1917

1917 is a gut-punching cinematographic exhibition with stunning sets, a pulsating rhythm and cinema-loving details (I was most pleased by Mark Strong’s entrance into the scene). All of that is true of the first half. In the second half, less comprehensible things start to happen and the whole thing becomes a forced march towards the story’s conclusion. Nothing else in the plot is surprising, which only confirms the excessive simplicity and transparency of the subject, relying on clichéd symbols (sacrifice for a higher purpose, milk – unboiled?? – given to a child). It is far from the philosophical statement that it pretends to be. But the visuals are truly outstanding, and it was pleasing to see Thomas Newman step out of his comfort zone. It would be wrong to see 1917 anywhere other than at the cinema. Just like Gravity the other day. (09/03/2020)

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. (25/05/2020)

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. (18/02/2020)

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. (21/03/2020)

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. (17/02/2020)