It was worth seeing, yes. Forgettable. The lead actor is pudgy so I had to go into pretend mode. There is no chance a soldier in the 1st world war was fat. Not a chance. That ruined it for me like the players in Dunkirk with the coifed hair and the guy in the raft for forty days the pow movie Angelina Jolie did. Didn’t need a shave or a haircut.
Suspending disbelief in a war film.
I’m spoiled by Band of Brothers. Perfect
That's what bothered me the most (among some other things) about 1917. Really bad casting with the chubby actor Dean-Charles Chapman. The other lead actor (George MacKay) was excellent, and really looked the part.
I don’t think Dean-Charles Chapman qualifies as pudgy, based on the pictures I’ve seen. Stocky, maybe.
What may have thrown you off is that both the lead actors were wearing brown leather jerkins — thigh-length vests — over their tunics, with their web gear over that.
The jerkins were issued as cold-weather gear in both world wars and, I believe, at least through the 1950s.
They were popular with the troops, as they kept your chest warm while being less bulky than the issue overcoat.
I don’t believe that the US Army had any equivalent uniform item.
“1917” is set at the start of the Arras offensive in April of that year. It was quite cold on the Western front — I just listened to an interview with Nigel Farrage, who’s a serious Great War buff, and he said that there was actually still snow on the ground.
My biggest nit to pick about “1917” was the presence of turbaned Sikh infantrymen in one scene. Actually, the British high command transferred all of the Indian Corps’ infantry units to the Middle East at the end of 1915.
As you would expect, the Sikhs, Gurkhas et. al., fought hard and well at Neuve Chappelle, Festubert, Aubers Ridge, Loos and smaller actions in 1915.