Supposedly this is an original story, but I have to wonder as the central premise was "Borrowed" from a far superior World War One film; 1981's Gallipoli directed by Peter Weir (Master and Commander), and starring a pair of talented young up and coming Aussie actors; Archie (Mark Lee) and Frank (some dude named Mel Gibson). Mark Lee pretty much dropped out of sight after Gallipoli, whilst Mel Gibson got ruined by fame and the Hollywood machine.

Technically speaking Gallipoli isn't even a war movie, it's a Coming of Age story featuring the friendship between two young athletes. We don't see the beach-head at Gallipoli until the third act of the film, and the finale features Frank having to deliver a message to the trenches on the front line, to halt an impending attack that will result in the slaughter of hundreds of ANZAC soldiers, including his mate Archie. It is revealed that the purpose of the attack is to distract Turkish forces long enough for a British force to establish a beach-head on a nearby beach. It is also revealed that the impending attack on the Turkish trenches across no man's land, is no longer necessary due to the fact that the British forces landed with no opposition from the Turks whatsoever. Apparently the British forces are sitting on the beach, enjoying the sun and drinking tea. It seems the British commander is unaware of this and orders the suicidal attack to go ahead, over protests from ANZAC commanders that it is not necessary. Frank must evade obstacles and enemy fire to reach the front lines and deliver a message from an ANZAC commander to temporarily halt the attack until he can review the situation. Frank runs harder than he ever has in his life, to deliver the message to save his mate Archie and the lives of the ANZAC troops, who will be slaughtered if they go over the top. Does he make it in time? I won't spoil the ending for anyone who might want to see Gallipoli.

(Modern audiences that need carnage and action sequences every five minutes, might find Gallipoli boring, and indeed while I would not call it slowly paced, the action and war sequences are only in the final act, the characters are well developed in the first two acts, so you do care about them. Mel Gibson proves that he was quite a talented young actor, before Hollywood ruined him. Loved Apocalypto though BTW).

1917 features far too many WTF? moments that overcome your suspension of disbelief, and there is no real character development that allows you to care for the protagonists, or really give a crap whether they succeed in their mission or not. In contrast to Gallipoli, in which you see the initial rivalry between the leads, and their growing friendship as they head to Perth to sign up and join the war. By the time of the final act, you really care about Archie and Frank, and you're willing Mel on in his suspenseful run to save his mate and the ANZAC troops from being slaughtered for no purpose. And to address my review heading - the "Single" take continuous tracking shot style, which of course was not filmed in a single take, but digitally edited to appear as though it was. What's the point? For example the single take tracking shot from Martin Scorcese's Goodfellas, in the scene where Ray Liotta and his girlfriend enter the club through the kitchen and make their way to their table. To produce a shot like this (without digital assistance) is incredibly complex, the choreography and logistics necessary for all the many actors, extras and the cinematographer to hit their marks precisely on cue, to pull the shot off successfully is mind boggling, and a testament to the talents of all involved. It isn't a matter of talent if you can stitch together many takes and shots with digital editing, to emulate a single take continuous shot. Now I am not some anti-digital/CGI crusader, these techniques and effects certainly have a place in modern films, and there are some very talented digital artists out there. Roger Deakins is a talented cinematographer, that I don't dispute, but to laud the accomplishment of the single take tracking shot digitally composited from many shots and takes, is in my opinion, a waste of time. To do it without digital assistance is where the talent truly lies, and I would much rather see modern directors and cinematographers attempt to do it "Live" without digital editing assistance. Spend a bit more time crafting a good screenplay first, rather than just thinking up cool shots and techniques, and this is where 1917 falls flat on its face.

Is it really that hard to write screenplays that aren't full of plot holes and logic malfunctions? Is it really that difficult to write well-developed characters that an audience can care for and sympathise with? It certainly appears to be that way, I can understand that these big budget movies need to get as many bums on seats as possible to re-coup their enormous budgets and crack a profit. I also note that the hyperactive editing style of modern films, and the bombardment of imagery, panders to the short attention spans of modern audiences, who lose interest otherwise and find scenes that last longer than a minute excruciatingly boring. For example I recently watched an old film that had a scene that was over five minutes long, and I thought that this certainly wouldn't play in the modern era. BTW I am not some boring old fart who only watches old films, and can't cope with modern film-making. I recently saw Logan and was quite impressed, even though I am not a superhero fan at all, comics YES, Marvel and DC trash NO (Batman and Iron Man excluded, they're vigilante anti-heroes). And yes Logan had plot holes, but it wasn't enough to shatter my suspension of disbelief.

Forget 1917, watch Gallipoli instead.