• It's the most wonderful time of the year! Make your list and check it twice. The ResetEra Games of the Year 2019 Voting Thread is now live. Voting will be open for the next 7 days, 18 hours, 9 minutes, 42 seconds, and will close on Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

1917 |OT| A war film directed by Sam Mendes (wide release on January 10th)

Jul 9, 2019
24
Having mulled over the movie for a bit, I think it might be one of the very few actual anti-war movies. Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan or other non-American war movies usually glorify something about war - be it an action-sequence, a particularly fascinating character or the soundtrack.
I didn't see any of that in 1917.

Blake and Scofield don't win a decisive battle, they don't show particular heroism or patriotism. And when Scofield reaches Mackenzie he can't stop the first wave. I also really enjoyed that MacKenzie wasn't some kind of captivating variety of Kurtz. Just someone who hoped there was a chance to end the stalemate.

Another aspect I enjoyed was the little bit of diversity shown with a couple of black soldiers and the Indian (?). Not that much but a little bit more accurate than Dunkirk et al.

Otherwise, I don't think the one-shot approach worked that well. There were some fantastic set pieces where it worked REALLY well, but overall it wasn't needed. Especially since there are time skips in the movie.
 

Fury451

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,081
Having mulled over the movie for a bit, I think it might be one of the very few actual anti-war movies. Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan or other non-American war movies usually glorify something about war - be it an action-sequence, a particularly fascinating character or the soundtrack.
I didn't see any of that in 1917.

Blake and Scofield don't win a decisive battle, they don't show particular heroism or patriotism. And when Scofield reaches Mackenzie he can't stop the first wave. I also really enjoyed that MacKenzie wasn't some kind of captivating variety of Kurtz. Just someone who hoped there was a chance to end the stalemate.

Another aspect I enjoyed was the little bit of diversity shown with a couple of black soldiers and the Indian (?). Not that much but a little bit more accurate than Dunkirk et al.

Otherwise, I don't think the one-shot approach worked that well. There were some fantastic set pieces where it worked REALLY well, but overall it wasn't needed. Especially since there are time skips in the movie.

I really think you might be misreading Apocalypse Now. I’m assuming you’re likely referring to the Ride of the Valkyries scene. I don’t think in the context of the film it’s meant to glorify war at all- it’s unabashedly violent and especially when you put it next to the “I love the smell of napalm” scene, which is also taken out of context all the time.

People may look at it as a “kickass action scene” because general audiences often miss a lot of points.
 

MizneyWorld

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
347
My favorite part was the trek thru no man’s land pretty much near the beginning.

The whole sequence was tense as hell seeing all the carnage and pushing forward, waiting for a barrage of bullets.
 

f4u1dfb6

Member
Mar 5, 2019
311
Having mulled over the movie for a bit, I think it might be one of the very few actual anti-war movies. Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan or other non-American war movies usually glorify something about war - be it an action-sequence, a particularly fascinating character or the soundtrack.
I didn't see any of that in 1917.

Blake and Scofield don't win a decisive battle, they don't show particular heroism or patriotism. And when Scofield reaches Mackenzie he can't stop the first wave. I also really enjoyed that MacKenzie wasn't some kind of captivating variety of Kurtz. Just someone who hoped there was a chance to end the stalemate.

Another aspect I enjoyed was the little bit of diversity shown with a couple of black soldiers and the Indian (?). Not that much but a little bit more accurate than Dunkirk et al.

Otherwise, I don't think the one-shot approach worked that well. There were some fantastic set pieces where it worked REALLY well, but overall it wasn't needed. Especially since there are time skips in the movie.
Oh man, Apocalypse Now as not an anti-war movie is an absolutely scorching take. Not going to find much support for that, especially among anyone who has read the book that it used as inspiration.
 
Nov 21, 2017
266
I really think you might be misreading Apocalypse Now. I’m assuming you’re likely referring to the Ride of the Valkyries scene. I don’t think in the context of the film it’s meant to glorify war at all- it’s unabashedly violent and especially when you put it next to the “I love the smell of napalm” scene, which is also taken out of context all the time.

People may look at it as a “kickass action scene” because general audiences often miss a lot of points.
There is only one part I think is gloried violence hell even Sam Mendas had a scene in Jar Head that address it