I've heard mixed reviews for this one. But nothing has really interested me enough to sit down and watch it for myself. The whole 'done in a single take' thing has been done before, and usually strikes me as more of a gimmick to make a relatively uninteresting story a little more exciting.

@Ellison Havelock said:

I've heard mixed reviews for this one. But nothing has really interested me enough to sit down and watch it for myself. The whole 'done in a single take' thing has been done before, and usually strikes me as more of a gimmick to make a relatively uninteresting story a little more exciting.

There is hardly a story. Just a set up where two soldiers are sent to deliver a message across the no man's land between one side and the other. Situations occur, a couple predictable, a couple contrived. Along the way there is a lot of death and destruction to take in and look at.

The point of view of the camera is odd. I suppose it represents a soldiers eye view. To me it looked like just the camera always moving ahead and around the action. No real point to it to me other than that.

If one wants an engaging single take shot watch the openings scene in Kubrick's Paths Of Glory

Or the opening shot of Welle's Touch of Evil

Yeah good example as well Great movie despite the fact Welles didn't want to make the movie but had to because of contractual obligations.Although Heston playing a Mexican would be considered racist nowadays.But one mentioned Kubrick because both 1917 and POG deal with WW I .

I wouldn't call it great but I wouldn't call it mediocre either - maybe somewhere in between. More of a technical achievement than anything else I suppose, but not a bad movie over all. The lack of back story or "slice of life" reminded me of Dunkirk.

I found it fairly decent/

@revengine said:

I wouldn't call it great but I wouldn't call it mediocre either - maybe somewhere in between. More of a technical achievement than anything else I suppose, but not a bad movie over all. The lack of back story or "slice of life" reminded me of Dunkirk.

I found Dunkirk a bit of a bore.I found the original Dunkirk from the 50's more engaging despite it being shot in black and white

Found it a bit heartless. The blood and violence seemed like a video game. In fact the whole one camera shot seemed to be a first-person shooter. Like when he's given something only to use it out of his inventory later (like the milk). I wanted to love it but it was a technical achievement but I never got pulled in.

Lacks the intensity, dread and helplessness that Dunkirk had...

Also, Dunkirk's distant, detached cinama style seemed better at conveying the coldness of war then 1917... As much as I liked 1917, it had an odd combination of sentimentality and video game-y (FPS) feel that in a way calls too much attention to itself...

I know some people feel the same way about the long one-shot in Atonement... As if it's the director showing off... but with that movie it didn't really take me out of the experience... perhaps because it had a more varied visual style and pacing in the earlier scenes...