Movie Review: "1917"

Updated on May 31, 2020
Movie Beasts profile image

There are many movies that are worth seeing, but there are a lot of stinkers as well. My goal here is to weed out the good from the bad.

1917

Theatrical Release: 1/10/2020
Theatrical Release: 1/10/2020 | Source

Synopsis

The year was 1917, and World War I had already been raging for almost three years, and Britain and Germany had been fighting over a territory in France for some time. The two sides had been in somewhat of a stalemate, but German forces seemed to have pulled back. Thinking they had Germany on the run, Britain organized what they thought would be a final attack, sending in 1,600 men to attack the German forces. However, new intelligence suggested that everything may not have been as it seemed.

The new intelligence suggests that the 1,600 men could be walking into a trap. Unfortunately, communications have been lost, so the only way to stop the attack is to send two men—by foot—through no man’s land and enemy territory. It very well could be an impossible mission, but if British forces are not warned and the attack is not called off, then the 1,600 men will surely be walking into a massacre. Thus, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) embark on what very well could be a deadly mission to hopefully make contact with the British forces before they walk into a blood bath.

Official Trailer

The Pros & Cons

The Pros
The Cons
Blake & Schofield (+8pts)
Too Early (-2pts)
Intense Action (+8pts)
Convenient (-2pts)
The Mission (+8pts)
Defend Yourself (-2pts)
All movies start with an average score of 75pts, points are then added or subtracted based on each Pro and Con. Each Pro or Con is designated points, ranging from 0-10, to convey how significant these Pros or Cons are.
Source

Pro: Blake & Schofield (+8pts)

The dynamic between these two characters was really easy to get invested in. This was obviously important for a movie that really only had two major characters—these two characters. I could feel the brotherhood, enjoyed their chemistry, and really got a sense that the two characters were devoted to the mission and were willing to risk their lives for one another. There really is not much more to say here, other than the fact that the two actors did a really great job with their respective parts. Each had more than their share of dramatic moments, and each actor absolutely delivered. This was a dramatic, epic war movie, but it was also a personal story about two young men walking through hell together. Their companionship was easy to get invested in, and the two actors in these roles did a great job with the heavy material that they were given, while having strong chemistry together.

Source

Con: Too Early (-2pts)

Okay, I am going to stay super vague here for the sake of staying spoiler free. With that in mind, know that there was a shocking moment in this movie that sort of changed the entire rest of the movie. The mission was still the same, and the stakes were still the same as well, but there was a shift that happened that I thought worked really well. My problem, however, was that I thought it happened too early in the movie.

It happened around the halfway point of the story, and I thought it would have served the movie in a much more impactful way if it happened right at the beginning of the third act. Instead, the filmmakers gave the audience plenty of time to move on from it. If the scene was a bit closer to the film’s conclusion, it would have been fresh enough to make more of an impact in the story's climax. I really hope I did not give anything away here—although I really do not think that I did. Just know that I liked the scene, and thought it was a really effective switch, but I thought it would have been more impactful if it was shifted closer to the story’s conclusion.

Source

Pro: Intense Action (+8pts)

This was a war movie, so you would expect there to be intense action, and there definitely was. The movie was about two British soldiers traveling—on foot—across no-man’s land and through “abandoned” enemy territory. There was plenty of war action throughout this movie, but it was not in your face the entire time, so you will not get numb to it. Between the action, the characters are sneaking around some horrific scenes, with the possibility of German forces being around every corner.

This kept me on the edge of my seat even when action was not happening, and these quieter scenes made the action feel so much more intense. I want to be clear—before making my next statement—by saying that this movie was in no way a horror movie. However, the quieter scenes felt like when things feel too quiet in horror movies. That is what a lot of this movie felt like. There were a ton of scenes that were incredibly suspenseful, as it felt like the protagonists were just around the corner from danger. However, instead of having a monster potentially around the corner, this movie had German soldiers. The action was intense, and it was boosted by these suspenseful scenes.

Source

Con: Convenient (-2pts)

There were a number of convenient moments and incidents throughout this movie, but there were two examples that stood out to me more than the rest. The first example occurred just after the shocking moment that I mentioned earlier. It was not what happened that I thought was convenient, but it was the oddly convenient timing that made the moment a little silly. The second example was toward the end of the movie, and was one of those moments where a character was sort of just bumbling around, almost completely unaware of his surroundings, and things just happened to go their way. Both of these moments were somewhat forgivable, as I am sure they were a result of cutting this story down and making it more cinematic, but there were enough oddly convenient moments to make them worth mentioning.

Source

Pro: The Mission (+8pts)

This mission was an effective one, because it was simple and the stakes were high. Two men had to go warn a large group of British soldiers before they walked right into a trap. The two men had to go by foot, and if they failed it would mean the deaths of about 1,600 British soldiers. It was easy to get invested in this mission because of its simplicity and because the stakes were so high, but there was more to the mission's effectiveness than just that.

The mission also very naturally put two men in an underdog story. The odds were stacked against them, which made you want to root for them. Then there was the potential danger looming around every single corner, which made the movie very suspenseful. The mission made for a really strong plot. It was simple, it felt important, it made it easy to want to root for the protagonists, and it was filled with suspense. It was really just an all around strong premise, that hooked me quickly and kept me invested right up until the end of the movie.

Source

Con: Defend Yourself (-2pts)

Honestly, this was not a big deal and only ended up in here because I could not think of more severe issues. That being said, there were a few moments in this movie where a character had a perfect opportunity to kill a German soldier before that soldier had the opportunity to do the same to him, but instead the character just ran away—leaving himself wide open for that German soldier to try to kill him. This happened a few times throughout the movie, and it always felt like the character was making a catastrophically bad decision. Maybe the character was against killing unless it was absolutely necessary, but that was never implied by the filmmakers, so these moments just made the character come across as dumb.

Grading Scale

Grade
Category
Points
A+
Amazing
95-100
A-
Great
90-94
B+
Good
85-89
B-
Decent
80-84
C+
Average
75-79
C-
Watchable
70-74
D+
Bad
65-69
D-
Terrible
60-64
F
Garbage
45-59
Source

Grade: A- (93pts)

I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that there have been about a million war movies. Now that is not to say that they are bad, but you more or less know what to expect from them. You know to expect a fair amount of action, you know to expect a theme of brotherhood, and you know to expect a fair amount of drama. When done poorly, these movies can feel boring and over-dramatized. When done right, they can be epic dramas with compelling character stories. 1917 was one that was done right.

There was a decent amount of action, but I really liked the dynamic between the two lead characters. They made this a really easy story to get invested in, and there was even a twist around the halfway point of the movie. I had my minor issues with it, but it was a suspenseful, and interesting war story about two soldiers who went through hell together. I went into this movie with moderate expectations—knowing that the reviews were good, but that I have sat through some boring war movies that had good reviews before—but this movie crushed my expectations. It was the perfect balance between epic action, compelling drama, and edge-of-your-seat suspense. It also had a simple yet effective plot, and had two compelling characters played by two talented actors. It was a good movie that I think you will enjoy—whether you are a fan of war movies or not—and was one that I really enjoyed watching.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, reelrundown.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)