Criminally overrated; the epitome of Style-Over-Substance.

Rating: 3/10 (24 January 2020)

Technically speaking in terms of cinematography, 1917 is an amazing achievement, with a near flawless implementation of the highly publicized one-take illusion, and some truly gorgeous camera perspectives.
Unfortunately, that effectively summarizes the near extent of the film's virtues.
When matters relating to actual substance come into play, the movie embodies a redundant retread of tired war-movie clichés, improbable scenarios, and with a smattering of nationalistic propaganda thrown into the mix.
Unfortunately, Sam Mendes has managed to pull every brand of "hip" and "edgy" war movie trope out of his narcissistic rear end as to delude impressionable masses into mischaracterizing this work-of-art as the greatest and "most realistic" war movie ever made.
Thus, this film will likely wind up securing an Academy Award for "Best Picture" a meager few weeks into the authoring of this review. But, hey, if "Crash" can do it and "Forrest Gump" can do it, so can "1917"!
First of all, the movie fails where so many others have succeeded in terms of accurately conveying the horrid conditions of trench warfare. While real soldiers of the era were forced to contend with knee-deep mud and a prevalence of rats, 1917 depicts the trenches as merely the biproduct of less-than-luxurious and minimally damp conditions, complete with make-up work that depicts British soldiers and officers as extensively well-groomed and practically ready for a "night on the town", so to speak. This, notwithstanding the fact that a total of about six (evidently clean and well-cared-for) rats show up in the entire movie.
While barbed-wire injuries were largely deemed an "occupational hazard" so frequent as to motivate the majority of troops to shrug off such occurrences as meager discomforts, one of our esteemed protagonists (McKay) winds up sustaining a meager prick on his index finger and proceeds to whine about it for several minutes.
The atrociously written screenplay is turgid and thoroughly superficial, replete with an overabundance of redundant observations, simplistic deductions, and such a prevalence of one-syllable words that the script could have easily been crafted by one so bombastic and inarticulate as Donald Trump.
And then, there's the tired regurgitation of the "barbaric German" stereotype.
When a luckless Albatross D.III is shot down during the course of a dogfight, the burning aircraft proceeds to crash within the immediate vicinity of our heroes, leaving these courageous British lads to epitomize the "nobility of king and country" by humanely extracting the German pilot from the flaming wreckage. No sooner has one of our protagonists rushed to a nearby well to fetch their esteemed adversary a pale of water than the "sadistic Kraut" elects to repay their generosity and selflessness by literally stabbing one of them in the back (well okay, technically in the front).
The only other instance of an up-close-and-personal encounter with those "Dastardly Boche" embodies yet another cliched affair. In another selfless inclination to show mercy to their sworn enemies, our sole remaining hero pins a young German soldier to a concrete pillar, clamping a hand over his mouth and silently gesturing that he keep quiet to refrain from alerting his nearby compatriots. Predictably, the German soldier nods in compliance, our trusting hero removes his hand, and the double-crossing "Fritz" proceeds to shout "ALARM!!" toward his fellow comrades, leaving the British solider no alternative but to strangle him in silence.
Another stupid rehash of overused World-War-I-movie tropes concerns the obligatory encounter with the helpless French peasant and her child, who inexplicably seems to be taking refuge in the confines of a long-since devastated town which appears to have been evacuated eons ago.
Predictably, the two proceed to engage in sugar-coated banter through some obvious language barriers. The soldier compliments the beauty of her newborn baby. The woman gushes praise over the troop's kindness and bravery. The noble lad supplies the girl's offspring with some much-needed milk. The two exchange innocent smiles with each other. And blah, blah, blah; you know the drill.
But probably the biggest disservice that this movie provides to the "war to end all wars" is the fact that elects to finalize on a happy ending. Had the operation failed and the British division become decimated in the wake of German deception, the film may very well have left a haunting impression on viewers that properly hammers home the tragedy and senselessness of the First World War.
Speaking of the ending, the resolution in question is supplied through yet another hammy and improbable scenario, in which the exhausted hero arrives at his destination and comes face to face with the resident Colonel (Benedict Cumberbatch, doing his best Benedict Cumberbatch impression), who initially declines to read the General's explicit instructions to halt the impending offensive.
"I've heard that all before!!!", he declares in defiance.
While the chain-of-command should have easily presented sufficient motivation for the Colonel to at the very least consult the orders being presented, it's ultimately a different route which finally convinces him.
"Sir, it's a trap!!", the Corporal intones, leaving Cumberbatch to turn around in perplexity.
"WHATT?!!!" he scoffs.
Evidently, the Colonel seems utterly flabbergasted by the "inexplicable" notion that the Germans might actually be utilizing tactics (who would've thought?!!). At that point, he proceeds to snatch up the letter and shortly thereafter administers long overdue orders for his troops to stand down.
While not as "hip" and prone to 21st century gimmicks, there are tons of WWI movies out there which are far better representations of a conflict in which so many lives were needlessly sacrificed for elusive political objectives, and most importantly emphasize the futility of this particular conflict. For a more meaningful consultation on the subject, go see "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Gallipoli", "They Shall Not Grow Old", "Journey's End", or even the 1976 aviation endeavor "Aces High", to name a few.
All of these alternatives (and more) embody a far more meaningful dedication toward the four-year tragedy of "the war to end all wars" than the grotesquely overrated "1917", which truly epitomizes the essence of a "style-over-substance" flick.
Feel free to gawk in amazement at the gorgeous lighting and cinematography, coupled with the visually impressive implementation of the one-shot effect. But don't be duped into the notion that this movie teaches anything meaningful about the First World War, because it doesn't.