Technical marvel, mediocre movie

Rating: 6/10 (12 February 2020)

1917 reminded me a lot of Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (which I prefer over 1917).
In both movies we are thrust straight into the action, with no backstory and the main characters essentially blank slates. Both movies have simple plots with one clear objective: to stop the charge in 1917, and to get off the beach and go home in Dunkirk. Moreover, both movies rely heavily on a gimmick: the single take in 1917 and the play with time (one hour, one day, one week) in Dunkirk.
In essence, if you cross Dunkirk with the last 15 minutes of Peter Weir's Gallipoli stretched out into two hours, you get 1917.
This recipe didn't really work for me. The only thing more paper thin than the plot are the characters (a generous use of that term). I guess the reason for them being blank slates in both 1917 and Dunkirk is to make it easier for the audience to walk a mile in their shoes. In Dunkirk this works since the plot essentially is about wanting to escape a grave threat, that's the only motivation needed. Not so much in 1917 once Blake kicks the bucket. It doesn't help that the actor playing Schofield, who we're stuck with for the rest of the movie, isn't very good.
How 1917 managed to get nominated for best screenplay is beyond me. The dialogue falls flat. The pacing is glacial. In Dunkirk you really feel like you're in a fight against time, something which is emphasized by Hans Zimmer's score. In 1917 they don't seem to be in a rush once they leave their trench. Even Blake, whose brother is about to die if he can't deliver the message in time, acts as if he's taking a pleasant stroll through the countryside. Not even a light jog? Come on.
And when the story and characters work you start focusing on other things. Like the airplanes. If they were in such a rush, it almost makes you wonder why they didn't send someone in a plane to deliver this urgent time-sensitive message.
Technically, however, this movie is amazing. The cinematography is astounding, and the Oscar very well deserved. And I'm quite surprised it didn't also win for its magnificent production design.
Although it will never happen, I would love to see the entire movie in split screen, one box the final image, and the additional boxes how they shot it. But that's the only reason for me watching this movie again.
Just ask yourself this: If this movie had the exact same plot, dialogue and characters but didn't use the continuous take gimmick, would it still be hailed as a masterpiece? My guess is no.
This movie was by no means bad. It was just OK.