It has
taken a lot longer than I planned, but I am finally ready to reveal my 100 Best
War Movies list. I have reviewed over
700 war movies since starting this blog on August 4, 2010. My list is not of the greatest war
movies. I do not take into consideration
how important the movie was. The list is
of the best war movies. My main
focus was on plot, realism, and historical accuracy. Combat, cinematography, sets, and score were
also important. These areas are the
reason the list is skewed toward war movies from the last 50 years, because
modern war movies can just do better in these areas. Unfortunately, many of the classic war movies
just cannot compete with modern productions.
The first movie on the list is an example of this. It is a movie set in WWI and the trenches and
no man’s land are the best ever filmed.
The movie has amazing cinematography.
After seeing so many war movies, some of the best have attributes that
are outside the box.
100. 1917 (2019)
Two British soldiers must deliver a message
halting an attack that will be walking into an ambush. The idea came from a story director Sam
Mendes’ grandfather told him. Mendes went
on to co-write the story with Krysty Wilson-Cairns. This is Mendes’ second war film after
“Jarhead” in 2005. He owes a lot to his
cinematographer Roger Deakins. This was
their fourth collaboration. Deakins is
one of the premier cinematographers and this may be his masterpiece. He won the Best Cinematography Oscar for
“Bladerunner 2049” and has won four BAFTAs and has 14 Oscar nominations. In 2011, the American Society of
Cinematographers presented him a Lifetime Achievement Award. “1917” was critically acclaimed. It won Oscars for Cinematography (Deakins
probably had the highest percentage of the votes for any winner in history),
Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects. It was
nominated for Best Picture (losing to “Parasite”), Director, Original Score,
Original Screenplay, Sound Editing, Production Design, and Makeup &
Hairstyles. At the BAFTAs, it won for Best Film, Best British Film, Director,
Cinematography, Sound, Production Design, and Special Visual Effects. It won the Golden Globe for Best Drama. The movie cost $100 million and made more than
$350 million.
The film opens
on April 6, 1917. (I am not sure if it is a coincidence, but that is the day
the U.S. declared war.) We meet mates
Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) as they walk and
talk their way to headquarters. Thus
begins the soon to be legendary continuous shots that will take us through the
movie. The general needs the duo to halt
an attack scheduled for the next morning.
The Germans have withdrawn from their front-line trenches and the
British plan to take advantage of this.
Unfortunately, intelligence discovers that it is a trap and two
battalions of 1,600 men will be slaughtered if the attack takes place. Blake and Schofield will have to make a trek
through no man’s land to deliver the message.
As an incentive, Blake’s brother is in one of the doomed battalions. At this point, the viewer needs to treat the
movie like an odyssey. Think Odysseus
with his adventures. None of that could
have really happened, right? Same with
this movie. They cross a no man’s land
that checks all the boxes for the mise-en-scene - dead horses (with flies, nice touch), dead
body on the wire, rats eating dead bodies, destroyed tank, etc. You do not want to see this movie in
smell-o-vision. Or right after eating. I
counted 41 dead bodies in the movie. The odyssey includes stops in the deserted
German front-line trench for a haunted house vibe, a deserted farmhouse for an
encounter with a German fighter pilot (the only CGI), crossing a bridge under
sniper fire, a chase scene in a German occupied village, and riding some
rapids. There’s even a siren’s song by a
British soldier (“Poor Wayfaring Stranger”).
Only one of the buddies will make it.
ACTING: B
ACTION: N/A
ACCURACY: N/A
PLOT: B
REALISM: C
CINEMATOGRAPY: A+ outstanding!
SCORE: A
(nominated for an Academy Award)
BEST SCENE: the Schofield Run
BEST QUOTE: “There’s only
one way this war ends. Last man
standing.”
(Lt.
Col. MacKenzie)
“1917” is a movie that can be
nitpicked. The sniper angles don’t match
his position, for instance. As in most
episodic war movies, no one person could have had all these experiences. Mendes is up front about his grandfather’s
reminiscences being enhanced and the movie does not start with a claim that it
is based on a true story, so you will enjoy it more if you just go with the
flow (like Schofield in the river). Try
not to imagine what the front lines must look like to set up the scenario, you
will get a headache. The central premise
is flawed as Operation Alberich (February-March, 1917) was a planned withdrawal
to the Hindenburg Line, but did not involve a feint to draw Allied forces into
an ambush. Plus, the British advanced
cautiously, and not beyond the vacated front-line trenches. While it is likely none of the incidents
happened as portrayed, none of them is unbelievable. It is easy to overlook the implausibilities
if you have an eye for brilliant cinematography. Note the transitions from the camera
following to camera leading the duo. It
is mesmerizing. But not in an overly
showy way. Some viewers, who do not read
up on movies before seeing them, may not even notice the continuous takes. It is so seamless. It is actually two takes, because when
Schofield is wounded and blacks out, some time passes before the long shot
continues. It also marks a transition
the surreal night in the village. All
of this builds to the “Schofield Run” scene where Schofield runs through a
British advance. 500 extras were
used. George MacKay accidentally bumped
into two of them. It was left in the
film.
Non-cinephiles will probably notice the realistic
sets and gruesome details of trench warfare.
The set designer deserves a lot of credit. For the continuous take, it was necessary to
have an extensive trench system. Imagine
“Paths of Glory” multiplied by ten. No
movie has depicted the trenches more accurately. This includes the German trenches, which are
shown as superior to the British ones.
You will also see the most realistic no man’s land on film.
Nothing can
match the technical virtuosity of the movie.
The plot is molded to the perspective of just two men, and then
one. This limits the narrative. It also limits informing the audience about
soldier life and behavior. There is a
soldier banter scene in the back of the truck, but the movie is much stronger
on the visuals of the war than on the men.
There is some exposition between the leads and some cursory character
development. We do know that Schofield
is a decorated veteran of the Somme who regrets a trip home. He is the cautious one whereas Blake has the
motivation of saving his brother. The
actors are fine, if unspectacular in these roles. There are some showy cameos by the likes of
Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch.
Mark Strong makes the best impression as a captain that Schofield encounters. In the movie’s most insightful exchange, he
tells Schofield to make sure there is an eyewitness to his delivering the order
because some officers just want to fight.
Other than this spot on take on command decisions in the Great War, the
movie is not a typical WWI hate-fest on the donkeys leading the lions. This is not the Iliad, it is the Odyssey,
after all.
While not in
the top five WWI movies, “1917” is a worthy entry into a subgenre that has a
high percentage of quality. There is a
much higher percentage of good WWI movies than the WWII equivalents. Probably because the war itself lends itself
to a purer anti-war feeling. “1917” will
not be remembered as a great anti-war film, but it is entertaining and more a
tribute to the soldiers than any recent WWI movies. It is certainly better than the new “All
Quiet on the Western Front”. You can not
help but be moved as the cannon fodder listens to that haunting song before
going over the top.
GRADE = A
_Film_Poster.jpeg)