One shot take masterclass but not much action and no story

Rating: 7/10 (15 February 2020)

The film is a technical marvel as it's entirely shot in one take similar to Birdman but doing a one shot take in such a vast open battlefield complete with the river jump sequence is a new level of one take wizardry. The story follows two soldiers in WWI who must deliver a message to a battalion on the front line to cancel the attack as it's a trap. That's pretty much the story as the film is more of a visual experience told from a first person perspective of the journey to deliver the message. It's similar to Dunkirk where there isn't much story. The problem is vast chunks of time is spent just watching the soldiers walking around and observing the war torn landscape which is hauntingly beautiful. Only halfway through the movie do we get our first sniper shootout which lasts a couple minutes. Then it's back to walking around and running. That's the entire essence of the movie. The soldier uses his rifle in the sniper shootout scene and briefly in one earlier scene but that's the extent of the gunfights. In comparison, Saving Private Ryan and Fury were far more action packed, brutal and entertaining. Of course 1917 is meant to be a visual first person point of view experience and succeeds on that front but I can't help but think the one take technique is mostly a gimmick. I think the film might be better with more takes rather than entirely shot in one take as this allows more perspectives, more depth to the story and allows for time jumps so it's not constrained by the real time limitations of one take. The one take technique can add an immersive experience when used in certain scenes like a frontline battle but I'm not sure it's as effective when used for the entirety of a movie. Overall I enjoyed the film but I would have liked more story and more action. I found the ending somewhat anticlimactic and unsatisfying.
I saw 1917 after seeing Parasite which won best picture and director. And I only saw them both after the Oscars. I avoided Parasite because I do not enjoy reading subtitles. But after winning best picture I saw Parasite and enjoyed it but did not think it was that great to deserve best picture and director as I likened it to a clever twist on the home invasion genre with an allegory of class conflict. But now that I've seen 1917 which was the frontrunner to win best picture and director I can appreciate why the academy voted for Parasite. 1917 is a great sensory experience but story wise is hollow. Also there isn't much action so nearly the entire runtime is just watching the soldiers walking around and running and that's it. If more story and battle scenes were added it could've been so much more entertaining. Best picture is relative and subjective. At first I didn't think Parasite deserved best picture but now that I've seen 1917 I do think Parasite is the better choice. Parasite has a simple but rich story with great characters and characterization with a clever twist and a strangely sad but satisfying conclusion that's believable. Not to take anything away from 1917 as it's a huge technical achievement. Both are good films but Parasite is far more memorable and stays with you after the movie ends.