Movie Review: “1917”

“1917”

Release date: January 10, 2020

Runtime: 119 mins

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Starring:  Dean-Charles Chapman

George MacKay

Daniel Mays

Colin Firth

The advertising for “1917” made a very big deal out of the notion that it looks like all one shot. I went into “1917” expecting this to be the case, and I was more than a little disappointed. Even those who will not notice the numerous editing tricks which less than fluidly continue the one-shot illusion are going to notice at least one obvious cut. One moment in the movie, around the halfway point, has our protagonist getting injured rather badly. He goes unconscious and the screen goes completely black for several seconds. 

This would not annoy me nearly as much if the long shot technique had been used in an interesting way. If most of the movie had been comprised of complicated battle sequences with lots going on, I would be a little more forgiving. In reality, 60 to 70% of the movie is simply one or maybe two people walking through various empty structures and landscapes while talking about some uninteresting topic. One thing I did not expect “1917” to be was boring, but that ended up being my experience with it. 

The story is essentially a reverse “Saving Private Ryan.” Instead of a whole army unit being sent to rescue one man, two soldiers are sent to save thousands. Apart from the beginning and end we do not see huge masses of soldiers, whether in the midst of fierce battle or huddled in the trenches. Rather, we spend a large chunk of the runtime with these two characters. Even on the occasions when they do get into a firefight, it is still only one or two of the protagonists against a couple of mostly unseen enemies. What I am trying to say is it did not feel like the monumental war epic I thought the trailers were promising me. 

Perhaps it was my fault going into this movie with these expectations, but I do not feel as if I missed anything which would completely change my feelings. Mostly, it reminded me of other, better movies which I would have rather been watching. Last year’s WWI documentary “They Shall Not Grow Old” and Christopher Nolan’s WWII thriller “Dunkirk” were often going through my head as I sat in the theater. 

Despite my numerous problems with “1917,” I cannot deny a great deal of effort went into making the movie possible. The production and sound design stood out the most positively to me. World War I is one of my favorite historical events to study, and the movie gets the look of the trenches and the desolation down amazingly. Roger Deakins, arguably the greatest cinematographer working today, does a lot to keep the movie visually interesting. Even though the one-shot gimmick did not impress me as much as I thought it would, it obviously took hundreds and hundreds of hours of planning to pull off. These technical attributes keep me from being able to call the movie bad. 

“1917” is the kind of movie you need to see in a theater if you are going to see it at all. Almost everyone I have talked to about the movie seems to enjoy it a great deal. I am honestly envious I could not have the kind of amazing filmgoing experience which others have described. 

Having now seen all nine of the movies nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, “1917” was easily my least favorite.

Drew Eckhart is a junior history and pre-law major from Edmond, OK. He has loved movies for as long as he can remember but thinks his passion really began when he watched “The Dark Knight” for the first time. His favorite type of movie blends comedy and drama seamlessly, and he loves great action films.  His favorite movie is “The Graduate.”

00