1917 Review

Instead of making a third Bond film, Sam Mendes has given us 1917 which is set in World War One and follows two soldiers (George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman) as they race against time to deliver a warning to the allies of an impending attack by enemy forces that could have horrific results. And to make matters worse, one of the soldiers sent to deliver the message has an older brother on the front line who will probably die if the message is not delivered in time.

 

 As well as the two leads the cast features Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Benedict  Cumberbatch and Richard Madden. They have all proven their talents as capable actors, but unfortunately are all on screen at separate moments for short periods of time and have been given underwhelming material to work with. Meanwhile, the actors we spend the most time with are uncharismatic and seem rather inexperienced in their roles.

 

 The script (by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) only stands out in one regard, and that is by not being as action-heavy as many other films with a similar setting. There are scenes of action, but they are spread throughout the film and there's only one scene of a battle that is a trope of the genre. I must mention how boring the characters are - not one feels at all interesting or complex. Also, many of the supporting characters just feel like genre clichés. There is something to say abut the pacing but I will address that later.

 

 The cinematography is by Roger Deakins and he had the job of bringing about the film's most talked-about aspect, to present the action as a single continuous take. Thanks to his skill, and backed by quality editing, the continuous take succeeds and never breaks, not once. It's especially noticeable when characters walk around corners.

 

 The score is by Thomas Newman and he's given us music that works in the context of each scene, whether it be an intense piece of music or something a bit more sombre.

 

 The main issue I have with this film is as follows: the plot is very simple - get from A to B - and the characters have just under two hours to do so. Time is obviously meant to play an important part in this film but I feel there are one or two scenes where the characters stop and walk around random places just to pad out the running time. A film with this kind of premise should have better control over its pacing. So maybe it would have been ideal to trim some of the scenes down.

 

 I know this film has gained the approval of many audiences and critics and won multiple awards -  and it may be up for several more. But apart from what was done with the film visually (the apparently continuous take), I fail to see where all this praise is coming from. Then again, this is not the first time I have had negative opinions about a film everyone else seemingly loves, and I have a feeling it certainly won't be the last!

 C

 

Thank you for reading.