‘1917’ gives the feel of being in an actual battle

BY Ron and Leigh

No film will ever capture the depth and breadth of the “war to end all wars.” Yet, director-writer-producer Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” “Skyfall”) places his audience in the midst of the worldwide conflict that took place over a century ago. By bringing the viewer along for the ride, we’re reminded that war is much more than saber-rattling bravado.

This critically acclaimed feature is a noble tribute to Alfred Mendes, grandfather of the filmmaker, who fought in WWI. Sam Mendes offers, “Obviously I’ve enlarged it and changed it significantly, but it has that at its core.” Enlisting master cinematographer Roger Deakins, the film was engineered to feel like one continuous shot. Executing this task required meticulous planning, precise timing and painstaking editing.

Giving the audience the feel of being in the heat of an actual battle provides a sense of realism that can provide a newfound appreciation for such heroism. However, such gritty realism can also be far too intense for a casual moviegoer who might want to be solely entertained and not traumatized by a Saturday matinee.

This story features Lance Corporals Schofield and Blake (George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman), two young British soldiers who are given a seemingly impossible mission. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) explains about the remote troops under his command, “They’re walking into a trap. Your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning’s attack. If you fail, it will be a massacre.”

With time against them, Schofield and Blake must deliver the message deep into enemy territory. Wondering why it’s just the two of them, they are reminded, “He who travels the fastest travels alone.” As the company includes Blake’s older brother, Blake is the most gung-ho and Schofield is reluctant to enlist in this almost certain “death mission.”

Although there are battles and skirmishes, this is mostly a suspense thriller. With a similar look and feel as “War Horse” (2011), the two must traverse deep trenches, dead animals, human corpses, rat-infested bunkers and random rounds of fire. Mendes effectively delivers us into their muck with raw intensity, all while facing fear as if our own. Although he readily admits his embellishments, the story too often feels contrived.

It was difficult to overlook these soldiers continued lack of attention to potential danger. Instead of cautiously peering over the edge of the bunker, they crawl right out and immediately stand upright facing the German front. Instead of carefully assessing an approaching village, they saunter on without much regard for potential sniper fire.

Maybe we’re overly critical but we couldn’t understand why seemingly less than an hour into a one-day journey, they were scavenging for food. Later, a scene with a woman and baby seemed implausible and overtly manipulative. Finally, as a plane comes crashing towards them, they try to outrun the aircraft instead of darting to the side, bloody hell!

We really wanted to like this movie and there is genuinely much to like. The spectacular visuals are breathtakingly realistic and carry as memorable an impact as in “Dunkirk” (2017).

The expertly crafted technical aspects are deserving of Academy recognition and the superb supporting cast includes Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong.

“1917” is one hour and fifty-nine minutes and rated R for violence, disturbing images and language. Sam Mendes should be fully credited for this audacious epic technical achievement that includes a cast of thousands. In his first writing credit, he is also responsible for the many lapses in logic that unfortunately offsets his crowning glory.

Mendes’ ambitious and personal commitment made possible this big screen portrayal of the heartlessness, tragedy and humanity of a war that caused forty million casualties.

These soldiers ran miles to save their countrymen, but next time we want to see a film about British runners, we’ll watch “Chariots of Fire.”

Ron’s Rating: C
Leigh’s Rating: C