---
title: "1917"
year: 2019
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/1917"
fi1m_id: "1917"
imdb_id: "tt8579674"
tmdb_id: 530915
wikidata_id: "Q62721520"
fi1m_score: 78
critics_score: 74
critics_reviews: 18
published: "2026-09-15"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:33.438470+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# 1917 (2019)

Directed by Sam Mendes · 1h 59m · MPA R · War, Drama, History

## Identity

1917

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/1917
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** 1917
- **IMDb ID:** tt8579674
- **TMDB ID:** 530915
- **Wikidata ID:** Q62721520
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8579674/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/530915, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q62721520

**Fi1m score: 78** · Critics 74 from 18 reviews

*In a sentence:* A war film that makes a simple cut to another scene feel like a civilian luxury

> Sam Mendes makes a gripping war thriller, though the camera movement sometimes holds our attention more firmly than the soldiers do. George MacKay gives us someone to worry about.

## Synopsis

During the First World War, Lance Corporals Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) face a journey through the battlefront with time working against them. Sam Mendes presents their progress as one apparently unbroken shot, staying alongside the soldiers as they encounter the dangers of the fighting. Colin Firth plays General Erinmore, Andrew Scott plays Lieutenant Leslie and Mark Strong plays Captain Smith. The story remains with the men on the ground, following their immediate struggle to keep moving and the pressures that the journey places on them.

## Review

*1917* is a good war thriller whose most persuasive idea also causes problems: the camera appears to stay with its soldiers for the whole journey. Sam Mendes wants us to experience the effort of getting across the battlefront, with no reassuring cut to somewhere else. The apparent continuity makes waiting uncomfortable and movement exhausting. We recommend it for that sustained pressure, although we wish the soldiers had been given more to say for themselves.

George MacKay, as Lance Corporal Schofield, gives Mendes the human presence the method needs. There is a watchfulness to his performance that makes the continued movement feel like work, and he holds our attention without appearing to ask for it. Dean-Charles Chapman’s Lance Corporal Blake supplies a more open emotional response, helping to keep the central pairing from becoming merely a way of moving the camera. Their performances make the thin characterisation easier to forgive.

Roger Deakins makes the camera’s proximity count: it follows the men closely enough that moving forward never looks easy. We found ourselves holding our breath because the shot would not give us the relief of looking elsewhere. That is an effective use of the long-take approach, and it explains why the film can be gripping with so little plot. Occasionally, though, we start watching the camera’s progress as intently as the men’s, wondering how the next movement has been arranged.

That movement depends on Dennis Gassner’s production design, which makes the battlefront feel like a place the actors must negotiate. The spaces have to hold up to prolonged attention, and they do; we get a useful sense of the ground the men must cover. Lee Smith’s editing preserves the impression of continuity without constantly advertising where the joins might be. His work is essential to the suspense, even if the insistence on an apparently uninterrupted shot eventually becomes distracting.

The screenplay, by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, is less consistently convincing. Its urgency keeps us engaged, but some encounters feel placed at convenient intervals to provide a fresh shock or a brief dose of feeling. The recognisable supporting cast can add to that sense of arrangement: Colin Firth as General Erinmore and Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie bring authority, but also the small interruption of recognising an actor. Both performances work, though we sometimes notice the casting when we should be watching the soldiers.

Thomas Newman’s score helps sustain the strain, but it sometimes presses harder than the images need. We are already alert to danger; extra musical insistence can make the suspense feel managed. The war-thriller tradition allows for this narrow view of combat, and Mendes makes a strong case for sticking close to ordinary soldiers. Even so, the script needs more detail about them to make the quieter passages as absorbing. Give it your evening if war thrillers are your sort of film, and put the telephone away.

*Fi1m score 78, published 15 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics respond warmly to 1917, with praise concentrated on Roger Deakins’ cinematography and the illusion of a continuous take. The favourable reviews find that Sam Mendes uses the technique to sustain tension and bring the pressures of the battlefield close, rather than merely demonstrate his control of the camera. George MacKay’s performance also earns repeated praise for giving the action a human centre, while several critics find room for tenderness amid the horror.

The disagreement is over how much feeling survives the technical precision, and the spread of opinion is wide. Reservations include thin characterisation, contrived plotting and a limited examination of war. The Telegraph admires the filmmaking but finds little emotional impact; Vulture argues that the single-take approach exposes the mechanics instead of creating intimacy. The New Yorker goes further, objecting to patriotic bombast and a visual treatment that prettifies violence.

## Straight answers

**Is 1917 worth watching?**

*1917* is worth watching if war thrillers are your sort of film, and we scored it 78. Sam Mendes presents the soldiers' journey across the battlefront as one apparently unbroken shot, and the sustained pressure grips even with very little plot. Our reservation is that the soldiers are thinly written, and the camera's progress sometimes holds our attention more firmly than the men do.

**How long is 1917, and what is it rated?**

*1917* runs 1h 59m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a war and drama film.

**Where can I watch 1917 in the US?**

*1917* is streaming on Netflix in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is 1917, and is it suitable for children?**

*1917* carries a 15 certificate in the UK and an R in the US, so it is not for children. The film follows two soldiers across a First World War battlefront, and the apparently continuous shot makes the waiting uncomfortable and the danger constant. Teenagers of certificate age who can take prolonged tension should manage it; the squeamish will find little relief, because the camera rarely looks away.

**How does 1917 compare to Paths of Glory?**

*1917* and [*Paths of Glory*](https://film.one/film/paths-of-glory) both stay close to ordinary soldiers whose lives depend on decisions made above them, but they are different kinds of film. Mendes makes a war thriller built on the physical strain of moving forward, while Kubrick makes a furious drama about military cruelty, with Kirk Douglas's Colonel Dax at its centre. The Kubrick is the more moving and the more argued of the two; the Mendes is the more gripping minute by minute.

**What should I watch after 1917?**

After *1917*, try [*Paths of Glory*](https://film.one/film/paths-of-glory) (1957, Fi1m 93): Another close view of soldiers whose lives depend on decisions made above them. Then [*The Ascent*](https://film.one/film/the-ascent) (1977, Fi1m 88): For a harsher wartime ordeal, with more room for doubt and moral fear; and [*Dunkirk*](https://film.one/film/dunkirk) (2017, Fi1m 86): For sustained wartime suspense built from movement, sound and the pressure of time.

### Reviews we read (23)

- **Time Out**, Phil de Semlyen (5/5): Mendes reinvents the Great War movie with technical virtuosity, jittery thrills, and an emotional core, making it possibly his best film. The single-take device and Deakins’ camerawork are highlighted as creating an immersive, nerve-fraying experience. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/1917)
- **Total Film**, Matt Maytum (85/100, inferred): Highlights the sensational technical achievement of the long-take style and Deakins' cinematography, grounded by MacKay's performance, though noting some script shortcomings and star cameos. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/1917-review/)
- **Little White Lies**, Greg Wetherall (3/4/4): Mendes’ film is light on plot but displays plenty of technical panache, delivering a visceral and effective war epic through its sound and vision. The critic praises the synergy between sound and vision and the immersive action. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/1917)
- **Radio Times**, Alan Jones (4/5): This ambitious and thrilling First World War odyssey from Sam Mendes features excellent performances and is shot to give the illusion of one long take. The critic praises the vivid portrayal of battlefront pressures and the emotional punches from cameos. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-7t2s76/1917/)
- **Empire**, Alex Godfrey (75/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's technical bravado and immersive camerawork as a stylistic exercise but notes it feels contrived and lacks emotional depth or complexity. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/1917-movie/)
- **Screen Daily** (75/100, inferred): Mendes is lauded for his boldness in applying a Saving Private Ryan treatment to WWI as a single-shot action thriller. The audacity and honor paid to those who lost their lives are singled out positively, though some structural issues are noted. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/1917-review/5145070.article)
- **Sight and Sound**, Philip Concannon (60/100, inferred): The critic finds 1917 an audacious technical achievement but notes that the impeccable craftsmanship creates a distancing effect, making it hard to fully invest in the drama. They single out Roger Deakins’ cinematography for praise as the real star of the film. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/1917-sam-mendes-george-mackay-world-war-one-shot-action-ride)
- **The Telegraph**, Robbie Collin (3/5): The review finds the film technically brilliant with meticulous direction and astonishing cinematography but emotionally inert, with little fear, sadness or excitement beyond the filmmaking itself. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/1917-review-sam-mendes-oscar-winner/)
- **Vulture**, Alison Willmore (40/100, inferred): The review criticizes the film as a bombastic filmmaking stunt that draws attention to its technical achievements rather than immersing the viewer in the story or characters' experiences. It singles out the single-take approach for failing to convey intimacy and instead highlighting the mechanics. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2019/12/movie-review-sam-mendess-world-war-i-movie-1917.html)
- **The New Yorker**, Richard Brody (20/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a work of patriotic bombast with an imagination-free script full of melodramatic coincidences that trivialize the action. He faults the gimmicky long-take style and superficial direction for prettifying violence and failing to explore the characters' inner lives. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/the-beauty-of-sam-mendess-1917-comes-at-a-cost)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Justin Chang: The critic praises the film's technical triumph in simulating a continuous take and its immersive realism but finds it only a half-successful experiment that keeps a cool distance from gut-level impact. He singles out the visual choreography and argument against the futility of war for praise while noting the limitations of the formal conceit. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2019-11-25/la-et-mn-1917-review-sam-mendes)
- **The Guardian**, Steve Rose: The critic praises the film as an audacious, immersive single-take war drama that blends excitement and horror in its depiction of two soldiers' perilous journey. The single-take technique and Deakins' cinematography are singled out as creating a bold, thrilling effect. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/25/1917-review-sam-mendess-turns-western-front-horror-into-a-single-shot-masterpiece)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Todd McCarthy: The critic praises the film's virtuoso filmmaking and immersive style as a visual knockout but notes minor historical inaccuracies like soldiers' teeth. It excels in technical execution and immersion in WWI horrors. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/1917-review-1257818/)
- **The New York Times**, Manohla Dargis: The critic sees the film as a sanitized and preening exercise in showmanship that turns World War I into a technical spectacle rather than engaging with its historical complexities. She notes the immersive camerawork draws attention to the filmmaking over the lightly sketched characters. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/movies/1917-review.html)
- **Variety**, Peter Debruge (Critic's Pick): The critic hails the audacious real-time approach and George MacKay's performance as making the film one of the year's most impressive achievements, with attention to character outweighing the technique. He singles out the immersive depiction of WWI horrors and beauty, and the relatable heroism of ordinary soldiers, for praise. [Read](https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/1917-review-1203416169/)
- **Collider**, Matt Goldberg (A): The one-take approach immerses viewers in the unrelenting march of war and highlights ordinary humanity amid horror, resulting in one of the greatest war movies ever made. Mendes and Deakins craft an experiential anti-war statement that contrasts technical precision with the grotesque futility of WWI. [Read](https://collider.com/1917-review-sam-mendes/)
- **Deadline**, Pete Hammond (90/100, inferred): Mendes delivers a powerful meditation on sacrifice and courage that succeeds both as story and technical achievement. The one-take conceit and Deakins' cinematography are singled out as miraculous and immersive. [Read](https://deadline.com/video/1917-review-sam-mendes-george-mckay-dean-charles-chapman/)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (90/100, inferred): The critic calls it a magnificent achievement and hauntingly evocative work that is likely to change how war stories are filmed. They single out the intimate, painterly photography by Roger Deakins that makes desolation beautiful while following the soldiers through nightmarish vignettes. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1917-review-a-war-movie-like-no-other/)
- **Digital Spy**, Ian Sandwell (90/100, inferred): The critic deems it tense, powerful and breathtaking, the first must-see movie of the year and a true big-screen experience rivalling Dunkirk. They single out the flawless one-take editing and stunning imagery by Roger Deakins that heightens the against-the-clock tension. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a30102428/1917-review-sam-mendes/)
- **/Film**, Chris Evangelista (9/10): The critic calls it a technical marvel loaded with emotional resonance, praising the one-take technique that enhances the narrative, Deakins' cinematography, and the humane moments amid the horror. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/570729/1917-review/)
- **Film Stories**, Mark Harrison (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the film as transcending the one-shot gimmick with urgent action and strong performances, especially George MacKay's. Singles out the night-time village sequence for praise. [Read](https://filmstories.co.uk/reviews/1917-review-more-than-just-a-one-take-wonder/)
- **NME**, Lou Thomas (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the believably human film about men in an inhuman conflict, with strong performances and technical excellence that leaves viewers breathless. They single out the empathy generated by the lead actors and the way the one-take technique serves the story, while noting a lack of narrative originality. [Read](https://www.nme.com/reviews/film-reviews/1917-review-sam-mendes-2579380)
- **The Wrap** (65/100, inferred): The film succeeds more as a thriller than a thoughtful examination of war, relying on Hitchcockian suspense over deeper ideas. The one-shot camerawork and strong lead performances are praised as technical marvels. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/1917-film-review-sam-mendes-2019-george-mackay/)

## Details

- **Director:** Sam Mendes
- **Director:** Sam Mendes
- **Writer:** Krysty Wilson-Cairns, Sam Mendes
- **Cinematography:** Roger Deakins
- **Editor:** Lee Smith
- **Music:** Thomas Newman
- **Production design:** Dennis Gassner
- **Costume design:** David Crossman, Jacqueline Durran
- **Producer:** Pippa Harris, Michael Lerman, Callum McDougall
- **Cast:** George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield; Dean-Charles Chapman as Lance Corporal Blake; Mark Strong as Captain Smith; Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie; Richard Madden as Lieutenant Blake; Claire Duburcq as Lauri; Colin Firth as General Erinmore; Benedict Cumberbatch as Colonel MacKenzie
- **Runtime:** 1h 59m
- **Certificate (MPA):** R
- **Release (the US):** 10 January 2020
- **Genres:** War, Drama, History
- **Also in:** [Best Picture winners](https://film.one/collections/oscar-best-picture.md) (Nominee, 2019); [BAFTA Best Film winners](https://film.one/collections/bafta-best-film.md) (Winner, 2019); [Golden Globe Best Drama winners](https://film.one/collections/golden-globe-drama.md) (Winner, 2019)
- **Budget:** $100 million
- **Box office:** $446 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZjQROMAh_s

## Where to watch in the US

- Netflix: streaming
- Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, uhd
- Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd
- Apple TV: buy $12.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $12.99, uhd

*Checked 2026-09-15.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, IE, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, PT, SE, SG, TH, TR, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 2020: Best Picture (nominated); Best Cinematography (won); Best Sound (won); Best Visual Effects (won)
- Golden Globes 2020: Best Director (won); Best Motion Picture – Drama (won)
- Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Award for Best Film 2019: Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Award for Best Film (won)

## If you liked this

- *Paths of Glory* (1957), Fi1m 93: Another close view of soldiers whose lives depend on decisions made above them. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/paths-of-glory.md)
- *The Ascent* (1977), Fi1m 88: For a harsher wartime ordeal, with more room for doubt and moral fear. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-ascent.md)
- *Dunkirk* (2017), Fi1m 86: For sustained wartime suspense built from movement, sound and the pressure of time. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/dunkirk.md)
- *Das Boot* (1981), Fi1m 89: A confined wartime journey that gives its exhausted men more time to become people. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/das-boot.md)
- *A Very Long Engagement* (2004): Returns to the First World War with mystery, grief and more unruly feeling.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/1917