happy easter card purple egg flowers butterfly decoration vector illustration

The Horror of War: What the Critics Are Saying About “1917”

Communications are down forcing two young soldiers to embark on a mission to alert British forces of an ambush in Sam Mendes’ 1917. Their subsequent journey is a heart-pounding experience indeed, so make sure you get your popcorn before it begins.

It should be no surprise that the film awarded Golden Globes for best motion picture, drama, and best director following a limited 2019 run has an 89% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes—though, as you’ll see, not everyone’s a fan.

Here are four takes:

  • “It’s largely about death or the risk of death, but in addressing some of the horrors of this particular war, Mendes has made a film that feels wholly alive,” writes Stephanie Zacharek at Time. She argues the movie’s “inherent devotion to life and beauty is part of its power,” but “the true key to its effectiveness is the face of … [actor] George MacKay.” “For the duration of 1917, he’s our boy,” and his face “haunts you after the screen dims.”
  • MacKay and costar Dean-Charles Chapman “are marvels of naturalness on screen.” But the direction and cinematography take the cake for Caryn James. “The light is a drama in itself,” while Mendes’ “dazzling” use of long takes and few edits to make the film appear as one continuous shot “enhances tension and immediacy, allowing us to feel connected to the two heroes,” she writes at the BBC, calling it “one of the most stirring films” of 2019.
  • Manohla Dargis thoroughly disagrees. “The illusion of seamlessness draws attention away from the messengers,” she writes at the New York Times, describing a “sanitized war picture … that turns one of the most catastrophic episodes in modern times into an exercise in preening showmanship.” Indeed, the filmmaking “registers as grandstanding,” she writes. “It’s too bad and it’s frustrating because the two leads make appealing company.”
  • Mendes’ technique “could easily have become a gimmick.” Instead, it’s an “impressive cinematic accomplishment,” pulled off with “real audacity and technical wizardry,” Brian Lowry writes at CNN. For him, the key is that Mendes “doesn’t sacrifice the movie’s heart in the service of its logistical considerations.” Rather, it illustrates all the horrors of war “in visceral, occasionally gut-wrenching fashion.

In case you missed it: 2019: The Ten Best Movies of the Decade

Edited via Newser.

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on January 11, 2020. Filed under MOVIE-TV-BOOK REVIEWS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Back to Main Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.