Some of you may dislike this review, but I’m sure others will agree. In my personal opinion, 1917 is nothing more than a bunch of average technical old fashioned overused cinematography tricks wrapped in a shallow story, fueled by a PR army. Read on.
The higher the expectation, the greater the disappointment
First and foremost, let me emphasize that I’m not a film reviewer, but a filmmaker. Furthermore, I wrote a couple of articles focused on the technical aspects of 1917. For instance, I wrote about 1917 as the first movie that was shot on the ALEXA Mini LF, which granted this film its large-format look. Also, I wrote about the art of the long take implemented in this film and the cinematography challenges behind it. So I was familiar intimately with the making of 1917 even before I went to see it at a fancy theater. I have also written about this film taking a respectable place as a Pre-Oscar nominee and as a winner in the Golden Globe Awards. My expectations were high. I was ready to explore the greatness of filmmaking with its whole glory. That’s why I bought an expensive ticket at AMC Dolby Cinema as a reverence for this cinematography “masterpiece.” Unfortunately, the best set of words that summarize my experience is: “The higher the expectation, the greater the disappointment.” Let me explain why.
1917 is a technical-educational film with exaggerated long takes
The plot of 1917 is very shallow. There’s not much story into it. The film also suffers from a lack of charismatic players and characters, which you find hard time connecting emotionally. It seems that the goal of this film was the utilization of the large format look combined with the ARRI TRINITY to execute long takes. And indeed… the takes are long… VERY long. Many dynamic shots feel static and boring. 1917 could be an educational movie about the boredom of cinematography. It’s a pure technical film, and that’s not a compliment. 1917 should be screened at a filmmaking educational institutes as a reference to exaggerated and unnecessary long takes.
Over-used cinematography “tricks.”
The film tries to renovate (or to create) a hybridization of Birdman and Saving Private Ryan. However, the byproduct is an average executed imitation of those two art forms. If you are eager to see well-executed long-take films, see Lubezki’s masterpieces. Emmanuel Lubezki, A.S.C., A.M.C, is known for his very long takes “tricks.” Lubezki’s longest take was more than 12 minutes (Gravity- opening scene), which is quite an impressive shot. However, Lubezki’s Birdman is more comparable to 1917 regarding the stitching of these takes to create an uninterrupted sequence. Once you know those techniques, you can carry them out quickly. 1917 is a drowsy version of Birdman. Or, you can say that Birdman is 1917 on steroids.
1917 is a drowsy version of Birdman. Or, you can say that Birdman is 1917 on steroids
Furthermore, this statement is also correct regarding the comparison of 1917 to Saving Private Ryan. However, in my opinion, they should not be compared. Saving Private Ryan is far more superior on any aspect than 1917: cinematography, complexity, preciseness, execution, editing, and story. 1917 is an easy movie. Simple and old techniques that were implemented in order to achieve that one continuous shot. There are a set of rules that can easily be reproduced. For instance, cutting during pan shots, total blackouts, wipe cuts, and more. Watch the video above, which analyses Birdman. 1917 copied and pasted the same old tricks.
Saving Private Ryan and Birdmans are far more superior on any aspect than 1917
1917 as an example for overrated film
From the start, 1917 was driven by a strong PR. The name of the cinematographer, Roger Deakins, pushed it forward. Furthermore, ARRI helped to fuel the PR machine as this was the first film shot on the brand new ALEXA Mini LF. There was a tremendous amount of BTS glorifying 1917 as an ultra-complicated film with incredible shots. Sorry, but I’m not impressed. We are all well familiar with the BTS (behind the scene) shot of the battle at the end of the film. Every filmmaker knows that it’s an easy shoot. You have one camera, TRINITY (or other stabilizers), then you assemble it on a crane. With the backup of well-financed resources, this shot is a no-brainer. Every day, independent filmmakers on micro-budget productions, perform a way better and much more complicated shots than the famous 1917 battle scene. Take Saving Private Ryan as a reference for a complex war movie that demands a decent amount of brilliance to direct and shoot it.
Every day, independent filmmakers on micro-budget productions, perform a way better and much more complicated shots than the famous 1917 battle scene
Don’t get me wrong. There are some fantastic pictures in 1917. But hey, it was shot on the Mini LF. Everything looks amazing on that camera. You don’t need to be an exceptional talent to deliver outstanding imagery with that piece of gear, especially when it’s paired with the Signature Primes lenses. Also, the impressive movements which were performed by mostly by the ARRI TRINITY enable that dynamic. In 1917 it was all about gear and less about creativity. 
“1917” Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC. Camera: ARRI ALEXA Mini LF. Lens: Signature Primes
Yes, I know, long takes are complicated, but there are times that long takes act as a simplified solution. Take, for example, Saving Private Ryan’s sets and sequences, which comprise much more directing and cinematography challenges than in 1917.
Wrapping up
For me, 1917 was disappointing. Tedious overused long takes, combined with the shallow story and uncharismatic characters, wrapped in unchallenged cinematography tricks, made 1917 one of the bad investments on movie tickets I’ve ever made. If you’d like to see, one-take masterpiece, Birdman would be a much-preferred choice. If you are eager for an outstanding war movie, watch Saving Private Ryan. Both of them are superior compared to 1917, which is nothing than a technical-educational film project.
Have you seen 1917? Do you agree with this review? Comment below.
”1917 Movie Review: One (Too) Long (Boring) Take in an Overrated Film”Your article is really beautiful and processed correctly.Thanks
Your just jealous of Thier success , the rating say it self 89% Audience review
Appealing to majority does not make you right. The movie sucks.
Also majority likes shitty marvel movies, so go figure.
Have just seen 1917 and have to agree with this review ! I even found it had shades of Monty Python in the film,some of which I could not take seriously.the booby trap in the underground hospital ,where both our heroes got out virtually unscathed!
Jesus what a awful review
Completely agree, glad I’m not alone this movie was so boring with little to no substance
Very well put. I am not a filmmaker nor a critic, but lifelong film enthusiast. To me 1917 dissapointed similarly to Dunkirk, a cold emotionless technical film with more emphasis on getting the feel of the period, through locations, costumes, hairstyles, architecture, vehicles, etc than trying makes us empathize with the main character.
Yep. Agree. Couldn’t engage with any of it 🫤
All my adult life I have been a fan of ww1 and 2 movies.Without exageration I have probably viewed 95 percent of all war movies made including North American and Foreign made.
Based on mainstream reviews of 1917 I was looking very much forward to viewing the movie.
While reviews are always subjective I must say this movie ranked as perhaps one of the more boring movies I have watch dealing with ww1.The acting is good not great.and the cinematography nonething special.
Be prepared for 2 hours of boredom.In my opinion with the exception of a few sequences re: airplane crash and subsequent scuffle between the german pilot and british soldier there are few other scenes of dramatic significance.
I am always suspect of highly hyped new movie releases especially since they cost a fortune to make and none of the investors want to lose money from a dude.Without going into the various ways often movie critics are “persuaded/influenced to provide” a positive review.In the case of 1917 I think this was very much the case as I fail to see how any critic worth his or her grain of salt could catagorize this film great or award worth!
So in conclusion.If your expecting edge of seat drama and great imaginative plot and climax this movie will in all likelihood disappoint.This movie certainly does not belong in the same room as films like Saving Private Ryan,Dunkirk Bridge on the River kwai and All quiet of the western front.
I couldn’t wait for the whiner to die.. movie srory sucked. Overated…
I do agree with you. This movie be summed up in 10 minutes.
Yep, you summed up my thoughts on this movie pretty well.
If you’re eager for another thrilling one-take movie, definetely check out the German movie “Victoria”! That one was truly shot in one take and enfolds in realtime from night time to dusk…
at least talk about why is boring, not just technicall turds most people don’t even understand, boludito
Back from the theater just now and couldn’t agree more with this review!!
so true spot on ,i watch the movie last night was not much entertain i think it was a movie for camera people if you know what i mean .
Im no expert on movie MAKING but i enjoy a good movie.
I think you nailed the review on this disappointing movie. The plot was ludicrous: there were many more reliable ways to get a message to a remote unit even in WWI than sending two privates (or are the Lance Corporals?) off by themselves. The whole contrived implausible plot was simply an excuse to do some cute things with the newest ARRI Mini LF. OK, it’s light so you can start out on a truck boom then take it off while filming and go some more and then put it back on a boom for some more and on and on and . . . If you want to watch a real one-shot movie then just watch Russian Ark and be done with it.
That’s the way it was dipshit
[…] may explain this because editing is simplified due to the small number of cuts. By the way, we wrote an in-depth review of 1917, which you can read here (spoiler: we like the movie, but we think that […]
“Saving Private Ryan… [is] far more superior on any aspect than 1917”
I have to agree that 1917 didn’t quite live up to expectations of hype and fell emotionally short, but without the superb 23 minutes of Omaha Beach and Tom Hanks leading role, what do we have for Saving Private Ryan? Well over two hours of a mawkish, boringly cliche war film with forced clunky actors and lines. I even test my friends whenever they want to watch the film if they would be OK skipping past Omaha Beach, to which they say, “Then what’s the point??”.
I would MUCH rather rewatch Birdman and 1917 than anything after Omaha Beach in SPR.
Totally agree, it’s an average film hanging on a gimmick, all style no substance. A Saturday afternoon adventure romp posing as a gritty war film.
“1917” tells a story that is so incredibly rich and so incredibly well done. I can only assume that the reviewer and all the other people who agreed with him that the movie was boring simply do not have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what is probably the best war movie ever made. Every single whiny Millennial, Gen Xer, and Gen Zer should be required to watch this movie and gain an appreciation of what our ancestors did to allow the United States of America to become a country where the biggest challenge people under 40-years old have is ensuring their latte has enough foam and that they have the right to use whichever restroom makes them more comfortable.
I quite liked it.
Completely agree. Went in with high expectations and was really disappointed. It’s not a bad movie, but painfully mediocre, it had all the gravitas of a Saturday afternoon adventure flick. A very sanitized depiction of ww1. The one shot gimmick was unnecessary, it could have been edited like a regular film and made no difference.