Some of you may dislike this review, but I’m sure others will agree. In my personal opinion, 1917 is nothing more than a bunch of average technical old fashioned overused cinematography tricks wrapped in a shallow story, fueled by a PR army. Read on.

The higher the expectation, the greater the disappointment

First and foremost, let me emphasize that I’m not a film reviewer, but a filmmaker. Furthermore, I wrote a couple of articles focused on the technical aspects of 1917. For instance, I wrote about 1917 as the first movie that was shot on the ALEXA Mini LF, which granted this film its large-format look. Also, I wrote about the art of the long take implemented in this film and the cinematography challenges behind it. So I was familiar intimately with the making of 1917 even before I went to see it at a fancy theater. I have also written about this film taking a respectable place as a Pre-Oscar nominee and as a winner in the Golden Globe Awards. My expectations were high. I was ready to explore the greatness of filmmaking with its whole glory. That’s why I bought an expensive ticket at AMC Dolby Cinema as a reverence for this cinematography “masterpiece.” Unfortunately, the best set of words that summarize my experience is: “The higher the expectation, the greater the disappointment.” Let me explain why.

1917 is a technical-educational film with exaggerated long takes

The plot of 1917 is very shallow. There’s not much story into it. The film also suffers from a lack of charismatic players and characters, which you find hard time connecting emotionally. It seems that the goal of this film was the utilization of the large format look combined with the ARRI TRINITY to execute long takes. And indeed… the takes are long… VERY long. Many dynamic shots feel static and boring. 1917 could be an educational movie about the boredom of cinematography. It’s a pure technical film, and that’s not a compliment. 1917 should be screened at a filmmaking educational institutes as a reference to exaggerated and unnecessary long takes.

Over-used cinematography “tricks.”

The film tries to renovate (or to create) a hybridization of Birdman and Saving Private Ryan. However, the byproduct is an average executed imitation of those two art forms. If you are eager to see well-executed long-take films, see Lubezki’s masterpieces. Emmanuel Lubezki, A.S.C., A.M.C, is known for his very long takes “tricks.” Lubezki’s longest take was more than 12 minutes (Gravity- opening scene), which is quite an impressive shot. However, Lubezki’s Birdman is more comparable to 1917 regarding the stitching of these takes to create an uninterrupted sequence. Once you know those techniques, you can carry them out quickly. 1917 is a drowsy version of Birdman. Or, you can say that Birdman is 1917 on steroids.

1917 is a drowsy version of Birdman. Or, you can say that Birdman is 1917 on steroids

Furthermore, this statement is also correct regarding the comparison of 1917 to Saving Private Ryan. However, in my opinion, they should not be compared. Saving Private Ryan is far more superior on any aspect than 1917: cinematography, complexity, preciseness, execution, editing, and story. 1917 is an easy movie. Simple and old techniques that were implemented in order to achieve that one continuous shot. There are a set of rules that can easily be reproduced. For instance, cutting during pan shots, total blackouts, wipe cuts, and more. Watch the video above, which analyses Birdman. 1917 copied and pasted the same old tricks.

Saving Private Ryan and Birdmans are far more superior on any aspect than 1917

1917 as an example for overrated film

From the start, 1917 was driven by a strong PR. The name of the cinematographer, Roger Deakins, pushed it forward. Furthermore, ARRI helped to fuel the PR machine as this was the first film shot on the brand new ALEXA Mini LF. There was a tremendous amount of BTS glorifying 1917 as an ultra-complicated film with incredible shots. Sorry, but I’m not impressed. We are all well familiar with the BTS (behind the scene) shot of the battle at the end of the film. Every filmmaker knows that it’s an easy shoot. You have one camera, TRINITY (or other stabilizers), then you assemble it on a crane. With the backup of well-financed resources, this shot is a no-brainer. Every day, independent filmmakers on micro-budget productions, perform a way better and much more complicated shots than the famous 1917 battle scene. Take Saving Private Ryan as a reference for a complex war movie that demands a decent amount of brilliance to direct and shoot it.

Every day, independent filmmakers on micro-budget productions, perform a way better and much more complicated shots than the famous 1917 battle scene

Don’t get me wrong. There are some fantastic pictures in 1917. But hey, it was shot on the Mini LF. Everything looks amazing on that camera. You don’t need to be an exceptional talent to deliver outstanding imagery with that piece of gear, especially when it’s paired with the Signature Primes lenses. Also, the impressive movements which were performed by mostly by the ARRI TRINITY enable that dynamic. In 1917 it was all about gear and less about creativity.

“1917” Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC. Camera: ARRI ALEXA Mini LF. Lens: Signature Primes

Yes, I know, long takes are complicated, but there are times that long takes act as a simplified solution. Take, for example, Saving Private Ryan’s sets and sequences, which comprise much more directing and cinematography challenges than in 1917.

Wrapping up

For me, 1917 was disappointing. Tedious overused long takes, combined with the shallow story and uncharismatic characters, wrapped in unchallenged cinematography tricks, made 1917 one of the bad investments on movie tickets I’ve ever made. If you’d like to see, one-take masterpiece, Birdman would be a much-preferred choice. If you are eager for an outstanding war movie, watch Saving Private Ryan. Both of them are superior compared to 1917, which is nothing than a technical-educational film project.

Get the best of filmmaking!

Have you seen 1917? Do you agree with this review? Comment below.