Has anyone here watched the 1930 version? I have a copy but haven’t viewed it yet. Wondering how that compares and whether it’s a more faithful adaptation.
I teach World History at a high school in Watts and I use the 1930 movie in class. You'd be amazed at how deeply my kids can connect to the experiences on screen even though it's in black and white and nearly 100 years old.
It's not only the most faithful adaptation of the book, it's singly one of the greatest war movies of all time.
How do you feel about Saving Private Ryan? Just curious, as when I think of somewhat recent war movies that do a pretty good job, that is what comes to my mind..
Different war, and it has epic set pieces and major celebrity actors, etc. Spielberg, being jewish and older, takes WW2 very very seriously, (despite the slapstick humor of indiana jones, which has serious intent behind it, to make the germans look stupid). Between that and him being one of the best film makers alive, the movie is great (not to mention Schindlers List of course).
Im just curious about your unique opinion perhaps comparing and contrasting.
I think Saving Private Ryan has the best first 20 minutes of any war movies, but then degrades into pretty typical Hollywood fare.
I tend to use Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora! As my WWII movies when I show one.
Also since it was made in the pre-Code era, it’s almost shockingly violent in its depiction of war in a way that films just five years later would never be able to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code
Basically how a film's content should be censored if they wanted a film to get made. This was prior to film ratings.
We watched it in film class in high school and I still remember it pretty well, which is a testament to just how good it was. The story through the soldier's eyes, the regular guys who fought, suffered and died. These were soldiers from the "other side" but that's just it. They were the regular people like you and me caught up in the horrors of war. It was all about them. I haven't seen the new version.
they even used many WWI soldiers as the extras so the way they moved across the fields was legitimately how they did it in the war. It's far more antiwar and far less glamorous gory war shots. I watched the 70s version as well and thought those were far better and closer to the novel. The new one I could not get into at all I turned off at about 15 minutes in
Definitely not on the same level, but The Outpost (a movie about Combat Outpost Keating) featured several soldiers that were actually at that outpost. During the credits they have some good interviews and footage.
I was in the military for a short period of time. I once put on The Outpost for some of my guys that were unoccupied for an evening close to veterans day.
I never served in combat, but there is still so much of that movie that is so damn relatable. It was a fun movie day for them, but we actually had a discussion about it afterwards; about the different leadership styles that are displayed excellently, the way the Soldiers talk to each other, the weird emotions that you have to deal with. The humor is absolutely spot on in every way.
I could write an entire essay about The Outpost. If you want to know what it feels like to be in the army, that movie will give you a pretty good idea.
I got into the Outpost, thought it was really well done. My fiancee leaned over to me and asked if I was ok a few times ( I tend to tear up watching quiet scenes in war movies now).
The original movie is one of the best movie adaptations that is actually pretty much faithful to its source material.
I have read the book and the movie a few years ago so my memory might be a little hazy.
But I remember loving the book. I think it is one of the greatest books ever written. I also remember loving the movie after I had read the book. I thought it was one of the most haunting war movies ever made. A great movie.
I have not seen the new movie. After reading some of the comments about the new movie I might just skip it. I was planning to watch before the Oscars but might just delete it from my playlist to save me the inevitable disappointment and anger.
I have watched the original and read the book and still very much enjoyed the new movie. All of the above points are valid, but you can decide for yourself if it is worth watching or not
I actually recently watched it but haven't watched the new one yet. Even without seeing the new one I agree that the noted removed scenes are pivotal to the themes that the author is trying to get across. That's too bad.
I have watched the 1930 movie and its one of my all time favourite movies. I switched off the netflix adaptation after 15 ish minutes exactly because of what op is talking about.
Our history teacher showed it to us like 8 years ago and after watching the new one (which we btw also enjoyed) me and some friends also discussed many of the differences between the new one and the 1930 one. Most memorable to me was the 1930 one showing the brutal repetitions of this unnecessary war, especially with the friends group. And that they didn't even explain why it is called "Im Westen nichts neues" was a real bummer. Also the 1930 one has a way better eerie ending than the new one that just leaves you thinking about how everything you've just seen is so fucking pointless. Truly a great anti war movie.
Watched it in World History Class in highschool. I loved it and am disappointed to hear how they butchered this version.
I haven't read the book but everything this post talks about is expressed brilliantly in that film
One of the memorable elements of the 1930 version was the sustained bombardments. It did a tremendous job of showing how the psychological assault of artillery lead to shell shock.
With all of its production values and modern technology, the Netflix version came nowhere near making that visceral connection.
I watched it for college and the 1930s is an excellent version of the story. I have not read the book, but going by OPs post I could have come to the same conclusions with just the film. We went deep into the iconography of WW1 film and it is pretty shocking that trench life wasn't prevalent enough in the new version. I can hardly tell you too much about the big battle set piece (which there is one), but the part where soldiers are just sitting in a bunker hearing shell after shell after shell, knowing that they're safe where they are but trapped in with rats and starving, no escape, only the pounding sound of shell after maddening shell... Yeah, it gets to you.
It’s one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen, sometimes you forget it was made back then and that it isn’t archival war footage because the visuals are just so damn good
I read the book 50 years ago in high school. Only one scene has really stuck with me all these many years later -- the quiet, guilt-ridden & remorseful internal "conversation" the German soldier has with the French soldier he kills in the foxhole. And I also remember the passing of the boots from soldier to soldier. Those two things have stayed with me like a gut punch. Are they in the Netflix movie?
The recycling of clothes is a huge scene in the beginning of the movie.
And yes, the moral crisis he has when he kills the French soldier is powerfully rendered in this film.
Highly recommend if you felt moved by those moments in the book.
>And yes, the moral crisis he has when he kills the French soldier is powerfully rendered in this film.
Though /u/LoveKubrick I've seen people complain that because in the new movie's added dramatic action scenes Paul has already killed a bunch - up close and personal, even - before this scene, it muffles its impact a fair amount compared to the book and original.
I don’t think it does. Killing soldiers in a heated battle is different from having to sit in a crater and watch someone you stabbed slowly die. It’s being forced to face the humanity of the dying soldier that moves Paul and the viewer, not the simple act of killing a uniform.
Hmm. A lot of interesting critique in this thread. I've decided I am going to watch the Netflix version because it sounds like it's a good movie in its own right; but I'm prepared to perhaps be disappointed as far as it capturing the "feel" of the book? We'll see!
Yes finally watched and that's how I'd express it. A 60% effort with changing of elements I don't think necessary because the original material had it down pat.
I once had to do a creative writing assignment from the view point of a not main character in a book. I was reading this at the time so I did mine from the perspective of the other soldier in the foxhole. It was one of the darker things I've ever written. My creative writing teacher was probably grading papers like "wtf?!".
The boot scene isn't in there that I recall, but there are other scenes that give the same message. OP is wrong, the scene where Paul kills a French soldier and then has to struggle with being in the artillery crater with him as he dies is absolutely in the movie. And although it doesn't have the internal dialogue of the book, it still conveys his emotions pretty well.
>Paul dies in a valiant last-stand after a huge sweeping battle, swinging a shovel around like a sword amidst a sea of french soldiers.
I didn't get this vibe at all. To me the movie made it seen like the German last stand was pointless and driven by German pride; they knew a truce was happening and could have just left things be, but so many soldiers got massacred instead because the leadership wanted to take cheap shots at the French. In other words his death is totally pointless
It’s not just to you. That’s exactly what happened. There was nothing valiant about that final scene, it was a total waste of life. I’m not sure what OP is talking about but they clearly saw what they wanted rather than what was actually happening.
I don’t understand how anyone could see the ending and think the film was trying to portray it as a valiant last stand. It was a condemnation of the petty politics of war and the waste of life.
Which is still totally discordant with the book. The movie shows a general making a condemable pointless waste of life, the book is about thr mundanity of it all. Paul doesnt die because some general makes his pointless last stand, he dies on a perfectly normal day and no one cares.
The final page of the book is one of the most sombering things ive ever read.
I don’t feel its that dissimilar, but I think the movies intent was to make the audience think there’s a chance Paul makes it out alive, only to extinguish that hope with the generals pointless and selfish choice.
That strikes me more as the difference between film and books, sometimes you tweak things in movies because while the book ending is great it might not be what a film needs.
It's the classic issue of a book someone loves being made into a film.
Very few of the criticisms here are relevant purely to the film, they're comparisons to the book.
By the final scenes OP had already made up their mind.
Yeah I know that's their point.
*My* point is that accuracy to the source material is not the only metric that a film should be judged on.
Anyone is welcome to dislike it because of their own relationship with the source material, but that doesn't inherently make it a bad film.
Yeah it's almost like they just really wanted to hate the movie, so they did.
I didn't really agree with their first point either, for that matter. Even the negotiations showed leadership as being completely out of touch and stubborn while their soldiers were dying and suffering
Absolutely, and that made a big impact on me while watching the film, the contrast between the leaders and the soldiers hit hard. OP is missing out on an incredible anti-war film because they just want to turn their nose up at it for not being more faithful to the novel.
This is really interesting to get others perspectives on the ending as it is the exact opposite of the book:
>"He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front."
The title of the book (and therefore movie) is translated to Quiet but the direct translation is Nothing New in the West (I suspect the english translation to quiet was done as that is literally what was written in the official English war diaries at the time).
I think the translation to quiet is unfortunate as when you use the direct translation the impact is slightly more punchy - the guy you're now deeply invested in has died and it's nothing new and of no concern or consequence. The manner in which the movie concludes would not invoke the same dispatch report, rather the exact opposite.
For me, the story is all about Paul and his close comrades and the absolute futility of war - the deep hell it sends them into and how do they ever come back from that.
>He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.
This is a great reply and I’m glad you wrote it.
I think what I feel is that an adaptation does not need to be accurate to be a great film.
He might die in a more explosive sequence here but at the end of the day I was so heartbroken watching those soldiers march toward the trenches. The one who complained was executed moments before the ceasefire. Paul’s eyes were glazed over and dim as he marched. Then they jumped into that dark pit for the final moments and that’s where he was stabbed. Immediately after that he climbs towards the light.
It was poetic in a way only a film could be and it made me so uncomfortable.
Like others are saying something was lost from the source material, but something else was gained from the adaptation. It isn’t s merit less work, it’s a powerful film and it shook me deeply.
I would replace "valiant" with "dramatic".
The new movie makes everything so dramatic and action-packed, which does massively undermine how soul-suckingly *mundane* the tragedy was meant to be. In no universe does the new movie's ending represent a day that was "all quiet".
In the novel and original film, our protagonist's unimportant death not even meriting a footnote on a day described as "all quiet" is central to the point.
Yeah sorry. That was cringy and dumb. They tried to up the drama by making a final attack in the last 15 minutes of the war just so it could have the tragic heart wrenching ending befitting a Hollywood movie. That was the exact thing the book was trying to avoid.
Some points are valid but I wonder if you watched the whole movie because you’re incorrect on multiple points.
- There were rats running away as Paul and Kat are French rations
- The last offensive was German in the movie
- the shovel swinging was in the beginning by the soldier whose jacket Paul inherits
Not saying your main point is wrong, but you didn’t seem to support it accurately.
Thank you. OP didn't comprehend the film and was probably watching it whilst comparing it to the book, which is a fools errand. They are different forms of media, a 300 page book cannot word for word scene for scene be translated into a film anyone wants to watch.
Thanks, I just watched the movie and was very confused if I missed the final scene with the shovel and where was this french offensive and how is it fictional and yet celebrated still today.
I agree that the film often seemed to be an adaptation of an entirely different book, but I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad film. It is a pretty poor adaptation of Remarque's book, but it **is** a effective depiction of some of the appalling aspects of trench warfare. It also presents a pretty blunt contrast between the luxury of the political and military leadership and the soldiers on the frontline.
It's been about four years since I read the book so maybe I'd have been more annoyed had it been fresher in my mind, but the only part that really bothered me was the ending, which, as you say, missed the poignancy of the book's title altogether.
>I agree that the film often seemed to be an adaptation of an entirely different book, but I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad film. It is a pretty poor adaptation of Remarque's book, but it is a effective depiction of some of the appalling aspects of trench warfare.
Yeah, I have watched the previous films and am a bit familiar with the book and I watched it with my wife who knew nothing and we had very different experiences.
I thought the film was really good but fell flat in several key areas. My wife on the other hand didn't really notice those bits but instead saw what this film did great and it was interesting how the failures of the film overshadowed other parts for me.
How she could point out things the film did great and how I didn't fully appreciate those parts.
I would say that the film is a mediocre adaptation but a great film.
My experience lands somewhere in the middle.
OPs take is a little off I think. There’s a scene where all the rats go running together away from approaching troops I believe and he doesn’t die in a valiant way. He dies because his overzealous and delusional commander refuses to acknowledge the coming armistice and sends his soldiers into a pointless battle. Swinging a shovel around, alone and muddy on a battlefield isn’t really a glorious death.
I’m a little personally biased against the complaints of movie adaptations not completely following their source material. It’s one of the easiest critiques to make and it happens all the time. Books and film are different mediums.
I just watched this last night without much knowledge of the book. It seemed like just another war movie rehashing the same themes of “war is old men talking and young men dying” that has played out in so many other movies. Its not bad, but my memories of this movie will soon blend in with every other ww1 movie. As I find out more about the book, it seems like such a more interesting story. I do think the movie would have been better if it had stayed closer to the book. Even the title doesn’t make much sense now.
Redditor sees franchise film #34: Wow this is great.
Redditor sees the first war is bad movie since before Covid: Wow derivative much?
And to be honest more anti-war films is always a good thing since going by the amount of bloodthirst online throughout the world people need reminding that war is hell on earth.
>just another war movie rehashing the same themes of “war is old men talking and young men dying” that has played out in so many other movies.
It's almost as if they are historically accurate and not abusing creative licenses to appease the audience....
This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not "show the theme of old men talking and young men dying" or "show historical inaccuracies" there are literal thousands of ways to accurately depict war and many meaningful themes one can highlight in a story about war.
Suggesting that one story trope is tired is not at all advocating for historical inaccuracy.
Did you read OP’s comments at the top? The gist of it is the complete opposite to what you just said lol, that it’s not historically accurate (ie adds loads of OTT stuff the author didn’t experience which miss the point of the story) and changes things around for creative licence
Interestingly, James Jones (who wrote *The Thin Red Line*) wrote that *Paths of Glory* is not accurate at all. See Jones’s essay included in the Criterion release of *The Thin Red Line*.
Reddit loves to hate Netflix lol. the haters will make excuses for critically successful movies like Glass Onion saying "bUt ThEy aRe jUsT tHe dIsTrIbUtOrS" but then if it's something they don't like they'll go right around and blame Netflix for every little thing. It's honestly kinda funny to observe.
The OP saw Paul die in a "valiant last stand". I watch Paul die a pathetic, unnecessary death due to the vainglory of another.
I don't think that the OP was able to watch the film on its own merits.
The only person calling it heroic and valiant was the general, and if OP thinks the movie was framing him as the good guy or something we ought to be siding with then I'm not sure what to say
A teenager we saw earlier crying and distraught over murdering someone was in an absolute fugue state murdering like it was nothing in a nihilistic rage, completely devoid of humanity until the last moment when it was too late.
If you thought that entire sequence was valiant your media literacy is honestly 0. Christ almighty OP.
Secondary point, there's been 2 fantastic more-faithful adaptations of the book, what's the point of another faithful adaptation when it's going to be the exact same, changing things isn't inherently bad, especially when it's been done faithfully twice.
That’s the way I saw it as well. A futile last stand for naught and nothing.
Also, the geopolitics was interesting to me. It showed the disconnect between the upper brass and men fighting in the trenches. The lack of urgency to save the lives of the men fighting on their behalf. It was also a prelude to the issues with the terms of surrender that would contribute to the causes of WW2.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
Edit: a word
I agree with the contrast, these dudes are complaining that their croissants are a day old ans having tea parties all day and Paul and co are eating bread from the Stone Age
I wonder why a film released in 2023 would need additional political context that a book released in 1928 would not need. God I am sick of posts like this.
>I watch Paul die a pathetic, unnecessary death due to the vainglory of another
My general feeling about the movie is that they skipped the whole PTSD element but gave the "meaninglessness of war horror" maximum focus. Which aligns really well with current European events and is a valid message to the masses. So while agree that they didn't stick to the letter with the book, I think it's a good adaptation.
The also very deliberate choice to show all of the soldiers marching with him with young looking actors. It was children marching to their death, not heroism.
The point is he died in a cinematic and tragic way. The whole point of the end of the book was how unremarkable his, and millions of other's deaths were. No one would tell his story. He wouldn't be remembered as a hero. He didn't even have a chance to fight for his life. He just was there one moment and gone the next, and there was no drama or tragedy whatsoever.
The point is in the 2022 version he dies in battle. In the book he dies on a nice, quiet, almost pleasant day where neither side was particularly trying to kill one another.
Eh,Paul taking such a longtime to walk out and slowly die when every background character got mowed down into mulch really heightened how he got a more "cinematic" death. His death was more reminiscent of Maximus in Gladiotor.
His plot armour was so strong at one pint he was hit by a shell so close it lifted him into the air yet not even a scratch.
But every death was pointless,not sure what new point Paul getting the overly melodramatic death was going for. Even the ironic point of his death being so close to peacetime and therefore so close to being avoided was made with Kat's death earlier.
This is what many anti-war films suffer from. The action is very... well, movie-like and ends up "glorifying" war in a way.
I guess the film was faced at this crossroads of making a truce between having a bombastic ending and an ending that supported the anti-war message. To my mind, it succeeded in delivering an anti-war message, but I totally understand why for others it didn't work.
As someone who had never even heard of the book before this movie, a lot of the themes that you claim the movie missed are exactly what I took from the movie. the contrast of the opulence and lack of touch displayed by those waging the war vs. the people actually fighting it, as well as the enthusiasm displayed by all the boys slowly eroding by the end of the film. I mean these were literally my main takeaways
I haven’t seen the new one, but the scenes OP describes as missing are just devastating in the early adaptation.
When he returns home, it’s not to contrast opulence with the main character at the front. In fact, the friends and neighbors who were important to his early life are clearly sacrificing for the war effort and not living a great life, but they think they’re doing it all in service of the boys at the front. “We don’t mind going without, because we know the boys at the front deserve the very best”
Of course, the main character knows the troops aren’t getting “the best” of anything. The civilians think they’re suffering to achieve a better end, when in reality the war is just making life hell for everyone. It’s not a zero sum game, it’s just death and suffering.
I can’t imagine any discussion had by generals would convey that. I suspect it’s easier for the audience to hate “the man” than it is to watch working class people be so duped, causing the main character to feel utterly out of place at what is supposed to be a chance to feel at home.
Those sound like powerful scenes, I'm sure they'd make a great addition. The movie is already very long. All I'll say in is in the beginning, the boys are very clearly all "duped" as you say, to the point where there is a scene of one of them getting their uniform while enlisting and brings it back because it "has the wrong name" and he's too excited to be fighting for Germany to even realize the uniform is being repurposed because the last solider who wore it clearly died. I'd love to have seen the scenes of them going home, but like I said, the movie is already very long and my primary takeaways are basically in line with what OP says the movie was missing 🤷
Agreed.
Showing the armistice talk doesn't ***contradict*** the idea of of the soldiers being detached from the decision-makers at all.
It just *also* shows how the decision-makers were detached from the soldiers.
OP calling saying that it **"blatant spits in the face"** of the book's themes is absurd. Showing the decision-maker perspective does nothing to undercut the book's themes. It just shows how the detachment existed on both sides.
Yep, I agree with you. Another example to emphasize your point would be Paul's death at the end. In my view, it conveys the same point (i.e., that death and destruction of war is futile) as the book's ending.
That's exactly what I took from it. Him dying at the exact moment the ceasefire began and everyone immediately stopping the fighting really hammered home how fucking pointless all the killing was
100%. Just as meaningless as Paul's nondescript death a month before the armistice that the book describes.
Edit: I love that I said “nondescript death…that the book describes.” Sometimes I’m an idiot.
Thank you! It drives me insane when people say “it had none of the themes from the book” and then they state all the themes I took away from the movie lol
It is, but when you make key changes to a work generally considered great you don’t stand much chance of improving it. And that’s the point here, most of the changes are both unnecessary and inferior to what exists.
I agree to an extend. I pretty much think they shouldn't have used "All Quiet on the West Front" as a title because it really hasn't a lot in common with the book and movies only in names, scenes and all of them being set in World War 1. The first two are pretty similar to one another and also in spirit. This one, not so much. It is a war story but it is not the All Quiet story
But it has the same themes, several scenes from the book and the same general shape as the book. It changes things but it still resembles the book.
Its not a WWZ scenario where they've taken a random script and slapped the name on it. They've read the book, appreciated the themes and adapted it reasonably. The world would be boring if we were only allowed 1:1 adaptations.
And its not like theres no canonical adaptation, we have several very close adaptations *that still exist*. If a modern German director wants to explore a new theme as well (one that is one the rise with militarism) then let them, its a worthy addition to the anti-war film corpus.
It *is* engagement, though. The point of the film is that it’s an adaptation of the book. If that wasn’t the point, then they wouldn’t have given it this title.
Judging the quality of the adaptation is perfectly reasonable. If the film makers wanted it to be judged on its own, they would have chosen a different name.
At a certain point you have to compare an adaptation directly to the original work… Because that’s the whole point.
Hard to avoid making that mistake when the makers of the film purposefully called it 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and had the same names for their main characters and so on. If any film maker wants to make their own film about any particular subject, by all means, but don't call it the same thing as another work of fiction, call it an adaptation, and then object to people comparing your work to said work of fiction and pointing out where your themes, plot points, characterization, whatever, are missing the mark. These guys clearly just wanted to tell their own story about WW1; bring WW1 to a modern audience with modern effects, big budget, etc, which is great. But to then cynically use an existing work about WW1 basically purely as marketing and to get money to make the project instead of selling your project on its own merits and then disregard all the main themes of that work to tell the story and present the themes that you want to leaves you open to some pretty legitimate criticism for doing so, regardless of the merits of the work you produced if it stands on its own. If you want your work to stand on its own, don't borrow an existing IP to sell it; make your own. Otherwise, deal with the criticism that comes when people are justifiably annoyed by the bait and switch they were served up.
I think nobody knew about the manga. Kind of like Snowpiercer. Or at least the movie was way more popular than the manga. All quiet on the western front is atill taught in schools and very widely read and understood (more so than the movie)
But the reason the OP provides for these departures being worse are the fact they are different from the original.
Point one concludes:
> This is one of the more blatant spits in the face to the themes of the book.
Point two concludes:
> Another big contradiction to Remarque’s novel.
Point four:
> But again misses the point of the novel…
And you’ll see many comments basing entire critiques upon the deviations between text and film. It’s just vapid and doesn’t really amount to valid criticism.
They seem to think that any departure or difference is inherently negative, completely disregarding that adaptations often set out to adapt.
I don’t believe you and I read the same critique. The one I read tells you the point of the book and then tells you that point is lost in the movie. So the changes were not just superficial, they were fundamental to the viewer gaining a feel for what it was like for the protagonist.
Lol, you're being completely dishonest. The OP clearly explained why he thinks all of the changes make the story worse. Nearly all of the comments are also expressing why they think the original story was superior and not just reflexively disliking it.
We can see what the OP wrote. You're just cherry picking sentences where he didn't express why he felt the book was better.
I have a bookshelf full of WWI literature Storm of Steel, Catastrophe 1914, etc I think it’s best to enjoy the movie for what it is a WWI movie. WWI is severely underrepresented in film compared to WWII. I am just happy the movie is made I don’t care what movie or literary critics think
WW1 has two of the best war movies in existence - Paths of Glory and Lawrence of Arabia.
War movies have lost some of that magic of older movies. Now it's a lot of battle set pieces rather than overall themes or the human condition in wartime.
Agree. The deviation at the end was the most annoying for me. But your point about how the movie is not showing the gradual change in the men over time is a good one too. I liked the “feel” of the movie, at times, which made some of these decisions frustrating.
I was unfamiliar with the source material and still didn't find it all that great. From a technical standpoint, 1917 does everything this did, if not better. Finding out later that it made changes to the story and had a whole bunch of historical inaccuracies further cemented my opinion that it doesn't really have anything going for it to necessitate watching.
I dunno, I don’t agree. It’s not a faithful adaptation, but I would say it’s a good one, if that makes sense.
I found the addition of the larger politics interesting. And the film is doing something that the book didn’t touch at all, for obvious reasons; the shadow of the Nazis is looming over almost everything in this movie, and I think is actually what the movie is about. I felt this double tragedy throughout the whole movie. It was showing how criminal, how brutal and terrible the First World War was, but also showing how it was the seeds of what to come. The crime of the war was also what it would turn the German people into. In the B storyline, there’s a clear reason the civilian negotiators are our protagonists and the Prussian general is the antagonist. I did think through most of the movie that the unnamed general was supposed to be Ludendorff, until the last half hour or so.
It was just so fascinating to see a German author tackle that subject, and I thought it was subtly and deftly done.
Blade runner completely deviates from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Does that make it a bad film?
I see this discourse everywhere, and it will never not annoy me. A 2022 film can and should explore different themes and modes of storytelling than a book written in 1928. If you don't like it, fine, but don't discredit a fantastic film because it isn't a carbon copy of the original work it was based on
I know this is an old comment, but it’s asinine to imply that the Treaty of Versailles had no part in the creating the power vacuum where the Nazis were able to seize control of the country.
I agree. I understand, and I have argued in other occasions, that an adaptation doesn't have to be a straight transposition of a novel, but drastically change the scene that gives the title to the novel makes a bad adaptation.
Hard disagree.
1. I think there is a good argument here that the political perspective distracts from what could have been a more thorough exploration of Paul's experience, but this is not it. The juxtaposition of the distant, luxury-filled politicking reinforces how divorced the heads of state are from the reality of the combat being waged. Everything is about honor and pride, with the exception of Erzberger, not the humanity being lost in horrific ways.
2. I would have loved if the movie could have fit more of Paul's school life/pre-war life into the story, as well. But I think the movie effectively demonstrates Paul's transformation throughout the war. Paul at the beginning of the movie is very different from Paul in the middle of the film, who again is very different from the rage-filled nihilistic Paul at the end of the film.
3. I'm with you on this point. If cutting the political perspective would have made room for Paul's return home story, then I 100% think that would have made the movie better.
4. There was a flood of rats fleeing the trenches when the tanks rolled in, so yeah. I think the portrayal of life on the front was authentic, if not accurate. An artillery bombardment drove Paul's comrade mad and killed another. They spent time bailing out trenches of rain water. There was plenty of down time where they just talked or went in search of food. They were desperate for letters from home. Trench combat was brutal and close quartered. Sure, the depiction of tanks and flamethrowers is exaggerated, but these things did exist and its important for a modern audience to understand how horrifying the war could be. I think that's an understandable creative decision whether you like it or not.
5. I get that this is a huge departure from the book, but it's not inauthentic nor counter to the book's values. Thousands of soldiers died on the morning of the last day of combat (not from a dramatic suicide charge, but more from the daily grind of frontline attrition), so showing a lot of troops being killed in the closing moments isn't a misrepresentation of the war. Also, I'm not sure how you can watch that last battle and feel it was being depicted as valiant in any way. It's Paul resigning to his hopeless situation and a fated death in combat. He's got nothing but rage and despair. The soldiers literally check the time before they go into combat, seeing how long they have to last before the war ends. No one wants to do what they're doing except for the jingoistic military commander who wants to save face. In other words, common soldiers' lives are being spent to callously satisfy the whims and desires of distant leaders. I think that's totally in line with Remarque's work.
Non-stop action? That is a gross mischaracterization of the amount of battle scenes that happened in this movie. Aside from the artillery barrage, Paul is involved in, what, two battles?
Too many people are confusing bad adaptation with bad movie. Simply being different from the book isn't a valid criticism. I haven't read the book so I don't know how it is as an adaptation but as a movie it absolutely deserves the praise it's getting.
As a German I see another problem this movie has that unfortunately many German movies these days have(we don't like our own movie culture and Germans usually mock the movies that are produced here). It's completely soulless. None of the characters is in any form engaging or interesting. Paul in this version is just a guy stumbling through a warzone for two and a half hours.
I get that this was made intentional but the immersion just suffers after a specific runtime.
I very much agree with this take---OP raises a number of excellent points that have been rattling around in my own head whenever this film has been discussed and praised recently. I would say that there are some quality bits in it, and it's clear that they lavished attention on the combat sequences (IMO, the best part of the new version was the opening scenes of combat, and then the recycled uniform callback we get later), but I don't think it measures up to the older film versions or the original text. In my view, the 1930 version is still the best film version and the most faithful to the book. Faithfulness to the book is not necessarily a virtue, of course, but many of the clear and beautiful and tragic themes of the book are muddled in this latest version, if not completely lost for many of the reasons that OP lists.
One other point: I believe I read something about how the creators of this latest version wanted to place the story in the very specific German historical perspective and context of the war, which is why they include the big-picture political narrative (which as OP notes, completely distracts from the actual story). But I think this German-specific approach also works *against* one of the most powerful things about more traditional versions of AQotWF: the universality of the message. The basic human archetypes that we meet in the book (and in the 1930 film version) could really be spawned from any nationality, and the basic dynamics could be drawn from nearly any war, which makes the story transcend those particulars. I would say that the somewhat recent movie "1917", while following British soldiers, hits a similar universal message; the larger political motivations behind the war are largely irrelevant to the story and to the struggles of the characters. This new version of AQotWF works hard to be historically specific (though oddly is not too worried about historical accuracy), which makes it less universal, and is detrimental to the story of Paul and his friends.
I'm esp. glad that OP mentioned the ending! The epic battle in which Paul dies in this version completely undercuts the power of the title. Again, the poignancy of the simple ending of the book and 1930 versions resonate (to me, at least) in a far more profound and moving way.
There’s already the book and at least two other movie versions. I don’t know why anybody would want a straight ahead remake of those that doesn’t add anything.
The filmmakers of this version have their own perspective and their own story to tell. That’s not the same as them missing the point.
Frankenstein, A Clockwork Orange, Carrie, The Shining, Blade Runner, The Thing, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, Adaptation, Children of Men, Coraline, Annihilation, Jojo Rabbit, every single superhero movie, etc, etc. All beloved. All adaptations that change the source material fairly significantly.
I think the reason redditors are losing their minds and making daily threads about this adaptation is because many of them haven't actually read many books since high school. But All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the few books that you can guarantee almost everyone here has read at a formative age, so many redditors are experiencing the horrors of a loose adaptation firsthand for the first time and it's breaking their brains.
I agree with a lot of your takes, especially the mundane nature of some of the activities in the book, and leaving out Paul’s leave time. Ultimately I liked the movie a lot and I feel like it made a decision to focus on one or two themes of WW1 rather than just recreate the book. I love the book but I don’t know if I’d want to see a 1:1 screen adaptation. The movie was effective in showing the disconnect between the politicians/Nobel class who glorify war versus the youth who were quickly becoming disillusioned.
the movie is great on its own. just because it shares the same name with the book and isnt a 100% faithful adaptation doesnt mean it doesnt deserve praise. this is literary gatekeeping right here
This book has already been adapted multiple times, changing it up a bit was a good move. If you want to watch the other “more faithful” adaptions then you can do that
Do you mean a new war movie that doesn't glorify war? Cause Hurt Locker was widely recognized not too long ago. Also Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, and Full Metal Jacket, among many many others exist for various conflicts.
If a book/play/etc is adapted into another medium, and you expect it to be the same, I don't think you really know what you want.
Every time you retell a story, you are telling it from your perspective. This is what storytelling is supposed to be. If you want the original story, then read the book; but even that might be different because your perspective of it might of changed. 14 year old you might of perceived this book differently than 40 year old you because your perspective has changed.
The film purposefully focuses on the toll wars have on the people actually being affected by wars: the soldiers, not the politicians. This is an anti war film and a brilliant adaptation of the book because it has a different focus. An adaptation doesn't have to be faithful. In fact, adaptation concerned with fidelity do not justify their existence in my eyes.
I thought there were some very powerful themes. Some of which I feel like you totally missed or glossed over. Is it a faithful adaptation? Arguably no. Doesn’t that make it a bad movie? Also arguably no. It still deserves praise.
Especially the end. If you think the final battle was depicted as heroic or significant, then I think you missed the theme. The theme is clearly that his death was utterly pointless… the result of a glory-hungry out of touch general after the war was already over. I don’t see how you can get more pointless than that. I think it shares a similar theme as the original but a depicted differently. I disagree that it misses the point entirely… they are both exploring the pointlessness of war.
In fact, I think the directors did give a poignant and intentional twist on the books title. His death literally happens on the day “the western front went quiet.” If you took a second to try and appreciate the movie on its own merits I think you could enjoy it a little more.
You make a lot of great valid points comparing the book to the new movie. However, if you had never read the book and saw the movie would you consider it well done? If the movie had another title and the characters names changed (so it wouldn’t be compared to the book), would you like the movie?
I can hate on a lot of movies and shows which are “not as good as the books” but long ago I started accepting they are two different things. The author wrote the book he didn’t direct/write/act in the movie. At the end of the day I judge movies based on their own merit.
That being said, does the movie deserve praise? Imm
"Paul dies in a valiant last-stand"
Sounds like you watched an entirely different movie or you came in with preconceived notions about the film before you even saw it.
I thought showing the leaders in their gaudy dining rooms and fancy accommodations was a great juxtaposition to the soldiers in the muck. Idk how you can say it is irrelevant to Paul, he and all his friends died because some idiot made the decision to launch an attack despite knowing that the truce was coming. It helped to show how dehumanised the soldiers
Agreed. There were parts done well, but it basically misses the entire point of the book, especially the end.
Pretty sure the praise it gets is simply for being a WW1 movie of which there are few.
All the negative reception from this movie comes from the fact that it’s not a good adaptation. I don’t understand why this is always a shock to people. There are very few movies that adapt books line for line.
If you gave this movie a different title, I don’t think you’d see as much, if any, criticism of it. I think this was one of the best war movies in the last 15 years.
I haven't seen the film yet, but German critics are also frustrated. Check out these articles in [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jan/27/oscar-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-germany-critics) and [Slate](https://slate.com/culture/2023/02/all-quiet-western-front-netflix-movie-oscars.html).
Edward Berger, who wrote and directed the film, is also German. And he's done some [interviews](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/tiff-2022-edward-berger-interview-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-1235213231/) where he discusses some of the changes and his thought process.
Personally I absolutely loved it. Is it different? A little yeah but it still very much captures the spirit of the novel, imo.
I'm with you. Especially his trip back home for time off and the COMPLETE disconnect he feels with the random non-soldier folks there. They seem like aliens to him. Especially the old 'home guard' douchebag going off about how cowardly the front line soldiers must be and that "if HE was young enough to be there, he'd show the enemy a thing or two and tell the officers what to do blah blah" and after reading the book and feeling what the main character felt, you actually kind of want him to punch that old guy in the mouth. But of course, if he DID do that, he'd be just another crazy veteran. So he doesn't. But it really helped illustrate the 'up is down. black is white.' feeling a soldier can have when he comes back 'home' to something that feels alien, clueless, naive, and almost offensive.
Like, the movie has cool battle scenes and goes over the same 'battle is brutal' scenes that most war movies go through. But the book captures the mind-numbing drudgery, the hell of constant shelling, the periods of crushing boredom, the deadly dirtiness of the trenches, the randomness of some of the death, the completely surreal idiocy of the reasons for war when you're a soldier, the cruel emotional distance of the leaders who are far away from the front, and the disconnect of returning home. The movie didn't really do much of that, unfortunately.
It was a well-made war movie, though.
You should really read the book. Only ~250 pages and widely printed, you could probably pick it up for a few bucks and read it in a weekend. Great piece of literature.
one thing i disliked about it is how it completely neglegted the horrors of gas. 2 scenes only mention it, the bomb falling in the start where everyone puts on their mask, its a false alarm - and the dead company they search later on, which they find already dead and the cause (they were inexperienced and took off their masks too soon) is mentioned almost in passing.
I totally agree on all points. I was really looking forwards to this movie but i completely checked out at the massive flamethrower battle/tank scene.
It’s a very decent WW1 movie. It’s a terrible adaption of All quiet on the Western front.
Has anyone here watched the 1930 version? I have a copy but haven’t viewed it yet. Wondering how that compares and whether it’s a more faithful adaptation.
I teach World History at a high school in Watts and I use the 1930 movie in class. You'd be amazed at how deeply my kids can connect to the experiences on screen even though it's in black and white and nearly 100 years old. It's not only the most faithful adaptation of the book, it's singly one of the greatest war movies of all time.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will try and check it out.
My World History teacher showed it to us too. Great choice.
Should play it along with Renoir's Grand Illusion.
Have you shown them Paths of Glory? Another fantastic ww1 film.
How do you feel about Saving Private Ryan? Just curious, as when I think of somewhat recent war movies that do a pretty good job, that is what comes to my mind.. Different war, and it has epic set pieces and major celebrity actors, etc. Spielberg, being jewish and older, takes WW2 very very seriously, (despite the slapstick humor of indiana jones, which has serious intent behind it, to make the germans look stupid). Between that and him being one of the best film makers alive, the movie is great (not to mention Schindlers List of course). Im just curious about your unique opinion perhaps comparing and contrasting.
I think Saving Private Ryan has the best first 20 minutes of any war movies, but then degrades into pretty typical Hollywood fare. I tend to use Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora! As my WWII movies when I show one.
I didnt watch the netflix one, but the 1930 one is a masterpiece.
[удалено]
Also since it was made in the pre-Code era, it’s almost shockingly violent in its depiction of war in a way that films just five years later would never be able to.
What’s “pre-Code”? EDIT: thanks, TIL!
Hays Code. Sorta self-censorship agreement between studios. Ancient predecessor to MPAA ratings system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code Basically how a film's content should be censored if they wanted a film to get made. This was prior to film ratings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_Hollywood?wprov=sfti1
If I remember correctly that movie was filmed with real ww1 vets. You can't beat that.
We watched it in film class in high school and I still remember it pretty well, which is a testament to just how good it was. The story through the soldier's eyes, the regular guys who fought, suffered and died. These were soldiers from the "other side" but that's just it. They were the regular people like you and me caught up in the horrors of war. It was all about them. I haven't seen the new version.
The new film still does a very good job of that, though I agree with OP that the cuts to the leaders are weird and don't contribute well.
they even used many WWI soldiers as the extras so the way they moved across the fields was legitimately how they did it in the war. It's far more antiwar and far less glamorous gory war shots. I watched the 70s version as well and thought those were far better and closer to the novel. The new one I could not get into at all I turned off at about 15 minutes in
Imagine being in that hell and then going back for (fictional) seconds as an extra. Wild.
I would imagine they would want the story told "right". Especially when it's got an anti-war message.
The movie was banned in Germany because of that.
The government of the time much more preferred Ernst Jünger's book storm of steel, which had a very different tone to it.
They also really liked Metropolis.
Definitely not on the same level, but The Outpost (a movie about Combat Outpost Keating) featured several soldiers that were actually at that outpost. During the credits they have some good interviews and footage.
I was in the military for a short period of time. I once put on The Outpost for some of my guys that were unoccupied for an evening close to veterans day. I never served in combat, but there is still so much of that movie that is so damn relatable. It was a fun movie day for them, but we actually had a discussion about it afterwards; about the different leadership styles that are displayed excellently, the way the Soldiers talk to each other, the weird emotions that you have to deal with. The humor is absolutely spot on in every way. I could write an entire essay about The Outpost. If you want to know what it feels like to be in the army, that movie will give you a pretty good idea.
Thanks for the acknowledgement, I'll watch the movie tonight.
I got into the Outpost, thought it was really well done. My fiancee leaned over to me and asked if I was ok a few times ( I tend to tear up watching quiet scenes in war movies now).
It was a much different culture back then, I don't believe most were even paid they wanted to be part of it.
yes, I really enjoyed it
The original movie is one of the best movie adaptations that is actually pretty much faithful to its source material. I have read the book and the movie a few years ago so my memory might be a little hazy. But I remember loving the book. I think it is one of the greatest books ever written. I also remember loving the movie after I had read the book. I thought it was one of the most haunting war movies ever made. A great movie. I have not seen the new movie. After reading some of the comments about the new movie I might just skip it. I was planning to watch before the Oscars but might just delete it from my playlist to save me the inevitable disappointment and anger.
I have watched the original and read the book and still very much enjoyed the new movie. All of the above points are valid, but you can decide for yourself if it is worth watching or not
I actually recently watched it but haven't watched the new one yet. Even without seeing the new one I agree that the noted removed scenes are pivotal to the themes that the author is trying to get across. That's too bad.
Yes, I recommend it.
I have watched the 1930 movie and its one of my all time favourite movies. I switched off the netflix adaptation after 15 ish minutes exactly because of what op is talking about.
It won best picture Oscar that year. It is far more book accurate as well.
1930s version seemed much more real and anti war. This version seems a bit Hollywoo and not really that anti war.
Our history teacher showed it to us like 8 years ago and after watching the new one (which we btw also enjoyed) me and some friends also discussed many of the differences between the new one and the 1930 one. Most memorable to me was the 1930 one showing the brutal repetitions of this unnecessary war, especially with the friends group. And that they didn't even explain why it is called "Im Westen nichts neues" was a real bummer. Also the 1930 one has a way better eerie ending than the new one that just leaves you thinking about how everything you've just seen is so fucking pointless. Truly a great anti war movie.
Watched it in World History Class in highschool. I loved it and am disappointed to hear how they butchered this version. I haven't read the book but everything this post talks about is expressed brilliantly in that film
One of the memorable elements of the 1930 version was the sustained bombardments. It did a tremendous job of showing how the psychological assault of artillery lead to shell shock. With all of its production values and modern technology, the Netflix version came nowhere near making that visceral connection.
I watched it for college and the 1930s is an excellent version of the story. I have not read the book, but going by OPs post I could have come to the same conclusions with just the film. We went deep into the iconography of WW1 film and it is pretty shocking that trench life wasn't prevalent enough in the new version. I can hardly tell you too much about the big battle set piece (which there is one), but the part where soldiers are just sitting in a bunker hearing shell after shell after shell, knowing that they're safe where they are but trapped in with rats and starving, no escape, only the pounding sound of shell after maddening shell... Yeah, it gets to you.
It’s one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen, sometimes you forget it was made back then and that it isn’t archival war footage because the visuals are just so damn good
I watched them all back to back recently and I have to say the 1930 version is the best.
Original is great
The 1930 film is probably the one movie least in need of a remake in probably the entire history of cinema. It's perfect.
Yes. It's very good. I don't understand why people felt the need to make two more versions.
You can buy it on Amazon. Its amazing. Its honestly as good if not better than Saving Private Ryan or Starship Troopers.
I read the book 50 years ago in high school. Only one scene has really stuck with me all these many years later -- the quiet, guilt-ridden & remorseful internal "conversation" the German soldier has with the French soldier he kills in the foxhole. And I also remember the passing of the boots from soldier to soldier. Those two things have stayed with me like a gut punch. Are they in the Netflix movie?
The recycling of clothes is a huge scene in the beginning of the movie. And yes, the moral crisis he has when he kills the French soldier is powerfully rendered in this film. Highly recommend if you felt moved by those moments in the book.
>And yes, the moral crisis he has when he kills the French soldier is powerfully rendered in this film. Though /u/LoveKubrick I've seen people complain that because in the new movie's added dramatic action scenes Paul has already killed a bunch - up close and personal, even - before this scene, it muffles its impact a fair amount compared to the book and original.
I don’t think it does. Killing soldiers in a heated battle is different from having to sit in a crater and watch someone you stabbed slowly die. It’s being forced to face the humanity of the dying soldier that moves Paul and the viewer, not the simple act of killing a uniform.
Hmm. A lot of interesting critique in this thread. I've decided I am going to watch the Netflix version because it sounds like it's a good movie in its own right; but I'm prepared to perhaps be disappointed as far as it capturing the "feel" of the book? We'll see!
Yes finally watched and that's how I'd express it. A 60% effort with changing of elements I don't think necessary because the original material had it down pat.
Thanks for your input!
I once had to do a creative writing assignment from the view point of a not main character in a book. I was reading this at the time so I did mine from the perspective of the other soldier in the foxhole. It was one of the darker things I've ever written. My creative writing teacher was probably grading papers like "wtf?!".
What a fun assignment, and a great choice you made!
The boot scene isn't in there that I recall, but there are other scenes that give the same message. OP is wrong, the scene where Paul kills a French soldier and then has to struggle with being in the artillery crater with him as he dies is absolutely in the movie. And although it doesn't have the internal dialogue of the book, it still conveys his emotions pretty well.
>Paul dies in a valiant last-stand after a huge sweeping battle, swinging a shovel around like a sword amidst a sea of french soldiers. I didn't get this vibe at all. To me the movie made it seen like the German last stand was pointless and driven by German pride; they knew a truce was happening and could have just left things be, but so many soldiers got massacred instead because the leadership wanted to take cheap shots at the French. In other words his death is totally pointless
It’s not just to you. That’s exactly what happened. There was nothing valiant about that final scene, it was a total waste of life. I’m not sure what OP is talking about but they clearly saw what they wanted rather than what was actually happening.
I don’t understand how anyone could see the ending and think the film was trying to portray it as a valiant last stand. It was a condemnation of the petty politics of war and the waste of life.
Which is still totally discordant with the book. The movie shows a general making a condemable pointless waste of life, the book is about thr mundanity of it all. Paul doesnt die because some general makes his pointless last stand, he dies on a perfectly normal day and no one cares. The final page of the book is one of the most sombering things ive ever read.
I don’t feel its that dissimilar, but I think the movies intent was to make the audience think there’s a chance Paul makes it out alive, only to extinguish that hope with the generals pointless and selfish choice. That strikes me more as the difference between film and books, sometimes you tweak things in movies because while the book ending is great it might not be what a film needs.
It's the classic issue of a book someone loves being made into a film. Very few of the criticisms here are relevant purely to the film, they're comparisons to the book. By the final scenes OP had already made up their mind.
Well. Yeah. It's not faithful to the book. That's the point
Yeah I know that's their point. *My* point is that accuracy to the source material is not the only metric that a film should be judged on. Anyone is welcome to dislike it because of their own relationship with the source material, but that doesn't inherently make it a bad film.
Yeah it's almost like they just really wanted to hate the movie, so they did. I didn't really agree with their first point either, for that matter. Even the negotiations showed leadership as being completely out of touch and stubborn while their soldiers were dying and suffering
Absolutely, and that made a big impact on me while watching the film, the contrast between the leaders and the soldiers hit hard. OP is missing out on an incredible anti-war film because they just want to turn their nose up at it for not being more faithful to the novel.
This is really interesting to get others perspectives on the ending as it is the exact opposite of the book: >"He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front." The title of the book (and therefore movie) is translated to Quiet but the direct translation is Nothing New in the West (I suspect the english translation to quiet was done as that is literally what was written in the official English war diaries at the time). I think the translation to quiet is unfortunate as when you use the direct translation the impact is slightly more punchy - the guy you're now deeply invested in has died and it's nothing new and of no concern or consequence. The manner in which the movie concludes would not invoke the same dispatch report, rather the exact opposite. For me, the story is all about Paul and his close comrades and the absolute futility of war - the deep hell it sends them into and how do they ever come back from that. >He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.
This is a great reply and I’m glad you wrote it. I think what I feel is that an adaptation does not need to be accurate to be a great film. He might die in a more explosive sequence here but at the end of the day I was so heartbroken watching those soldiers march toward the trenches. The one who complained was executed moments before the ceasefire. Paul’s eyes were glazed over and dim as he marched. Then they jumped into that dark pit for the final moments and that’s where he was stabbed. Immediately after that he climbs towards the light. It was poetic in a way only a film could be and it made me so uncomfortable. Like others are saying something was lost from the source material, but something else was gained from the adaptation. It isn’t s merit less work, it’s a powerful film and it shook me deeply.
I would replace "valiant" with "dramatic". The new movie makes everything so dramatic and action-packed, which does massively undermine how soul-suckingly *mundane* the tragedy was meant to be. In no universe does the new movie's ending represent a day that was "all quiet". In the novel and original film, our protagonist's unimportant death not even meriting a footnote on a day described as "all quiet" is central to the point.
Yeah sorry. That was cringy and dumb. They tried to up the drama by making a final attack in the last 15 minutes of the war just so it could have the tragic heart wrenching ending befitting a Hollywood movie. That was the exact thing the book was trying to avoid.
Some points are valid but I wonder if you watched the whole movie because you’re incorrect on multiple points. - There were rats running away as Paul and Kat are French rations - The last offensive was German in the movie - the shovel swinging was in the beginning by the soldier whose jacket Paul inherits Not saying your main point is wrong, but you didn’t seem to support it accurately.
Thank you. OP didn't comprehend the film and was probably watching it whilst comparing it to the book, which is a fools errand. They are different forms of media, a 300 page book cannot word for word scene for scene be translated into a film anyone wants to watch.
Thanks, I just watched the movie and was very confused if I missed the final scene with the shovel and where was this french offensive and how is it fictional and yet celebrated still today.
I agree that the film often seemed to be an adaptation of an entirely different book, but I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad film. It is a pretty poor adaptation of Remarque's book, but it **is** a effective depiction of some of the appalling aspects of trench warfare. It also presents a pretty blunt contrast between the luxury of the political and military leadership and the soldiers on the frontline. It's been about four years since I read the book so maybe I'd have been more annoyed had it been fresher in my mind, but the only part that really bothered me was the ending, which, as you say, missed the poignancy of the book's title altogether.
>I agree that the film often seemed to be an adaptation of an entirely different book, but I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad film. It is a pretty poor adaptation of Remarque's book, but it is a effective depiction of some of the appalling aspects of trench warfare. Yeah, I have watched the previous films and am a bit familiar with the book and I watched it with my wife who knew nothing and we had very different experiences. I thought the film was really good but fell flat in several key areas. My wife on the other hand didn't really notice those bits but instead saw what this film did great and it was interesting how the failures of the film overshadowed other parts for me. How she could point out things the film did great and how I didn't fully appreciate those parts. I would say that the film is a mediocre adaptation but a great film. My experience lands somewhere in the middle.
OPs take is a little off I think. There’s a scene where all the rats go running together away from approaching troops I believe and he doesn’t die in a valiant way. He dies because his overzealous and delusional commander refuses to acknowledge the coming armistice and sends his soldiers into a pointless battle. Swinging a shovel around, alone and muddy on a battlefield isn’t really a glorious death. I’m a little personally biased against the complaints of movie adaptations not completely following their source material. It’s one of the easiest critiques to make and it happens all the time. Books and film are different mediums.
I just watched this last night without much knowledge of the book. It seemed like just another war movie rehashing the same themes of “war is old men talking and young men dying” that has played out in so many other movies. Its not bad, but my memories of this movie will soon blend in with every other ww1 movie. As I find out more about the book, it seems like such a more interesting story. I do think the movie would have been better if it had stayed closer to the book. Even the title doesn’t make much sense now.
Read the book, it’s a masterpiece
And a surprisingly easily read book that is hard to digest. No bullshit, just solid writing.
Redditor sees franchise film #34: Wow this is great. Redditor sees the first war is bad movie since before Covid: Wow derivative much? And to be honest more anti-war films is always a good thing since going by the amount of bloodthirst online throughout the world people need reminding that war is hell on earth.
>just another war movie rehashing the same themes of “war is old men talking and young men dying” that has played out in so many other movies. It's almost as if they are historically accurate and not abusing creative licenses to appease the audience....
This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not "show the theme of old men talking and young men dying" or "show historical inaccuracies" there are literal thousands of ways to accurately depict war and many meaningful themes one can highlight in a story about war. Suggesting that one story trope is tired is not at all advocating for historical inaccuracy.
Well, see, this movie is not historically accurate.
Did you read OP’s comments at the top? The gist of it is the complete opposite to what you just said lol, that it’s not historically accurate (ie adds loads of OTT stuff the author didn’t experience which miss the point of the story) and changes things around for creative licence
Path of Glory has all you want in spades.
Interestingly, James Jones (who wrote *The Thin Red Line*) wrote that *Paths of Glory* is not accurate at all. See Jones’s essay included in the Criterion release of *The Thin Red Line*.
Oh,we talking WW1 kino? Gallipoli is also good. Lawrence of Arabia technically counts but a different t theatre of war.
If that's the one with Kirk Douglas, I second this.
Lol, I always find it funny how people talk about Netflix as if it is a film director.
Same way how they discuss A24 at times. It's become really tiresome at this point.
Reddit loves to hate Netflix lol. the haters will make excuses for critically successful movies like Glass Onion saying "bUt ThEy aRe jUsT tHe dIsTrIbUtOrS" but then if it's something they don't like they'll go right around and blame Netflix for every little thing. It's honestly kinda funny to observe.
>Reddit loves to hate Netflix lol. Wait, are you talking about Reddit as if it were a person? :P
A mod candidate right there.
Sounds like star wars fans with Kennedy and Filoni
The OP saw Paul die in a "valiant last stand". I watch Paul die a pathetic, unnecessary death due to the vainglory of another. I don't think that the OP was able to watch the film on its own merits.
Yeah, that fight was not presented as “valiant”
The only person calling it heroic and valiant was the general, and if OP thinks the movie was framing him as the good guy or something we ought to be siding with then I'm not sure what to say
A teenager we saw earlier crying and distraught over murdering someone was in an absolute fugue state murdering like it was nothing in a nihilistic rage, completely devoid of humanity until the last moment when it was too late. If you thought that entire sequence was valiant your media literacy is honestly 0. Christ almighty OP. Secondary point, there's been 2 fantastic more-faithful adaptations of the book, what's the point of another faithful adaptation when it's going to be the exact same, changing things isn't inherently bad, especially when it's been done faithfully twice.
That’s the way I saw it as well. A futile last stand for naught and nothing. Also, the geopolitics was interesting to me. It showed the disconnect between the upper brass and men fighting in the trenches. The lack of urgency to save the lives of the men fighting on their behalf. It was also a prelude to the issues with the terms of surrender that would contribute to the causes of WW2. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. Edit: a word
I agree with the contrast, these dudes are complaining that their croissants are a day old ans having tea parties all day and Paul and co are eating bread from the Stone Age
I wonder why a film released in 2023 would need additional political context that a book released in 1928 would not need. God I am sick of posts like this.
>I watch Paul die a pathetic, unnecessary death due to the vainglory of another My general feeling about the movie is that they skipped the whole PTSD element but gave the "meaninglessness of war horror" maximum focus. Which aligns really well with current European events and is a valid message to the masses. So while agree that they didn't stick to the letter with the book, I think it's a good adaptation.
Bingo. The look on Paul's face as they march into the battle pretty clearly shows this is not heroism.
The also very deliberate choice to show all of the soldiers marching with him with young looking actors. It was children marching to their death, not heroism.
The point is he died in a cinematic and tragic way. The whole point of the end of the book was how unremarkable his, and millions of other's deaths were. No one would tell his story. He wouldn't be remembered as a hero. He didn't even have a chance to fight for his life. He just was there one moment and gone the next, and there was no drama or tragedy whatsoever.
The point is in the 2022 version he dies in battle. In the book he dies on a nice, quiet, almost pleasant day where neither side was particularly trying to kill one another.
True, but to a certain extent that part was taken up by the death of Kat.
Which was the original way Paul died and the point of the title.. I agree with OP. I’m glad people enjoyed the 2022 adaption but I did not.
Eh,Paul taking such a longtime to walk out and slowly die when every background character got mowed down into mulch really heightened how he got a more "cinematic" death. His death was more reminiscent of Maximus in Gladiotor. His plot armour was so strong at one pint he was hit by a shell so close it lifted him into the air yet not even a scratch.
Cinematic, yes. But not heroic or valiant. Just pointless.
But every death was pointless,not sure what new point Paul getting the overly melodramatic death was going for. Even the ironic point of his death being so close to peacetime and therefore so close to being avoided was made with Kat's death earlier.
This is what many anti-war films suffer from. The action is very... well, movie-like and ends up "glorifying" war in a way. I guess the film was faced at this crossroads of making a truce between having a bombastic ending and an ending that supported the anti-war message. To my mind, it succeeded in delivering an anti-war message, but I totally understand why for others it didn't work.
Truffaut is often quoted as saying there is no such thing as an antiwar film for this reason.
Agreed
It gets praise because it’s a good standalone movie. This isn’t rocket science. Translating a book into a movie is it’s own science, though.
As someone who had never even heard of the book before this movie, a lot of the themes that you claim the movie missed are exactly what I took from the movie. the contrast of the opulence and lack of touch displayed by those waging the war vs. the people actually fighting it, as well as the enthusiasm displayed by all the boys slowly eroding by the end of the film. I mean these were literally my main takeaways
I haven’t seen the new one, but the scenes OP describes as missing are just devastating in the early adaptation. When he returns home, it’s not to contrast opulence with the main character at the front. In fact, the friends and neighbors who were important to his early life are clearly sacrificing for the war effort and not living a great life, but they think they’re doing it all in service of the boys at the front. “We don’t mind going without, because we know the boys at the front deserve the very best” Of course, the main character knows the troops aren’t getting “the best” of anything. The civilians think they’re suffering to achieve a better end, when in reality the war is just making life hell for everyone. It’s not a zero sum game, it’s just death and suffering. I can’t imagine any discussion had by generals would convey that. I suspect it’s easier for the audience to hate “the man” than it is to watch working class people be so duped, causing the main character to feel utterly out of place at what is supposed to be a chance to feel at home.
Those sound like powerful scenes, I'm sure they'd make a great addition. The movie is already very long. All I'll say in is in the beginning, the boys are very clearly all "duped" as you say, to the point where there is a scene of one of them getting their uniform while enlisting and brings it back because it "has the wrong name" and he's too excited to be fighting for Germany to even realize the uniform is being repurposed because the last solider who wore it clearly died. I'd love to have seen the scenes of them going home, but like I said, the movie is already very long and my primary takeaways are basically in line with what OP says the movie was missing 🤷
[удалено]
/u/AlanMorlock said it really well here: >You get caught up in a game of not engaging with the film that actually exists though, which is a mistake.
Agreed. Showing the armistice talk doesn't ***contradict*** the idea of of the soldiers being detached from the decision-makers at all. It just *also* shows how the decision-makers were detached from the soldiers. OP calling saying that it **"blatant spits in the face"** of the book's themes is absurd. Showing the decision-maker perspective does nothing to undercut the book's themes. It just shows how the detachment existed on both sides.
Yep, I agree with you. Another example to emphasize your point would be Paul's death at the end. In my view, it conveys the same point (i.e., that death and destruction of war is futile) as the book's ending.
That's exactly what I took from it. Him dying at the exact moment the ceasefire began and everyone immediately stopping the fighting really hammered home how fucking pointless all the killing was
100%. Just as meaningless as Paul's nondescript death a month before the armistice that the book describes. Edit: I love that I said “nondescript death…that the book describes.” Sometimes I’m an idiot.
Exactly. In the movie he dies in an ***incredibly pointless*** battle. That doesn't seem to contradict the book's idea at all.
Yeah i pretty much got all of what he said from the movie
Thank you! It drives me insane when people say “it had none of the themes from the book” and then they state all the themes I took away from the movie lol
At a certain point, a film is its own work and is praised or criticized as such.
It is, but when you make key changes to a work generally considered great you don’t stand much chance of improving it. And that’s the point here, most of the changes are both unnecessary and inferior to what exists.
You get caught up in a game of not engaging with the film that actually exists though, which is a mistake.
I agree to an extend. I pretty much think they shouldn't have used "All Quiet on the West Front" as a title because it really hasn't a lot in common with the book and movies only in names, scenes and all of them being set in World War 1. The first two are pretty similar to one another and also in spirit. This one, not so much. It is a war story but it is not the All Quiet story
But it has the same themes, several scenes from the book and the same general shape as the book. It changes things but it still resembles the book. Its not a WWZ scenario where they've taken a random script and slapped the name on it. They've read the book, appreciated the themes and adapted it reasonably. The world would be boring if we were only allowed 1:1 adaptations. And its not like theres no canonical adaptation, we have several very close adaptations *that still exist*. If a modern German director wants to explore a new theme as well (one that is one the rise with militarism) then let them, its a worthy addition to the anti-war film corpus.
Yeah, good argument I agree. I think they could have done it better, but no what they have done isnt enherantly wrong or bad
It *is* engagement, though. The point of the film is that it’s an adaptation of the book. If that wasn’t the point, then they wouldn’t have given it this title. Judging the quality of the adaptation is perfectly reasonable. If the film makers wanted it to be judged on its own, they would have chosen a different name. At a certain point you have to compare an adaptation directly to the original work… Because that’s the whole point.
Hard to avoid making that mistake when the makers of the film purposefully called it 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and had the same names for their main characters and so on. If any film maker wants to make their own film about any particular subject, by all means, but don't call it the same thing as another work of fiction, call it an adaptation, and then object to people comparing your work to said work of fiction and pointing out where your themes, plot points, characterization, whatever, are missing the mark. These guys clearly just wanted to tell their own story about WW1; bring WW1 to a modern audience with modern effects, big budget, etc, which is great. But to then cynically use an existing work about WW1 basically purely as marketing and to get money to make the project instead of selling your project on its own merits and then disregard all the main themes of that work to tell the story and present the themes that you want to leaves you open to some pretty legitimate criticism for doing so, regardless of the merits of the work you produced if it stands on its own. If you want your work to stand on its own, don't borrow an existing IP to sell it; make your own. Otherwise, deal with the criticism that comes when people are justifiably annoyed by the bait and switch they were served up.
Yet nobody cries when Oldboy was unfaithfully adapted from the Japanese manga.
and then people cried when hollywood made an english adaptation of it
I think nobody knew about the manga. Kind of like Snowpiercer. Or at least the movie was way more popular than the manga. All quiet on the western front is atill taught in schools and very widely read and understood (more so than the movie)
Nobody said changes are inherently bad
Plenty of people did. Seems a lot of people’s issue is that the adaptation isn’t “faithful” enough to the original.
And that, in the areas where it departs from the original, it is inferior.
But the reason the OP provides for these departures being worse are the fact they are different from the original. Point one concludes: > This is one of the more blatant spits in the face to the themes of the book. Point two concludes: > Another big contradiction to Remarque’s novel. Point four: > But again misses the point of the novel… And you’ll see many comments basing entire critiques upon the deviations between text and film. It’s just vapid and doesn’t really amount to valid criticism. They seem to think that any departure or difference is inherently negative, completely disregarding that adaptations often set out to adapt.
I don’t believe you and I read the same critique. The one I read tells you the point of the book and then tells you that point is lost in the movie. So the changes were not just superficial, they were fundamental to the viewer gaining a feel for what it was like for the protagonist.
Lol, you're being completely dishonest. The OP clearly explained why he thinks all of the changes make the story worse. Nearly all of the comments are also expressing why they think the original story was superior and not just reflexively disliking it. We can see what the OP wrote. You're just cherry picking sentences where he didn't express why he felt the book was better.
I have a bookshelf full of WWI literature Storm of Steel, Catastrophe 1914, etc I think it’s best to enjoy the movie for what it is a WWI movie. WWI is severely underrepresented in film compared to WWII. I am just happy the movie is made I don’t care what movie or literary critics think
WW1 has two of the best war movies in existence - Paths of Glory and Lawrence of Arabia. War movies have lost some of that magic of older movies. Now it's a lot of battle set pieces rather than overall themes or the human condition in wartime.
A movie can be both a bad adaptation and a great movie. They can also be a great adaptation and a bad movie. They are not mutually exclusive.
Agree. The deviation at the end was the most annoying for me. But your point about how the movie is not showing the gradual change in the men over time is a good one too. I liked the “feel” of the movie, at times, which made some of these decisions frustrating.
It's a good movie, but a bad adaptation.
Even in that point it’s a very technically impressive movie but it really doesn’t do anything that I haven’t seen been done much better
I was unfamiliar with the source material and still didn't find it all that great. From a technical standpoint, 1917 does everything this did, if not better. Finding out later that it made changes to the story and had a whole bunch of historical inaccuracies further cemented my opinion that it doesn't really have anything going for it to necessitate watching.
I dunno, I don’t agree. It’s not a faithful adaptation, but I would say it’s a good one, if that makes sense. I found the addition of the larger politics interesting. And the film is doing something that the book didn’t touch at all, for obvious reasons; the shadow of the Nazis is looming over almost everything in this movie, and I think is actually what the movie is about. I felt this double tragedy throughout the whole movie. It was showing how criminal, how brutal and terrible the First World War was, but also showing how it was the seeds of what to come. The crime of the war was also what it would turn the German people into. In the B storyline, there’s a clear reason the civilian negotiators are our protagonists and the Prussian general is the antagonist. I did think through most of the movie that the unnamed general was supposed to be Ludendorff, until the last half hour or so. It was just so fascinating to see a German author tackle that subject, and I thought it was subtly and deftly done.
Welp, I dug it.
Blade runner completely deviates from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Does that make it a bad film? I see this discourse everywhere, and it will never not annoy me. A 2022 film can and should explore different themes and modes of storytelling than a book written in 1928. If you don't like it, fine, but don't discredit a fantastic film because it isn't a carbon copy of the original work it was based on
I found it offensive that it alluded to the idea that poor surrender conditions led to the racist genocide of WW2
Thank you! Parts of this film felt like a German PR campaign, but "You made us do [insert terrible thing]" is never a good look!
I know this is an old comment, but it’s asinine to imply that the Treaty of Versailles had no part in the creating the power vacuum where the Nazis were able to seize control of the country.
I agree. I understand, and I have argued in other occasions, that an adaptation doesn't have to be a straight transposition of a novel, but drastically change the scene that gives the title to the novel makes a bad adaptation.
Hard disagree. 1. I think there is a good argument here that the political perspective distracts from what could have been a more thorough exploration of Paul's experience, but this is not it. The juxtaposition of the distant, luxury-filled politicking reinforces how divorced the heads of state are from the reality of the combat being waged. Everything is about honor and pride, with the exception of Erzberger, not the humanity being lost in horrific ways. 2. I would have loved if the movie could have fit more of Paul's school life/pre-war life into the story, as well. But I think the movie effectively demonstrates Paul's transformation throughout the war. Paul at the beginning of the movie is very different from Paul in the middle of the film, who again is very different from the rage-filled nihilistic Paul at the end of the film. 3. I'm with you on this point. If cutting the political perspective would have made room for Paul's return home story, then I 100% think that would have made the movie better. 4. There was a flood of rats fleeing the trenches when the tanks rolled in, so yeah. I think the portrayal of life on the front was authentic, if not accurate. An artillery bombardment drove Paul's comrade mad and killed another. They spent time bailing out trenches of rain water. There was plenty of down time where they just talked or went in search of food. They were desperate for letters from home. Trench combat was brutal and close quartered. Sure, the depiction of tanks and flamethrowers is exaggerated, but these things did exist and its important for a modern audience to understand how horrifying the war could be. I think that's an understandable creative decision whether you like it or not. 5. I get that this is a huge departure from the book, but it's not inauthentic nor counter to the book's values. Thousands of soldiers died on the morning of the last day of combat (not from a dramatic suicide charge, but more from the daily grind of frontline attrition), so showing a lot of troops being killed in the closing moments isn't a misrepresentation of the war. Also, I'm not sure how you can watch that last battle and feel it was being depicted as valiant in any way. It's Paul resigning to his hopeless situation and a fated death in combat. He's got nothing but rage and despair. The soldiers literally check the time before they go into combat, seeing how long they have to last before the war ends. No one wants to do what they're doing except for the jingoistic military commander who wants to save face. In other words, common soldiers' lives are being spent to callously satisfy the whims and desires of distant leaders. I think that's totally in line with Remarque's work. Non-stop action? That is a gross mischaracterization of the amount of battle scenes that happened in this movie. Aside from the artillery barrage, Paul is involved in, what, two battles?
Too many people are confusing bad adaptation with bad movie. Simply being different from the book isn't a valid criticism. I haven't read the book so I don't know how it is as an adaptation but as a movie it absolutely deserves the praise it's getting.
Exactly! Jurassic park is a bad adapation but a great movie.
As a German I see another problem this movie has that unfortunately many German movies these days have(we don't like our own movie culture and Germans usually mock the movies that are produced here). It's completely soulless. None of the characters is in any form engaging or interesting. Paul in this version is just a guy stumbling through a warzone for two and a half hours. I get that this was made intentional but the immersion just suffers after a specific runtime.
I very much agree with this take---OP raises a number of excellent points that have been rattling around in my own head whenever this film has been discussed and praised recently. I would say that there are some quality bits in it, and it's clear that they lavished attention on the combat sequences (IMO, the best part of the new version was the opening scenes of combat, and then the recycled uniform callback we get later), but I don't think it measures up to the older film versions or the original text. In my view, the 1930 version is still the best film version and the most faithful to the book. Faithfulness to the book is not necessarily a virtue, of course, but many of the clear and beautiful and tragic themes of the book are muddled in this latest version, if not completely lost for many of the reasons that OP lists. One other point: I believe I read something about how the creators of this latest version wanted to place the story in the very specific German historical perspective and context of the war, which is why they include the big-picture political narrative (which as OP notes, completely distracts from the actual story). But I think this German-specific approach also works *against* one of the most powerful things about more traditional versions of AQotWF: the universality of the message. The basic human archetypes that we meet in the book (and in the 1930 film version) could really be spawned from any nationality, and the basic dynamics could be drawn from nearly any war, which makes the story transcend those particulars. I would say that the somewhat recent movie "1917", while following British soldiers, hits a similar universal message; the larger political motivations behind the war are largely irrelevant to the story and to the struggles of the characters. This new version of AQotWF works hard to be historically specific (though oddly is not too worried about historical accuracy), which makes it less universal, and is detrimental to the story of Paul and his friends. I'm esp. glad that OP mentioned the ending! The epic battle in which Paul dies in this version completely undercuts the power of the title. Again, the poignancy of the simple ending of the book and 1930 versions resonate (to me, at least) in a far more profound and moving way.
There’s already the book and at least two other movie versions. I don’t know why anybody would want a straight ahead remake of those that doesn’t add anything. The filmmakers of this version have their own perspective and their own story to tell. That’s not the same as them missing the point.
Frankenstein, A Clockwork Orange, Carrie, The Shining, Blade Runner, The Thing, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, Adaptation, Children of Men, Coraline, Annihilation, Jojo Rabbit, every single superhero movie, etc, etc. All beloved. All adaptations that change the source material fairly significantly. I think the reason redditors are losing their minds and making daily threads about this adaptation is because many of them haven't actually read many books since high school. But All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the few books that you can guarantee almost everyone here has read at a formative age, so many redditors are experiencing the horrors of a loose adaptation firsthand for the first time and it's breaking their brains.
I agree with a lot of your takes, especially the mundane nature of some of the activities in the book, and leaving out Paul’s leave time. Ultimately I liked the movie a lot and I feel like it made a decision to focus on one or two themes of WW1 rather than just recreate the book. I love the book but I don’t know if I’d want to see a 1:1 screen adaptation. The movie was effective in showing the disconnect between the politicians/Nobel class who glorify war versus the youth who were quickly becoming disillusioned.
I was so disappointed Paul never went home. His decision to reenlist after finally escaping is the whole point of the story.
It wasn’t his decision. He was called back
He was conscripted, he didn't reenlist.
Or that his school teacher never got drafted and got his come uppance Or how watered down the close encounter with the frenchman was.
the movie is great on its own. just because it shares the same name with the book and isnt a 100% faithful adaptation doesnt mean it doesnt deserve praise. this is literary gatekeeping right here
[удалено]
This book has already been adapted multiple times, changing it up a bit was a good move. If you want to watch the other “more faithful” adaptions then you can do that
I’m just happy there’s a war movie that doesn’t glorify war. I never read the book but was moved by the movie.
Do you mean a new war movie that doesn't glorify war? Cause Hurt Locker was widely recognized not too long ago. Also Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, and Full Metal Jacket, among many many others exist for various conflicts.
I enjoyed the movie as it’s own thing, but it isn’t the book.
If a book/play/etc is adapted into another medium, and you expect it to be the same, I don't think you really know what you want. Every time you retell a story, you are telling it from your perspective. This is what storytelling is supposed to be. If you want the original story, then read the book; but even that might be different because your perspective of it might of changed. 14 year old you might of perceived this book differently than 40 year old you because your perspective has changed.
The film purposefully focuses on the toll wars have on the people actually being affected by wars: the soldiers, not the politicians. This is an anti war film and a brilliant adaptation of the book because it has a different focus. An adaptation doesn't have to be faithful. In fact, adaptation concerned with fidelity do not justify their existence in my eyes.
I thought there were some very powerful themes. Some of which I feel like you totally missed or glossed over. Is it a faithful adaptation? Arguably no. Doesn’t that make it a bad movie? Also arguably no. It still deserves praise. Especially the end. If you think the final battle was depicted as heroic or significant, then I think you missed the theme. The theme is clearly that his death was utterly pointless… the result of a glory-hungry out of touch general after the war was already over. I don’t see how you can get more pointless than that. I think it shares a similar theme as the original but a depicted differently. I disagree that it misses the point entirely… they are both exploring the pointlessness of war. In fact, I think the directors did give a poignant and intentional twist on the books title. His death literally happens on the day “the western front went quiet.” If you took a second to try and appreciate the movie on its own merits I think you could enjoy it a little more.
You make a lot of great valid points comparing the book to the new movie. However, if you had never read the book and saw the movie would you consider it well done? If the movie had another title and the characters names changed (so it wouldn’t be compared to the book), would you like the movie? I can hate on a lot of movies and shows which are “not as good as the books” but long ago I started accepting they are two different things. The author wrote the book he didn’t direct/write/act in the movie. At the end of the day I judge movies based on their own merit. That being said, does the movie deserve praise? Imm
"Paul dies in a valiant last-stand" Sounds like you watched an entirely different movie or you came in with preconceived notions about the film before you even saw it.
Character follows the same arc as the book. Can't you just let a good movie be a good movie?
I prefer the ‘79 tv movie version
I thought showing the leaders in their gaudy dining rooms and fancy accommodations was a great juxtaposition to the soldiers in the muck. Idk how you can say it is irrelevant to Paul, he and all his friends died because some idiot made the decision to launch an attack despite knowing that the truce was coming. It helped to show how dehumanised the soldiers
Agreed. There were parts done well, but it basically misses the entire point of the book, especially the end. Pretty sure the praise it gets is simply for being a WW1 movie of which there are few.
All the negative reception from this movie comes from the fact that it’s not a good adaptation. I don’t understand why this is always a shock to people. There are very few movies that adapt books line for line. If you gave this movie a different title, I don’t think you’d see as much, if any, criticism of it. I think this was one of the best war movies in the last 15 years.
I haven't seen the film yet, but German critics are also frustrated. Check out these articles in [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jan/27/oscar-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-germany-critics) and [Slate](https://slate.com/culture/2023/02/all-quiet-western-front-netflix-movie-oscars.html).
[удалено]
Edward Berger, who wrote and directed the film, is also German. And he's done some [interviews](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/tiff-2022-edward-berger-interview-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-1235213231/) where he discusses some of the changes and his thought process. Personally I absolutely loved it. Is it different? A little yeah but it still very much captures the spirit of the novel, imo.
I've heard lots of divisive reactions to this one! I plan to watch before the Oscars, but as always, I'll try to go with an open mind.
I don't think the film did anything other films haven't already done, so your point is especially relevant
I'm with you. Especially his trip back home for time off and the COMPLETE disconnect he feels with the random non-soldier folks there. They seem like aliens to him. Especially the old 'home guard' douchebag going off about how cowardly the front line soldiers must be and that "if HE was young enough to be there, he'd show the enemy a thing or two and tell the officers what to do blah blah" and after reading the book and feeling what the main character felt, you actually kind of want him to punch that old guy in the mouth. But of course, if he DID do that, he'd be just another crazy veteran. So he doesn't. But it really helped illustrate the 'up is down. black is white.' feeling a soldier can have when he comes back 'home' to something that feels alien, clueless, naive, and almost offensive. Like, the movie has cool battle scenes and goes over the same 'battle is brutal' scenes that most war movies go through. But the book captures the mind-numbing drudgery, the hell of constant shelling, the periods of crushing boredom, the deadly dirtiness of the trenches, the randomness of some of the death, the completely surreal idiocy of the reasons for war when you're a soldier, the cruel emotional distance of the leaders who are far away from the front, and the disconnect of returning home. The movie didn't really do much of that, unfortunately. It was a well-made war movie, though.
Doesn’t matter tbh still was a great film
Didn’t read the book but the movie is amazing and made a huge impact on me
You should really read the book. Only ~250 pages and widely printed, you could probably pick it up for a few bucks and read it in a weekend. Great piece of literature.
Doesn't matter, I enjoy the movie and i praise it and will recommend it to other people. It's a good movie.
one thing i disliked about it is how it completely neglegted the horrors of gas. 2 scenes only mention it, the bomb falling in the start where everyone puts on their mask, its a false alarm - and the dead company they search later on, which they find already dead and the cause (they were inexperienced and took off their masks too soon) is mentioned almost in passing.
I totally agree on all points. I was really looking forwards to this movie but i completely checked out at the massive flamethrower battle/tank scene. It’s a very decent WW1 movie. It’s a terrible adaption of All quiet on the Western front.
I’ve been on my soap box about point 3 since it came out. I was so confused as to why they missed this out