1917 Spoiler-Free Review; "In Terms Of Pure Filmmaking, You Won't See A Better Film In 2020"

1917 Spoiler-Free Review; "In Terms Of Pure Filmmaking, You Won't See A Better Film In 2020"

Sam Mendes' 1917 has dethroned Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker at the box office this weekend but is the hype surrounding the recent Golden Globes winner justified? You can find our verdict right here...

Review Opinion
By JoshWilding - Jan 11, 2020 12:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Action
In terms of pure filmmaking, you won't see a better film in 2020 than 1917. Presented as one continuous shot, it's never not fascinating to watch the action play out on screen (all while attempting to figure out how on Earth director Sam Mendes managed to pull it off). Just don't be surprised if you find yourself thinking more about how it was made than the story itself! As an exploration of the horrors of World War I, it works well as British soldiers Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embark on a perilous journey through enemy territory after being assigned to hand deliver a message which will call off an attack and save the lives of 1600 men from the Germans. 

The two leads are nothing short of excellent and, along the way, they're joined by a star-studded cast made up of names like Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden, Mark Strong, and Colin Firth. MacKay's earnest performance is quiet and understated (much of the second half of the film has no dialogue) but you won't be able to take your eyes off him in this heart-pounding race against time. 

Make no mistake about it: 1917 is a thrilling ride and while big budget blockbusters continue to dominate theaters, it's refreshing that a war movie like this can come along and provide just as much excitment while pushing the boundaries of filmmaking. 

That intensity can be credited to the aforementioned tracking shot which proves to be both beneficial and detrimental to 1917. Due to the way the film is presented, everything happens in extremely close succession, something that makes it feel like a carefully choreographed, meticulously planned series of set pieces (all of which happen at the right place at the right time) rather than events which are naturally occurring. It hits all the beats you'd expect from a war movie but they happen so rapidly that they sometimes fail to leave an impact as there's no time to catch your breath, especially as things essentially happen in "real-time." In some respects, it feels like that's the point as Mendes clearly wants to bring the audience into this bleak and terrifying warzone and make them experience being there. However, it's a method of storytelling which falls somewhere between distracting and engrossing but if you're able to entirely suspend your disbelief and ignore this apparent series of coincidences, you can add another star to the score below. 

From a technical standpoint, though, 1917 is unbeatable and it's easy to see why Mendes picked up that Golden Globe last weekend. The way the film is edited to give the impression that it never cuts away from what's happening on screen is nothing short of mind-blowing and the whole package makes for exciting, edge of your seat viewing from start to finish; the eventual Blu-ray promises to be an essential purchase just to delve into how the Skyfall director managed to piece it all together. Throw in Roger Deakins' incredible cinematography and Thomas Newman's suitably sweeping score and there's enough here to ensure the film stands a strong chance of continuing its recent awards success at the Oscars. 

A stunning technical achievement, 1917 might just be Sam Mendes' best film yet but this well choreographed series of events play out too neatly to ensure the horrors of war will leave a lasting impact.

IF
TWISTERS Star Sasha Lane On Chasing Tornados With Glen Powell, Facing Real Danger, & Sequel Hopes (Exclusive)
Related:

TWISTERS Star Sasha Lane On Chasing Tornados With Glen Powell, Facing Real Danger, & Sequel Hopes (Exclusive)

1992 Interview: Scott Eastwood Reflects On Working With Ray Liotta And Working In Shades Of Grey (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

1992 Interview: Scott Eastwood Reflects On Working With Ray Liotta And Working In Shades Of Grey (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

MUTO123
MUTO123 - 1/11/2020, 1:32 PM
It's incredible.
Polaris
Polaris - 1/11/2020, 1:50 PM
I just got home after watching it, amazing film!
GhostDog
GhostDog - 1/11/2020, 1:54 PM
It was unbelievable. Went this morning.
tmp3
tmp3 - 1/11/2020, 1:55 PM
Solid film. Respected it more than I loved it though
ThePhantazm
ThePhantazm - 1/11/2020, 2:37 PM
Amazing film. The best looking movie of 2019, tied with Joker imo.

People accuse Sam Mendes of ripping off Nolan but I think 1917 is a much better movie that Dunkirk. Miles better.
GratefulBat
GratefulBat - 1/11/2020, 9:14 PM
@ThePhantazm - I liked it heaps more than Dunkirk. I wasn’t big in Dunkirk though. I guess I’m not too into War movies in general.
Tcb97
Tcb97 - 1/11/2020, 2:50 PM
Agree with this review and the final grade as well. This is a masterful technical achievement and in terms of directing, editing (the hidden cuts) and cinematography this is easily the most impressive of the year. That said, just like Dunkirk, it focuses more on the mission/situation and less on character development. I liked the two main stars, but I never got the chance to be to invested in their quest. I respect this movie and would recommend it to everyone on the big screen, but for me, it wasn't as memorable as say Hacksaw Ridge (technically inferior to 1917, but the story and character work for Desmond Doss was so strong that it carried the movie for me and I teared up near the end, I don't even remember the names of the main soldiers in 1917 unfortunately).
GratefulBat
GratefulBat - 1/11/2020, 9:12 PM
@Tcb97 - 100% with you and JW. It’s a great film and without a doubt a technical achievement, but I too felt some things worked out a little too “neatly.”
thewanderer
thewanderer - 1/11/2020, 3:07 PM
If the best film of 2020 only gets four stars, we’re in trouble...
bkmeijer2
bkmeijer2 - 1/11/2020, 3:17 PM
"this well choreographed series of events play out too neatly to ensure the horrors of war will leave a lasting impact"

I gotta admit this could very well be a solid summary, but I don't think you should discredit the movie for it. They made the choice for the real-time and one long shot, and I don't see how else they could do it.

Anyway, I'm seeing it thursday so I'll keep the neatness in mind and might prepare to suspend some disbelief
Liverpool4life
Liverpool4life - 1/11/2020, 4:25 PM
The Great War is often overlooked in the US, looking forward to seeing it.
DoubleD
DoubleD - 1/11/2020, 4:30 PM
4 Stars is what I rated yesterday :)
CaptainAustralia
CaptainAustralia - 1/11/2020, 4:35 PM
Here Are All The Armies in 1917, Ranked From Worst to Best
The 1917 End Credits Spoiler Nobody Expected!
10 Famous People We Need to See in 1918 (the sequel to 1917)
10 Biggest Bloopers in 1917

MosquitoFarmer
MosquitoFarmer - 1/11/2020, 6:30 PM
Excellent as the film may be, (as far as filmmaking) “You won’t see a better film in 2020”. Why make such a statement a week and a half into the year?
CaptainAustralia
CaptainAustralia - 1/11/2020, 10:47 PM
@MosquitoFarmer - Because Josh really wants to give the studio and distributors a very strong and unique bit of praise so they can run it as a quote with his name on TV adverts, posters etc etc. Pure ego, oh and also helps get freebies and junkets from that studio or distributor for future movies. It's a pretty naff thing to say about 2020 when the year is only 10 days old!
RolandD
RolandD - 1/12/2020, 9:34 AM
@MosquitoFarmer - Olay, you beat me to my comment. Lol
View Recorder