A few plot annoyances do not overshadow the simple brilliance of this movie

Rating: 8/10 (18 January 2020)

1917 does a number of things extraordinarily well and makes a smaller number of questionable choices.
The thing that most stood out to me about this World War I piece was the beautiful choice Sam Mendes made in regard to cinematography. The entire film stretches out as if in one continuous shot. The camera follows Blake and Schofield, and later just Schofield, in their constant journey through the warzone and countryside. The camera is nearly always behind or to the side of the characters, creating a wonderful third-person perspective effect. The horror of war is very well conveyed through Roger Deakins's floating shots, with the viewer taking in the ambient environment alongside the soldiers.
The plot structure was also a welcome surprise, which was intimately connected to the style of cinematography. 1917 takes place throughout one small period of time, from a little before dusk, through the night, and into the next day. The cinematography aides this progression in its unfaltering motion, as if the movement of the sun is also the movement of the characters. The goal was not to create an all-encompassing war film comprised of only the most gruesome and important moments, which many Hollywood films attempt to do; instead Mendes wove action sequences throughout more passive, environmental scenes. This created for me a more palatable and perhaps more realistic experience.
The entire film was punctuated with very effective dialogue. I say punctuated because of the none of the dialogue was particularly crucial to the progress of the film. Because of the simple nature of the mission, Schofield didn't have to continuously rely on other characters to direct him and give him orders. The use of dialogue was used passively between Schofield and Blake and between anonymous members of another platoon. The lines functioned as a realistic device-most words shared between people are not important, they are just a tool to bind people together. In the cases of important dialogue between the main characters and military leadership, the lines were realistic and quick. There were no long, rousing speeches, which I thought was appropriate and a little refreshing.
The realism of 1917 was thrown off a little by a few of the major plot moments. Blake and Schofield reach a small farm in the countryside and witness a plane dogfight in the distance, the loser of which crash lands nearly on top of them. The scene ends up conveniently killing off Blake, which was obviously the point of the encounter, but it seemed a little far-fetched for me. Later, Schofield encounters a lone soldier in a watchtower, which creates a sort of standoff. The scene ends with the first and only major cut of the film, Schofield and the soldier shooting one another. It seemed unlikely that a single German soldier would remain at that location, but I'm willing to give Mendes the benefit of the doubt. However, the result of the scene, Schofield passing out and losing time, seemed to be a plot device. These moments seemed lazy in comparison to the incredible amount of effort put into the rest of the film.
1917 by director Sam Mendes had several questionable moments that failed to overshadow the brilliance of his filmmaking in this beautifully shot World War I piece.