blisard
The battle scenes were how I imagine it was. It's hard to capture the horror, but you could almost feel the fear. The naive people at home is realistic due to propaganda from the state media. To go to all the trouble of this great movie, and then put the wrong armistice date at the end was regrettable. There was still heavy fighting on Oct 11. Nov 11 was Armistice Day.
ArizonaKnightWolf
One of the best war movies of all time, if not one of the best movies of any kind, is the 1930 version of Erich Maria Remarque's excellent novel, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, featuring Lew Ayers. All remakes should be judged against that great film. As such, this remake, featuring Richard Thomas, comes close to matching the original in making a person think and feel about war in general, but somehow leaves the viewer a little flat in the end.There are some scenes which are underplayed in this remake. For instance, in the 1930's version, Corporal Himmelstoss is known to the recruits before the war and basic training as the town postman. This is a central point to there feeling about him and their treatment of him, both during boot camp and afterward. By not including this small fact, something is lost to the over point of the movie. In the original, Himmelstoss is a character whose actions, especially during training, allow the viewer to feel more deeply towards him, and helps explain his actions on the field of battle later on.Towards the beginning of the film, Paul is explaining that it is a good day because they have each received double rations. In the 1930 version, the reason behind the double rations is more evident and poignant.But for these small drawbacks, this is still one hell of a good film, and should be seen by all war movie fans, and even fans of novel from which it was made.
TheLittleSongbird
I saw this film at school, and was very impressed. I don't think it is quite as good as Regeneration, one of the few movies when it was better than the book, or as powerful in emotion as the 1930s film. I haven't read the book by Remarque, but my best friend has, and tells me it is very good. Anyway the film is beautifully shot, and truly does have a powerful conveyance of the first world war, with the personification of the guns, and the memorable dialogue. The acting was what made the film. Ernest Borgnine was the star of the film, with a firm but rather fatherly portrayal of the superior, very reminiscent of Osborne in the play "Journey's End". I liked Ian Holm too. But for me, the biggest surprise was Richard Thomas in the lead. His performance was more than decent, though I confess I actually don't like Thomas that much!(I hate the character of John Boy Walton) All Quiet on the Western Front not only shows the physical conditions of WW1 but also the psychological and emotional aspects, that some WW1 literature forget to convey. In conclusion, a thoughtful and harrowing film, though not quite as good as the 1930s classic. 9/10 Bethany Cox.
kefferpgh
This movie I would definitely have to say is not one of my favorites. For me it wasn't authentic enough to what I thought it should bed. For example, the Germans don't even have German accents! That doesn't even make sense! They sounded like Americans. Even if they don't speak German they could at least try to have one. That is why they call it acting. Another reason is it just wasn't exciting. I mean you could at least spruce it up a little bit. I almost fell asleep through some of it. Even if they didn't have great technology back then they could at least do something to make it more real. It didn't seem authentic enough or real enough and that's what killed it for me.
AD
