User Reviews

The Writer is the Director - if the two roles had been separate then one would have picked up on the many historical inaccuracies, particularly in the dialogue, where many of the phrases spoken are things that have been common language in the last decade, not 100 years ago. Other aspects, such as the over-familiarity between the ranks were simply not the way it was...

I understand the importance of highlighting forgotten issues. And the effort made into doing so.

But honestly. This movie is really really bad.

So bad that it became funny.

A spectacled German sniper, just standing there, beside a tree. It made me spit out my coffee (okay okay, it was beer). German soldiers falling like flies with a few gunshots. Enemies meeting each other on a straight (!) path just staring at each other, then starting to shoot and charge. Blood that looks a lot like the ketchup I had earlier on my food.

Bates Wilder did a pretty good job though. Perlman and Zane... no idea what they were doing there.

Again, all respect for the historical references and the sacrifices that have been made at the time in the Great War.

But I'm looking at not just the message, but also at the movie.

And quite frankly, this movie sucks.

I gave this movie a decent rating for the the subject matter that is rarely addressed in this conflict, and the I believe, period correct uniforms and weps, but the execution left a lot to be desired. The enlisted personnel were borderline insubordinate in their dialogue with the officers. Especially, when Sgt. Perry first met Cpt. Rivers and he informed the sergeant of his mission.The battle scenes were some of the clearest and cleanest I have ever seen in a war movie. No blood, no shell casings, no debris, no smoke, no mud, no rats, nor rotting bodies in the trenches...there was even a scene where the machine gun feed belt stopped moving but the gun kept on spitting out bullets.. a technique that we have yet to duplicate in today's weapons. And, of course, the reconciliation of the races before the climatic battle scene....Cpt Rivers why are you digging foxholes while the black privates are standing around pretending to be perimeter guards a few feet away? The "fix bayonets" charge reminds of Jeff Daniels' boys in "Gettysburg". And yes, "Saving Private Ryan" theme music dances in my head after the battle is over and during the Captain's final scene (he even sits in a similar position as Tom Hanks). If you gonna imitate, imitate the best! Nice try and worth a watch.

It's just a really bad remake of Saving Private Ryan. The bunker scene without the bunker, the same church scene without the church, the same first meeting of private ryan just without a tank, the same scene deciding to fight just without a rustic French village and if i'm not mistaken the same music and dialog. Obviously the writer/director would get a F if this was a school assignment which it looks like, but in the real world I'm surprised he hasn't been sued by Steven Spielberg.

Very poor. Combine pure cheese with laughable acting and amateur action scenes. Painful to watch.

Terrible. First "battle"-scene: Soldiers supposed to storm an enemy position basically jog lazily along the top of the trenches, in daylight, no cover smoke or anything, only waiting to get cut down one by one by a german "machine gunner" who obviously never held anything even slightly resembling a machine gun in his entire life, shaking an trembling stupidly in an attempt to make us believe he is experiencing recoil (he is even totally out of sync with the actual fire rate as we hear it). All the uniforms and all the equipment look brand new and unused, even after the men wearing them get shot to pieces and blown up by "mortar shells" (impact blast radius: 2 meters). No visible injuries or blood, except for when the director obviously mid-battle remembers that there must be some, so the surprisingly and consistently boring camera angle suddenly shows some hands and feet neatly spread out on the ground. The soldiers say things like "they´re tearing us to pieces" and "not a place I would like to stay for very long". An US officer is supposed to freak out and lose it in the face of battle, but when one of the black soldiers (yes, they are the heroes in this story) hit him in the face twice, he snaps out of it and seems completely fine going forward. All forgotten now thanks to the slaps. (What makes everything even more annoying, is that the guy playing the officer does a really good job. It must feel bitter having to waste your talent on this arrogant trash production.) You get the idea. Don´t waste a minute on this. I feel like I´m watching some mob money laundering project where everyone basically just wants to get the hole production overwith and go back to what ever they´re doing in real life.

I have seen saving private so many times I have it memorized. Apparently so has whoever wrote this movie. The dialogue and scenes are a recreation of saving private Ryan. The scenes are virtually identical. The scenes look like something film students put on you tube. Save your money and watch on Netflix whenever it comes out for free, that way you won't feel bad when you turn it off or fall asleep.

This movie is just the worst. copying things from saving private ryan and band of brothers, horrible depiction of anything resembling war or humans for that matter, bad acting, the absolute worst directing, and although ive seen zane (especially) and perlman in some really awful movies, this one im sure was embarrassing for them. you will become stupider for having watched this movie

While this story is an important one that needs to be told, it's just a bad movie all around. The dialogue is hackneyed and trite. The uniforms look too clean and intact, the sets look like they're for a high school play, the acting is weak and wooden, and the whole thing reeks of an amateur production.

This is like a film that someone with a few thousand dollars made with his friends in a local park. Plus, the blatant ripoffs of Saving Private Ryan are obvious.

I really tried to keep watching and wanted to like it, but it was just so bad.

FIRST & FOREMOST, Steven Lukes chose to present us with an untold tale that's time is 100 years overdue in the telling. The STORY here IS the STAR, not the "Green Screen" or "CGI" or "Impossible Stunts" assisted by million-dollar effects crews. The tale is told using imagery & vision alone. In the same style used for scores of years before the Silicone became the principal attraction, and the viewer's eyes weren't submitted to a constant barrage of one impossible scene after another.

In my humble opinion, the story presented for us to witness, was very well told! The scenes, well set, the costumes, realistic enough & time period portrayed without using a single "Whatever" or "Dude" uttered. So I see this film more as a purist than many. I won't directly disagree with the opinions or accusations leveed, however, should you enjoy GREAT STORYTELLING, you'd be neglectful to omit this film based only on STARS!

This being said, there is are some truly decent and exhilarating scenes, with well-rounded characters who weave the tales threads very nicely. With some EXCELLENT acting, with a few that might not be so excellent, however, edited in a quiet & professional manner, those scenes are quickly lost in the scope of a truly great story!

To wrap up, I truly feel that only a larger budget would've made any difference in this movie. However, the actors, directing, editing, costumes, sets, even continuity would not require it. This film's vision, and uniqueness of tale, in the hackneyed genre flooded with elaborate many-multi-million-dollar budgets, may seem difficult to see through. Then again, if anyone could find a diamond in a torrent of pebbles, you might be considered quite lucky & unique, possibly even talented.

I ONLY gave it a 7 of 10 for media related gitchyness & some minor character scenes that missed the mark. The story telling & visuals earn an easy 8 (maybe 9).

Just my2cents for what it's worth. This is FAR from wasted time if you are so unique!

I understand why people are giving this movie straight 10 and not judging that but even dialogue between officer and soldiers feels off and too formal. I saw one enemy soldier dying with a smile on his face... Of course there are negatives but movie itself is still okay but there are some points which doesn't let you enjoy it as much as it could be done.

As a Marine infantryman and a disabled veteran I applaud and salute this film and it's courage to represent an all too often forgotten aspect of the great war. In response I wanted to provide some historical facts so others have some context and perspective about the film. When World War I broke out, there were four all-black regiments: the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 24th and 25th Infantry. The 9th and 10th Cavalry were also known as the Buffalo Soldiers and served in the Indian Wars in the unsettled frontiers of the American west. About 20 percent of U.S. Cavalry troops that participated in the Indian Wars were buffalo soldiers, who participated in at least 177 conflicts.

The buffalo soldiers of the 9th and 10th Calvary and the 24th and 25th Infantry headed to Florida at the start of the Spanish-American War. They fought heroically in the Battle of San Juan Hill, the Battle of El Caney and the Battle of Las Guasimas.

The 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments served in the Philippines during the war with Spain. Roughly 380,000 African-American soldiers served in World War I, but there's not a single Black face in Pershing's group. For America's military decision makers, the nation's brave Black warriors were not heroes to be celebrated. They were a problem to be solved. The 369th Infantry Regiment, formerly known as the 15th New York National Guard Regiment and commonly referred to as the Harlem Hellfighters, was an infantry regiment of the New York Army National Guard during World War I and World War II. it was known for being one of the first African American regiments to serve with the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. Before the 15th NG Regiment was formed, any African American who wanted to fight in the war had to enlist in the French or Canadian armies.

During WWI, the 369th spent 191 days in frontline trenches, more than any other American unit. They also suffered the most losses of any American regiment with 1,500 casualties.In France, the 369th was treated as if they were no different than any other French unit. For the most part, the French did not show hatred towards them and did not racially segregate the 369th. The French accepted the all black 369th Regiment with open arms and welcomed them to their country. 171 African Americans were awarded the French Legion of Honor. In addition to the African Americans, Black Africans also served France in a number of wars, including World War I (providing around 200,000 troops, more than 135,000 of whom fought in Europe and 30,000 of whom were killed).

It has its technical issues but it's still worth a watch and not as bad as the arm chair generals are saying. The acting is rough at times but a great effort for the absence👍 of ground WWI movies out there. Watch it and ignore the bad reviews

Just skip the positive reviews, reading those for this movie is just a waste of time, actually just like watching this movie, just don't bother as there are tons of better war movies. The acting isn't good at all, below average, mediocre at best. The two names Ron Perlman and Billy Zane are just poster fillers, they have minor roles. But besides the acting it's the story that is really poorly executed, maybe it could have been something with a good director and better actors, but in this case it's pretty lame. The fighting scenes are just ridiculous, it just feels like somebody was filming a bad reenactment of a battle in the woods, or filming his friends playing paintball or so. If any of those characters would have served in the war they would be dead after one second. Just skip this movie, trust me it's not worth your time.

Trying to cash in on 1917 with one of the worst war movies I have EVER seen. I really had a bad night tonight, and this was by far the reason why. I wish I hadn't wasted my time. The cast were bad. The crew were bad. The director / writer is bad. I hope they feel bad, because they made me feel bad. :'(

All the upvotes are just because it ticks the right political box (which is the only reason it was greenlit) for having uber diversity levels.

The story, the acting, the effort is an insult to the real soldiers who fought in this war. Not worth the time to try watching this. I'm sorry that I did.

Saving Private Ryan 2.0 Nooooooooo!, this thing is horrible....

Ron Perlman as General Pershing?

That's all anybody needs to know about the film, and it only gets worse from that moment on...

I have to agree with most of the detractors. However, it's always nice to first of all say something positive, as after all, people have spent time and money in making the film. So I would highlight Bates Wilder's performance as sincere and competent and probably the best thing about this film, but he and the rest of the cast really deserved a better script.

What did not please me? I've tried to keep this post to a manageable length!

Etiquette. The interaction between all the characters is totally unrealistic particularly considering that it is meant to be a history film. No way would a Sergeant have a conversation with a Captain on equal terms, or dictate to the officer what was going to happen, as is acted out when the rescue party reach the stranded platoon. Under this same heading, can we really believe that General Pershing, a four star General in charge of the entire AEF (at that time around 2 million men in the field) sits at a desk in a tiny office with apparently no work to do and no staff other than an over-friendly Colonel who pops in from time to time. And, what do they fret about with the imminent collapse of the German forces - a lost platoon on a tiny hill. It's just unbelievable.

Logistics. The rescue party set out with just their respirators and small arms. This is what would have been worn at the time for a "trench raid" when you would expect to be out of your trench and return again within hours after completing a task. For any expedition they would have needed to carry rations and the basic survival gear of the time.

Nurses. Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the scene with the red cross post other than to give screen time to a pretty actress?

Tactics. A German sniper would have been far better concealed than the hapless one depicted in the film. The battle scenes hark back to Hollywood films of the 40's and 50's where the Americans have an endless supply of ammunition, matched only by an endless supply of stupid Germans. The Huns charge in droves in open countryside to be mowed down.

Plagiarism? Many commentators have highlighted the similarity to Saving Private Ryan but I was also struck by the bayonet charge scene which is virtually word for word a copy of Chamberlain's charge in the "Gettysburg" movie.

Continuity. I feel mean bringing this up because it's probably a sign of a low budget. However it is really noticeable that the many scenes are mirrored to fit the direction of the action. Rifles have bolts which change from right to left of the weapon and collar dog badges become "S.U". It gives the feeling of a lazy and amateur approach to film making.

Sorry I can't be more positive.

I had the pleasure of seeing one of the early premieres of this film, and was impressed by the depth of tone, cinematography, sound design, and acting. Since World War I is not the most popular war to portray, especially compared with the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War, just bringing some of the issues of the Great War to light is a worthy achievement in itself. Overall, this is well-made and anyone fond of war films in general will enjoy this film.

It is difficult to review this film effectively, because as I talk about it with others, I often have the caveat of "for a regional film" or "for an indie film." That is, "This is a pretty good movie for a locally produced movie." And it's true. For a movie outside of the mainstream this, again, is very remarkable in many ways. When a comparison to bigger movies begins, though, The Great War suffers in contrast.

Not horribly, mind you, but there were a few things that were especially difficult to ignore. First was some of the dialogue using some war cliches. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that some people die in a war movie; in this case, a character's dying words sometimes seemed verbatim from countless other war movies. I will say that one character's final words did fit in with the movie's theme and character much more effectively.

Another area was simple blocking issues. In our little movie-watching group, one particular scene stood out as an example of this where a character was within talking distance of a group of the enemy ... and the enemy basically just stood there while the character did his thing. There were a few instances of just not blocking out the action in a believable manner. However, there were plenty of other exciting, gripping action sequences that hold their own against other war movies.

The biggest issue for our group was the basic storyline, though. Namely in how similar it was to Saving Private Ryan. Beat for beat, the sequence of events and even character development echoes what happened with Captain Miller as he looked for Private Ryan. Details of setting and specific actions are a bit different, but in effect this is a World War I version of the 1998 blockbuster. I will say, though, that in some ways, The Great War earns its emotional connections more honestly than does Saving Private Ryan.

Overall, this was a good movie, and I don't regret watching it at all. A few flaws here and there ... what movie doesn't? In the end, the message of the brotherhood of arms resonates strongly in this first major effort by this director. He, the crew, and the actors will all be people to watch in the coming years.

Did they have any original thought or did they adapt the entire script from Saving Private Ryan. Wow....even right down to the exact same lines.

This film is certainly no joke but rather a tribute to the determination and sacrifices of those troops. Review the history.

To respond to another reviewer - This film was set for late 1918. BARs (Browning Automatic Rifles, M1918 BAR) were certainly in use by U.S. forces. ALL weapons used in this movie were appropriate for the time period. There were NO M1 Garands. The grenades were either WWI German stick grenades or their smaller egg grenades, which again are historically accurate. Many of the weapons were originals supplied by the WWI re-enactors who were extras.

Are there some issues with the movie? Yes. The action was well done even with some cheesy dialogue. The movie is fast paced it has a good plot and story to tell of the brutality of war.

If you look at the credits, and the story line, it is a very poor WW1 version of Saving Private Ryan.

A visually clean experience where WW1 trenches apparently had no mud in them! We're supposed to invest in characters fighting for the S.U. of America because entire scenes are mirrored to pander to the balance of the frame. Attractive raven-haired foreign nurses are unapologetically lifted wholesale from Game of Thrones. Add a sprinkling of 5th Grade narrative to highlight the struggle for the coloured soldiers and you've got it in the can... here we go off to the awards (the Raspberry ones ofc). - Huzzah! \o/

3 Private Ryan's out of 10.