1917 trailer. Might have to see this.

I'm interested for sure.

Looks awesome. Been waiting for a good, newer WWI movie for quite a while.

I’ll be going to the theatre see it.

After what they did with "Dunkirk", I have reservations about this one.

Watched the trailer and don't think much of the premise. 1600 men lost is a WW1 massacre?
Did the screen writers even read about real WW1 battles? Found this online:
The first day of the Battle of the Somme, in northern France, was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army and one of the most infamous days of World War One. On 1 July 1916, the British forces suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 fatalities.
The people in charge on all sides didn't seem to care about casualty rates. Found this online as well:
https://www.historyhit.com/big...ttles-world-war-one/
These numbers are nearly incomprehensible now.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacramento Johnson:
Watched the trailer and don't think much of the premise. 1600 men lost is a WW1 massacre?
Did the screen writers even read about real WW1 battles? Found this online:
The first day of the Battle of the Somme, in northern France, was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army and one of the most infamous days of World War One. On 1 July 1916, the British forces suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 fatalities.
The people in charge on all sides didn't seem to care about casualty rates. Found this online as well:
https://www.historyhit.com/big...ttles-world-war-one/
These numbers are nearly incomprehensible now.

Agreed in a historical sense but well....its a movie. I'm excited to see something from that era but sadly I only expect a certain amount of realism.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacramento Johnson:

The first day of the Battle of the Somme, in northern France, was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army and one of the most infamous days of World War One. On 1 July 1916, the British forces suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 fatalities.

27,000 French soldiers were killed on August 22nd, 1914 at the Battle of Charleroi.

In fact, in the first three weeks of the War, France i believe lost more men than all the soldiers the US lost during Vietnam. The numbers are just staggering to think about.

quote:

After what they did with "Dunkirk", I have reservations about this one.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah. Dunkirk was a real snoozer. I will wait until someone on this forum views the film. I hope the music and background noise does not override the dialogue.

quote:

Originally posted by akcopnfbks:
Looks awesome. Been waiting for a good, newer WWI movie for quite a while.

I hope you got a chance to see "They Shall Not Grow Old" when it was in theaters.

Yes, in the context of WWI 1,600 men is a drop in the unfortunately-monstrously-large bucket, but I'm up for this one, too.

I, too, did not like Dunkirk at all...I am excited for this to come out because I too love the era...but I want it to be good

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

After what they did with "Dunkirk", I have reservations about this one.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah. Dunkirk was a real snoozer. I will wait until someone on this forum views the film. I hope the music and background noise does not override the dialogue.

So they have to run to let someone know to call off the attack or it'll be a massacre?

I thought this had already been done, in Turkey, and they called it "Gallipoli".

The very first course I took at UNT for my graduate studies in history was "20th century US military"

I still have my notes from the WWI lectures. I would drive home (1.5 hours each way) feeling like I had been punched in the gut.

The British lost 54,000 on the first day of the battle of the Somme. They would lose 450,000+ before the battle was over. Verdun? no one can agree on the carnage.

I can vividly remember the professor using the phrase "Bled White" in reference to their military strategies.

I will watch this, but it is always a tough one for me. I guess any war movie really is for most of us.

By the end of 1915, France had sustained 2 million casualties, over 700,000 of which were deaths. And of course the injuries we're talking about here aren't just a sprained ankle or a broken arm, ya' know?

The numbers out of Russia in that same period are even more legion. Just unbelievable.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

quote:

I thought this had already been done, in Turkey, and they called it "Gallipoli"

Peter Weir directed it. Excellent film. Mel Gibson.

New trailer just dropped:




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg

As much as enjoy learning history - particularly WWI and II - I'll pass on this movie. From the trailers it looks like just another movie for millenials with lots of overacting turning what should be dramatic portrayal into cartoonish ridiculousness.

If you have Amazon Prime, I highly recommend the series “Gallipoli”, an Australian production made in in 2015 (not the Mel Gibson movie).

Here's a 4:15 "How we filmed it" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...a94&feature=youtu.be

And an article:

https://www.militarytimes.com/...wi-blockbuster-1917/

Must see: Incredible new trailer & behind-the-scenes look at WWI blockbuster ‘1917’

By: J.D. Simkins   3 hours ago

A second trailer and savory new details about Oscar-winning filmmaker Sam Mendes’ World War I blockbuster should have even the most pedestrian of film enthusiasts salivating.

This week, Universal Pictures released a behind-the-scenes look at “1917,” a story about two young soldiers — played by George McKay (“Captain Fantastic”) and Dean-Charles Chapman (“Game of Thrones”) — who embark in a race against time through the apocalyptic hellscapes of the Western Front to deliver a message that could save 1,600 lives.

To make The Great War as immersive and viewer-relatable as possible, Mendes and Oscar-winning cinematographer Roger Deakins opted to shoot the entire film as a continuous shot that never departs from the two main characters.

“From the very beginning I felt this movie should be told in real time," Mendes said in the behind-the-scenes featurette.

“I wanted people to understand how difficult it was for these men. ... Every step of the journey, breathing every breath with these men, felt integral. And there is no better way to tell the story than with one continuous shot.”

Use of continuous shot cinematography has increased in recent years, with fellow award-winner Emmanuel Lubezki employing it masterfully in various films like “The Revenant,” “Gravity,” and perhaps most notably, in the stunning battle sequence from Alfonso Cuarón′s “Children of Men.”

“It’s meant to make you feel that you are in the trenches with these characters,” said film producer Pippa Harris, who worked with Mendes on “Jarhead” and “Revolutionary Road."

Because this filming technique requires the use of 360 degrees of each exterior, “1917,” like “The Revenant,” had to be shot using only natural light, a process that made actors and camera operators entirely dependent on ideal weather conditions.

A five-minute window of the sun ducking behind clouds could send cast and crew scrambling into position.

Select action sequences were so extensive that cameras had to be hooked onto wires and pushed across landscapes by operators before traversing an elevated wire reminiscent of the sky cam used during select National Football League broadcasts. Operators would then have to regather the camera, unhook it, and run alongside characters before climbing into a moving vehicle for a faster sequence.

McKay said the filming process reminded him of acting on stage.

“It was like a piece of theater every take. Once you start, you can’t stop. If something goes wrong, you just have to keep going.”

In some movies, filmmakers “might be able to cut around this or take that scene out," Mendes said. "That’s not possible on this film. The dance of the camera and the mechanics all have to be in sync with what the actor is doing.

“When you achieve that, it’s really beautiful.”

“1917” is set for a limited Christmas Day release before hitting theaters nationwide on Jan. 10, 2020.

Benedict Cumberbatch (“The Imitation Game,” “Doctor Strange”), Colin Firth (“The King’s Speech,” “Kingsman"), Mark Strong (“The Imitation Game,” “Zero Dark Thirty”), and Richard Madden (“Game of Thrones”) round out a star-studded cast.

World War I garnered renewed interest following the release of Peter Jackson’s (“Lord of the Rings”) groundbreaking documentary, “They Shall Not Grow Old.”

Based on the first two trailers, it looks like Mendes is sure to do The Great War justice.

Watch the second official trailer below.

https://www.showbiz411.com/201...rivate-ryan-iwo-jima

Oscars 2020: Last Big Movie to Screen, Sam Mendes’ Extraordinary “1917,” Best War Movie Since “Private Ryan,” “Iwo Jima”

by Roger Friedman - November 23, 2019 8:51 pm

We have seen the last big big Oscar buzzed movie for the 2020 Academy Awards. Yesterday I told you about the penultimate entry, Clint Eastwood’s four star “Richard Jewell.”

Now we’ve been privy to a showing of Sam Mendes’ extraordinary “1917.” That’s right, extraordinary.

“1917” comes from an original idea Mendes had based on his grandfather’s experiences in World War I. He conscripted a co-writer. Krysty Wilson-Cairns wrote the screenplay from Mendes’ ideas.

Roger Deakins, who finally won an Oscar for his cinematography in “Blade Runner 2049,” will win– not just be nominated– no matter what else happens for his work here. Can you dig it? What he’s done here is so above and beyond that people are going to be gaga. Other noms will go to editor Lee Smith, who helped Mendes make what we think of as a continuous shot look seamless. (The whole movie is continuous and mind blowing in that regard.)

Thomas Newman’s score is one, like Howard Shore’s for “The Song of Names,” you would want to play at home on your stereo.

Actors: the main actors are young guys. George McKay we know a little, mostly from “Captain Fantastic.” Dean-Charles Chapman of “Game of Thrones” fame makes quite an impression. They are so strong, and the screenplay is so well delineated, that they hold the movie, McKay especially. There are cameos from Benedict Cumberbatch, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, and even Colin Firth that are all very nice. But the main guys — on a mission to stop 1600 men from being killed — who rock this film.

Isn’t Mendes the star? I do believe so. He has art movies with “American Beauty” (Oscar winner). “Perdition,” and “Revolutionary Road.” He has his James Bond movies, “Skyfall” and “Spectre.” In “Jarhead,” he drilled down into the military, excellent prep for this one. Mendes’s theater work is so extensive and award winning, and you can see it in “1917.” I would say this is theater to some extent, but there’s plenty of action, drama, heart-racing excitement to make it an eminent movie.

I can’t say more about the plot yet. And the poster kind of makes it seem like “Midway,” which it ain’t. This is the best war movie since “Saving Private Ryan.” That includes Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima”, Spielberg’s “War Horse,” and Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” all of which are top notch. Scorsese and Spielberg will praise it lavishly. They should be happy. Someone in the younger generation has learned from them. This is some of the best filmmaking ever. I mean, ever.

And– it’s only one hour, 58 minutes. Very clean, economical, just like “Richard Jewell.” We got two literally great movies for the Oscars at the end of our main viewing season. Hope springs eternal!