10 / 10
1917 is the best war film of the last twenty years. Sam Mendes directed it. Roger Deakins shot it. The whole movie is built to look like one unbroken take, which sounds like a gimmick until you watch it and realize the gimmick is the point. You never get a cut to release the tension. The camera stays on these two soldiers from the moment they get the order until the moment one of them either delivers the message or doesn’t.
Mendes based it on stories his grandfather Alfred told him about being a runner in the First World War. He co-wrote the script with Krysty Wilson-Cairns. Two lance corporals are ordered to cross several miles of recently abandoned German territory to call off a British attack that will walk into a trap and kill sixteen hundred men, including one of the corporal’s brothers.
What Works
Deakins won his second Oscar for the cinematography and he earned it. The single-take illusion is stitched together from long takes lasting up to eight minutes each, hidden behind whip pans, doorways, and a moment in a burning village where the protagonist is knocked unconscious. Once you stop trying to spot the cuts you stop noticing them. The film just keeps moving.
The ruined village at night, lit only by flares dropping from the sky, is one of the great sequences in modern cinema. It looks like a Goya painting set to a Thomas Newman score. The flare-light makes the shadows move, which means the dead bodies in the ruins look like they are moving. Schofield runs through it the way you would run through hell, which is what it is.
For Writers
1917 makes a structural choice that costs it character depth and pays for it in immersion. The single-take format locks off every dramatic tool that depends on editing. No flashbacks. No cutting away. No giving a supporting character their own scene. What you get instead is a reader trapped inside the protagonist’s experience for the entire runtime. If you are choosing a structural constraint for a story, decide what it costs you and whether what it buys is worth that.
The Trenches
The trench scenes are accurate to a degree most war films do not attempt. The trenches were built to spec on the Salisbury Plain. The mud, the duckboards, the rats, the corpses worked into the walls. None of it is decoration. The camera moves through it because the soldiers move through it.
The script also gets the abandoned German trench right. It is cleaner than the British one, deeper, better engineered. The British soldiers find it and immediately understand they have been losing the engineering war. That is a real thing that happened on the Western Front and most films skip it.
What’s Less Great
The character work is thin. George MacKay as Schofield is good, but the script does not give him much to play beyond exhaustion and resolve. Dean-Charles Chapman as Blake gets one real scene before the plot does its work on him. The supporting roles are filled by famous British actors doing single-scene cameos. Colin Firth as the general. Andrew Scott as the captain in the forward trench. Mark Strong, Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch. Each gets about ninety seconds. None of them have time to be characters.
None of that matters as much as it should. The film is not really about the men. It is about the war. The men are how you get to look at it.
For Writers
Mendes used famous faces as cameo roles instead of building proper supporting characters. The trick works because each face is famous enough to anchor a scene in ninety seconds. You know who Colin Firth is. You don’t need backstory. The risk is that it only works because the casting did all the lifting. If you try the same move in prose without the actor’s pre-existing weight, the supporting character is just a name. Either give the character their own scene or accept that they are scenery with a job to do.
The Score
Thomas Newman scored it. The music is restrained for most of the runtime, then opens up during the river sequence and the final run across the field. Holding the orchestra back for two acts gives the score room to land when it finally arrives. Most war films overscore. This one knows when to shut up.
Where It Sits
1917 won three Oscars: Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects. It was nominated for ten including Best Picture and Director and lost to Parasite, which was the right call. Parasite is a better film. 1917 is the better technical achievement. It made over two hundred million dollars worldwide on a budget around ninety-five million, which is rare for a serious war film.
For Writers
1917 sells a serious WWI film to a mass audience by leading with a gimmick. The marketing hook was “one continuous shot.” That hook got people in the door who would not have shown up for another trench drama. The lesson is that high-concept framing is not the enemy of serious work. It can be the delivery mechanism. The trap is when the gimmick is all there is. Pick a hook that promises something you actually deliver, then deliver more than the hook promised.
Craft Note
Sam Mendes directed and co-wrote with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, based on his grandfather Alfred’s WWI stories. Roger Deakins shot it and won the Oscar. George MacKay played Schofield, Dean-Charles Chapman played Blake. Cameos from Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Thomas Newman scored. The single-take illusion was constructed from long takes hidden behind whip pans, doorways, and a moment of unconsciousness. Trenches built to spec on Salisbury Plain. Three Oscars from ten nominations. Released December 2019.
The Verdict
10/10. The best war film of the last twenty years and one of the best ever made about the First World War. Not perfect. Character work is thin, supporting cast is wasted, the single-take conceit is occasionally too obvious. None of that matters. The film does what almost no other war film has managed, which is make you feel the duration of a soldier’s day at the front. Watch it.
FAQ
Is 1917 really one continuous shot?
No. It is stitched together from long takes lasting up to eight minutes each, with the cuts hidden behind whip pans, doorways, dark transitions, and a moment when the protagonist is knocked unconscious. Designed to look like one shot, not actually one shot.
Is the story true?
Based on stories Sam Mendes’ grandfather Alfred told him about serving as a runner in the First World War. The specific events are fictionalized. The setting and the kind of mission depicted are not.
Why did it not win Best Picture?
Because Parasite won. Parasite is a better film. 1917 won three Oscars from ten nominations including Cinematography for Roger Deakins.
Who is in it?
George MacKay as Schofield and Dean-Charles Chapman as Blake. Supporting roles from Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Most of the famous names appear for one scene each.
Is it accurate to WWI?
Yes, to a degree most war films do not attempt. Trenches built to spec on Salisbury Plain. The kit, the rations, the corpses in the wire, the rats. None of it is decoration. The script also avoids the standard mistake of making the Germans cartoonish.
How does it compare to All Quiet on the Western Front?
1917 is more technically ambitious. All Quiet on the Western Front, in both the 1930 and 2022 versions, is a better character piece. They are doing different things. If you want the war as immersion, 1917. If you want the war as moral collapse, All Quiet.
Should I watch this?
Yes.