All Quiet on the Western Front - Netflix - Daniel Bruhl

Agent Coulson

Directed by Edward Berger based on the novel of the same name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqgmaO15x4&ab_channel=Netflix

Aisling(",)

Looks well made and high quality but I don't know if I can bring myself to watch another grim bit of misery.

pixelburp

I have read the book, so the trailer seems to have captured the crushing, constant misery of the frontlines of WW1; as Aisling says, not sure I could fashion the enthusiasm to surround myself with its misery. Even if it looks very visceral from that promotion, with some intense action set-pieces to punctuate the despair.

Tony EH

Wonder will it get a cinema release over here.

I'm always reluctant to look forward to anything war related in movies and TV shows these days because a lot of them turn out to be absolute trash. But that looks pretty good. Of course the 1930's movie is a great classic, even if you have to allow for its period trappings, and the television movie from the 70's with John Boy Walton was also very good too and well worth a watch. In fact I prefer it to the Lewis Milestone version.

Shred

Aye I watched the latter a long time ago and probably when I was much too young to do so (I think I was about 12 or so). It's stuck with me to this day, especially

Spoiler Warning

the ending.

pixelburp

I'd "worry" in an effort to counteract the "war is hell" angle, they'll overegg the action scenes and make them excessively cool and exciting - which would obviously defeat the point somewhat. Mind you, could just be how the trailer has been cut.

Slydice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119647819#Comment_119647819

Depends on Daniel Brühl I'd be guessing. I'd think he has a solid performance in him if he brings it.

Agent Coulson

Full trailer

Drops October 28th on Netflix and selected cinemas.

I am looking forward to watching this however I do think you would want to be in the right frame of mind to watch it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY&ab_channel=Netflix

pixelburp

Seems Kermode already had a chance to watch it, so had presumed the UK were already screening it in cinemas?

The good doctor himself was impressed with it; seems exactly as harrowing and impactful as you'd imagine, with some of the "action" set-pieces pretty intense. You get that from the above trailer with the tank.

Long time since I read the novel - looks like the Daniel Brühl character is a new insert, right? IIRC the book was 100% from the point of view of the soldier - there was nothing about negotiations and the civilian government pleading for a stop to the fighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPXWuctU2DU

Tony EH

Yeh. Everything is from the POV of Paul Baumer in the book.

I can't recall anything in it about governments talking about stopping the fighting though. The only major parts on the home front, IIRC, is when Paul is encouraged to enlist by his school master, who is full of jingoistic junk. He and his school mates do. Later when Paul is on leave, he encounters some old blokes blathering on about the war and how great it is to be involved, even though they have no idea what it's like at the front line.

SheepsClothing

It's playing in the Movies@ chain of cinemas at the moment, who seem to have got fully into bed with Netflix. They screened Blonde last month and have Wendell and Wild and The Good Nurse next week.

Homelander

Very good movie. In a lot of ways it's the movie I expected 1917 to be but was left disappointed.

Definitely worth seeing on the big screen if you can find time before it's gone. We're now 3 for 3 on movie adaptations.

Daniel Bruhl has a pretty minor role but scenes are good.

Level 5 Vegan

Caught it in the Lighthouse, enjoyed it well enough, powerful but not overly grim, worth the effort to see on a cinema screen.

pixelburp

Dropped today on Netflix.

KilOit

That was awful

Great movie but war is just brutal, no one wins

themandan6611

Grim would be an understatement. Fantastic movie showing war for what it is. The scene in the crater was one of the most riveting I can remember in a movie for a long time. Those poor boys, a special place in hell awaited the men who facilitated the butchery.

Decent watch but not enough plot and drama to get me really connected. You kinda know everything thats gonna happen in something like this. Nothing really new there, and characters i didnt grow to like or care for.

If a film maker can't make a decent movie out of a superb book like All Quiet on the Western Front then it's a failure of the film makers ability.

This film maker decides Erich Maria Remarques book is not good enough as it is, so it has to be jazzed up a bit.

It's a good movie but why bother hijacking the book to make another movie that isn't really about the book?

Here's a great novel, let's change it into what I want.

No, Phuck off. Make your own movie if you can but don't use the name of a great novel to get your own movie made.

McGrath5

So watched it last night - its intense and brutal in parts. Liked how they showed the contrast between the generals in comparable luxury versus the misery of their soldiers. I haven't read the book, but did the last battle actually happen were they fought right up till 11am on November 11th?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814948#Comment_119814948

The last major offensive on the Western Front was at Amiens in August. But there were skirmishes all along the front right up until the last day of the war. Thousands died on November 11th before the armistice.

Nigel Fairservice

All Quiet on the Western Front was one of the first grown up books I read as a teenager over 20 years ago so was looking forward to it when I saw the promos for the movie. It was a tough watch but got across the absurdity and horror of the war. The political element to the movie with Bruhl didn't take away from it I felt. I should probably give the book another read some time soon.

Homelander

Surprised to see it got an outright negative review on RogerEbert.

Tony EH

Haven't seen the movie yet, but that was a dreadful review. It spends more time talking about other films and at the end I was still none the wiser as to why the reviewer gave it just two stars.

SaoPaulo41

Absolutely brilliant, best release on Netflix in a long while

SaoPaulo41

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814948#Comment_119814948

Nearly 3000 Americans died on last day with final attack by them at about 10.50 they wanted to show that the armistice was on their terms.

The American army had a huge investigation to see why and what the point of final attacks were, but they were vindicated in investigation, as said a few lines up they wanted to show that they finished war on front foot.

Last official person killed was at 10.58 think he was a Belguim soldier killed by a snipper

The war continued in Namibia for about another 3 weeks as news didn't arrive for them to stop

Decent but doesn't deserve the highest plaudits either.

Something daring and modern like "Dunkirk" craps all over something like this fairly trite piece as an actual war movie imo.

One detail that struck me as completely dumb and jarringly over-contrived was the guy walking 50 yards into a forest just to go for a piss - rubbish.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119821890#Comment_119821890

You watched the whole movie and your biggest takeaway was somebody walking away for a private piss? Really?

I don't see what was modern about Dunkirk (which was great by the way) as it was made with traditional methods ie on film, cardboard cutouts instead of CGI.

They didn't show it but I'd be certain Kenneth Brannagh's character didn't just piss on the bridge he was standing on but I don't find it important.

I thought AQOTWF was excellent and totally captured the horrors and inanities of war and portrayed how the normal soldiers lost their lives for nothing whilst living in terrible conditions whilst Generals sat in luxury whilst making poor and deadly decisions.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815085#Comment_119815085

Some people died needlessly on the morning of the 11th just so they could have their 11/11/11 nonsense. They knew they had a deal before then.

Anyway looking forward to seeing this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119820266#Comment_119820266

You should read The Vanquished by Robert Gerwarth if you haven't already. Its about the parts of the world where 1918 wasn't the end of the war.

pixelburp

Utterly harrowing with barely any respite - but anything less and the whole point of the thing would have become redundant. The book, and thus the adaptation, had one job: to ram the audience's face in the mud and leave them without even a semblance of doubt just how hellish this war - and all war - often is for the grunts. The glorification of warfare in cinema has always has a very tricky, complicated relationship, too often prone to excitement and bombast; watching this reminded how openly distasteful it can be when movies make warfare look cool.

But equally, there were moments of genuine warmth and empathy between the doomed souls. Again, Hollywood tends towards its male protagonists hardened with stoicism and bravado - men being "men" in the face of oblivion. Here instead were young boys and men scared, lonely and hungry - but they clung to each other for emotional support. There was a strange but understandable intimacy between the group, none of them ever chastising the others for their desperate eccentricities or obvious terror masked with trivial moments of normalcy.

The tank scene wasn't from the book IIRC, but damn if it wasn't a moment of low key, visceral horror. I think it should have gone on for longer, but it was a testament to the film that as goofy as those old school machines look, they were rendered as terrifying behemoths to the poor bastàrds caught in their tracks. Who wouldn't freak out with those coming towards you?

As to the diplomacy scenes, and those at the General's mansion? I actually thought they worked. Was prepared to find them all a bit tedious, but the book somewhat expected its reader to be aware of the context in which WW1 started - and was precipitated. We needed that reminder at just how contemptuous of their soldiers those at the top of the food chain were - on all sides. Some moments verged on parody - such as the little scene with the stale croissants - but by and large wasn't overplayed; the couple of uses of the Kuleshov Effect relatively restrained.

Ultimately, this adaptation remains a solid reminder why the book must be constantly updated, adapted; because each generation must be told in no uncertain terms both the cost of the war, and to detest those who'd either seek, prolong or even celebrate it. I still think there's room for Adventures During War such as personal favourite, Kelly's Heroes.

riffmongous

I was really looking forward to this but didn't enjoy it, parts felt a little melodramatic to me for what should be a serious movie.. plus we actually saw very little of life in the trenches.. Instead of the crushing misery and awful conditions we got a few action scenes and them hanging around behind the front, disappointing

silverharp

there was one scene in the 70's movie where the soldier on leave comes across a bunch of old timers playing war games at a cafe table and you can tell he is disgusted by it. I was hoping for a similar scene in this film. Overall a very good movie , the recycled uniforms got me

and for a random criticism , I dont think it was snowing in France on the 11/11 , I doubt it ever snows that early in western europe

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1458812104136433664

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822879#Comment_119822879

I think the depravity was captured in those action scenes; desperate, scared boys & men hacking at each other with shovels, dying caked in mud to the point they don't even look like people - you can barely tell what army they belonged to in some cases. While the camera was always making sure we could see the mud & (diseased?) standing water within the trenches, the rats scurrying about etc. - I think it did just enough to highlight how miserable trench life was. Not to mention the implied starvation causing them to rob French farmers.

The movie seemed more interested in showing the brittle camaraderie between the soldiers, which was a nice touch; the way they clung onto each other for a semblance of normalcy or companionship. Made each death impact more 'cos while we didn't exactly know each soldier's life story, we saw how desperate and needy they became for each other - just as other human beings.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822684#Comment_119822684

I did say that it was "one detail"

but of course it's very much facile to play that down as absolutely anyone having watched the film would know that this very one detail is more importantly used to contrive a key plot point at the climax of the film so yes in that context it's very jarring and contrived and effectively makes that plot-point so much more less effective, if not so diminished that it's totally ineffective for some

overall this film very much fails in the balance between character impact and sequence of action and plot and impact of same (imo)

the "18 months later" skip-job was too abrupt also - was not well executed

Dunkirk knocks it out of the park in comparison (in my opinion) by getting this balance far more right

More time is spent on building up and executing the key set pieces and the impact on the characters is far better observed, yet sill getting across the absolute chaos of War and the overall impact is far greater.

The way that Nolan constructs it by the end makes one realise how smart a move it was for him to focus on one key event in the war in terms of executing his vision

I was looking forward to "AQOTWF" 2022 but very much disappointed

The 1930 production is far superior I think that anyone actually having seen both would suggest that.

thefa

Haven’t seen any of the previous adaptations. Enjoyed it. Action scenes are done very well. Could have got to know some characters better but the run time is pretty substantial as is and the balance between the frontline and behind them breaks it up. Ending a bit predictable but well worth the watch. Always good to see decent war films being made.

cezanne

I liked it from the high spirits of them enlisting to the sad and dim reality of the trenches and the brutal un fairness of it all 13 million young men died, and 8 million horses some were the working horses off Irish farms and the officers horse were hunters all taken from the people and never returned those that lived sold for meat never brought home. Dogs and pigeons were also casualties so unnecessary and stupid.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822810#Comment_119822810

your last point was interesting but I dont think cinema can have that effect anymore if it ever could. There is also speculation that where the American military used to push messages in movies in the past, they have moved to gaming now, which sounds plausible at least.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831792#Comment_119831792

Well clearly the 1930 adaptation didn't arrest the spiral into what happened across the following 15 years, but there's still an important value to counter-cultural movies like this; the surest way for people to forget is to forget to adapt these kind of important novels. And if anything, something like Netflix has the ability to reach more eyeballs, more immediately than something constrained by cinema schedules might have struggled to achieve - especially when muscled out by Blockbusters as modern cinemas tend to be.

For sure gaming is where the money is flowing, from those who might lobby the "Fun" of war aspect, but there are changes happening, albeit slower. Indie gaming is rife with attempts to explore the meaning and consequence of violence - with the concept of interactive placing games in a unique place to emphasise the brutality of war & violence.

Both the 1929 book and the 1930 film were quickly banned in Nazi Germany - hardly surprising the impact wasn't that great there!

It's initial release was heavily disrupted, the original film heavily cut then banned.

Indeed, the Nazis had a call on what should go into and not in terms of Hollywood films.

Good article here on the above and the pandering of the Hollywood industry to the Nazis.

Ironic given the heavy Jewish representation there

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/hollywood-nazi-urwand

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party opposed the film’s message, and successfully banned the film from German cinemas. Although an edited version was allowed to play briefly in 1931, the film was removed from circulation once more after the Nazi party rose to pwoer in 1933. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the film was allowed once more; it was also banned in Austria, France, and Italy.

GBXI

Wow. The movie is superb. But it is the bleakest thing I have ever seen on screen. Had to look away a few times.

I know it's all opinions but to the person comparing this Dunkirk, it's just plain wrong. Dunkirk was all visuals and atmosphere, a movie made for the cinema that you will largely forget in a few years. AQOTWF will stay with me for the rest of my life. It also does a much better job of driving home the utter wastefulness of life that war causes. If anyone is planning to watch it, do so in German with English sub-titles - watched the first 5 minutes in English and it's awful.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120059531#Comment_120059531

For a remake that isn't near as good as the version made in 1930 this movie is never going to stand any test of time.

pixelburp

"Problem" with the 1930 film is that of all films of that era and a necessity to pull its punches and iconography a little. It's often the case and I think it's good to remake these films as the medium of cinema evolves; it's an important story and one worth refreshing for each passing wra

Whilst an invention by the filmmaker's, there's no way something like the tank sequence could have happened in the 30s version - not without heavy censoring and sanitisation. That scene was like something from a horror film.

As to Dunkirk, I think it and Tenet were a case of Nolan more interested in the construct of the film than the story within it. Having an idea and seeing if he could make it fly, rather than that yearning of the spectacle directors who wanted to tell a tale about common heroism.

GBXI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065083#Comment_120065083

I haven't seen the 1930s version though have heard good things. In fairness, I'd say that is hyperbole given that a movie made in the 1930s is nearly 100 years old. Even the technology used now makes this version more real - the visuals are still incredible even in comparison to Dunkirk. I'd say it will stand the test of time. 7.8 on IMDB, 90%/91% on RT, expected to be nominated for best international picture at the Oscars, amongst other awards.

War basically pits two impersonal organisations of armed men against each other and the reality of it is that individual heroism does not determine the outcome.

That's why many war movies are twaddle.

That's also why Dunkirk is superior in that regard.

In the case of the 1930 movie in this example, actual German War Veterans were engaged in its cast and as technical advisors and is closer to the book which was written by a German war veteran and based more on a dramatization of what happened in the war.

The 2022 version conforms to modern war movie expectations and also leaves out some significant ideas of the book such as getting leave to return home to demonstrate how the characters didn't relate to normal life anymore which is a key part of the book and the 1930 movie in terms of the war experience.

There was no crazy final assault order either in either the book, original film or in the actual war but which was a key part of the recent film.

The modern version has the advantage of technical aspects including the dubious at times CGI but the 1930 work was ground-breaking in scale and production and still holds up.

To be in a position to judge you have to have seen both.

Slydice

Gave this a watch. Thought it was well made.

Good performance from the lead Felix Kammerer as Paul Bäumer

Also, of course, Daniel Brühl put top effort into his role, as small as it was.

For some reason, I thought I'd seen a film like this when I was younger. One that had me feeling mostly sad at the end.

I don't think it was the 70s version of this though. It did have a scene where new recruits turned up after the main character had been through a lot of his own story.

bodhrandude

I enjoyed this but I felt the 2022 version missed a crucial scene in the 1930 one, one of the soldier's gas mask malfunctions during a gas attack. This should have been retained for the current version as Its one of the few things that stuck with me from the 1930s version. The current one did show one of the soldiers go into a building where he spotted lots of bodies and it transpires that the dead people took of their gas masks too soon but it didn't have the same effect as the original.

GBXI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066452#Comment_120066452

You said the 2022 version won't stand any test of time and I am saying it absolutely will - no matter what standing the 1930 version is held in. Many movies don't stay tight to the source material but it doesn't stop them being effective. Again, as someone above mentioned, Dunkirk is all about visuals and atmosphere - like a self-indulgent director. This movie is much more hard-hitting and memorable.

pixelburp

Whether this 2022 version stands the test of time may come down to something as prosaic as: what happens it and other movies if/when Netflix go bust?

Film Preservation in a digital streaming age is a legitimate question-mark hovering over these kind of productions; they never get any physical release - sometimes barely even receiving a cinematic one - so the only place they exist are on the servers of a proprietary digital service that is more ephemeral than any other medium that came before it.

donaghs

It’s a good film. But wasn’t amazed by it.

Having read the book, and seen two decent film adaptations of the book, I thought it deviated from the source so much they could have called it something else.

its worth watching. A lot of the post-war generations of Germans raised on the book apparently aren’t happy with it though

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/jan/27/oscar-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-germany-critics

donaghs

The final German attack before the armistice as shown at the end appears to be fictional, which if true, is a bit annoying.

Not only in that it’s historically inaccurate, but that the film makers feels “the message” is more important than the historical events.

Flinty997

I thought it was above average. It looks great, and there are some good scenes. I didn't really warm to any of the characters until very late in the movie and at that point there wasn't enough time to really get invested in them. I think history is dramatic and interesting and damming enough on it's own without having to invent stuff.

Like the recent Dunkirk telling a story in pieces is all very arty. But you lose the bigger picture. I think old movies sometimes were better at telling the bigger story and placing the character place in it..