From the very first frame of "1917", it is abundantly clear that the film is going to hang its hat on cinematography and technical prowess. Truth be told, that aspect is indeed so good that I'd never consider dropping it below the seven stars I gave it. That being said, I really can't vault it into the stratosphere of my celluloid favorites either, due to it being relatively short in the plot department.

For a very basic overview, "1917" tells the story of two British WWI soldiers who are tasked with relaying a very important message to an adjacent line: the Germans are not retreating, but instead regrouping for a trap. So, Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) set off across the dangerous French countryside to relay the message. Along the way, they encounter numerous obstacles and meet a string of individuals both friend and foe. Adding further emotional stakes to the proceedings is the fact that Blake's brother is one of the soldiers about to be sent over the trench and into the trap.

There is absolutely no doubt that the visuals here are splendid. Noted cinematographer Roger Deakins truly does work his magic. Whether running through the trenches, navigating the muddy quagmires of no-man's land, or simply traversing the countryside, this truly is a sight to behold. Of course, the thing everyone is talking about is how the film looks like one long take (not true, of course, but expertly camouflaged). While I found that to be technically more of a "gimmick" than anything, it does structurally provide the forward momentum that a film like "1917" needs.

Which, actually, brings me to why this movie will never be one of my favorites. Perhaps this is as much personal preference as anything, but I just need more plot "meat" to sink my teeth into. Because the characters are always rushing forward on some urgent task or plight, there are precious few times to stop and really be at all introspective about what is happening. This isn't so much noticed "in the moment" when the action is hot-and-heavy, but upon conclusion my thoughts rolled more towards "what am I actually taking away from this experience?", with (unfortunately) the answer being "not all that much" in terms of overall plot/themes.

So, the way I see "1917" is that if it doesn't win all or most of the technical or cinematography awards at the Oscars, it will be a shame. But is it in the territory of Best Picture? I would argue no...there just isn't enough substance to take that leap.