Immersive war experience with the incredible cinematography, but pretty traditional at its core

Rating: 7/10 (6 April 2020)

Because, much of the movie has been made by using of "one single shot" (very linear plot) approach (like in the Birdman) for me, after an about one hour of its runtime "1917" became little bit too much and dull experience. There are long stretches without dialogue, while the movie which is treating one of the titanic events of modern times is largely conventional and intellectually shallow. Actually, the uncomplicated screenplay retreads classic war film themes without anything new to say. At the same time, while watching "1917" there is a sense that you are waiting for an interesting point but that never comes, mostly because audiences really don't need "1917" to tell them in 2020 that war is hell. In the movie, there are two real stars - one is cinematographer Roger Deakins and the other is George MacKay. As much acclaim Dean-Charles Chapman and director Sam Mendes are gettin, it's MacKay that is the break out star. Ultimately, you get the idea that the basic script was one hour long. "1917" is a decent war film, but after all the buzz, I was disappointed.
Rating: 7+ Just because of the first 60 minutes of almost perfection