Should have been titled "One Shot: The Movie" instead

Rating: 9/10 (12 January 2020)

Very good movie, will have to admit. Wanted to see it on Christmas Day but the studio pulled the rug out from under everyone and released it this weekend, presumably to escape Star Wars. My main reason for going to see this movie was because Sam Mendes directed, so I know what to expect from him. It attracted the usual war movie crowd, some of whom tend to rub me the wrong way, if you know what I mean, but nevertheless, almost every seat in the theater was full and very few people ever got up for any reason.
The one shot theme in this movie does an excellent job of illustrating what the trenches were like and almost feels like it's putting you in the shoes of the characters. I wouldn't say it's the best movie out there, too many characters are doing foolish things that probably wouldn't happen in real life. It is a movie, if this didn't happen, it would be boring. There were a lot of times that characters did things that I assume they wouldn't because of training and protocol.
I liked seeing Sikh and black soldiers serving with the British in the movie. Quite often in war movies such as World War I and II, you see minority soldiers ignored even though they served. At first, it looks like some sort of revisionist history, but these men were there, thankfully depicted as they were, not serving as generals or something.
There will be some complaints from the audience. I've heard that it felt soulless. I blame the one shot them employed in the entire movie. If you are familiar with the film fanboy discussions on Daredevil, you will have heard about the one shot take fad. So I understood what was going on, but other people won't. There also isn't much action or fighting. I almost want to say that it's not really a war movie. If you're looking for more action and fighting, watch Gallipolli, the TV miniseries, it's on certain subscription streaming sites. This will be well worth your time, highly recommended!