1917 movie reviews

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

At a time when it seems as if cinema experiences a new technological breakthrough every few months, it's oddly comforting that moviegoers can still be hooked by a film that's presented as being one unbroken shot. Granted, it's not a new idea, but the concept of an extended single shot, whether the shot is meant to stretch for an entire movie, or just serve as the focus for an especially showy scene, still has the power to excite viewers on some basic level. “1917,” the new film from Sam Mendes , is the latest attempt at the feature-length single-shot approach, and its technical accomplishments cannot be denied. But the film is so obsessed with its particular technique that it doesn’t leave room for the other things we also go to the movies for—little things like a strong story, interesting characters, or a reason for existing other than as a feat of technical derring-do. Sitting through it is like watching someone else playing a video game for two solid hours, and not an especially compelling one at that.

As indicated by the title, “1917” is set amidst the turmoil of World War I and takes place in and around the so-called “no man’s land” in northern France separating British and German troops. Two young corporals, Blake ( Dean-Charles Chapman ) and Schofield ( George MacKay ), are awoken from what could have only been a few minutes of sleep and ordered to report for a new assignment. A few miles away, another company, one that includes Blake’s brother, has planned an attack to commence in a few hours designed to push the Germans back even further following a recent retreat. However, recent intelligence suggests that the retreat is a ruse that will land them in ambush that will cost thousands of British lives. With the radio lines down, Blake and Schofield are ordered to head on foot to that company in order to call off the attack before it can commence, a journey that will force them to travel through enemy territory. Of course, the two have been assured that where they will be crossing is safe enough, but the tension within the soldiers they meet as they get closer to the front, and the recent nature of the carnage they witness when they first go over the top, suggests otherwise. And yet, that first glimpse of the literal Hell on earth they must journey through is only a taste of what they have to endure—at one point, one of them inadvertently plunges a hand recently sliced by barbed wire into the open wound of a corpse and that turns out to be one of the less excruciating moments in store for them.

“1917” essentially wants to do for World War I what “ Saving Private Ryan ” did for World War II and “ Platoon ” did for Vietnam—provide a visceral depiction of the horrors of combat for viewers whose only frame of reference for those conflicts has been history books or other movies. This is not a bad idea for a film, but "1917" never quite comes alive in the way that Mendes presumably hoped, and much of the reason for that is the direct result of how he has deployed to tell his story. Now, I enjoy an extended single-shot sequence that exists solely for a filmmaker to show off their technical finesse, but if I were to make a list of the most effective one-shot sequences, they would be the ones that are so absorbing for other reasons that we don’t even register at first that they have been done in what looks like one long take. Take the famous opening scene in Orson Welles' “ Touch of Evil ,” for example. Yes, it is a technical marvel. But at the same time Welles was pulling off this trick with the aid of cinematographer Russell Metty , he was setting up the story and introducing several of the key characters quickly and efficiently. When he did finally make a cut, it came as a genuine shock.

By comparison, there is hardly a moment to be had in “1917” in which Mendes is not calling out for viewers to notice all the technical brilliance on display. Taken strictly on those terms, the film is undeniably impressive— Roger Deakins is one of the all-time great cinematographers and his work here on what must have been a fiendishly challenging shoot is as impressive as anything he has done. The problem is that the visual conceit can’t help but draw attention to itself throughout, whether it is due to the increasingly showy camera moves or the sometimes awkward methods that are deployed to camouflage the edits and which begin to stick out more and more. (Oddly enough, the most blatantly obvious method used to hide a cut—one of the characters being briefly knocked unconscious—is actually the most dramatically effective of the bunch.) Instead of gradually fading into the background in order to make room for elements of a more dramatic or emotional nature, the distracting technique remains front and center.

Granted, one of the reasons that the visual style ends up dominating the proceedings is because there isn’t really much of anything on hand here that has much chance of stealing focus. The storyline concocted by Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns too often feels like an amalgamation of such classic WWI films as "The Big Parade," “All Quiet on the Western Front” and " Paths of Glory ." At certain points, the story stops dead for brief appearances by familiar faces like Colin Firth , Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong in exposition-heavy sequences that feel exactly like the cut scenes that appear between the different levels in video games.

“1917” is not entirely without interest. This was clearly a fiendishly complicated project to stage and execute and there are some scenes (such as an especially tense one set in a seemingly abandoned shelter that contains a few nasty surprises), that are legitimate knockouts. And yet, for all of its technical expertise, little of it helps viewers to care about the characters or what might happen to them. When all is said and done, "1917" is basically a gimmick film. If that is enough for you, you may admire it for its accomplishments. Personally, I wanted more.

Peter Sobczynski

A moderately insightful critic, full-on Swiftie and all-around bon vivant , Peter Sobczynski, in addition to his work at this site, is also a contributor to The Spool and can be heard weekly discussing new Blu-Ray releases on the Movie Madness podcast on the Now Playing network.

Now playing

The Truth vs. Alex Jones

Brian tallerico.

Love Lies Bleeding

The American Society of Magical Negroes

Robert daniels.

Ricky Stanicky

Monica castillo.

Simon Abrams

Riddle of Fire

Film credits.

1917 (2019)

Rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language.

119 minutes

George MacKay as Schofield

Dean-Charles Chapman as Blake

Mark Strong as Captain Smith

Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie

Richard Madden as Lieutenant Blake

Benedict Cumberbatch as MacKenzie

Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Cinematographer

Roger Deakins
Thomas Newman

Latest blog posts

Steve Martin Is an Auteur Without Having Directed a Thing

The Unloved, Part 124: Play Dirty

Beyoncé and My Daughter Love Country Music

A Poet of an Actor: Louis Gossett, Jr. (1936-2024)

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
Problemista Link to Problemista
Late Night with the Devil Link to Late Night with the Devil

New TV Tonight

Mary & George: Season 1
Star Trek: Discovery: Season 5
Sugar: Season 1
American Horror Story: Season 12
Parish: Season 1
Ripley: Season 1
Loot: Season 2
Lopez vs Lopez: Season 2
The Magic Prank Show With Justin Willman: Season 1

1917 Reviews

The power of 1917 lies in its ability to tell a human story of a single mission and translate that into an account that encompasses the brutality of trench warfare.

Full Review | Sep 17, 2023

Edited to look like one continuous shot, 1917 is a mind-blowing technical achievement, elevated by Roger Deakins’ jaw-dropping cinematography, Thomas Newman’s emotionally powerful score, Sam Mendes' impeccable directing, and Lee Smith’s seamless editing.

Full Review | Original Score: A | Jul 24, 2023

Without a doubt, 1917 is technically brilliant, visually stunning, and occasionally moving. If not for its lack of fully realized characters and a deeper story, it might have been a masterpiece.

Full Review | Jul 20, 2023

With a fresh, new approach, Mendes memorializes not only his grandfather, but all the brave soldiers of WWI, reminding viewers of the individual tragedies that comprise warfare.

Full Review | Jun 5, 2023

1917 can best be described as a mediocre war film. Yes, Deakins worked his usual magic with cinematography...McKay did an adequate job...sadly, we know very little about his character, and the film does not allow him to grow...

Full Review | Apr 25, 2023

Sam Mendes’ technically dazzling and emotionally devastating World War I tale.../

Full Review | Dec 7, 2022

A technical marvel to behold that puts you right in the heart of war but ultimately leaves you emotionally cold to the resultant horror and heroics of the men involved.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Nov 11, 2022

With “1917” Sam Mendes takes his audience on a perilous journey driven by a simple but tightly-wound story soaked in an unending tension. It’s a harrowing tale of heroism, friendship, and sacrifice.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 24, 2022

1917 is a stunning cinematic achievement.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 23, 2022

MacKay is simultaneously appearing in the lead role of Justin Kurzel's True History of the Kelly Gang, the latest film about the local folk hero who refused to take orders from anyone.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Aug 18, 2022

For experiences like the one I had in the theatre watching this is why I love film. Constantly asking myself how they did this. Probably Sam Mendes' best movie to date. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 9/10 | Jun 23, 2022

Unfortunately I dont see what most see in 1917. Respectively, I hardly feel anything except some respect for the technical achievements. But that alone isnt enough - it actually slightly damages the film overall.

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Apr 25, 2022

The film's formal indulgences distract from its dramatic potential.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/4 | Feb 22, 2022

What makes it so special is the balance between artistry and realism. Mendes reaches down into the mud and finds something beautiful.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/5 | Feb 21, 2022

1917 is a technical masterpiece that comes together with genuine powerful emotion to become a captivating work of art.

Full Review | Feb 12, 2022

We should be drawn into the personal story--director Sam Mendes loosely based the movie on his grandfather Alfred's wartime experiences--but instead, we're watching all the smoke and mirrors. It's sound and fury that could signify so much more.

Full Review | Nov 16, 2021

What could have been a gimmick in the service of a weaker narrative becomes a masterstroke here, basically denying us any let-off from the tension of what is happening on the screen.

Full Review | Sep 17, 2021

The gimmicky side of [its single take] fades juxtaposed to the perspective it offers.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Jul 31, 2021

In addition to Deakins, production designer Dennis Gassner and composer Thomas Newman also add layers of bravura artistry to create an experience that will leave you breathless, heart pounding and absolutely emotionally wrecked by the end.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/5 | Jul 25, 2021

Mendes creates one of the best films released in 2019.

Full Review | Jul 23, 2021

Supported by

‘1917’ Review: Paths of Technical Glory

Sam Mendes directs this visually extravagant drama about young British soldiers on a perilous mission in World War I.

Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

On June 28, 1914, a young Serbian nationalist assassinated the presumptive heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, thus starting World War I. That, at any rate, is the familiar way that the origins for this war have been shaped into a story, even if historians agree the genesis of the conflict is far more complicated. None of those complications and next to no history, though, have made it into “1917,” a carefully organized and sanitized war picture from Sam Mendes that turns one of the most catastrophic episodes in modern times into an exercise in preening showmanship.

The story is simple. It opens on April 6, 1917, with Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay), British soldiers stationed in France, receiving new orders. They are to deliver a message to troops at the front line who are readying an assault on the Germans, who have retreated. (Coincidentally or not, April 6 is the date that the United States formally entered the war.) The British command, however, believes that the German withdrawal is a trap, an operational Trojan horse. The two messengers need to carry the dispatch ordering the waiting British troops to stand down, thereby saving countless lives.

It’s the usual action-movie setup — a mission, extraordinary odds, ready-made heroes — but with trenches, barbed wire and a largely faceless threat. Blake jumps on the assignment because his brother is among the troops preparing the assault. Schofield takes orders more reluctantly, having already survived the Battle of the Somme , with its million-plus casualties. The modest difference in attitude between the messengers will vanish, presumably because any real criticism — including any skepticism about this or any war — might impede the movie’s embrace of heroic individualism for the greater good, which here largely translates as vague national struggle and sacrifice.

What complicates the movie is that it has been created to look like it was made with a single continuous shot. In service of this illusion, the editing has been obscured, though there are instances — an abrupt transition to black, an eruption of thick dust — where the seams almost show. Throughout, the camera remains fluid, its point of view unfixed. At times, it shows you what Blake and Schofield see, though it sometimes moves like another character. Like a silent yet aggressively restless unit member, it rushes before or alongside or behind the messengers as they snake through the mazy trenches and cross into No Man’s Land, the nightmarish expanse between the fronts.

The idea behind the camerawork seems to be to bring viewers close to the action, so you can share what Blake and Schofield endure each step of the way. Mostly, though, the illusion of seamlessness draws attention away from the messengers, who are only lightly sketched in, and toward Roger Deakins’s cinematography and, by extension, Mendes’s filmmaking. Whether the camera is figuratively breathing down Blake’s and Schofield’s necks or pulling back to show them creeping inside a water-filled crater as big as a swimming pool, you are always keenly aware of the technical hurdles involved in getting the characters from here to there, from this trench to that crater.

In another movie, such demonstrative self-reflexivity might have been deployed to productive effect; here, it registers as grandstanding. It’s too bad and it’s frustrating, because the two leads make appealing company: The round-faced Chapman brings loose, affable charm to his role, while MacKay, a talented actor who’s all sharp angles, primarily delivers reactive intensity. This lack of nuance can be blamed on Mendes, who throughout seems far more interested in the movie’s machinery than in the human costs of war or the attendant subjects — sacrifice, patriotism and so on — that puff into view like little wisps of engine steam.

The absence of history ensures that “1917” remains a palatable war simulation, the kind in which every button on every uniform has been diligently recreated, and no wound, no blown-off limb, is ghastly enough to truly horrify the audience. Here, everything looks authentic but manicured, ordered, sane, sterile. Save for a quick appearance by Andrew Scott, as an officer whose overly bright eyes and jaundiced affect suggest he’s been too long in the trenches, nothing gestures at madness. Worse, the longer this amazing race continues, the more it resembles an obstacle course by way of an Indiana Jones-style adventure, complete with a showstopping plane crash and battlefield sprint.

Mendes, who wrote the script with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, has included a note of dedication to his grandfather, Alfred H. Mendes , who served in World War I. It’s the most personal moment in a movie that, beyond its technical virtues, is intriguing only because of Britain’s current moment. Certainly, the country’s acrimonious withdrawal from the European Union makes a notable contrast with the onscreen camaraderie. And while the budget probably explains why most of the superior officers who pop in briefly are played by name actors — Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch — their casting also adds distinctly royal filigree to the ostensibly democratic mix.

Rated R for war violence. Running time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

Manohla Dargis has been the co-chief film critic since 2004. She started writing about movies professionally in 1987 while earning her M.A. in cinema studies at New York University, and her work has been anthologized in several books. More about Manohla Dargis

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

“X-Men ’97,” a revival on Disney+ that picks up where the ’90s animated series left off, has faced questions after the firing of its showrunner ahead of the premiere.

“3 Body Problem,” a science fiction epic from the creators of “Game of Thrones,” has arrived on Netflix. We spoke with them about their latest project .

For the past two decades, female presidential candidates on TV have been made in Hillary Clinton’s image. With “The Girls on the Bus,” that’s beginning to change .

“Freaknik,” a new Hulu documentary, delves into the rowdy ’80s and ’90s-era spring festival that drew hundreds of thousands of Black college students to Atlanta.

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime and Hulu to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

Entertainment
<i>1917</i> Is a Movie About the Horrors of War, Told With a Devotion to Beauty and Life

1917 Is a Movie About the Horrors of War, Told With a Devotion to Beauty and Life

A good movie can be built from any number of components: a great story, distinctive visuals, a haunting score. But sometimes a face can take you 90 percent of the way. And although Sam Mendes’ extraordinary World War I drama 1917 is notable for the technical feat of its cinematography—Mendes and director of photography Roger Deakins have constructed it to be perceived as one unbroken shot—the true key to its effectiveness is the face of one of its central actors, George MacKay. MacKay plays a young British soldier, Schofield, who just happens to be nearby when one of his mates, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), accepts a dangerous assignment: The two must cross enemy lines to deliver a message to British troops on the other side by the next day’s dawn. Blake has a personal stake in the assignment: he has a brother among the troops at risk. Schofield doesn’t think the mission is such a good idea—but he sticks by his friend anyway.

The first thing that strikes you is how young these two are, barely out of boyhood. That’s true of nearly all war pictures, though those set in World War I—including this one—come with a particular, sorrowful sting. The First World War, one of the deadliest in modern history, came with no satisfying “The bad guy is dead!” ending. The losses were devastating for all countries involved, certainly for Great Britain. And if the imagery we associate with this war are bleak enough—the dank trenches, the dead horses, the ghostly barbed wire—the rows of grave markers in its aftermath, most of them guarding the remains of very young men, make for an especially somber end note.

Mendes captures all of that tense sadness in 1917 , yet the film—which he co-wrote with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, and which is dedicated to his grandfather, a veteran of the war—also has a glorious, pulsing energy. It’s largely about death, or the risk of death, but in addressing some of the horrors of this particular war, Mendes has made a film that feels wholly alive. It’s a carefully polished picture, not one that strives for gritty realism. But its inherent devotion to life and beauty is part of its power, in the same way that Lewis Milestone’s quietly wrenching 1930 All Quiet on the Western Front —a story not about the experience of English soldiers but of German ones, adapted from Erich Maria Remarque’s novel—stressed that individual moments of life, grasped and held tight, are the only real protection we have against the pointlessness of war.

1917 opens in a moment of repose: Blake and Schofield are lounging around a tree, reveling in the ultimate luxury of killing time, when they’re informed that they’re to report for a special assignment. (The general who gives them the order is a businesslike but clear-eyed Colin Firth—he looks from one lad to the other as if fully aware of the likelihood that neither will make it back.) Further afield, the Germans have allegedly retreated, and two English battalions, a total of some 1,600 men, have advanced and are ready to strike, hopeful that they can bring swift end to a war that has already been raging—and killing millions—for three years. But the retreat is a ruse. The Germans are now lying in wait for their prey. They have also, craftily, cut all lines of communication, so the message must travel in person, and it’s Blake and Schofield who must carry it.

Deakins’ camera follows this duo as they leap out of the bleak safety of the trenches and embark on a bone-rattling trek across no-man’s land. They pass dead horses ringed by haloes of flies, and the corpses of fellow soldiers, twisted and deformed in their shallow graves of mud. Schofield gallantly holds back a loop of barbed wire so that Blake might pass through; the thorns spring to life and pierce his hand. Shortly thereafter, he’ll lose his footing in a mud crater, instinctively breaking his fall with the wounded hand—it lands in the festering gut of a swollen corpse, a sick moment of slapstick. All of this is within the movie’s first 15 minutes or so, and you may be looking ahead to all the horrors that will surely follow, wondering if you’ll be able to bear them.

But Mendes knows what he’s doing. There are moments of horror and deep sorrow in 1917, including a scene of brutality followed by an aching loss—that this loss results from an act of compassion makes it even more cosmically cruel. This event occurs roughly a third of the way into the movie, and you feel its punch, hard. Yet Mendes’ aim isn’t to serve up relentless punishments for two hours. (The picture is just the right length for the story: You don’t need an epic runtime when your movie has an epic spirit.) Mendes moves his heroes through a field of chopped-down cherry trees, desolate in their lifeless beauty—though even then, there’s the promise that, after the stones have sunk into the ground, even more trees will pop up in their wake. There’s a deserted farmhouse whose environs are populated by one lonely cow. Someone—who?—has recently milked her, and Schofield, after testing to make sure it’s not poisoned, dips his hand in for a drink of the sublime. He’ll be shot at; he’ll have to silently kill a young German soldier with his bare hands. But Mendes is so careful with the story’s pacing that you never feel assaulted, even if you do feel the weight of every act.

And even if you fear the one-shot-effect might just be a gimmick, in Deakins’ capable hands, it works. The camera’s movement has its own silent dignity; there’s an overarching calmness to the film, even in its most intense moments. Deakins’ and Mendes’ sense of color may be even more wondrous than their one-shot feat: The ruins of a village lit by mortar explosions are bridal white. And if the colors of World War I are mostly brown, Deakins’ camera finds the stark beauty in its myriad hues, from dusky olives to soulful ochres.

The actors, moving through this world of terror with no glory, are terrific: Chapman’s baby face is sullen one moment, radiantly good-natured the next. Andrew Scott shows up for a few brilliant moments as a deadpan, disillusioned lieutenant. But it’s MacKay’s face that haunts you after the screen dims. It’s not a modern face, but a 1917 face, that of a young man who’s staunch in doing his duty but who has no idea what he’s gotten into. His ears stick out a little; he doesn’t smile much, but then, he can’t find much cause to. This is a face you might see inside an antique silver locket, the face of someone who’s loved very much, but who is very far away, and in danger. Through the space of the movie, we’re his guardians, keeping watch over him as well as we can. That he inspires this care in us is the key to the movie. He’s one of millions, but for the duration of 1917 , he’s our boy.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?
Why We're Spending So Much Money Now
The Financial Influencers Women Actually Want to Listen To
Breaker Sunny Choi Is Heading to Paris
Why TV Can’t Stop Making Silly Shows About Lady Journalists
The Case for Wearing Shoes in the House
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

‘1917’: Film Review

Actor George MacKay carries Sam Mendes' audacious real-time WWI adventure, which alternates between ground-level and God's-eye perspectives.

By Peter Debruge

Peter Debruge

Chief Film Critic

‘Steve! (Martin): A Documentary in Two Pieces’ Review: A Sprawling Portrait Splits the Comedian’s Career, Saving the Payoff for the Second Half 7 days ago
‘Riddle of Fire’ Review: Weston Razooli’s Wilderness-Set Debut Feels Like Child’s Play, in a Good Way 1 week ago
‘The Idea of You’ Review: Only Anne Hathaway Could Look This Confident Dating One of Her Daughter’s Pop Idols 2 weeks ago

(center) George MacKay as Schofield in 1917, co-written and directed by Sam Mendes.

How do you define heroism? For more than a century, movies have shaped our collective idea of the individuals and actions that qualify, often making the word appear out of reach to ordinary mortals. Now, along comes Sam Mendes ’ “ 1917 ” to smash those assumptions, revisiting a day in World War I when two ordinary British soldiers — Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman of “Game of Thrones”) and Schofield ( George MacKay ) — distinguish themselves by undertaking a mission for which neither is the slightest bit prepared.

Heroism reflects courage, of course. But that’s not the same as an absence of fear. There are scenes in “1917” when audiences will see Blake and Schofield panic-stricken, terrified and even in tears. 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. To do so, they must cross the battlefield in broad daylight, infiltrate booby-trapped German bunkers and confront the enemy face to face. One can hardly fault them for being afraid. If anything, the tension they feel makes the characters more relatable.

Heroism is about doing the right thing, but also about doing the thing that no one else wants to do. 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. “Nothing like a patch of ribbons to cheer up a widow,” one officer cynically remarks. Drawing from war stories shared by his grandfather Alfred, who fought in the trenches, Mendes brilliantly re-creates the terrain — physical and emotional — navigated by its unlikely heroes, seen peacefully napping beneath a shady tree in the opening scene.

In the two hours ahead, Mendes will follow the pair into the realm of nightmares, depicting WWI as we’ve never seen it: simultaneously horrific and beautiful, immersive and detached, immediate and impossibly far removed from our own experience. These paradoxes define the unique sensibility of “1917,” which isn’t necessarily “better” than such iconic WWI films as “War Horse” and “All Quiet on the Western Front,” but different. Mendes has found an original approach to a familiar subject, refreshing events from a century ago in a way that looks, sounds and feels absolutely cutting-edge.

To maintain a sense of anticipation, the studio shared little about “1917” in advance, apart from the fact that Mendes had designed the entire movie to play out in a single shot — a “plan-séquence,” as the French call it, or “oner” among film students and cinephiles — à la Iñárritu’s “Birdman” and Hitchcock’s “Rope.” Such an audacious choice can often feel like a stunt, drawing audiences’ attention to the technique over the substance, which is intermittently the case here. The way Mendes collaborates with DP Roger Deakins , it’s as if someone pressed pause on the war and allowed two low-level infantrymen to poke around the spaces where it all went down — an almost-virtual-reality version of events, conveyed through the continuous-take (but not quite first-person-shooter) aesthetic of video games. All that’s missing is the ability to choose for oneself where to point the camera, though such decisions are better left to Deakins.

The day is April 6, 1917. German forces have retreated from the position they were holding in northern France, although they’re not “on the ropes” or nearly ready to surrender, as some of their British rivals mistakenly believe. 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. With communication channels cut and no way of contacting those outfits, the British commanding general (Colin Firth, one of several stars cast as officers, each appearing only briefly, à la George Clooney and John Travolta in Terrence Malick’s “The Thin Red Line”) sends two lance corporals, Blake and Schofield, across the French countryside to deliver the warning and call off the attack.

Given the importance of the message, it seems odd that two unproven foot soldiers should be chosen for the task, although Blake has a personal stake in seeing the mission through: His older sibling is among the first wave of troops to be dispatched in the morning. When we meet him in the film’s final minutes, the elder Blake comes across as the more conventional hero: tall, handsome, covered in blood and mud and the scars of battle. By comparison, his kid brother looks soft and altogether too young to be enlisted, as does best friend Schofield. In MacKay’s case, that’s a reflection of his performance — his character seems aptly intimidated by the mission.

Thomas Newman’s score ticks nervously through the first act, which takes place in the trenches, as the camera pushes behind Blake and Schofield through crowds of soldiers — alternating between following over their shoulders and hustling backward so we can study their faces — to track these two foolhardy volunteers to the front line. At times, the camera can make us feel like a third character along for the ride, and we the audience share in their anxiety. 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. No matter how much we know about WWI going in, Mendes and Deakins’ visual design meticulously withholds and reveals vital information about the surroundings, such that stepping into darkened spaces requires nearly as much nerve from us as it does the characters. At times, the camera lags a split-second behind, subliminally agonizing as we sense Blake and Schofield suddenly exposed to something beyond our vision. At others, we see what’s coming before they do, as when a distant aerial dogfight ends with one of the biplanes crashing almost directly into the camera.

During moments like these, it’s easy to forget the single-shot gimmick, although the conceit comes at a price: Traditional editing allows filmmakers to tighten and manipulate time for dramatic effect, whereas here, Mendes and editor Lee Smith (whose job involves hiding the splices) must commit to the pace that was captured on set. “1917” drags in places, and though a bit of quiet introspection is welcome in a war movie, Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns fill these with forgettable stories: A scene involving a cherry orchard chopped down by the Germans during their retreat serves as a good example, pairing the surreal imagery with banal observations about the different varieties of cherry trees.

The script feels most exciting when other characters are involved, especially after a shocking off-camera setback threatens the mission. Things pick up about midway through when we cross a group of soldiers led by Mark Strong, who take us as far as the bombed-out French village of Écoust, where a scuffle with a German sniper knocks Schofield unconscious. It’s here that the film’s only discernible cut occurs, during a long subjective blackout that drastically shortens the amount of time left to finish his mission. 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.

(Note: the next paragraph contains spoilers.) There’s still quite a distance to travel to reach the battalions at Croisilles Wood, where Schofield arrives as the raid is underway — which explains the iconic sight, so central to the film’s marketing, of MacKay running perpendicular to a swarm of charging soldiers as bombs erupt around him. 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. It also serves as a metaphor for the entire mission, whose heroic dimension has been revealed gradually over time: While the British forces’ attention were focused elsewhere, Blake and Schofield set out in an entirely different direction, exposing themselves to danger.

Perhaps its Mendes’ theatrical side that can’t resist the temptation to bring “1917” full circle, back to a viewpoint that rhymes, ironically, with the film’s opening frame. 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. Astonishing as the filmmaking can be at times, it’s Mendes’ attention to character, more than the technique, that makes “1917” one of 2019’s most impressive cinematic achievements.

Reviewed at Arclight Cinemas, Hollywood, Nov. 21, 2019. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 119 MIN.

Production: A Universal Pictures release of a DreamWorks Pictures, Reliance Entertainment presentation, in association with New Republic Pictures, of a Neal Street Prods., Amblin Partners production. Producers: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, Callum McDougall, Brian Oliver.
Crew: Director: Sam Mendes. Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns. Camera (color, widescreen): Roger Deakins. Editor: Lee Smith: Music: Thomas Newman.
With: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong , Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch. (English, French, German dialogue)

More From Our Brands

Beyoncé tips her hat to innovators who defied ‘any label placed upon them’, puerto rico’s most expensive listing is a $49 million penthouse, mlb union head tony clark sees pay jump $2m to $4.25m, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, beyoncé receives innovator award from stevie wonder at iheartradio music awards — watch, verify it's you, please log in.

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

George MacKay in 1917, directed by Sam Mendes.

1917 review – Sam Mendes’s unblinking vision of the hell of war

Mendes’s first world war drama, filmed to appear as one continuous take, plunges the viewer into the trenches alongside two young British soldiers to breathless effect

F or the opening of his 2015 Bond movie Spectre , director Sam Mendes (who won an Oscar for his first feature, American Beauty ) mounted a memorable sequence set amid Mexico City’s day of the dead festival. In what appears to be a single continuous shot, the camera tracks a masked figure through crowded streets, into a hotel lobby, up an elevator, out of a window, and over the rooftops to a deadly assignation. It’s an audacious, attention-grabbing curtain-raiser widely hailed as the film’s strongest asset.

For his latest movie – an awards-garlanded first world war drama that has already won best picture honours at the Golden Globes – Mendes has returned to the lure of the “one-shot” format, this time stretching it out to feature length. Like Hitchcock’s Rope or Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman , 1917 uses several takes and set-ups, seamlessly conjoined to give the appearance of a continuous cinematic POV, albeit with periodic ellipses. The result is a populist, immersive drama that leads the viewer through the trenches and battlefields of northern France, as two young British soldiers attempt to make their way through enemy lines on 6 April 1917.

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman are perfectly cast as Schofield and Blake, the lance corporals enlisted to venture into enemy territory with a message for fellow troops poised to launch a potentially catastrophic assault. The Germans have made a “strategic withdrawal”, suggesting that they are on the run. In fact they’re lying in wait, armed and ready to repel the planned British push. Together, these young soldiers must reach their comrades and halt the attack – a race against time and insurmountable odds.

With meticulous attention to detail (plaudits to production designer Dennis Gassner) and astonishingly fluid cinematography by Roger Deakins that shifts from ground level to God’s-eye view, Mendes puts his audience right there in the middle of the unfolding chaos. There’s a real sense of epic scale as the action moves breathlessly from one hellish environment to the next, effectively capturing our reluctant heroes’ sense of anxiety and discovery as they stumble into each new unchartered terrain. This is nail-biting stuff, interspersed with genuine shocks and surprises. Whether it’s a tripwire moment that provokes an audible gasp, a distant dogfight segueing into up-close-and-personal horror, or a single gunshot that made me jump out of my seat during an otherwise near-silent sequence, there’s no doubting the film’s theatrical impact.

Yet for all the steel-trap visceral efficiency, it’s the more low-key moments that really pack a punch – those moments when we’re confronted with the simple human cost of war. As with Peter Jackson’s monumentally moving documentary They Shall Not Grow Old , 1917 works best when showing us the boyish face of this conflict; the pitiable plight of a young generation, old or lost before their time. It’s a quality perfectly captured by MacKay’s endlessly watchable eyes, which manage simultaneously to project ravaged innocence and world-weary exhaustion – fatalism and hope.

“Hope is a dangerous thing,” says Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel MacKenzie, just one of a number of small roles filled by high-profile actors happy to play second fiddle. It’s a line that mirrors the central refrain from The Shawshank Redemption , another humanist movie tinged with horror that seems to haunt Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns’ script. There are evocations, too, of Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan , not only in the unflinching depiction of battlefield violence, but also in a plot device that sets soldiers searching for a brother in a desperate quest for redemption. In one of its more surreal (or perhaps transcendent) sequences, wherein a purgatorial night-time underworld is illuminated in a yellow phosphorescent haze, I was unexpectedly reminded of a dream scene from Waltz With Bashir , in which young men rise from the water, like ghosts walking among the living.

Throughout this Homeric odyssey, Thomas Newman’s pulsing score ratchets up the tension, travelling “up the down trench”, through the body-strewn carnage of no man’s land (a forest of wood and wire, bone and blood) and into the eerie environs of deserted farmhouses and bombed-out churches. Occasionally, we hear echoes of the rising crescendo of Hans Zimmer’s Dunkirk score; elsewhere, Newman’s cues are full of piercing melancholia mingled with distant threat.

In a film in which music plays such a crucial role, it’s significant that perhaps the most powerful scene is an interlude of song. Emerging from a river after a baptismal episode of death and rebirth, we find ourselves in a wood where a young man sings The Wayfaring Stranger. It’s an interlude that brings the characters and audiences together in silence, communally experiencing that still-small voice of calm that lies at the heart of so many great war movies.

Mark Kermode's film of the week

Comments (…)

1917 review: Spectacular, shocking and masterfully stylised, it deserves all the prizes it'll take

Such a straightforward adventure. April 1917, the Western Front. A young soldier, Lance-Corporal Blake ( Dean-Charles Chapman ), is given a perilous mission. He’s to carry a message through No Man’s Land to a battalion of the Devonshires, countermanding an attack planned for the next day.

The Germans have just retreated to the Hindenburg Line — but aerial reconnaissance has revealed that their withdrawal is a trap. If the advance goes ahead 1,600 men may die, Blake’s brother amongst them. Cruelly, his commander, General Erinmore ( Colin Firth ), has chosen him for this task precisely because he has that desperate incentive.

Blake takes with him just one other soldier, Lance Corporal Schofield (George McKay). Over the top they go into a blasted wasteland of barbed wire, corpses and shell craters, making their way deep into the German trenches. They discover the former front line has indeed been abandoned — but the dangers they face are just beginning.

From the off the film is all forward motion, pursuing a linear narrative, relentlessly following our heroes in their race, though war-torn country, against the clock.

To take us into their journey as immersively as possible it is all filmed from a single viewpoint, just one camera (or so it seems) following Blake and Schofield closely all the time like an invisible third party to the trip: sometimes retreating before them as they rush through a trench, sometimes following them intimately from behind, sometimes keeping up alongside — only occasionally looking around to show us what they see. It’s the viewpoint used so effectively in László Nemes’s Auschwitz horror Son Of Saul.

And that’s not the only extreme stylisation. There are no apparent cuts or edits either, so that it all appears to be one long take, in the continuous present, uninterrupted, save for a single blackout.

In fact filming (much of it on Salisbury Plain and in other British locations, supplemented by sets at Shepperton Studios) took 65 days in takes that lasted seven or eight minutes, later stitched together invisibly by the director of photography Roger Deakins and the editor Lee Smith.

Given what can be done now with digital technology, simply joining scenes together like this so they seem continuous is perhaps not such a challenge? Yet the effect is much more powerful than superhero SFX splurging, persuading us we’re experiencing what happens in the film in an almost unmediated way. It’s especially suited to a story like this, a simple race to reach an objective before it is too late. There is an exhilaration to the sheer technical accomplishment on display; the staging of the film by director Sam Mendes is masterful throughout.

Yet there are drawbacks to this stunt too. As a viewer, you yearn for transition and punctuation — for editing, in fact. This flow of events is like a flow of prose without full stops, paragraphs or chapters. Not everything that happens on their journey is of equal interest, but it is of equal duration.

Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder and Jenna Ortega star in Beetlejuice sequel trailer

First pictures of Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder and Jenna Ortega in Beetlejuice 2

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire review – a ghostbusted flush

Buying a new car? Here's why Omoda needs to be on your radar

Then there is that amazingly active, inquisitive camera, keeping pace with them. It’s clearly a great feat of agility from Roger Deakins, however it was done, whether the camera was handheld or motor-mounted, on cranes or on wires. Yet you do not need to be a cinematic pedant to find it distracting at times too.

The biggest film releases of 2020 still to come

When Blake and Schofield painfully fight their way through the barbed wire barricades, the camera keeps up with them mysteriously unobstructed and you can’t help but wonder how? When Schofield is carried helplessly along in a cascading river, the camera is somehow right there next to him, rushing down stream too, yet not even splashed.

Never mind. The film is thrilling, moving on effectively from one shocking set piece to another, studding the narrative too with starry cameos — Andrew Scott as a cynical, dissolute Lieutenant, Mark Strong as a stern but sympathetic Captain, Benedict Cumberbatch as an angry, ambitious Colonel.

The recreation of the battlefield is spectacular. Overall, the chase and mission aspects of this film make it much more eventful than we're used to in films set in the static trenches of the First World War — Sam Mendes has said that this mobility was precisely what attracted him to the story of getting a message through the lines. There are moments of running, firing and fighting when 1917 turns quite 007.

Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, Alfred Mendes, who fought in the war, and he has incorporated his anecdotes. Yet, for all that it’s a great adventure, 1917 remains weirdly without larger historical context. With this story of individuals heroically trying to stop a doomed attack, to save a brother indeed, all the larger questions about the war are nattily sidestepped. There’s some predictable chippiness about the value of medals and the inhumanity of senior officers — but no wider perspective.

In interview, Mendes and his co-scriptwriter Krysty Wilson-Cairns have tried to conjure an audience who do still need to be told about the heroism and horror of the First World War: those Brexiteers who have allegedly been hijacking our history. Mendes has said: “I feel very strongly that, during that time in history, we were fighting for a free and unified Europe, which is something we would do well to remember at the moment.”

Wilson-Cairns, a horror and comic-book writer, has a little more broadly observed that the war was “the stupidest thing humanity ever did to each other. But although it was misguided, those men were also fighting for a free and united Europe. And somehow that’s under threat again, out of sheer madness and folly and political gain. Peace is so tenuous. I pray to God we don’t have the same outcome.”

Thus they would recruit the film to contemporary causes. Somehow our heroes are combating Brexit. Ridiculous! Nevertheless it’s a terrific performance all round, deserving all the prizes it’ll take.

The most powerful war films capturing front line experiences

an image, when javascript is unavailable

facebook-rs

‘1917’ Review: War Is Hell, One Shot at a Time

By Peter Travers

Peter Travers

In the first shot of this groundbreaking World War I film, two young British soldiers — lance corporals Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) — are caught napping in a field. It’s the last time they, or we in the audience, will be able to catch a breath. For the next two hours, director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins will stalk these young men in what seems like one continuous take, tagging along as they charge through enemy territory on a mission to save lives. Their orders from General Erinmore (Colin Firth) are crystal clear: They must make their way across booby-trapped, corpse-strewn terrain in France to hand-deliver a message to Col. Mackenzie ( Benedict Cumberbatch ), commander of the Second Battalion. It contains orders to call off a planned advance against the German army, falsely assumed to be on the ropes. Turns out it’s a trap that could result in the slaughter of more than 1,600 British soldiers, including Blake’s brother ( Bodyguard star Richard Madden). With communications down, the only hope rests with two boys who can barely shave.

And they’re off, over two days in April 1917, choking on tension that never lets up. Mendes, who won an Oscar for his 1999 debut film, American Beauty, and has been performing award-winning wonders on stage with The Ferryman and The Lehman Trilogy, is testing himself. About that single take — it’s impossible, of course. Filmmakers from Alejandro G. Iñárritu in Birdman and Alexander Sokurov in Russian Ark have also faked it before. But Mendes, in ardent and artful tandem with editor Lee Smith ( Dunkirk ) and Deakins, his creative partner on Skyfall, Revolutionary Road and Jarhead, creates a visionary miracle. Any fears you might have going in that technical trickery is usually short for “gimmick” are instantly allayed by the film’s palpable sense of intimacy.

For the screenplay that Mendes wrote with Krysty Wilson-Cairns ( Penny Dreadful ), he didn’t consult the history books so much as the stories told to him by his grandfather, Alfred Mendes, a messenger on the Belgian front to whom 1917 is dedicated. You can see the influence of other films about the period, notably Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory and Peter Jackson’s They Shall Not Grow Old, a documentary that restored actual WWI footage to startling life. But Mendes follows his own muse in juxtaposing terror with surprising tenderness, as when a German biplane plummets from the sky and Blake and Schofield try to rescue the enemy pilot. Images of war vie with such moments as Schofield’s encounter with a woman and an orphan baby in the bombed-out village of Écoust, where a skirmish with a German sniper knocks Schofield out cold, creating a brief break in the film’s real-time momentum.

Editor’s picks

The 250 greatest guitarists of all time, the 500 greatest albums of all time, the 50 worst decisions in movie history, every awful thing trump has promised to do in a second term.

Still, the director makes sure the actors aren’t upstaged by the pyrotechnics. Mark Strong ( Kingsman ) and Andrew Scott (the hot priest on Fleabag ) register strongly as British officers encountered along the way. But the real soul of 1917 can be found in it two lead actors. Chapman (Tommen Baratheon on Game of Thrones ) displays the fighting spirit of youth as Blake blunders into heroism. And MacKay (the eldest son of Viggo Mortensen in Captain Fantastic ) nails every nuance in an astounding performance. Whether running past soldiers storming the battlefield or getting stopped in his tracks by a voice singing the haunting “Wayfaring Stranger,” Schofield stays determined to complete his mission. And the burning intensity of MacKay’s face, reflecting the ferocity and futility of war, leaves an indelible mark. His fervor, coupled with the creative passion that Mendes infuses in every frame, makes 1917 impossible to shake.

After Crushing on Tyler, the Creator, Jerrod Carmichael Is Uncertain About Their Friendship

Hard Feelings
By Kalia Richardson

Shakira's Sons Thought 'Barbie' Was 'Emasculating,' and She Kinda Agrees

Barbie Backlash
By Jon Blistein

Lisa Vanderpump Isn't Trying to Recreate 'VPR' on New Series 'Vanderpump Villa': It's 'a Different Energy'

Chateau Rosabelle
By Krystie Lee Yandoli

Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis Will Revert to Teenage Melodrama in 'Freaky Friday 2'

Here We Go Again
By Larisha Paul

'Steve! (Martin)' Revisits the Heyday of a Wild and Crazy Comedian

By David Fear

Most Popular

Chance perdomo, 'gen v' and 'chilling adventures of sabrina' star, dies at 27, where to stream 'quiet on set: breaking the silence' episode 5 online, touré says diddy terminated his cousin's internship after refusing to sleep with him, odell beckham jr. allegedly broke up with kim kardashian after her reported, family-oriented plans about them, you might also like, korea box office: ‘exhuma’ holds off ‘troll factory,’ ‘godzilla x kong’ for its sixth weekend win, sheer looks were trending at iheartradio music awards 2024 with ice spice, katy perry, jennifer hudson and more, the best exercise mats for working out, according to fitness experts, the 12 best thrillers streaming on netflix in april, from ‘fair play’ to ‘emily the criminal’, mlb union head tony clark sees pay jump $2m to $4.25m.

Verify it's you

Please log in.

1917 Review

10 Jan 2020

Talk of a tracking shot might usually merit a sentence or two in a film review. A paragraph maybe. Even with Alejandro González Iñárritu ’s Birdman , which presented itself as an unbroken take, the technique was just one of a handful of talking points. But 1917 ’s camerawork engulfs the film. It’s supposed to. While not quite pretending to be a continuous long take, there is only one blatantly obvious cut. Otherwise it doesn’t let up. Aliens who have no comprehension of our ways, let alone cameras, would leave the cinema talking about this tracking shot. That’s what the film is. Format is front and centre. For the most part it pays off.

We’re aware of it within a minute, travelling through the trenches with young corporals Schofield ( MacKay ) and Blake (Chapman), trudging through the slush, being pushed and shoved by other soldiers — we’re in the melee from the off. Summoned to a meeting, the two young men are told with appropriate gravitas that they are to deliver a message to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment. The 1,600 troops, about to attack some apparently retreating Germans, will fall into a seismic ambush if they’re not warned: the enemy, the British general ( Colin Firth ) has learned, have excellent artillery and defences. They want to be attacked.

Schofield and Blake are charged with setting off over the frontline, through German territory and across the countryside to give the word. In a frankly sadistic move by his superiors, Blake, who is asked to pick an accompanying partner before being briefed, is chosen because his older brother is with the 2nd Battalion, at risk of imminent death. Blake, then, has some extra skin in the game, and the red mist quickly rises. This potential suicide mission is totally doable, he says. Why, then, asks Schofield, have they been given grenades?

The film is thick with atmosphere. Twenty minutes in, as Schofield and Blake leave the trenches, Mendes gives them a rude awakening — a portent of what’s to come, perhaps. Due to the insanity of the war — the horror and the madness — there’s a surreal quality to much of 1917, and for a large part of it the corporals’ quest feels like a dark The Wizard Of Oz , or The Lord Of The Rings — they are Sam and Frodo heading into Mordor, and soon after setting off they find themselves in a Hieronymus Bosch hellscape. Here, as with many of its sequences, 1917 excels, every camera move paying off. It’s a grim spectacle, but an incredible one.

The sound design is off the hook — biplanes roar over us, deafeningly. The cinema seats shake. Much of the action is nail-biting.

With Thomas Newman’s score providing a creeping dread, here we find flies buzzing around horse carcasses, and rats — big fat ones — scuttling over human corpses, the faces of the soldiers all but eaten away. It’s a waking nightmare, no less so because of the unforgiving daylight. No mood lighting required. That comes later, when cinematographer Roger Deakins really goes for it. In a town bombed to bits, aerial blasts light the place up, making for a ghostly terror. There are some staggering landscapes in this film. The hell of war is production design heaven. A playground of the damned.

Schofield’s bloodied hand, torn up from a mishap with some barbed wire, is the least of his worries. “Patch it up,” says Blake. “You’ll be wanking again in no time.” It’s a tall order to keep things moving when the film slows down, as it does intermittently — the conversation needs to be compelling and whilst it isn’t always, MacKay and Chapman are both great, both convincing, both immensely likeable. There’s barely any backstory — as with Christopher Nolan ’s Dunkirk , it’s all about the here and now. Jeopardy comes quickly, and you care.

There is less banter as events become graver. Needless to say, as 1917 goes on, things don’t get any happier. Volume-wise, Mendes’ crew matches it accordingly: the audio is often unforgiving. There is grandeur to Newman’s score, in awe of the apocalypse of it all, and the sound design is off the hook — biplanes roar over us, deafeningly. The cinema seats shake. Much of the action is nail-biting.

There is little respite in general. Clearly Mendes wants the camerawork to immerse us in the action, and it does. The camera ducks and dives gracefully, swooping around balletically — it may often be one long shot, but it’s never static, never boring. You can only imagine the choreography involved. This is a film that, obviously, has been meticulously planned, to the inch, to the millisecond. Unfortunately, though, you feel that. Everything is in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, and events unfold in neat succession. At times it feels like an installation we’re being led through to experience the horror of war.

The technique is a self-imposed challenge for Mendes — everything we see has to suit the conceit. It can be done — it worked gangbusters only last year, in the Norwegian film about the 2011 Anders Breivik massacres, Erik Poppe’s Utøya: July 22 , a horribly tense (supposed) unbroken 90-minute take. That, though, was far more naturalistic than this, the camera bringing far less attention to itself. 1917 feels stylistically contrived, and as such it is often not as narratively immersive as Mendes might like.

The same goes for the narrative. Despite the film’s heart, sincerity and intention, it is a string of set-pieces. What’s going to happen next? Which terrain will we visit? What sort of attack? After a strong first half it becomes less engaging — at its weakest, it feels a bit like a Tomb Raider game, the thrills and spills coming off a little superficial, the action in service of the camerawork. There is little complexity overall, and it’s not particularly thought-provoking. There is, though, no questioning the skill, and the film is often breathtaking. There could be more emotional whack, but you do feel like you’ve taken a beating by the end if it all — as it hits its climactic stretch, it’s the business.

This is the first screenplay Mendes has written — in fact he co-wrote it, with up and coming Scottish writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns (who wrote on the Mendes-exec produced Penny Dreadful ). Yet if his films share anything approaching worldview it’s a sort of cynicism, and 1917 only adds to that. There’s nothing rousing here, certainly no grandstanding. There is hopelessness throughout, just little slithers of light shining through. The humanity that is there is constantly bludgeoned. Which is fitting, all things considered.

Almost everything you’ve ever seen in a war film is here. But never quite like this. It is very much a stylistic exercise, but if you’re going to do that, you have to really go for it. And 1917 really, really goes for it.

Movies | 24 08 2022

Movies | 02 12 2020

Movies | 30 12 2020

Movies | 01 03 2020

Movies | 23 02 2020

Movies | 09 02 2020

Movies | 14 01 2020

Screen Rant

1917 review: sam mendes' wwi epic is a better thriller than drama.

1917 is well-acted and an undeniable technical achievement, yet its real-time storytelling is both the film's greatest strength and biggest problem.

It would've been easy for 1917 to feel like a gimmick film. Sam Mendes' WWI epic (which was loosely based on a story Mendes' paternal grandfather told him about his time in the war) was shot and edited to look like it was captured in a single take, similar to the Best Picture Oscar winner Birdman and other one-shot movies before it. To their credit, Mendes and his legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins rarely call attention away from whatever's happening onscreen with their camerawork - which is not to say their approach is completely effective, either. 1917 is well-acted and an undeniable technical achievement, yet its real-time storytelling is both the film's greatest strength and biggest problem.

The movie picks up on April 6, 1917, in northern France. With WWI raging on around them, young British soldiers Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are tasked with an urgent mission that will require them to cross into enemy territory recently vacated by the German army. Their top commander, General Erinmore (Colin Firth), believes this retreat is actually strategic and the Germans are laying a trap for a British battalion of 1,600 men, Blake's brother among them. With the British army's phone lines disabled, Blake and Schofield must brave a treacherous journey by foot and reach the battalion by the next morning, in order to warn them about the Germans' intended ambush before time runs out.

Related: Krysty Wilson-Cairns NYCC Interview: 1917

For the most part, 1917 succeeds in pulling audiences into the headspace of its protagonists and using its single take structure to capture the psychological experience of being in a combat zone where death could come for you in the blink of an eye. Fueled by Thomas Newman's anxiously dramatic score (which channels Hans Zimmer's music from Dunkirk a little too much at times), the film imbues every second of Blake and Schofield's odyssey with a sense of urgency, in a way that a more traditional filmmaking style wouldn't have been able to. There are a few occasions when it's obvious where a pair of extended takes were welded together in post-production, but otherwise Mendes, Deakins, and editor Lee Smith do a seamless job of creating the illusion that everything was photographed in a continuous take. And as one would expect, the environments of 1917 are gorgeously lit, whether they're empty trenches horrifically strewn with corpses and barbed wire, or bombed-out buildings reduced to rubble by the war.

However, by the time the film enters its second half, the flaws in its design begin to stand out more clearly. As much as 1917 expresses the terrible senselessness and mindless destruction of the first World War visually, the way its camera lingers on the carnage left from major battles and the air of disillusionment among the British forces suggests it also wants to say something deeper about not only the psychological effects of warfare, but how WWI was a time of great change in terms of technology and Europe's class system. Yet, because 1917 has to maintain a constant sense of forward momentum, the quieter and more reflective scenes from Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns' screenplay never have quite enough room to breathe and properly sink in. Not helping matters, 1917 has to rely on some big plot contrivances in order to maintain its relentless pace as it stretches on. At its worst, this can make the movie feel like an open-world video game where Blake and Schofield are avatars for players who must complete a sequence of tasks in order to make it to the next cutscene.

Naturally, it's the performances that save 1917 from being a triumph of style over substance. Chapman and MacKay do an excellent job of portraying two ordinary soldiers who are suddenly dropped into extraordinary (and utterly terrifying) circumstances, but navigate them with all the courage, compassion, and determination they can muster, even when they falter. Mendes' choice to have most of the supporting characters played by big talents like Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden, and the Hot Priest himself, Andrew Scott, similarly pays off, allowing them to make an impression with very limited screen time. The interactions between Blake, Schofield, and the people they encounter on their desperate trek tell their own story about the importance of small deeds and acts of kindness in the face of terrible times. It's just too bad this ends up being overshadowed by the thrill ride elements of the film.

Mendes has a background in both film and stage theater, so one can understand why 1917 's one-shot aesthetic - a technique that combines elements of both mediums - appealed to him. The resulting movie is a mostly successful experiment, but also one that demonstrates the limits of this filmmaking style and why noticeable edits are important for a film that clearly wants to be more than a polished and visceral thriller about the horrors of war. 1917 is worth checking out on a big screen for its visuals alone (Deakins' next Oscar nomination is all but assured), even though its immersive cinematography can, indeed, have the unintended side effect of making the movie seem like a video game at times. Still, there's a beating heart beneath the machinery that prevents it from being a hollow experience.

NEXT: Watch the Official Trailer for 1917

1917 is now playing in U.S. theaters nationwide. It is 119 minutes long and is rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language.

Key Release Dates

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Get the app
Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

Explaining the News to Our Kids

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Unique WWI epic has brutal war violence, smoking.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

War is hell. Camaraderie and loyalty can help moti

Blake and Schofield demonstrate incredible courage

Horrors of war are on full display from a first-pe

Masturbation joke.

Strong language throughout, including "bastards,"

One character drinks from flask. Smoking.

Positive Messages

War is hell. Camaraderie and loyalty can help motivate people in dire circumstances. You can make headway in the worst situation if you persevere and focus on your goal. Themes include compassion and courage.

Positive Role Models

Blake and Schofield demonstrate incredible courage for the greater good, as well as compassion for others -- including the enemy. Schofield perseveres on his mission, even after being given the opportunity to seek a safer situation.

Violence & Scariness

Horrors of war are on full display from a first-person viewpoint, including being shot at, feeling the fear of the enemy nearby, getting bombed. Climbing over human carcasses, walking past dead animals. A couple of instances of men killing enemies face to face. Many bloody, gory injuries, including missing limbs, men writhing in pain. A soldier unintentionally puts his wounded hand in the open guts of a dead horse when he lands in a bomb crater. Characters are visibly in substantial peril throughout; tons of tension.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Strong language throughout, including "bastards," "piss off," "s--t," several uses of "f--k."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that 1917 is an outstanding World War I drama that makes viewers feel like they're experiencing what it might really have been like to be in the trenches on the front lines. Director Sam Mendes wrote the screenplay based on the stories his grandfather told him about being a runner in the British Army. The camera follows the young soldiers in one long tracking shot, making it feel like you're right in the action. Consequently, it all feels very real, and tension runs extremely high. Battle violence is graphically realistic, including shootings, strangling, stabbing, bombings, etc. Wounded soldiers are bloody, missing limbs, and crying in pain. Soldiers smoke (accurate for the era), drink, and use strong language ("f--k," "s--t"). Benedict Cumberbatch and Colin Firth make cameo appearances alongside stars George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman . To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

Parents say (46)
Kids say (129)

Based on 46 parent reviews

Great movie!

What's the story.

During World War I, it's 1917, and British soldiers Schofield ( George MacKay ) and Blake ( Dean-Charles Chapman ) are selected to deliver an urgent message to a nearby battalion. In their high-stakes effort to save 1,600 lives, the runners must themselves survive the journey through enemy territory.

Is It Any Good?

About 15 minutes in to this movie, it dawns on you that this is something uniquely brilliant; by the end, it's clear that Sam Mendes has made one of the best films of 2019. That's largely because of the innovative cinematography: The entire film is one long tracking shot. Of course, there are edits, as imperceptible to viewers as they might be. And, honestly, whether or when the film stopped rolling isn't the point -- it's the effect. As the camera follows the two British runners trying to get across a German-occupied battlefield to deliver their urgent message, it moves around them -- in front, behind, next to, sometimes around a rock or a slightly different route but keeping the soldiers in view. It creates the video game-like feeling that you're the third runner on the mission. The first-person viewpoint transforms the experience of watching 1917 into something intimate, just short of interactive. Cinematographers aren't often household names, but Roger Deakins might just become one thanks to this Herculean accomplishment.

Given that the film is essentially a one-direction journey in which the camera rarely stops rolling, the production design is a real feat. Smoke and mirrors can't possibly exist: We follow Blake and Schofield through a looooooong trench, a maze of a barracks, and French countryside that's ravaged from the wages of war. The actors are all superb, but MacKay will rip your heart out as a low-ranking officer who's resentful of his assignment but rises to see his mission through, no matter the potential sacrifice. Teens may be reluctant to see a movie about World War I, but 1917 could be a game changer: It's hard to imagine anyone won't appreciate its originality, heart, and grit.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about World War I. How was it different from other wars? How have you seen it depicted in the media before? How does 1917 's portrayal of it compare?

Did you find the movie's violence realistic? How does the impact of this kind of violence compare to what you might see in a horror or superhero movie? Why do you think the filmmakers chose to show the violence in this way?

Why do you think the filmmakers chose their unusual camera technique? How did it change your experience as a viewer? Do you think it was effective?

How do the characters demonstrate compassion ? In the heat of war, is compassion a luxury, or a necessity? How do you think Blake should have interacted with the pilot?

Talk about examples of teamwork in the film. Why is it important in the film, and why is it an important skill in real life?

Movie Details

In theaters : December 25, 2019
On DVD or streaming : March 24, 2020
Cast : George MacKay , Dean-Charles Chapman , Benedict Cumberbatch
Director : Sam Mendes
Studio : Universal Pictures
Genre : Action/Adventure
Topics : Great Boy Role Models , History
Character Strengths : Compassion , Courage , Perseverance
Run time : 110 minutes
MPAA rating : R
MPAA explanation : violence, some disturbing images, and language
Awards : BAFTA , Golden Globe
Last updated : March 30, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

They Shall Not Grow Old

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

Saving Private Ryan

Band of Brothers

Journey's End

A Very Long Engagement

Testament of Youth

Best history documentaries, world war i books for kids, related topics.

Perseverance
Great Boy Role Models

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Cast & crew
User reviews

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman in 1917 (2019)

April 6th, 1917. As an infantry battalion 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 wa... Read all April 6th, 1917. As an infantry battalion 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. April 6th, 1917. As an infantry battalion 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.

Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Dean-Charles Chapman
George MacKay
Daniel Mays
3.5K User reviews
532 Critic reviews
78 Metascore
135 wins & 207 nominations total

Lance Corporal Blake

Lance Corporal Schofield

Sergeant Sanders

General Erinmore
Lieutenant Gordon

Sergeant Miller

Private Stokes

Private Buchanan

Lieutenant Leslie

Private Kilgour

German Pilot

Private Parry
Private Atkins

Captain Smith

Colonel Collins
Sergeant Harrop
All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

Trivia Sir Sam Mendes (director) and Lee Smith (editor) stated that, despite the apparently continuous shot (broken only by one interval of unconsciousness), actually dozens of "invisible" edits were made, concealed by transitions through black, moves behind objects, and so on. According to Mendes, the shortest unbroken shot was 39 seconds long, while the longest single continuous shot was 8-1/2 minutes long.
Goofs A bomb going off a couple feet away from the two soldiers inside a small underground bunker would deafen them, probably permanently. It doesn't affect them at all, not even a ringing in their ears.

General Erinmore : [quoting Rudyard Kipling] Down to Gehenna, or up to the Throne, He travels the fastest who travels alone.

Crazy credits The opening logos are shortened and tinted blue.
Alternate versions In India, the film received multiple verbal cuts in order to obtain a U/A classification. Also, two anti-smoking video disclaimers and a smoking kills caption were added. This version also features local partner credits at the beginning and an interval card after Schofield is hit.
Connections Featured in Jeremy Jahns: 1917 (2019)
Soundtracks I Am a Poor Wayfaring Stranger Arranged by Craig Leon Performed by Jos Slovick

User reviews 3.5K

Jan 5, 2020
How long is 1917? Powered by Alexa
Is this movie considered fiction, or based on a true story?
What is the song sang by a soldier towards the end of the movie?
Who is credited with singing the trailer version of Wayfaring Stranger?
January 10, 2020 (United States)
United Kingdom
United States
Official Facebook
Official Instagram
Thế Chiến 1917
Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, England, UK (trench scenes & farm)
Dreamworks Pictures
Reliance Entertainment
New Republic Pictures
See more company credits at IMDbPro
$95,000,000 (estimated)
$159,227,644
Dec 29, 2019
$384,580,017

Technical specs

Runtime 1 hour 59 minutes
Dolby Atmos
Dolby Digital
Dolby Surround 7.1

More to explore

Johnny Oleksinski

‘1917’ review: a new war movie classic.

View Author Archive
Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Two thousand nineteen was the Year of Ambition at the movies. In “The Irishman,” Martin Scorsese told the story of a mob fixer that spanned five decades using just one actor per role — and lasted 3½ hours. The Russo Brothers wrapped up an era of “The Avengers” with the gargantuan “Endgame,” which also had a 3-hour runtime.

Now comes Sam Mendes’ World War I epic “1917.” It clocks in at a comparably concise 120 minutes, but nonetheless manages to be grander than those other films: in emotional heft, technical innovation and with visuals that will be seared onto your retinas. “1917” is a modern war classic and one of the best movies of the year.

For the story of two British soldiers’ treacherous mission across enemy lines in France, Mendes gave himself and cinematographer Roger Deakins a similarly dangerous directive: Shoot and edit the film to appear as though it’s a single shot.

Before the know-it-alls raise their hands, yes, continuous films have been made before, most notably Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Oscar-winning “Birdman” in 2014. But Michael Keaton yelling at a critic in a bar is one thing. The horrors of the battlefield are very much another, and the seemingly uncut motion here will blow your mind.

You react to the two brave Brits racing through a mile of cramped trenches, running across corpse-strewn No Man’s Land and, most impossibly, being nearly hit by a plane like you’ve just seen David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. How’d they do that?! But it’s more than Mendes & Co. flexing their biceps. While the movie’s style starts off as wow, it transforms into scorchingly intimate storytelling.

George MacKay, 27, plays Schofield, a soldier charged — alongside his friend Blake (22-year-old Dean-Charles Chapman) — with delivering a message to a distant division to halt an attack against the Germans. Their UK compatriots are walking into an ambush and thousands of lives may be lost.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Colonel Mackenzie in "1917."

The general who gives them their mission is played by Colin Firth, the first of several famous British actors — Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch among them — who, while solid, are outshone by MacKay and Chapman’s towering turns.

When Schofield encounters a folk singer serenading a forest of stone-faced soldiers with “Wayfaring Stranger,” or when he gives all his rations to the caretaker of an orphaned French baby, you’ll wonder why we haven’t seen more of the marvelous Mr. MacKay. And if that doesn’t get you, his determination in the explosive finale will.

The sequences I’m describing are mostly wordless, and yet following Schofield and Blake ceaselessly from Point A to Point B is still a remarkably full and textured experience, not unlike watching a solitary person at a cafe. A stare off into the unseen distance speaks volumes.

Most of that credit goes to Mendes for balancing the tech and the acting technique. The director has had great recent success with stage productions, such as “The Ferryman” and “The Lehman Trilogy,” but his movies since 1999’s “American Beauty” — scratches head — have left room for improvement. However, “1917” is filmmaking at its best and most piercingly alive. Next time your pessimistic friend tells you there’s no reason to leave the couch anymore, drag them straight into the car and go see this.

Share this article:

Become a Critical Movie Critic
Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: 1917 (2019)

Dan Gunderman
Movie Reviews
--> January 29, 2020

1917 is director Sam Mendes’ first film since 2015’s 007 picture, “ Spectre ,” and no doubt reaches the pantheon of respected war films. A Best Picture contender at this year’s Academy Awards, the film is a visual masterpiece, aided by the lens of 15-time Oscar nominee Roger Deakins, strong direction and an uncompromising look at No Man’s Land from the trenches of World War I.

The awards darling is perhaps most notable for its expansive look at the frontline, shifting young soldiers from claustrophobic muddy pits to yards of coiled barbed wire, abandoned lengths of enemy territory, a seemingly peaceful country home, a fiery village, corpse-laden waters and much more. These settings alone take center stage as relative newcomer George MacKay (“ Ophelia ”) teams up with “Game of Thrones” alum Dean-Charles Chapman to deliver a pivotal message to the Second Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, which is just hours away from stepping into a German-laid trap.

The end credits of Mendes’ project say he drew inspiration from his grandfather and the tales that have been passed along to his generation. This is clear, as Mendes opts for emotion and character-building, versus a focus on overall conflict and perhaps trite storytelling. Sure, those moments where brave British soldiers plunge “over the top” are exquisite — and, if done right, this is true of any World War I film. Yet, where 1917 sets itself apart is in its careful attention to detail and an anecdotal take on events of the Western Front; for Will Schofield’s (MacKay) experience weaving into and between disparate German units would be far different than other lance corporals, officers, and others.

This principle seems to align with “The Lord of the Rings” helmer, Peter Jackson’s, 2019 documentary, “ They Shall Not Grow Old ,” which also traced the emotional status of young soldiers on the front — in lieu of political turbulence and military strategy. Most soldiers were unaware of the latest political schemes — instead simply cast into the “meat grinder” that was the attrition-fueled Great War. These films, along with another recent project, “Journey’s End,” certainly add depth to the conflict’s ever-growing oeuvre. Similar to 1917 , Saul Dibb’s “Journey’s End” retraces the footsteps of a young soldier and his shrinking unit. Both films are a masterclass in visual arts and the minutiae and emotional tug-of-war of these global campaigns.

More specifically, 1917 and its impressive ensemble begins with Colin Firth’s (“ Kingsman: The Golden Circle ”) General Erinmore summoning Schofield and Chapman’s Lance Corporal Tom Blake for a top-secret mission to pull back the Devons’ Second Battalion before they are torn apart by a strategically relocated German front. With field telephone lines cut, there is only one way to access the regiment, led by Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch, “ Avengers: Endgame ”): A hand-delivered message. Erinmore taps Blake and Schofield for the daring mission.

The duo quickly traverse the British line for the best exit point — the top of a trench that just nights before spilled immeasurable British blood — and set off with their weapons, a flare gun and official postage from the General. What Schofield and Blake subsequently see is nearly indescribable, from drowned allies, dead animals, abandoned properties, mountains of artillery shells and a downed enemy fighter pilot. Following a swift and harsh tragedy, Schofield becomes doggedly determined to reach the front and prevent the loss of 1,600-plus lives. He’ll encounter sporadic German fighters, incredibly muddy trails, a mobile British unit and a kind French woman and orphan, holed up below ground with just a fire and German leftovers for sustenance. The question is: Will he defy odds and reach Mackenzie, along with the other Blake brother (another “Game of Thrones” alum, Richard Madden)?

Mendes and Deakins made another bold artistic choice, to boot: Presenting the film as one long take, devoid of choppy cuts, flashbacks, etc. The result is mesmerizing, allowing for immense character growth and “proximity” to these living, breathing fighters of the Lost Generation. Deakins, no doubt, is worthy of his latest Oscar nomination. His filmmaking prowess on 1917 and Mendes’ narrative vision will make the work something long studied by film students and scholars alike.

However, at times, the film appears to skew a bit too far toward Schofield’s perspective, but the bold point of view choice ultimately pays dividends, showing that the action is more about a heroic act that can go largely unnoticed in an enormous and wretched campaign that took around 20 million lives.

Suffice to say, viewers will see Mendes and Deakins take the Oscar stage; but beyond its run at the box office, 1917 will stand as a powerful testament to the brutality and pointlessness of warfare for decades to come. In fact, it is — where it rightly belongs — likely on many critics’ shortlist of top war films, rivaling the likes of “Saving Private Ryan,” “Apocalypse Now,” “ Dunkirk ” and “The Thin Red Line.”

Tagged: England , message , military , soldier , trap , WWI

Dan is an author, film critic and media professional. He is a former staff writer for the N.Y. Daily News, where he served as a film/TV reviewer with a "Top Critic" designation on Rotten Tomatoes. His debut historical fiction novel, "Synod," was published by an independent press in Jan. 2018, receiving praise among indie book reviewers. His research interests include English, military and political history.

Movie Review: Six Minutes to Midnight (2020) Movie Review: Apocalypse ‘45 (2020) Movie Review: Greyhound (2020) Movie Review: Robert the Bruce (2019) Movie Review: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Movie Review: Ad Astra (2019) Movie Review: Downton Abbey (2019)

| Log in

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 this technical accomplishment is wasted on a soulless film.

Hollywood has long excelled at mining beauty from war . Some of moviemaking’s most indelible images have come from dramatizations of battle, from the early Oscar winner All Quiet on the Western Front to Christopher Nolan’s 2017 blockbuster, Dunkirk . Taking any situation, such as the horrifying trench combat of the First World War, and turning it into cinema will smooth away some of the crueler realities, no matter the director’s intent. Sam Mendes’s 1917 is a particularly beautiful war film, a technical feat that turns a somber mission into a burnished action thriller, one designed to look like it was shot in two hour-long single takes.

It obviously wasn’t—Mendes and his director of photography, the venerable Roger Deakins, have harnessed breakthroughs in moviemaking tech to create these faux long shots, similar to those in the Oscar-winning film Birdman . 1917 is presented in two shots, one that takes place during the day and one after the sun has gone down. The camera follows Lance Corporals William Schofield (George MacKay) and Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) as they dash across no-man’s-land in northern France to warn British troops about an enemy trap. The extended takes seem to exist to crank up the tension of their mission, forcing the story to progress in real time and conveying the feeling of a ticking clock. Mendes and Deakins’s visual achievement here is undeniable.

Yet mere minutes into the film, the gimmick begins to chafe. 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. 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. I don’t consider myself a curmudgeon about CGI-assisted long takes; Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men and Gravity used them to great effect, and though the themes of Birdman left me cold, the camerawork largely delighted me.

In those cases, though, the lack of cutting ramped up the tension. 1917 attempts to do the same, to put the viewer in the headspace of a soldier who might be fired on at any moment. But the technique had the opposite effect for me. I could think only of the camera, which itself becomes a character, probing the haunting, bombed-out towns and wasteland battlefields that Schofield and Blake tromp through. There is no sense of real danger, because the mission has to continue, if only to keep this impressive long shot going. Any time there’s a larger, more cataclysmic set piece, our heroes look like tiny chess pieces on a much bigger board, bystanders who move around exploding mortars and whizzing bullets to produce the most stunning tableaux possible.

Some of my favorite war films could be called gorgeous, including Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line , with its poetic lushness, and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now , with its epic bloviations. Steven Spielberg, Hollywood’s greatest master of camera blocking, has made movies about both world wars ( War Horse and Saving Private Ryan ) featuring thrill-ride battle sequences that don’t skimp on the brutality. But those films are all grounded by characters and themes, while 1917 has to largely strip those elements away in service of its grand stunt.

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. Better-known actors such as Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch stop by for brief cameos that each have more life. But since the mission demands that our heroes press on, those all-stars depart just as quickly, unable to keep up with the camera. 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. All Schofield and Blake have to do is give a warning to British troops and halt their attack before it begins, lest they fall into a German trap. They’re risking their life to stop further progress, and every character they meet comments on the cruel sense of stasis that defines the conflict. The script, by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, keeps hinting at the ultimate futility of the First World War, during which millions of men heaved themselves out of trenches and toward certain death for the sake of a few miles of territory. Though 1917 tries to communicate that nightmarish reality, its long-take trickery ends up feeling similarly pointless.

Daily BO Update
Daily Breakdown
Hits & Flops
All Time Grossers
Highest Grossers
Highest Openers
Highest Weekend
Best of Overseas
Hollywood Highest
Fact-o-meter
Entertainment News
Bollywood News
Television & Web
Fashion & Lifestyle
Bigg Boss 17
Hollywood News
What To Watch
Bollywood Movie Reviews
Hollywood Movie Reviews
All South Movie Reviews
Tamil Movie Reviews
Telugu Movie Reviews
Kannada Movie Reviews
Malayalam Movie Reviews
Marathi Movie Reviews
Web Series Reviews
Music Reviews
Box Office Reviews
Trailer Reviews
BO Filmometer
Stars’ Power Index
Directors’ Power Index
100 Crore Club
Worldwide 200 Crores+
Profitable Films
Recommended Movies
Upcoming Movies
Released Movies
Web Stories
About Koimoi

Home » Reviews

1917 Movie Review: Soul-Stunning, Redefining Extraordinary, Nothing Like Ever Seen Before!

1917 packs a bundle of gut-wrenching moments and aims at doing right through your heart by the end..

Star Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch

Director: Sam Mendes

1917 Movie Review: Soul-Stunning, Redefining Extraordinary, Nothing Like Ever Seen Before!

What’s Good: The thought of a War Drama as good as Saving Private Ryan was fictional until now, it not only shows you what’s in front of the camera but also transports you behind it at times to realise what it takes.

What’s Bad: The more I think of picking out the flaws, the more I’m convinced it’s a perfect film & hence the rating.

Loo Break: You might even forget to breathe for a while, keep that in check first.

Watch or Not?: This is a very debatable question because obviously, not everyone will get similar feelings about the subject. Just go through the review, if you’re convinced then go for it!

Stories that can be explained in one line and still get you intrigued to watch them are always considered to be the best. The one-line plot of 1917 is – “Two people have to be from Point A to Point B in a certain amount of time, or else 1600 of their men will be massacred.” We’ve British soldiers Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) and Lance Corporal Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) following the orders given by General Erinmore (Colin Firth).

The orders state that Germans have been wanting the British army to initiate the attack so that they can overwhelm with the counter. Blake has a brother in The 2nd of Devons and him along with Scho has to reach them before they start to attack. They’ve to do this by escaping the gun points of Germans which might or might not be surrounding the route. It’s not just about the obstacles they face in the way, it’s also about the unpredictability about whether or not they’re going to get their alive.

1917 Movie Review: Script Analysis

Firstly, let’s congratulate Roger Deakins for his second Oscar win back to back after Blade Runner 2049 last year. Yeah, I’m that confident of Deakins grabbing the Oscar for best cinematography because he has an edge over every brilliant film this year. The idea of making it look like a single shit film was a masterstroke and it works like butter. I was at an unblinking stage for a long time just so I can find those hidden cuts. There are scenes in which I gulped my popcorn so that I don’t make any noise to miss any intricate detail.

Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns’ story comes with nothing extra. It packs a bundle of gut-wrenching moments and aims at doing right through your heart by the end. Makers sneak in Christopher Nolan’s favourite editor Lee Smith with the vision he successfully accomplishes. Sam & Deakins do their job in shooting the film using the ‘blocking and staging’ technique but it’s Lee who had to bridge those scenes in order to make this look like a single fluid shot.

1917 Movie Review: Star Performance

Both George MacKay as Scho and Dean-Charles Chapman as Tom managed to bring a very humane side to their character of army-men. Both of them have the innocence working for them and they use it to make you relate more to them. George MacKay has more dodging to do and he manages to control himself walking just on the lines of perfect acting. Chapman’s character makes you think real hard about the boys who aren’t even men are ready to do anything for their country.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel Mackenzie concludes your thoughts with “Hope is a dangerous thing”, which kind of sums up the entire plot in one line. Benedict is at his usual best in this small cameo. Richard Madden will make you skip a beat with his special appearance. He just shares one scene but it’s so brilliantly written and performed, it will leave you with a lump in your throat.

1917 Movie Review: Direction, Music

Sam Mendes never screams for your attention, he earns it over time. He just grasps you with the ‘one-shot technique’ in the beginning but also makes sure it doesn’t come across as a gimmick. Most of the film is shot in narrow lanes and once you keep yourself behind the camera with Sam, you’ll understand what he has achieved here is nothing less than extraordinary.

Out of Eight Sam Mendes films to date, he has collaborated with Thomas Newman for Seven times. Apart from Green Mile, there are hardly any movies in this filmography to justify the greatness he has achieved in this zone. He has some memorable soundtracks to this name but with 1917, he manages to John Williams’ zone and nails it for that matter. Putting the uncomfortable silence to his use, Newman is a new man with 1917.

1917 Movie Review: The Last Word

All said and done, 1917 is the best cinematic experience I’ve ever had and I didn’t even watch in IMAX to review. This is filmmaking at its finest & an example of how putting efforts at the right place will bring you the desired results. It’s beyond rating!

Five Stars!

1917 trailer.

1917 releases on 17th January, 2020.

Share with us your experience of watching 1917.

Love Aaj Kal Poster OUT! Kartik Aaryan & Sara Ali Khan Look Like A Mysterious Dream In This Imtiaz Ali Directorial
EXCLUSIVE: Deepika Padukone On Her Outfit Choices, Fashion Police & Much More

Android & IOS users, download our mobile app for faster than ever Bollywood & Box Office updates!

When Scarlett Johansson & Other Avengers Stars Admired Chris Hemsworth's Beauty - Here's What Happened Next!

When Scarlett Johansson & Her Avengers Co-Stars Couldn’t Stop Gushing Over ‘Sleeping Beauty’ Chris Hemsworth: “The Man Is Perfect Even When He’s Drooling”

What If…? Season 2 Review: What If…? Comes Back With An Inconsistent But Amusing Second Season Of This Marvel Spin-Off

Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget Movie Review: The Chicken Run Franchise Returns 23 Years Later, But Maintains Its Sense of Adventure

Check this out.

Shaitaan 2 Is On The Cards? Ajay Devgn Starrer To Deal...

Here's Why Manisha Rani Unfollowed Elvish Yadav On Instagram!

Manisha Rani vs Elvish Yadav Intensifies As She Slams “Elvish Ko...

27 Years Later, A Surprising Update On ‘Happy Gilmore 2’ Emerges...

Shah Rukh Khan In, Ranbir Kapoor Out In Animal? Viral AI...

Box Office - Kriti Sanon scores her fifth biggest weekend opener with Crew, the film is next only to Adipurush, Dilwale, Housefull 4 and Bachchan Pandey

Crew Box Office Collection: Kriti Sanon Scores Her Fifth Biggest Weekend

IPL 2024: Does Shilpa Shetty Still Own Rajasthan Royals? Actress Gave...

Don't miss.

Costliest TV Show: With A Budget Higher Than Prabhas’s 600 Crore...

Box Office - Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire scores a very good weekend, comes quite close to entire lifetime of Godzilla vs Kong

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Box Office Day 3: Inches...

When Amanda Bynes Was Kicked Out Of Her Gym!

When Amanda Bynes Stripped Into A Tiny Bra & Was Allegedly...

Patna Shuklla Movie Review: Raveena Tandon Makes You Wait For Her Moment To Turn A Hero But Never Arrives To Justify Why She Is...

Crew Movie Review: Tabu, Kareena Kapoor Khan & Kriti Sanon Brilliantly Show That Girls Just Want To Have Fun!

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Movie Review Out

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Movie Review: Godzilla and Kong Come Back Bigger Than Ever In This Globe-Trotting Adventure Film

Review Of ‘Aadujeevitham-The Goat Life’ – Prithviraj Deserves National Award For His Performance

IMAGES

1917 Movie Review
1917 Movie Review
1917 wiki, synopsis, reviews, watch and download
1917 (2019) Review: A Devastatingly Beautiful Representation of War
1917 Movie Review (2019) Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth
‘1917’ Review: An epic and intimate trip through hell

VIDEO

1917 Movie Trailer (Video Design and Composition)
Movie fact in 1917 #moviefacts
1917 (2019) l George MacKay l Dean-Charles Chapman l Full Movie Facts And Review
Did you know that in the 1917 movie... #shorts

COMMENTS

1917 movie review & film summary (2019)
A film review of "1917", a feature-length single-shot film about the horrors of World War I, by Roger Ebert. The film is praised for its technical achievements, but criticized for its lack of story and characters, and for its reliance on exposition-heavy scenes with familiar faces.
1917
Movie Info. During World War I, two British soldiers -- Lance Cpl. Schofield and Lance Cpl. Blake -- receive seemingly impossible orders. In a race against time, they must cross over into enemy ...
1917
Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Nov 11, 2022. Keith Garlington Keith & the Movies. With "1917" Sam Mendes takes his audience on a perilous journey driven by a simple but tightly-wound ...
'1917' Review: Paths of Technical Glory
It opens on April 6, 1917, with Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay), British soldiers stationed in France, receiving new orders. They are to ...
1917 review
S am Mendes's 1917 is an amazingly audacious film; as exciting as a heist movie, disturbing as a sci-fi nightmare.Working with co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns, he has created a first world war ...
1917 (2019)
This is film art in its highest form, and is at once incredibly beautiful and horrific. A runaway certain Oscar winner for Cinematography (Deakins), and nominations (at a minimum) for Best Film, Director, Visual Effects, Screenplay (Mendes), Film Editing (Lee Smith), and Actor (George MacKay). 7/10. Good but not great.
'1917' Review
THR review: Sam Mendes' ambitious World War I film '1917' presents the harrowing odyssey of two British soldiers in one seemingly continuous shot. The only problem with 1917 is the teeth. As we ...
Review: 1917 Is a Movie About War That Feels Wholly Alive
1917 Is a Movie About the Horrors of War, Told With a Devotion to Beauty and Life. 7 minute read. By Stephanie Zacharek. December 24, 2019 8:52 AM EST.
'1917' Review -- Variety Critic's Pick
Critics Pick '1917': Film Review Actor George MacKay carries Sam Mendes' audacious real-time WWI adventure, which alternates between ground-level and God's-eye perspectives.
1917 review
F or the opening of his 2015 Bond movie Spectre, director Sam Mendes (who won an Oscar for his first feature, American Beauty) mounted a memorable sequence set amid Mexico City's day of the dead ...
1917 review: A thrilling adventure over the top and into hell
Such a straightforward adventure. April 1917, the Western Front. A young soldier, Lance-Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), is given a perilous mission. He's to carry a message through No Man ...
1917
1917 is an expertly crafted and emotionally exhausting thrill-ride behind enemy lines. ... i rarely rate movies 10 out of 10 but this war movie unlike many others has some uniqueness which again thanks to the direction and the places they chose to film, I highly recommend to give it try. ... an indie comedy with terrific early reviews, and more ...
'1917' Movie Review: War Is Hell, One Shot at a Time
Yes, '1917' is a technical accomplishment of the highest order—but this "single-shot" WWI movie is much more than that, says Peter Travers. '1917' Movie Review: War Is Hell, One Shot at a Time
1917 Review
Release Date: 10 Jan 2020. Original Title: 1917. Talk of a tracking shot might usually merit a sentence or two in a film review. A paragraph maybe. Even with Alejandro González Iñárritu 's ...
1917 Movie Review
1917 is well-acted and an undeniable technical achievement, yet its real-time storytelling is both the film's greatest strength and biggest problem. It would've been easy for 1917 to feel like a gimmick film. Sam Mendes' WWI epic (which was loosely based on a story Mendes' paternal grandfather told him about his time in the war) was shot and ...
1917 Movie Review
1917 Movie Review. 1:10 1917 Official trailer. 1917. Community Reviews. See all. Parents say (46) Kids say (129) age 13+ Based on 46 parent reviews . MAJORMINECRAFT Adult. December 12, 2022 age 10+ Great movie! 1917 is a true story about the director's grandfather's adventure in the great war. A good movie for people who are interested in the ...
1917 (2019)
1917: Directed by Sam Mendes. With Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, Daniel Mays, Colin Firth. April 6th, 1917. As an infantry battalion 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.
'1917' movie review: A new war film classic
Movie review 1917 Running time: 117 minutes. R (for violence, some disturbing images, and language). In theaters Dec. 25. Two thousand nineteen was the Year of Ambition at the movies.
Movie Review: 1917 (2019)
Poo-Review Ratings. Stay Away Don't Bother Seen Better Not Bad See It. 1917 is director Sam Mendes' first film since 2015's 007 picture, " Spectre ," and no doubt reaches the pantheon of respected war films. A Best Picture contender at this year's Academy Awards, the film is a visual masterpiece, aided by the lens of 15-time Oscar ...
1917 (2019 film)
1917 is a 2019 British war film directed and produced by Sam Mendes, who co-wrote it with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.Partially inspired by stories told to Mendes by his paternal grandfather Alfred about his service during World War I, the film takes place after the German retreat to the Hindenburg Line during Operation Alberich, and follows two British soldiers, Will Schofield (George MacKay) and ...
'1917' Is a Visual Feat and a Bad Movie
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 this technical accomplishment is wasted on a soulless film. Hollywood ...
1917 Movie Review: Soul-Stunning, Redefining Extraordinary ...
1917 Movie Review Rating: 5/5 Stars (Five stars) Star Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch. Director: Sam Mendes. 1917 Movie ...
Femme (2024) Movie Reviews
With his performances as Aphrodite Banks, Jules (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett, Candyman) has a place among London's celebrated drag artists. One night after a show, he steps out to get some cigarettes and is brutally attacked by a man (George MacKay, 1917), out with a gang of his friends. Although Jules is able to recover physically, he withdraws from the outside world, traumatized. Months later, he ...