1917 is overall a very generic war movie. The only redeeming quality is the "all in one shot" thing, which at times was able to build up tension and make for an interesting and unique shot composition. I would say that the first half of the movie uses it to its advantage while after a certain point of the movie everything went downhill, with lots of cheesy moments, plot conveniences, weird character choices and overall not being able to keep up the tension. But the second half at least tried hard with having some nice shots and sets.

The movie also feels more like a typical action flick, instead of a proper portrayal of WW1. I mean it does a better job than ridiculous movies such as "Hacksaw ridge" or "saving private ryan" do with WW2, but it has this typical feeling of "character making it out against all odds" and if someone dies it must be an elaborate set piece, which feels just so unlike real WW1, where the horror was rather the unseen enemy, the mustard gas, the constant artillery shots, the rats keeping you awake at night. It doesn't have this realistic feeling of WW1 like "All quiet on the western front" or maybe "Paths of Glory" has. It also doesn't help that a year earlier the very nice documentary "They shall not grow old" came out which gives a by far better vision of WW1 than this movie could ever do.

I am also not a fan of the idea of trying to make a movie in only 1 shot. I didn't like it in "Birdman" and I didn't like it in any movie I have seen it in since. There is a reason movies have cuts in it and its not only a technical one. A story normally needs things like: different sets, time in between scenes, scenes following each other with vastly different tones to build or reduce tension, etc. Ofc you could make a movie that still is enjoyable to watch even if it has only 1 shot, but is it difficult to achieve? Yes. A rather character driven story like "Birdman" only suffered from it and the idea of everything being one shot was not an artistic vision benefiting the movie, it was basically the gimmick that tried to sell tickets. The idea of one shot was utterly pointless and made the movie even more boring. "1917" however seems to be the best example of a movie that tried to do the "one shot" thing, since it actually achieved something with it. Like I said before it did a decent job of creating tension in the first half. The problem is 1917 would have been better if it had a few cuts in between some long shots, but it seems even more in this movie that the " one shot" gimmick was heavily used to promote the movie rather than being a much needed addition to the film. Oh and just to point it out, the advertisement of just being in one shot was also a lie because it cut to black half way through the movie.

So in conclusion the movie has a pretty interesting opening sequence and later some great sets, but story wise its boils down to a generic war drama which cant keep up the tension all the way through to the end. It involves many cheesy moments and overall nothing really challenging or anything to wrap your head around. Its entertaining though, and at times very visually pleasing.