1917
2 months ago in LeoFinance by steemychicken1 (77)
$32.98
- Past Payouts $32.98
- - Author $16.51
- - Curators $16.47
230 votes
- brofi: $3.58
- mcgi.cares: $3.01
- steemychicken1: $1.78
- geekgirl: $1.56
- erikah: $1.38
- buggedout: $1.22
- papilloncharity: $1.21
- yeouido.park: $1.19
- cryptoandcoffee: $1.18
- trumpman: $1.13
- pfunk: $1.07
- nuthman: $1.06
- josediccus: $0.96
- cur8: $0.92
- dwayne16: $0.87
- shaka: $0.85
- alokkumar121: $0.73
- behiver: $0.63
- niallon11: $0.56
- arcange: $0.55
- and 210 more
I love my war films and I was in the opposite camp thinking it was a proper dud and was left utterly disappointed. When directors start playing around with fancy techniques there has to be a reason and that would be low budget. I suppose at the end of the day it all depends what you expect from a war film and for this reason doesn't come close to my top 30 war films.
They mostly start using new and fancy techniques thinking that they can become innovators in cinema and gain more fame.
Yes I noticed and this film along with Dunkirk I turned off before the end. My feeling is if you are not going to do the history justice them do another type of film. I really enjoy war films and even travel around Europe learning about various battles that took place and why I get disappointed when it is more about techniques than the story.
This film has been around, and it merits an audience. I just don't have the heart for it. WWI was such a slough, such a pointless exercise. All those lives lost and nothing, nothing at all accomplished except to set the stage for WWII.
Yeap . War it's such an awful thing but for it's something like giving a praise to the people that fought when that kind of movies are produced because it might make some people change opinion .