فيلم 1917

1917

1917 is a movie starring Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, and Daniel Mays. April 6th, 1917. As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that...

Other Titles
1917: Speranță și moarte, 1917 命をかけた伝令, Χίλια Εννιακόσια Δεκαεπτά, Taistelulähetit - 1917
Running Time
1 hours 59 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Drama, War
Director
Sam Mendes
Writer
Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Actors
George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Colin Firth, Daniel Mays
Country
USA, UK, India, Spain, Canada
Year
2019
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

April 6, 1917. On a battlefield in Northern France, Lance Corporal Tom Blake with the British Army is asked to choose one of his battalion colleagues to join him on an assignment, he choosing his best friend, Lance Corporal Will Schofield. It isn't until Blake chooses Schofield that they learn of the dangerous nature of the mission: to hand deliver a message to Colonel MacKenzie leading another nearby battalion, they having to cross no man's land to what they have been told are now the abandoned German trenches to get to MacKenzie just past the nearby town of Écoust. The message, which must reach its destination by dawn tomorrow, is for MacKenzie to abort his troop's attack then on the supposedly retreating Germans who are in reality lying in wait, the Germans having planned this deception for months. The lives of MacKenzie and his 1,600 men are at risk if the message does not make it through in time, one of those men being Blake's brother, Lt. Joseph Blake. Blake and Schofield's stories as it pertains to them as soldiers in the bigger picture of the war, as soldiers trying to stay alive, as friends, and as human beings who have their own motivations are told for as long as they are able to survive on this mission.

Comments about drama «1917» (23)

Billy C. photo
Billy C.

The only reason I'm giving this a 7 is because of the acting. You see, while the movie is certainly not a masterpiece, it is still a very good movie. If you like war movies, then I would recommend this movie.

Heather McCoy photo
Heather McCoy

The opening scenes of this movie are a bit slow, but are necessary for the two stories that come together to tell the story of World War I. The first is a love story between a German and a British soldier, but it's really not the story we're after. We are looking for a war movie, but the war isn't mentioned once. The other story is an Irishman trying to fight a war he can't understand, but it's more a history lesson. It's a very well told story and makes you understand the difficulties of World War I, but also makes you think of how terrible the war was. It was the first war we were told about, and also the first war we weren't told about, and you can't help but feel for the soldiers and the soldiers' families. I think the best thing about this movie is that it gives you an idea of what war was like for the soldiers and what the soldiers had to endure. The acting is very good, and the characters are believable. I think that this is a good movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Albert Carter photo
Albert Carter

I'm not going to waste your time with a review of this movie, since I'm sure you already have. I just wanted to say that I am so glad that I never wasted my money on it. I love history and I love movies. I just think it's unfair that it is so hard to find a decent, well-acted movie with a little bit of reality. The movie was very realistic, and you can't get that from the trailers. I was really surprised at how good it was. It was not one of those "let's see how many good things can we say about the movie" movies. It was a good movie, but it was not great. The only thing that was very, very bad about it was the ending. I think that this is a movie that would not be appreciated by most people, but if you like history and movies, I would recommend it.

Christina photo
Christina

My opinion on this movie. This movie was pretty much the perfect movie for me. I don't like war movies at all but this one is so much better than the other war movies I've seen. The acting is pretty good, and the story is pretty good too. It was a pretty good movie. It was well directed, and the actors did a good job. Overall, I think this movie is a pretty good movie. 7/10.

Melissa Cooper photo
Melissa Cooper

It's a great story, and it's well acted, especially by a cast of experienced actors. However, it's not a movie you can watch over and over again. There are a few moments of brilliance, but the story is largely what it is, and it does what it does. It's a movie that I will likely never watch again. But I do recommend it, because of the excellent cast.

Craig photo
Craig

With all the talk about The Wild Geese, it's hard not to get a bit excited when I read about this. A pretty decent war movie, even if it is a bit dated, and I wasn't expecting much, but it was surprisingly well done. The acting is good, the story is good, and it's entertaining enough. The biggest problem is that the war isn't that exciting. They don't show much of the fighting, and it's mostly just one big battle in a way that feels really short and lacking in tension. There is a bit of a cliffhanger ending, which is good, but it does have a lot of potential for a movie that could have been great. 7/10

Howard photo
Howard

The most outstanding feature of this film is the acting of both the actors and the director. While they are clearly in their prime and one of the most famous actors in the world, the rest of the cast also delivers a performance that is usually impossible to predict. The film is not all flawless though. It is sometimes hard to follow. At times, the sound is so distorted, that you cannot understand what is going on. The editing is also very uneven, with some scenes showing the same action, but with different events. Still, I think that this is the most important aspect of the film and makes it unique. Overall, it is a good film. However, if you are expecting an Oscar winning film, you will be disappointed. The film is interesting, but it is not a masterpiece. I would recommend it to any movie-goer, but I would not recommend it to people who are looking for an Oscar winning film.

Dylan photo
Dylan

I love films that deal with historical events. I have read a few books on the subject of WWI, and seen many films on it. I really liked the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but this film was a great film. The acting was excellent, especially from Mr. Grant and Mr. Jude. It was really suspenseful, especially in the first hour of the film. The ending was very interesting, and the actors were very good. The sound was really good, too. I would recommend this film to anyone.

Samuel Smith photo
Samuel Smith

A decent movie, that is very well done, in the same league as "The Deer Hunter". The two films are the same as each other, but in my opinion the movie is better. The plot was strong, the story was moving and the movie flowed very well. I think that this movie has been out for a very long time and I think that the movie was released at a time when the U.S. Government was in turmoil and the movie should have been released earlier. The movie would have been better if released in the mid to late 1970's. This movie was a perfect blend of action, drama, and suspense. It was entertaining and at times even beautiful. The movie should have been released in the late 1970's. The plot is very strong and the movie moves at a good pace. The acting was good, but not great. The film makers should have focused on the action and the drama rather than the acting. The movie could have been longer, and the movie could have been better in many areas. I give this movie 7/10, but it is not a perfect movie.

Roger Long photo
Roger Long

I have to admit that I have not seen the TV series, so I had not watched the movie, but from what I saw, it was very well done. I did not get to see the movie in the theatre, but I have to say that it was worth the wait. It was very well done, and I really liked the actors. This movie is not a war film, but I found the story of the Nazi's to be very believable. The film was filmed very well, and the characters were well developed. This is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. If you want to see a great war film, go to see this film. I would highly recommend this film.

Michelle photo
Michelle

War is a cruel and bitter mistress. The famous saying "War is Hell" rings true in the film The War of the World's. The film tells the story of the Japanese's attempt to conquer the Chinese coast and the American counter attack to stop them. This is one of the best war movies of the 21st century. The story is told in a very unique way and in a way that the audience will really be able to follow the story and feel for the characters. I was very impressed by the acting of the actors. They all did a very good job. The directing was very good. I thought the film had a very well developed story. The action was also good. It had the typical themes of war movies, like revenge, sacrifice and honor. Overall, I think the film was very good. I recommend it to all war movie fans and to anyone who is interested in war movies.

Betty B. photo
Betty B.

The war between England and France in 1917 is a great subject to examine for any movie buff. Not only was the film based on a true story, but it also covers a great deal of the history of the conflict, and gives the viewer a great deal of insight into what it was like. This movie is a must see for anyone who loves war movies. It is a great example of how movies can be the right thing to watch, and the wrong thing to watch. I give it a 7/10.

Carol H. photo
Carol H.

While I was not particularly impressed by the previous entries in the "War" series, I found this to be an improvement. The story, plot, characters, etc. are well developed and well acted. I enjoyed the film more than I had expected, and I think I might like it more than I did. This is not a bad movie, but I felt it could have been better. I would have liked to have seen more of the men, but I don't think the story is going to make you feel like you've seen all of the men, but I also think that the way the story is told is going to be confusing to some people, so I think it would be best if I watched the first film in the series. I think this film is going to be good for both adults and children, but it's probably not for the younger ones. I give it a B.

Mary Rogers photo
Mary Rogers

This is not the type of movie you'd expect to see from the likes of George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, and is rather an action-adventure film with a good story, decent direction and solid performances from its cast. The film stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the main character, a soldier in World War One. As the film goes on, he gets to know the character of Major Victor Singh, a Sikh who leads a small resistance group against the German army. The film follows their adventures as they try to escape the German army and to find the whereabouts of their leader. There are some excellent action scenes throughout the film, some of which are quite gruesome, and the film is quite violent at times, but it is not overly gory or overly brutal. The film is somewhat based on the real-life resistance movements of the British Sikhs, so the storyline is quite similar. There is a certain amount of historical inaccuracy, and the German soldiers may have actually been British rather than Germans. However, this does not detract from the film as it is a good film overall. It is well-paced and it's entertaining throughout. If you like action films, then you should definitely check this out.

Laura photo
Laura

The French Revolution is the single most important historical event in the history of mankind. It is the catalyst for the rise of communism, the founding of modern western culture, and the development of a peaceful democratic system. It is also the backdrop of a great number of movies. Even though the events are complex and seem to be endless, the truth is that a great deal of these movies have been produced, and their popularity is largely due to their historical accuracy. If we were to take a survey of all of these movies, we would find that only a handful of them contain a significant amount of historical truth. Most of the historical inaccuracies are the result of the movie's director's vision of what the film should portray. In this case, this was to portray the French Revolution as a cause of the downfall of the French monarchy, and the resulting revolution as a cause of the rise of communism. The movie itself was nothing more than a plan to show the evolution of the French Revolution, and how this was to change the world. This does not mean that the movie was inaccurate. The movie did attempt to accurately portray the events and personalities of the French Revolution. However, the reality is that the vast majority of movies produced about the French Revolution did not accurately portray the events. In fact, the majority of the events portrayed in the movie were completely fictional. What this means is that the movie is not true to the events of the French Revolution, and is only about the French Revolution. This movie is not about the French Revolution, but it is about the rise of communism and the transformation of France from a republic to a monarchy. The movie is a great historical documentary, and should be viewed as such.

Pamela S. photo
Pamela S.

This film has a lot to recommend it, however I thought it did fall a little flat. For one thing, it could have been longer. The characters of the main characters are given very little time to develop. While this isn't a bad thing, it does mean that the audience isn't given much of a chance to connect with the main characters. As a result, there's a bit of an effortless quality to the film. I didn't get the feeling that they were struggling to come up with something new. For a war film, it's not all that original, and it's not all that captivating. There's a little bit of the same old cliches, and it doesn't quite have the same impact as it should have. It's certainly better than most war films, but I think it's one that doesn't quite reach the heights of its predecessors.

Tyler W. photo
Tyler W.

I'm not sure why I've seen so many bad reviews. This film is a very nice and quite different experience from the standard Hollywood movie. I've seen it and it left me in no doubt that it is not a typical Hollywood movie. It has a nice twist and a great story. The cast is quite good. I really liked Liam Neeson and thought he did a great job. He was very convincing in his role and did a great job of portraying the character of Major Wilkes. The rest of the cast was OK. It was a bit of a mixed bag for me. The story seemed a bit over-done at times. I'm not sure what the director was trying to achieve with it. The score was good, but not great. The first and last scenes were quite emotional, but the score didn't really grab me. Overall, it's a nice little movie that I recommend to any fan of the genre. 7/10.

Catherine Wallace photo
Catherine Wallace

The second part of the celebrated war drama based on true events of the German attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. Directed by Sir Sidney Lumet, who also co-wrote the script with Edmund Goulding, "Stalingrad" has all the elements to be a great war film. It's also, unfortunately, a film that's very hard to watch. Lumet has made some good films, but "Stalingrad" is his most uninspired effort to date. It's not that it's bad; in fact, it's a very watchable film. It just has a very bad script and a very poor director. Lumet's approach to this war drama is, however, very interesting. He plays it like a documentary, and the film is at times incredibly sad. It's one of the few war films that I can say that I like. I also like the fact that he's not afraid to use the German language in the film, which is a rare thing these days. The film has two things that make it a great film. The first is the great German cast. None of the actors seem to know what they're doing, and that's a problem. It's obvious that the actors are trying to play the German accent as if they're really German, but they're not German. One of the most disappointing things about the cast is that the majority of them are German actors. In addition, the film is shot in German with English subtitles. I'm not sure what Lumet was trying to accomplish here, but it's not working. The second great thing about the film is the way it's shot. It looks like a documentary, and that's a great thing. The war scenes are also great, and the film is filled with amazing scenes. Lumet seems to be very fond of the war scenes. He does an excellent job of capturing the beauty of the war, and the terrible brutality of the battle. The film's biggest strength is its first half, which is almost flawless. The German cast is great, and the movie is incredibly beautiful. The second half of the film is just mediocre, and I found it incredibly boring. The first half of the film is incredibly beautiful, and I found the second half dull and uninteresting. Lumet is the same director who made the excellent "Apocalypse Now" and "Apocalypse Now Redux", and this film is one of the best examples of his work. The film is also about as realistic as a war film can be. The German actors are perfect in their roles, and the cinematography is amazing. Lumet makes some great war films, but this is a mediocre one. I don't think that Lumet is the greatest director in the world, but "Stalingrad" is not one of his best. The performances are great, but the script is poor. Lumet seems to be trying to make a documentary about the war, but he's not German, and the script is awful. I recommend this film to people who want to watch a great war film, but don't want to see a good one. The acting is great, but the script is awful. This is a great film, but it's not a great war film.

Kathy photo
Kathy

The only negative thing I can say about this film is that it's too long. It is a pretty good film, but it's also too long and not as gripping as it should be. However, the film does have some very interesting things to say. It's really not a bad film, it just is a bit of a let down at the end.

James L. photo
James L.

The action is well executed, with an interesting plot, and it does a great job of telling the story of how the events in this movie came to be. The story, however, is not so compelling. It is a bit repetitive, and is more of a "shallow" documentary than a full-blown movie. The conflict in the movie is that the French and the Germans are at war. There is an American Captain, Lt. Col. Johnson (played by Tom Sizemore), who is trying to convince the French to join the war. He meets with a few French generals, who are not interested, because they are afraid that their country will lose the war. Johnson then goes to a little town in France and tells the people there that the war is over. The French are very reluctant, but then the Germans show up. The German soldiers tell Johnson that they have been holding out against the French, and that they have killed a lot of people. Johnson then asks if they are willing to join the war. The German soldiers tell him they will only join if they are going to be able to do some heavy work, and can take their horses. Johnson is interested, and tells them that he can show them the way to France. He shows them the way, and they all go off to the war. The movie is very gripping, and the story is very interesting. The actors all do a great job, and the direction is very good. The movie is worth seeing, and is definitely worth watching.

Arthur C. photo
Arthur C.

In the first half of the movie, there's a lot of scenes that are not at all necessary. It would have been better to have a bit more background information about the characters, and some of the scenes could have been cut. The movie is actually quite good, but there are several scenes that are just too long and just don't add up to anything. The story and the characters are good, and I really enjoyed the acting. In the end, I think the movie is worth seeing, just for the actors and the scenery. I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

Thomas Graham photo
Thomas Graham

My wife and I watched this on TV. I was surprised by the many similarities between the film and the book. For one thing, the screenplay is really good. It had to be to get the book on the big screen. For another, there are a few more character and plot twists than in the book. The main difference is that the film is long. The book is short and has a lot of action. The film has a lot of action, but only one major battle. The book is full of action and twists. It is better than this film. I would recommend this film to anyone who likes war films. The acting is good and the characters are well developed. It is an enjoyable film.

Jason G. photo
Jason G.

This movie was a great idea. It took a somewhat niche subject and made it really accessible to a wider audience. I mean, really, this is a WWII movie. It has to be, otherwise it would have been a complete failure. In fact, I'm not sure the movie was a complete failure. The acting was really good, especially from the main characters. Some of the acting in the movie was pretty bad, but still, it was better than some movies I've seen recently. Overall, I thought this was a really good movie. I give it a 7 out of 10. It's not Oscar-worthy, but it's really good and it's really easy to watch. I recommend it to anybody who likes WWI movies.