rdrift1879

I was very much looking forward to this and was happy it came to a theater nearby. Good performances. Beautiful cinematography. Engaging battle sequences. But the story is very uneven in its pacing and plot. It feels long. The original 1930 film had a superior dramatic structure. Maybe it was the desire to weave in a version of how the Armistice came about that draws it out so. On this point, the film also has strange historical deficiencies, as if the Germans fought only the French, and there were no Allies at the signing of the Armistice. Curious omission. Also, the score did not always enhance the great camera work or the story. Worth seeing, especially in a theater, but I was rather disappointed overall. I feel "1917" was a superior movie.

A George Stevens masterpiece that never gets old. Great performances, humor and adventure on a grand scale. It is about friendship, humanity and great courage found in unexpected places.

Having recently seen it again, I am struck by the truly brilliant cinematography. It's just a beautiful film.

I had no idea what this would be except that it looked like a family friendly Christmas movie.

It is a low-budget affair with mostly amateur actors. It looks pretty good, but the screenplay is a confusing mess. The behavior of the main characters is frequently inexplicable. The big "reveals" as the story progresses doesn't really help explain just plain odd behavior.

It is sort of a faith movie related to someone's idea of Catholicism, but none of the characters behave like they believe any of it. I think the core message is a nice party is as good as any church. Then it adds a kind of pro-life finale, which almost works, except for everything leading up to it.

The 10 start ratings must be from people who are friends of the film's maker.