passion for history in the average person.