Set in 1917, Berger decides to take the bird’s eye view on things in his brutal depiction of the First World War. This is a war movie from the perspective of the losers, a fly-on-the-wall depiction featuring a mosaic of characters. Anti-war filmmaking with, at the start, at least, not any apparent lead. It’s striking filmmaking but also feels eerily familiar. The last century ended with two all-timers of the war genre: Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” and Terrence Malick’s “The Thin Red Line.” They both set a bar that just hasn’t been reach again these 24 years later. Don’t get me wrong, there have been plenty of worthy war films since then, but none as seminally important. I’ve narrowed my list down to twelve: Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Downfall,” Laszlo Nemes’ “Son of Saul,” Paul Verhoeven’s “Black Book,” Ridley Scott’s “Black Hawk Down,” Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” Roman Polanski’s “The Pianist,” Peter Jackson’s “They Shall Not Grow Old,” Ari Folman’s “Waltz With Bashir, David Ayer’s “Fury,” Peter Berg’s “Lone Survivor,” and Jean-Jacques Annaud’s “Enemy at the Gates.” What would you add to the cinematic war pantheon? Contribute Hire me
Advertise Donate Team Contact Privacy Policy
