Some of my favorite war films could be called gorgeous, including Terrence Malick’s Schofield and Blake are stoic protagonists, and though MacKay does particularly well shouldering the burden of having the action constantly centered on him, there isn’t a lot of depth to either soldier. The website's critical consensus reads, "Hard-hitting, immersive, and an impressive technical achievement, 1917 captures the trench warfare of World War I … I don’t consider myself a curmudgeon about CGI-assisted long takes; Alfonso Cuarón’s In those cases, though, the lack of cutting ramped up the tension. To a certain degree, it’s about luck, for many a heroic act has been thwarted by chance, leaving no one to acknowledge the sacrifice — although as “1917” demonstrates, glory plays no part in heroism. Seventeen minutes in, they hoist themselves up to the surface, and we hold our breath as the camera lifts alongside them, taking in the surreal wasteland so few of their comrades live to see, with its half-decayed horse corpses and monstrous rats.As if the aboveground trek weren’t daunting enough — a Homeric micro-odyssey that unfolds in real time against awesome outdoor sets — it gets more intimidating still when they reach the newly vacated German trench. As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that will stop 1,600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap. Actor George MacKay carries Sam Mendes' audacious real-time WWI adventure, which alternates between ground-level and God's-eye perspectives.How do you define heroism? (Note: the next paragraph contains spoilers.) TheAtlantic.com Copyright (c) 2020 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. The War Film 1917 Is One of the Year’s Mightiest Technical Achievements. Sam Mendes’s “1917,” a film of patriotic bombast, has an imagination-free script filled with melodramatic coincidences that trivialize the life-and-death action by reducing it to sentiment. It was 1917, but it could have been any one of too many years since the Civil War, including 2020. A filmmaker moves on from Bond with a meticulously crafted WWI movie. Their errand calls for bravery, and yet, at times the pair can’t help but second-guess their decision to deliver a message that could save the lives of 1,600 fellow British soldiers.
Later that night, as we stumble out into a vision of hell, and Newman’s score swells to full orchestra as flares illuminate the godforsaken ruins. Scott, in particular, makes a huge impression early on as a trench commander dripping with cynicism; his character’s backstory seems far more interesting than Schofield and Blake’s trek, but there’s no time to delve into it.The simplicity of the mission, necessitated by the visual conceit, is double-edged. That shot (or “segment,” in light of the film’s long-take aesthetic) is outrageous and exhilarating, an act of last-minute desperation by a character who’s proved far more sensible about his own safety until now. As the two boys are summoned into a briefing with their stiff-upper-lip leader, General Erinmore (Colin Firth), the camera dutifully hovers behind them as they walk through the trenches. The Fritzes have fallen back to meet up with reinforcements, hoping to lure the Allies into a trap, and two British battalions are about to fall for it, ready to send their men to certain death the following morning.
A British commander sends two soldiers, Blake and Schofield, across No Man’s Land through bombed-out areas to warn 1600 British troops on the front lines that they are heading into a German trap. 1917 Is a Visual Feat and a Bad Movie Sam Mendes’s war drama is designed to look like it was shot in two long takes.
But since the mission demands that our heroes press on, those all-stars depart just as quickly, unable to keep up with the camera. After they receive their orders and head into battle, figuring out how Mendes will keep the action from cutting becomes a kind of photographic guessing game for the audience. There are scenes in “1917” when audiences will see Blake and Schofield panic-stricken, terrified and even in tears. At times, the camera can make us feel like a third character along for the ride, and we the audience share in their anxiety.
Better-known actors such as Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch stop by for brief cameos that each have more life. But this technical accomplishment is wasted on a soulless film. That intellectually driven choice underscores what a different filmmaker he is from Spielberg or Nolan, with Mendes looking to imprint some kind of poetic sensibility on the technical accomplishment we’ve just witnessed.