If one already knew war is absurd, this movie will preach to the choir. If one did not know it, the movie will not convince otherwise. And, the First World War provides the most indisputable evidence of how absurd and pointless war can be.

But this movie is unique in that the stars of the show are not the actors but, instead, the unbelievably amazing skill, organization, professionalism, care and technical filmmaking excellence required to pull-off a two-hour movie in what is two long takes. I think there were three takes with an unseen "cut" in the water halfway through the second half of the movie. There is an obvious "cut" near the 66-minute mark that goes to black for several seconds allowing for the next long shot to start "hours later" and a less obvious cut in the water around the 85-minute mark. But I cannot write enough, or stress the point enough, of how fantastically difficult this technical undertaking was and how brilliantly they pulled it off. The detail required and achieved, the flawless timing of camerawork versus action as it happens, takes the audience by the hand and never lets go.

The flaw I find in all this is very simple. It's the question "Why?" Why is the one-shot necessary to the film? Is the technical excellence obscuring the fact that the story and the point are in fact rather mediocre? A great actor can take a mediocre script and turn it into a masterpiece. In this case, the actor, the star is not a human, but many humans, all behind the camera, delivering the film-making excellence that covers-up the mediocrity of the story. Yes, one has to find the courage to ask "so what?" even at the expense of lessening the overall hoopla this movie has generated.