"1917" is a film about the First World War. In the period after the end of this war it became the subject in a few very good movies such as "All quiet on the Western front" (1930, Lewis Milestone) and "Westfront 1918" (1930, Georg Wilhelm Pabst). After the Second World War the First World War got on the background as the subject of movies. Only very rarely First World War movies were released ("Paths of glory", 1957, Stanley Kubrick). In the meantime the First World War is more than 100 years ago. In the aftermath of this centennial (and maybe also because the Second World War as a subject was a little bit exhausted) films over the First World War again began to appear ("They shall not grow old", 2018, Peter Jackson and "1917", 2019, Sam Mendes).

In "1917" two English soldiers (Corporal Blake ( played by Dean Charles Chapman) and Corporal Schofield (played by George MacKay)) have to cross enemy territory to deliver a message to another English batallian. The last mentioned battalion thinks that the Germans are on the run, while in reality the Germans are setting up a war trap. If the battalion executes its planned attack many British lives are in danger.

The cinematography of Roger Deakins is very beautiful. I like to call attention to two scenes. One is at the beginning of the movie, when the two soldiers leave their trench and enter no man's land. The no man's land of Roger Deakins is very grim with a dead horse and a dead soldier hanging in barb wire. Later in the movie there is a sniper scene in a ruined village. This scene resembles the sniper scene in the second part of "Full metal jacket" (1987, Stanley Kubrick) but is much better done.

Most notable about the cinematography is however not that it is very beautiful (you wouldn't expect anything else from Roger Deakins) but the fact that the film seems to have been shot in one take. "Seems to" because in reality there are cuts, although they are hidden as best as possible. This is an innovative aspect of the movie, but not unique. Precursors were "Gravity" (2013, Alfonso Cuaron) and "Birdman" (2014, Alejandro Inarritu). Most innovative however is and remains "Russian ark" (2002, Aleksandr Sokurov), which was really shot in one take.

The cinematography may be beautiful and innovative but the effect is that it dominates the movie. This is more the film of Roger Deakins than of Sam Mendes. The unbalanced "balance of power" between director and cinematographer doesn't do the movie any good.

The storyline is indeed a little meager. The assignment to bring a message from A to B, which is central to the movie, is a sort of queeste not unlike the assignment to bring a ring to a mountain ("The lord of the rings", 2001- 2003, Peter Jackson). The film partially takes on the character of fantasy in stead of a war movie. The scene in a wild water river accentuates this.

With all respect for the cinematography of Roger Deakins, in my opinion "1917" is not a great war movie. This opinion may be inspired by the fact that I like war movies that are not situated exclusively on the front. Films like "The best years of our lives" (1946, William Wyler) and "The deer hunter" (1978, Michael Cimino). "1917" is situated almost exclusively in no man's land, i.e. On the front. Given the critique I have read in other reviews I guess the above is not the only explanation for the mild disappointment I felt after the end of the film.