[dtiger1968]

Has any one sean it. What is you oppion of the movie. I have not sean it yet. Wandering how the mie is.

 

[blackriver]

Similar to Dunkirk. Not bad, but not as good as Saving Private Ryan, or as entertaining as Fury.

Watch out for the SJWization of history in the form of isolated but strategically placed black soldiers in the background in most scenes involving large numbers of British troops...

I thought this was a bit odd for the Western Front in 1917...

So, I did some reading about that... black British Army soldiers were put together into the 15,000 British West Indies Regiment (BWIR), despite the protestations of Lord Kitchener. They were only allowed to do construction work, etc.

Only 7 battalions (approx. 500 men in a battalion) saw action in France or Belgium in the entire 1914-1918 war, for a total of approx. 3,500 men from the BWIR in the entire war in the whole of France and Belgium. Out of 5.3 million British soldiers... if I do the math as to the chances of coming across black soldiers in multiple locations during the movie... the storyline won the lottery in that regard...

Anyhow, rant over.

Not a bad movie, seen worse, seen better.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[ForgedInTheFlame]

Is this some new war movie in theaters?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

 

[rriley]

Has any one sean it. What is you oppion of the movie. I have not sean it yet. Wandering how the mie is.

It's good, realistic battle scenes and the movie is shot like one long take, not a bunch of smaller scenes.

 

[Eutychus]

This -

It's good, realistic battle scenes and the movie is shot like one long take, not a bunch of smaller scenes.

I never knew any WWI veterans, but based on conversations with WWII veterans their descriptions of the chaos and terror are accurately reflected in 1917.

 

[purplelady]

I thought it was good.

 

[SgtBooker44]

It was outstanding. The cinematography was great. Some of the scenes were done in long, single shots. There are videos on youtube showing how they did these shots and it was amazing. Must see film.

 

[makobytes]

Not worth paying for a ticket at a theatre. Worth a watch when it is free. They should have incorporated more trench warfare scenes.

 

[Jennifers]

Not too impressed. Not especially realistic or well thought out. Should have been an hour PBS special, maybe half hour. Some of the cinematography was good, but not enough to make up for no plot.

 

[munik]

See it. The more people that see it, the more interest shown in these types of films, the more might be done to not let history die out.
I have seen "They shall not grow old" three times in the theater. That is actual restored footage.
1917 is entertaining. It's based on spoken word stories about the war. It's worth seeing.

 

[ksmedman]

Has any one sean it. What is you oppion of the movie. I have not sean it yet. Wandering how the mie is.

My 20YO son and I saw it on opening day.
See it on the biggest screen you can, I don't know if 3D would be good or not.

It's a visually impacting, and emotional movie. The fighting is pretty graphic, but I'm sure far less than the reality was.

Great movie IMHO. See it.
But I'd also recommend Peter Jackson's amazing documentary "They Shall Not Grow Old." See that if you can, real footage colorized and restored with commentary from WW1 veterans. Every bit as disturbing and sad as 1917. It's a gem.

 

[Eutychus]

Not too impressed. Not especially realistic or well thought out. Should have been an hour PBS special, maybe half hour. Some of the cinematography was good, but not enough to make up for no plot.

The more I've thought on it the more I see the numerous ironies as the plot.

 

[Lakota]

https://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=934826

 

[Iamfarticus]

It's good, realistic battle scenes and the movie is shot like one long take, not a bunch of smaller scenes.

That is what I liked about it, not chopped up like most movies are. It had a good flow, although some scenes were a little dragged out.

The trench depiction was great. When they went over to the abandoned German trenches, those were fortified with concrete and a lot more substantial.

 

[HomeDefense]

Not worth paying for a ticket at a theatre. Worth a watch when it is free. They should have incorporated more trench warfare scenes.

I have not seen it yet, but from what I've seen in previews, it's about two British soldiers are tasked with getting a message to another regiment who is about to fall into a trap and be slaughtered by the Germans. One of the soldiers has a brother who is in the regiment about to be slaughtered. The movie follows them as they navigate through the war to deliver the message.

I'll wait until Netflix has it on Blu-ray.

 

[blackriver]

That is what I liked about it, not chopped up like most movies are. It had a good flow, although some scenes were a little dragged out.

The trench depiction was great. When they went over to the abandoned German trenches, those were fortified with concrete and a lot more substantial.

Yes, I was surprised at the sturdiness of the German trenches, to the point that one thinks the german soldiers may have been suffering less from trench foot, etc.?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[Sorry-no-clues]

Not worth paying for a ticket at a theatre. Worth a watch when it is free. They should have incorporated more trench warfare scenes.

I disagree. It was like Dunkirk to watch. You need the big screen to get the full experience. Watching Dunkirk at home, you lose the scale of the events.

I had WW1 veterans in my family. The infantry wouldn't talk about it, the gunners did, a bit.

The German trenches were more substantial than the British or French, as an intentional plan (maintain offensive spirit), and also as an unintentional consequence of the rotation of units in the British part of the front (if nobody owns it, who cares).

I thought the depiction of No-man's Land was excellent, especially the use of dead men as direction markers.

The black faces were a distraction, it was a bit too 21st century to be authentic. By all means make a film praising the bravery of the Empire soldiers who fought, but we must also accept that the past is not the same as the present.

At least in Saving Private Ryan there weren't any black faces on the D-Day beaches, just like in 1944. Doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, just that they didn't get the chance.

 

[blackriver]

I disagree. It was like Dunkirk to watch. You need the big screen to get the full experience. Watching Dunkirk at home, you lose the scale of the events.



I had WW1 veterans in my family. The infantry wouldn't talk about it, the gunners did, a bit.



The German trenches were more substantial than the British or French, as an intentional plan (maintain offensive spirit), and also as an unintentional consequence of the rotation of units in the British part of the front (if nobody owns it, who cares).



I thought the depiction of No-man's Land was excellent, especially the use of dead men as direction markers.



The black faces were a distraction, it was a bit too 21st century to be authentic. By all means make a film praising the bravery of the Empire soldiers who fought, but we must also accept that the past is not the same as the present.



At least in Saving Private Ryan there weren't any black faces on the D-Day beaches, just like in 1944. Doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, just that they didn't get the chance.

Excellent commentary, good use of words. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[Timbersawz]

Similar to Dunkirk. Not bad, but not as good as Saving Private Ryan, or as entertaining as Fury.

Watch out for the SJWization of history in the form of isolated but strategically placed black soldiers in the background in most scenes involving large numbers of British troops...

I thought this was a bit odd for the Western Front in 1917...

So, I did some reading about that... black British Army soldiers were put together into the 15,000 British West Indies Regiment (BWIR), despite the protestations of Lord Kitchener. They were only allowed to do construction work, etc.

Only 7 battalions (approx. 500 men in a battalion) saw action in France or Belgium in the entire 1914-1918 war, for a total of approx. 3,500 men from the BWIR in the entire war in the whole of France and Belgium. Out of 5.3 million British soldiers... if I do the math as to the chances of coming across black soldiers in multiple locations during the movie... the storyline won the lottery in that regard...

Anyhow, rant over.

Not a bad movie, seen worse, seen better.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Britain (and france for that matter), at the time, had no official form of segregation. So if you were british born and black you could (and many did) join and serve in ww1 as a british solider.

There is a book- Black Tommies: British Soldiers of African Descent in the First World War that covers quite a bit of the subject.

Over the years I have been through many thousands of photos while researching my family history (as 3 of my great grandfathers and great grandmother served france/belguim in ww1) and its not that uncommon to see black faces among british troops especially later in the war and especially if they were from london, although many photos took some distinguishing as canadians had some 4000 of there native indians in there ranks.

140,000 chinese served in non combat roles as well as "*******".
130,000 Indians were in france, mostly as labor but both chinese and indians were given arms at times to help hold the line.

I have had trouble getting the timelines right but I think among the first US infantry to face combat in france and be recognized for bravery were black who were made to serve under the french. 171 of them were to receive legions of honor.

I think it was a well made movie, and reflected better that ww1 france was not a mono racial conflict as any honest historical reference will confirm.

One of the big contributors, biggest loosers and most forgotten for the first world war is Russia, when was the last time you saw a movie about there part in ww1?

WW1 is hard to make an uplifting or audience pleasing movie from considering how much of a depressing endless meat grinder it was.

 

[blackriver]

Britain (and france for that matter), at the time, had no official form of segregation. So if you were british born and black you could (and many did) join and serve in ww1 as a british solider.



There is a book- Black Tommies: British Soldiers of African Descent in the First World War that covers quite a bit of the subject.



Over the years I have been through many thousands of photos while researching my family history (as 3 of my great grandfathers and great grandmother served france/belguim in ww1) and its not that uncommon to see black faces among british troops especially later in the war and especially if they were from london, although many photos took some distinguishing as canadians had some 4000 of there native indians in there ranks.



140,000 chinese served in non combat roles as well as "*******".

130,000 Indians were in france, mostly as labor but both chinese and indians were given arms at times to help hold the line.



I have had trouble getting the timelines right but I think among the first US infantry to face combat in france and be recognized for bravery were black who were made to serve under the french. 171 of them were to receive legions of honor.



I think it was a well made movie, and reflected better that ww1 france was not a mono racial conflict as any honest historical reference will confirm.



One of the big contributors, biggest loosers and most forgotten for the first world war is Russia, when was the last time you saw a movie about there part in ww1?



WW1 is hard to make an uplifting or audience pleasing movie from considering how much of a depressing endless meat grinder it was.

I'll simplify what I said, in bullet points:

1) In the British side, there were no more than a few thousand soldiers of African descent in the whole western front trenches in WWI, out of over 5 million British troops that went through the western front

2) The entirety of the troops in the BWIR were labourers that are unlikely to have spent much time at the trenches when the troops were about to storm out of them, as in the film

To answer one of your points:

3) the percent of black, born in the British isles people was virtually negligible in 1917. Sure, there were some and some would have ended up in the western front. To tell you how rare a black person was in Britain in 1917, as late as the 1960s most British people outside a big city had not even ever seen a black person (source: some older British people I know quite well).

4) My thought on the film and the amount of black soldiers seen in the film:

### BBC-style 21st century SJW action of forcing black characters in historical events within alleged to be accurate settings ###

And it doesn't stop there: recently, the BBC had a black actress playing French Margaret de Anjou in a 1400s period drama. All i can say is I can't wait to see Benedict Cumberbatch play Shaka Zulu and Jim Gaffigan as a stunt double for Wesley Snipes.

And, FINALLY:

I thank all those who who served, no matter their origins or skin colour or creed. Dear veterans, thank you for your service.

Feel free to continue the unsolicited and unnecessary lecturing on Indian soldiers and French Senegalese tirailleurs, etc.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk