Robbie Collin, the chief film critic at The Daily Telegraph, reviewed the Oscar-winning war movie 1917 directed by Sam Mendes. After praising the complicated technicality of the movie, he goes on criticizing the actors, making it clear he didn't enjoy their performance.
Collin describes the film’s composition as “head-spinning” and “complex” with the joins between scenes “mostly, if not entirely invisible”. However, he is quick to point out that it's incorrect to describe it as a “single continuous take” because of a 16-second black scene between time changes. He precisely points this out by including the time when it happens. He then judges other critics for not including this, although he thinks it's still “a genuinely powerful moment”.
The review includes a comparison between 1917 to other renowned war movies such as Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk. Although it shows Collin's depth of knowledge, the point he's trying to make is confusing. In particular, the juxtaposition with Saving Private Ryan is too specific and including Dunkirk doesn't help the readers to better understand how 1917 was filmed.
Collin says that 1917 doesn't feel like a very realistic war film because you cannot see the real horror of the war. First of all, I would like to see Collin experience of the First World War. Secondly, I strongly disagree because part of the movie is set in no-man's land giving the audience a strong image of what war was like, with bodies left to rot in a desolated land that symbolises the state of the soldiers: loneliness, isolation and pain.
In the last part of the review, Collin says that big issue with 1917 is the actors. Their performance made him feel “little fear, less sadness, and barely a spark of actual excitement”. Collin is right when he describes the use of established British actors as distractions for the audience. His critiques of the younger actors are however too extreme. George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman were very expressive. For example, the scene where Chapman character is stabbed to death or the final one where Mackay character hides behind a tree and cry are clear highlights.
Collin says that the film was made only to show they were able to do a one-shot film and not because of the story. The audience marvels at the film for its technique however, I don’t think that exclusively made it a good film, it was simply a good way to create action and suspense.
As he said that 1917 is “less of a film than an act of filmmaking”, I would argue that his piece is less of a review than an act of writing - something you can and will marvel for its complicated and smart language but whose content isn't ultimately helping people to understand the movie.
Original review at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/1917-review-sam-mendes-oscar-winner/
Comments