Is 1917 the most overrated film in years? | thearticle
Is 1917 the most overrated film in years? | thearticle"
- Select a language for the TTS:
- UK English Female
- UK English Male
- US English Female
- US English Male
- Australian Female
- Australian Male
- Language selected: (auto detect) - EN
Play all audios:
This has been a terrific few months for Sam Mendes and his film, _1917_. He won Best Director and the film won Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes. And now the film has been nominated
for ten Oscars and nine BAFTAs. The reviews have been just as good. _Variety_ called _1917_,_ _“one of 2019’s most impressive cinematic achievements”. The_ Guardian _called it “a single-shot
masterpiece”, “an amazingly audacious film”. _Rolling Stone _called it “one of the best war films of all time” and _Vanity Fair _described it as “a staggering piece of filmmaking”. The hype
is ridiculous. _1917 _is the most overrated film in years. The two lead performances are poor. The script is worse. You get no sense of the characters or their inner lives. One describes
returning home from the front, but what is his family like? The whole plot, weak as it is, turns on a soldier trying to warn British soldiers of a German ambush, which will kill 1,600
troops, including his brother. But we learn nothing of his relationship with this brother. Do they even like each other? The film is shockingly implausible. A British soldier meets a French
peasant woman. He doesn’t speak French and there’s no reason why she should speak any English, yet they manage to communicate. One of the soldiers might as well be a Marvel super-hero. He
survives everything. Gunfire, waterfalls, booby-traps. He runs like Usain Bolt and swims like Michael Phelps. More to the point, Mendes doesn’t manage to get inside the soldiers’ heads. What
do they think or feel? What was it like to serve on the Western Front? We are not told. Do the two soldiers have any friends? What is it like in the winter cold or the summer heat? What are
they fed? How do they cope with illness? Have they been over the top before? Where are they from? What did they do before the war? They encounter one Indian soldier and one black soldier.
Have they ever seen non-white people before? The film has its strengths. It is technically brilliant. The cinematography by the great Roger Deakins is outstanding. There are fine cameos by
stars like Andrew Scott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong and Colin Firth. The sets and locations are superb. The technicians deserve their nominations. But none of these are enough. They
don’t make up for the predictable story-line, the limp dialogue, the lack of interest in any of the characters or in the war itself. Robbie Collin in the _Daily Telegraph _nails it: The film
is “emotionally inert”. _1917_ is also derivative. The storyline is taken from Spielberg’s _Saving Private Ryan_. At times it feels like _The Lord of the Rings_, a heroic adventure through
a desolate landscape full of mortal danger. What it doesn’t do is invent its own unique world or reinvent the First World War. Peter Jackson’s documentary, _They Shall Not Grow Old_,
presented the trenches in colour. You could see the state of the soldier’s teeth, their sallow skin. In _1917_ their skin looks clear, their teeth are white, they are tall, fit and strong.
Most British soldiers were between 5’ and 5’8. The two lead actors are 5’9 and 6’0 and they look as if they have just come from the West End not the Western Front. The film is about
technical effects, spectacle and long shots, not about human lives. In a devastating review in the_ New Yorker_, Richard Brody writes, “Mendes shuts down Blake and Schofield and envelops
them in a silence of the mind in order not to probe or care what they think. What he substitutes for their inner lives are sequences that exist solely because they make for striking images…
These shotlike compositions that arise from the flow of long takes come at the expense of plot and character… Once more, violence is moved offstage and prettified. The movie’s long takes,
far from intensifying the experience of war, trivialize it…” _1917_ is not about feelings or ideas. It is about spectacle and CGI effects. As a result, whatever happened to any of the
characters, I just didn’t care. This is a film about film not about people or war. The opening sequence of the BBC’s _The Great War _was more powerful.
Trending News
Lbc host halts show as just stop oil activist glues hand to micThe radio presenter was left stunned as a Just Stop Oil activist he was questioning about his group's recent protes...
Liverpool report: jurgen klopp agrees to sign two midfielders this januaryLiverpool are set to bring in another two midfielders to their squad this January. That's according to reports link...
Why is my security answer not recognised?FAQ.SEARCHHEADING Player Pathway System Why is my security answer not recognised? The Player Pathway System no longer ex...
Brian o"driscoll named his toughest opponent, he hated playing against him - ruckTAKE A LOOK AT WHO RETIRED IRELAND AND LIONS CENTRE BRIAN O’DRISCOLL PICKED OUT AS HIS TOUGHEST OPPONENTS FROM HIS STELL...
The page you were looking for doesn't exist.You may have mistyped the address or the page may have moved.By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our ...
Latests News
Is 1917 the most overrated film in years? | thearticleThis has been a terrific few months for Sam Mendes and his film, _1917_. He won Best Director and the film won Best Moti...
Fledglyng | Premiere.frBiographie News Photos Vidéos Films Séries Nom de naissance Fledglyng Avis PoorNot so pooraveragegoodvery good Filmograp...
Going through the photo album with kathie lee giffordMemorial Day Sale! Join AARP for just $11 per year with a 5-year membership Join now and get a FREE gift. Expires 6/4 G...
Should literature come with trigger warnings?If you’ve been involved in internet discussions about sensitive topics like sexual abuse, you may have seen the letters ...
Javascript support required...