1917 Review:

Sam Mendes cinematic achievement in filmmaking with "1917," Courtesy of Universal Pictures.

Colonel MacKenzie: “I hoped today would be a good day. Hope is a dangerous thing.”

The one way to describe this film is the “one shot World War I film.” 1917(2019)is a unique cinematic achievement for the people who shot this film and technically speaking. I would even describe it as a masterpiece of camerawork, which generally does elevate this film to extraordinary heights. It almost feels like an experiment to see if this would be achievable in a film. While this is not the first time it has been handled this way (example is Birdman (2014),helmed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu and shot essentially in the one take format) 1917 does make a case for having a new kind of suspense and thrills when it comes to moviegoing experiences. That is one huge take away I can take from the film; however, this format does face uncertainty consequences due to character building vs. having situations become the highlight of the film. Critics and audiences have always seen the ideas of characters as an essential part of a film or telling a story, but another comparison this film can have is Dunkirk (2017). A film dealing with a situation at large and the importance of this historical moment that Christopher Nolan captures intensely. But for 1917, while I agree the film is definitely better than it should be due to the cinematography and Sam Mendes. It does suffer from the issues of marketing and spoilers, and how characters in this film were lacking, which made the climatic moments not as an effective as the marketing promised.

1917 is essentially about two solders (aka Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay) and how they must go behind enemy lines during World War I to deliver a message so 1,600 men do not get ambushed by the enemies. This is a simulation of sorts since Mendes decided to make the film seem like it was done in one take. Which is supposed to add a sense of suspense and thrills for audiences to experience. To put an audience in the shoes of actual soldiers and see just how dangerous and life-threatening it is. That is one huge take away from this film as well is the realism on display. And how this technique can create something truly special for the moviegoing experience that can be yet another stepping stone in cinema history.

George MacKay (left) and Dean-Charles Chapman (right) in "1917," Courtesy of Universal Pictures.

This review is going to be primary talking about the three elements that this film addresses overall. And going off of the point of the filmmaking technique at hand, this does create an extreme amount excitement for film lovers all over the world. There are moments in this film where I genuinely felt the tortures of war at plain site. Mendes and Deakins puts you in enemy territory with gruesome effects of dead bodies and with destroyed buildings and quiet fields to make you feel right in the middle of a repulsive and painful situation for everyone involved. One of my favorite sequences in the film comes when a soldier is in a rundown town with destroyed buildings all around him. While he runs through this town, flares are going off in the sky, creating an inimitable light on the character. It also creates a sense of darkness because with each flare going in and out, the soldier must hide, but yet come out into the open where enemy soldiers are awaiting him.

But like I said though, this sequence is in the advertising. Universal clearly had a special kind of film on their hands here, and while I understand showing intense and gratifying moments in trailers and truly putting forth that the film looks like it was done in “ONE TAKE,” it sure does take away an element of surprise that most people could have experienced going in blindly. I get marketing your film is one thing, but if there is one thing I have known over the course of the last few years writing about film, is that trailers and marketing have caused a sense of discomfort for audiences and people who genuinely love film. And this is odd comparison, but Avengers: Endgameor even any Avengersfilm does a phenomenal job of selling their films. Because people love to be TEASED, not told everything. Cause when the ending comes in the film, then there is an enormous shock about what the climactic moment or moments are.

Which leads me to the characters of this film, the two soldiers we follow. And I hate having this war film example come up all the time, but Saving Private Ryan (1998)for instance, gives an audience’s characters who were regular people that ended up having to serve in the war. Tom Hanks is a school teacher, you find that out as the film progresses, and then the film ends with a extremely sad, but realistic ending that made me feel for these soldiers, giving them an ending that is satisfying for viewers.

George MacKay stands in the mixed of battle in "1917," Courtesy of Universal Pictures.

However, 1917 is in a much similar boat with the type of soldiers who were serving. And there is only one character who has something personally revealed near the beginning, which is much of the driving force of the narrative. I am all for keeping it simple, but the narrative decides to take a left turn halfway through, leaving us with, essentially, a small amount of development left. The film begs us to have faith for the back half, which to me felt a little bit of stretch.

Which then brings me to the conclusion of this film. The climax for this film is one of the most beautiful moments in war films I have ever seen. Period. But on the contrary, I did not care about the character we are stuck with trying incredibly hard to deliver this message. This moment is shown HEAVILY in the marketing, which it should not have due to its importance of the situation. If this moment, was not shown, and was kept only for the audiences who went to see it, then I would been describing this film as one big epic showcase, but since I saw all of the best moments in the marketing because I am at the theater quite a bit, I was let down by this. In fact, when the big climax is over, the ending to the film, while yes, it is truthful with how the narrative begins, we get a small revelation with a character. And this moment is effective, but if I was told this detail incredibly early on, then again, this film would be described as a war epic masterpiece. But it needed some reorganizing.

I can go back and rewatch it, maybe notice other little details, but on the grand scheme of things, 1917 is an experimental achievement that I am glad got made. I will revisit the cinematography for this one, but as a narrative, it should have had a couple more revisions in my mind. And it can serve a lesson in marketing to not show everything you have for the sake of attracting viewers.

Rating: B+

Run Time: 1 Hour 59 Minutes