1917

Brutális kamera exhibíció, fantasztikus díszletekkel, lüktető ritmussal és filmimádó részletekkel (a legjobban Mark Strong megjelenésének örültem). Érvényes az első felére. A másodikban kevésbé érthető dolgok történnek, és az egészből egy elkerülhetetlen lépés lesz a sztori befejezése felé. A cselekményben semmi meglepő nincs, csak megerősíti a téma túlzott egyszerűségét és átláthatóságát, amely közhelyes gondolati szimbólumokra épül (áldozat egy magasabb cél érdekében, tej (nem forralt??) gyermek számára). Attól a filozófiától, amelyet színlel, messze van. De a látvány tényleg szuper volt. Még a komfortzónából kilépő Thomas Newman is élvezetes volt. A mozin kívül bárhol máshol megnézni a filmet baromság lenne. Mint minap a Gravitáció. (2020.03.09)

The cinematography was worked out to a monomaniacal degree of detail (all those trenches strewn with corpses, barbed wire and razed, burning cities), the mise-en-scene is composed masterfully and the special effects are fantastic but don’t seek to draw attention to themselves, nor are they in the audience’s face. In short, I’ve never before seen such production values in any film whose subject is World War I. And then there’s Mendes’s sheer virtuosity, captivating camera equilibristics, and (from the meeting with the young French woman) the requisite rush of emotions. I consider it a sad error in judgment on the part of the Academy that it preferred the shallow Parasite over this masterpiece. (2020.03.21)

I think that Sam Mendes was aiming for the Oscar here, I don’t know why there aren’t more films about the First World War, but it’s probably because most of the time the soldiers were battling boredom in the trenches rather thanfighting for territory on the ground. Sam Mendes, however, went a bit too far here, replacing filmmaking with an attempt at absolute realism. The illusion that everything is a single long shot makes the scenes look remarkably surreal. It all starts with the crash of a German plane into a dilapidated barn, continues with ruins of the town illuminated by flares and ends directly in the trenches, a few seconds before running into the turmoil ofbattle. I was bating my breath, fascinated by the fabricated scenes, and enjoyed one of the best war films made in the last few years. The trio of good old British actors (Firth, Cumberbatch, Strong) is the icing on the cake, which will draw you into the depicted events of the war and remind you that it is “only” a film. (2020.02.17)

1917 will be talked about as the war film that was shot in one take. Which it isn't, but we all know that, and I don't feel like anyone should mind. However, it would be a big mistake to just look at it as a technically perfect film where Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins fool around with the camera. The latter is, of course, amazing; 1917 looks like a computer game, with the camera managing to pan around the characters during dialogue, crawling along with them across the battlefield with cameraman looking for the craziest but still functional angles from which to capture everything. But the main star here is still Mendes as the narrator, who manages to get under the skin of both the characters and the audience in that "one shot". Initially, cold and distant, and like one of the soldiers, he treats the whole mission as just an order to be carried out, hoping to survive. Gradually, however, he begins to acknowledge the importance of the mission and very powerful and emotional scenes subtly, but eventually very intensely, surface. And for example the whole passage in the burning village or the very end are incredibly powerful moments. The film doesn't just look great. It's great throughout. (2020.02.18)

The first third is so packed with energy and drive that the last time I remember watching something like this was the last Mad Max. It pushes you forward, one idea alternates with another idea, you don't know whether to admire the technical aspecte, the mise-en-scène or the content, which never falls short...and is inevitably followed by a fall into the darkness. As much as the technical mastery remains, the more the film progresses, the more it turns into a variation on Come and See; the more reserved it becomes, despite the “one-shot integrity", the more episodic it is. Eventually, it completely falls apart into a jumble of scenes; sometimes unusually impressive, sometimes already seen, sometimes rather repetitive. Having slightly more or less scenes doesn’t really matter. The path (physical and internal) of the hero and the viewer would be quite the same. It's not bad or boring, not for a second. Only it's never as good as it was at the beginning. Which might be a problem for a movie intended to provide an exhilarating experience. So, it's not exactly a matter of form over content, but it's dangerously close to that. No doubt about it. However, given the very high level of the form, that wouldn't be anything negative. (2020.02.17)

Sam Mendes delivers a nerve-wracking wartime experience that will annoy action fans, as there are no big battles, and I take two points off for that as well, but otherwise it’s a flawless and excellent work in every way, and a lot of the credit goes to Roger Deakins, because the cinematographer is simply a genius. The film is shot in one take and so authentically that you feel like you are among the soldiers and experiencing the horrors of war with them. 1917 is basically a war road movie drama where you travel from A to B and even though nothing much actually happens, it has a gripping atmosphere, believable actors, awesome music and about three suspenseful, climactic scenes where I, a horror fan, wish Sam Mendes would make a horror movie next time. The intense finale ends up being highly emotional and had just about everyone with a heart in the theater rubbing their nose, so have tissues at hand. A nice experience, a must see at IMAX, and if Mendes had pushed the envelope a bt more and served up a proper war cry, this would be a clear contender for film of the year. (2020.01.10)

From start to finish, a formally perfect spectacle where I marvel at how much work went into each shot and how many trenches had to be dug for each scene. However, the captivating visuals are where it ends. The heart-wrenching journey did not captivate me even for a moment, the narrative style forces me to reminisce about many genre predecessors, and in the end I only see the most clichéd war story, which it fundamentally is. (2020.02.06)

Visually, I really liked it a lot. The cinematography perfectly heightened the tension and brought the viewer all the natural beauty, the ugliness of war, and the fear and harshness of the time. As for the story itself, it looked promising, but I wasn't such a fan towards the end. Still, I'm satisfied, if only because I had Colin Firth there for a while, whose involvement escaped me, and whom I might not have recognized without the sound. But because I'm a sucker for his voice and English, he gave himself away right away. In fairness, my rating may be a little skewed by the joy of finally going to the cinema again after more than a quarter of a year, but the film deserves 4 stars from me. (2020.05.25)

This film is a typical representative of so-called experiential cinema. It relies on perfect technical execution, grand spectacle, and the backdrop of a large studio. It is directly predestined for the big screen, where the perfect image will fully excel. The most impressive part is the first third, which is also in line with the concept of trench warfare as we know it. However, as a whole, the film definitely lacks authenticity. It is simply an adventurous mission that was created in the imagination of its creators and has nothing to do with the reality of the battles of 1917. A similar story could purely hypothetically take place at the very beginning or end of the war, but certainly not during the time when the armies were firmly confined to trenches and shelters due to the enemy's firepower. The structure of the film resembles computer games where the hero progresses and completes individual tasks. It is definitely worth seeing, even though it does not make sense to ponder the meaningfulness of the combat mission (perhaps Napoleon more than a hundred years ago could have instructed his units in a faster and more efficient way). The performances and visual aspects are the reasons why you should watch 1917. Overall impression: 75%. (2021.01.03)

Visually perfect. Deakins outdid himself again. Director/screenwriter/producer Mendes, who put together tales told by his grandfather and built a story around them, put his heart into 1917. The technical precision and illusion of one continuous shot make the whole movie an unbelievably intense experience that showed me that the topic of war still has something to say to the modern audience. But the movie does not fail to present a deeply human story, the most moving scene of which was the reciting of nursery rhymes to babies in a dark cellar somewhere in France. Newman’s music is strong and sometimes chilling. (2020.02.29)

A gauntlet thrown down to all the cinematographers and one of the best films of all time. Similarly to James Cameron's Titanic, Sam Mendes works masterfully with set design and visual effects, which are not "for effect", but subtly create the story (or are an integral part of it) and help to enhance it in key scenes. Breathtaking work with sound and overall amazing cutting-edge filmmaking for lovers of impeccable craftsmanship, who don't necessarily need a very sophisticated story or screenwriting flourishes to satisfy their fantasies – you won’t find that here. But on the other hand, how many filmsshot in one take without editing are there? (2020.03.21)

Two soldiers weave their way through a confusing labyrinth of trenches, poke their heads out, and set off somewhere into the lifeless countryside… And I'm not just following them; no, I'm there with them, that's exactly how I feel when I catch myself instinctively squirming in my seat, trying to see more than the film is currently showing me. Because I'm almost certain there's something or someone lurking over that horizon, and I'm scared. So even though I might find some flaw in 1917, the experience that Mendes, Deakins, and Newman have given me, that experience transcends anything else. The artistry of the film is breathtaking (Gallipolicomes to mind, rather than Saving Private Ryan), and much of that is due to the actors and their extremely authentic emotions and terrified faces. Yet another war film following in the footsteps of Dunkirk, with a classic plot and original portrayal, which I think will soon become a classic. (2020.02.13)

1917 is a showcase of technical ability and cinematography skills, for which it deserves all those Oscars it won. Otherwise, its subject matter is barely enough for a Universal Studios theme park attraction. The scene where one soldier finds shelter with a beautiful French woman was a tired cliché in the 1960s, let alone today. (2021.12.11)

A.k.a. how one military cross-country was filmed to perfection. I specifically highlight the word "filmed" because the alpha and omega of the whole thing is Roger Deakins' fantastic camera, which doesn't flinch from anything. The illusion that this is one continuous drawn-out scene works flawlessly, and I enjoyed the limited personal space of the characters around whom the camera swirled, did somersaults, crawled, never farther than half a meter away. I felt unsettled, now and then apprehensive, as if I were experiencing it myself alongside them. The opening sequence in the trenches in particular is pure stress, while the epic final run is a feast for the eyes. But that’s it for praise from me, because the film is incapable of offering anything more, nor can in this format. It's just and exhibition of cinematic technical craftsmanship where the story is pure grey, there's no room for more varied acting, the script is OK, and the inability to rate the man in the lead in any way worries me to the point of being disturbing. I was left wanting more of a powerful bombshell at the end that would highlighting the importance of the moment and the mission. All of that was sadly lacking for me. A better 3 stars. (2020.02.13)

Shooting a two-hour war film with almost no editing sounds like a big challenge, but Sam Mendes took it on, and the result is 1917. The close-ups make you feel like you are on the battlefield with the main characters, witnessing all the horrors and hardships that await the two soldiers. What adds to the authenticity of the film is the truly realistic setting with trenches, ruins of houses and bunkers that give an unpleasant, almost oppressive feeling. Alongside the not-so-familiar leading actors, 1917 offers a number of familiar faces who, although they mostly only appear in passing, still remain in your memory (Andrew Scott was the most memorable one there for me personally). Even though the film doesn't use almost any editing, it still manages to create great action and suspense, especially during the scenes in the ruins of the city and during the escape across the battlefield. The mammoth score also contributed to the film's gloomy and heavy atmosphere – I sat paralyzed in my seat during the flare scene and didn't even flinch. Although I don't primarily seek out war films, I was definitely very impressed by 1917, certainly more so than with Mendes' previous Jarhead. (2020.02.17)

Well, that was an interesting ride. The storyline certainly had its moments, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, only the Great War was missing. Sure, there were some explosions here and there, a few shots fired, but it all felt a bit disjointed. Machine guns were toted around like accessories, the Germans seemed to disappear from the frame, and the frequent moments of silence left me puzzled. I couldn't quite grasp the significance of the scene with the Frenchwoman and the foundling, although the Albatros crash-landing had me intrigued. Nevertheless, the film's main contribution was its stark portrayal of the absurdity of wartime fervor. / Lesson learned: There is none. Current events serve as stark reminders of that. (2024.04.12)

A weird mix of a video game look, big ambition, and total screenwriting cluelessness. In actuality, 1917 isn't anything particularly riveting, and its much-celebrated "one-shot distinctiveness" ironically hurts it badly. In fact, for the entire 120 minutes the film is painfully the same, which is not even saved by the presence of big names (who have roles only slightly larger than cameos). Connecting more closely to the two main protagonists here is a superhuman task, as their characters are simply futile and unteachable. (2020.05.24)