1917

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. (17/02/2020)

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%. (03/01/2021)

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)

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. (06/02/2020)

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)