Not a Masterpiece, Not Even a "Great" Movie, but a Good One Because of Cinematography- Don't Buy Into the Hype

Rating: 2/10 (11 January 2020)

This is the kind of movie that can pick up momentum by the herd all buying into it without questioning the issues it has. View it with an open mind without thinking about the hype or awards nominations (or wins).
This is what I did. And yes, the cinematography is definitely great, and the directing was impressive to choreograph everything in one take, but the thing that matters the most- the writing/story/character development- is not very good.
Issues:
1. Middle of WWI on the fields and the two main characters are as clean and tidy as a female pop singer about to take stage. There is no facial hair, no dirt, no masculinity to either of them. Very effeminate kind of characters.
2. The mission is supposed to be important and imperative, so rather than send reinforcements and snipers to protect the two of them, they send these novices out on their own. It must not have been too important then according to that.
3. Why not just save time since it is limited and fly a jet or plane to warn them?
4. Since when do trained soldiers save an enemy pilot as if the enemy is a trustworthy ally? Whoops. A first grader would know to use caution when approaching or assisting an enemy. Draw your weapons first, and engage carefully. Don't try to save him like he's your brother.
5. Was the prevailing actor the Predator? Why couldn't the enemy snipers hit him in wide open display when he repeatedly kept exposing himself in the open? Why did every bomb near-miss him? I really wanted an explanation for this and it would have helped me to believe it better. Like, is he the bionic man? Is he a superhero who can alter bullet and bomb trajectory with superpowers? If that was explained, it would have made it more believable.
6. The Commander of a major WWI battle is so important that an unknown low-ranking soldier from another separate army can penetrate just by barging his way through hundreds of soldiers and the other captains give up his location like he is nothing.
7. After a foot chase, just because he jumps in the river, the enemy gunfighter immediately gives up on him- not a shot fired in the water and no pursuit. Furthermore, the letter in his pocket is completely dry when he reaches land. Oh and for "continuity, one take sakes" he just happens to drift right up to the battalion he is looking for when he climbs ashore.
8. The cinematography is very impressive, but like a few critics said, a) It feels like watching someone advance through stages of a video game and b) the director himself becomes the star of the movie as the viewers are more focused on "how they can get through the obstacles of the continuity" than they are "the story itself".
9. How convenient and how manipulative. The story was lacking any heartstrings so they just had to add a young single mother with a baby who needs milk. As if the camerawork wasn't gimmicky enough, they put that cow in there and the farm to give the soldier milk for this scene's attempt at sentimentalism. Could they manipulate the audience anymore? I'm surprised they didn't kiss and have melodramatic music playing on top of that.
Don't get caught up in the groupthink and echo chamber around this movie. Think for yourself.
The emotional depth is lacking and when it is delivered, it feels unearned since there is no character development. Why am I supposed to care at all about these two video game characters who the writer/director has revealed nothing of substance about (at least until the end)?
All in all, with that said, it's a good movie, but not a great one and certainly not deserving of any major awards. Frankly, I don't even think this should be nominated for anything except cinematography, and depending on the other contenders, maybe director. It is definitely no better than 7/10 movie.
6/10