Style over substance - 1917 lacks an experienced mind

Rating: 6/10 (29 January 2020)

1917's rave reviews have heralded the visuals and the storyline as elite; even the marketing campaign has gone to great lengths to demonstrate how the "one-take" effect of the film as a masterful piece of cinema. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean the mediocre storyline really ever comes together; massive set-pieces and inspired lighting aren't enough to buoy the jumbled cameos and obvious cuts in scenes, which ultimately hurt 1917 more than they help. Some of the film is beautiful, but you were bound to hit the target once or twice considering how much Sam Mendes threw at this project.
The story follows two British soldiers across uncharted territory, given only 24 hours to deliver a vital message to a general on the warpath. To me, this is an uncomplicated storyline that war films need to deliver on more - there is potential for drama, thrills and every setting imaginable - but writers have a habit of wanting to convolute the story. The plot does lean heavily (and not in a convincing way) on coincidental events to help drive the drama and tension, which does create a plot that verges on entirely incredulous.
All of the sets are immaculate, constructed to utilise the weather and the light to create an atmosphere. The sets must have all been built to preserve the idea of a "one-take" film, and this is 1917's downfall. The camera will follow the subject for 20 minutes at a time, navigating every obstacle that usually interferes with a shot, only to then pan behind an easily avoidable object like a rock. Why commit to this technique if you aren't doing it properly, or if you could do a better job with a few cuts? It baffles me that Mendes didn't realise cutting infrequently (such as in Birdman) would make a better-looking film than using unnatural frames to keep the one-shot integrity alive, and this sort of naivety is exactly why 1917 isn't as good as some people think.
War films, in my opinion, should use unknowns for all roles apart from the leads. If you are trying to tell a story, it should not rely on A-list actors to prop up exposition, otherwise you lose the anonymity of war, and instead end up with a mismatch of famous faces. 1917 is guilty of this, with cameos rammed in left and right: Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Richard Madden, Andrew Scott and others all appear for less than 5 minutes each, but break all realism when they rock up on screen. What is even worse is that they weren't given the roles because they required great acting talent to perform - they were just the most well-known people looking for a job.
By the end of 1917, I wondered if the plot really mattered - it becomes somewhat lost amongst the flashy visuals and the blaring soundtrack. It wasn't a more considered work than other war films, and I would rather watch Saving Private Ryan or Beasts of No Nation than this frankly over-celebrated piece of cinema.