An Impressive Cinematography Achievement With Mostly Paper Thin Writing; The Final Number is the Rating.....7

Rating: 1/10 (7 January 2020)

1917 is definitely a decent movie, and yes, there is no denying that the ambitious "one-take" filming method was very impressive and certainly an achievement, but the writing was paper-thin at times- not as much as Roma was (not that bad), but it had some weaknesses.
Before watching it I glanced through a few reviews, and one in particular that stood out as ambivalent is the one I recalled, as I agreed with the reviewer's opinion that 1917 has every war movie cliché you could think of.
Literally every cliché is in here as its main scenes, but there is something else I found even more bothersome than that, which is that a few of the scenes are actually dumb. For example, the two messengers witness a dog fight, and they actually identify their allies as winning, but a few moments later the plane they are pursuing is shot down and lands nearby where they are. Rather than play it cautiously, they immediately rush to assist the enemy out of the plane to try to save him. This directly leads to one of them being killed when the pilot stabs the one of them. I mean, what kind of solider in a major war would naively try to save an enemy without their weapons drawn and cautiously? This was very problematic to me.
Another issue that I had once again pertained to suspension of disbelief, or implausibility in that the surviving messenger is shot at constantly throughout his journey with bullets just missing his head on numerous occasion. I mean, this guy has plot armour on him that is thicker than season 8 of Game of Thrones, particularly the episode, "The Long Night". Everyone around him is constantly getting blasted by bombs and bullets, yet this guy is just luckily and randomly getting missed. For one scene, I would be like, okay, but this goes on in every battle scene all the way through to the end. I'm not an expert on WWI, but at what point does the viewer have to say, "There's no way this is how it was- that a guy can just expose himself constantly to gunfire, bombs, and hellfire, and not get a scratch on him?"
Don't get me wrong. There is no denying that this was a good movie, but I couldn't help but feel those three main criticisms: the clichés, the plot armour/suspension of disbelief, and the thin writing. And pertaining to the thin writing, I understand that they needed to give the actors lines, of course, but every single dialogue felt like they had to put "that" kind of scene in to make it feel like a war movie, and that's not to say it was bad, but just cliched.
Speaking of the writing, if you are a person who mostly enjoys great, original dialogue and style, then you will probably notice this too. However, you will also be unable to deny how impressive the "one-take" filming method is. Another thing to mention is that due to the thin writing, it gave off a very nihilistic vibe a lot of the time. I questioned often if there was any deeper meaning to anything being shown. The reason why is because it seemed like they were going for some depth, but the climaxes were not reaching any moral or lesson. Again, when the pilot was being saved, I thought, 'okay, he's showing that in war helping your enemy is noble?"...but then it results in a nonsensical death, and yet still it wasn't trying to say not to trust your enemies in war, either; it was just a random event brought about by being stupid by underestimating the pilot in an unprofessional soldier way for a big war.
Finally, I have one other big issue with this. Toward the end, this stranger basically crashes the battalion's gathering, and he begins asking where the Commander is, okay. Not one single soldier asks him for identification to confirm he isn't some rabid dog or assassin. They easily trust him and give up the location of their head Commander. But that isn't all- that is just the very back group he first meets. As he proceeds to chase after the Commander, trained soldiers allow this maniac to just knock them over one by one without being suspicious of him or questioning what his problem is as he advanced through. But it doesn't even end there; when he arrives at the bunker area, or front line, he continues to ask where the commander is, and the other captains continue to immediately comply with his request, giving up the location of their Commander to a stranger like it is no big deal. Seriously? What if he was an assassin? Nobody asks for his identification or why he wants the Commander's location.....Oh, that is until he finally arrives outside his door. It is finally THEN that they make a big deal about what kind of a threat he can be. I had big problems with how this scene was set up. We're supposed to believe the Commander of the entire mission is supposed to be that simple and easy to get to when being pursued by an outside low ranking soldier?
On a plus note, I liked the very end and thought most of the movie sufficed as entertaining and a decent watch. However, I would NOT qualify this as a Best Picture favorite at the Academy Awards due to said issues. It had beautiful filming and beautiful shots, but the writing came up cliched and short of what it should require.
-1 (Little character development/thin writing)+9 (Cinematography/One-Take choreography success) -1 (Cliches/Suspension of Disbelief/Plot Armor)= 7
7/10