All Quiet on the Western Front
Paul Baumer and his friends Albert and Muller, egged on by romantic dreams of heroism, voluntarily enlist in the German army. Full of excitement and patriotic fervour, the boys enthusiastically march into a war they believe in. But once on the Western Front, they discover the soul-destroying horror of World War I.
- Released: 2022-10-07
- Runtime: 147 minutes
- Genre: Action, Drama, War
- Stars: Felix Kammerer, Albrecht Schuch, Aaron Hilmer, Edin Hasanović, Devid Striesow, Daniel Brühl, Moritz Klaus, Sebastian Hülk, Anton von Lucke, Michael Wittenborn, Luc Feit, Andreas Döhler, André Marcon, Tobias Langhoff, Adrian Grünewald, Thibault de Montalembert, Nico Ehrenteit, Wolf Danny Homann, Charles Morillon, Jakob Schmidt, Peter Sikorski, Sascha Nathan, Alexander Schuster, Michael Stange, Joe Weintraub, Daniel Kamen, Markus Tomczyk, Dominikus Weileder, Michael Pitthan
- Director: Edward Berger
Comments
- WeAreBrainPolice - 2 June 2024
Good, but misses the point
I have to question why the title of Remarque's novel was used for this film. I cannot overlook that this is the third film adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front, and unfortunately the weakest version of the three.
Disappointingly, this film writes out so much of the source material to such a degree that it threatens the themes central to Remarque's book. Present in the first two adaptations but almost non-existent in the present was the main ensembles' lives before the war. While mundane, these portray their innocence before it was taken away by war. Removed too was when Paul returned home on leave, changed by the war and alienated from his former life. This version seems occupied only by the spectacle and realism they could create in its combat scenes. Horrific sure, but the losses of characters are less impactful when the audience knows far less about them, if anything at all.
Even more confusing were the decisions to add entirely new scenes. The only purpose of showing the armistice negotiations appears to be to engage in historical revisionism by painting the French as merciless, unreasonable villains driven by revenge and the German ambassadors as desperate peacemakers concerned with limiting bloodshed. It was also deemed necessary for whatever reason to have not one but two scenes of stealing food from a French farm, the second including an emotionless child that apparently had less qualms with killing that veteran soldiers. In one act of irreverence to the source material, the ending is outright replaced by yet another grandiose action scene. With all these revisions one has to wonder why not just make an original WW1 film if the book it is allegedly adapting is only an afterthought?
Despite all the critiques directed at how Remarque's work was interpreted-or in this case misinterpreted-here, the film did at least have engaging fight scenes. The action looked gritty and authentic to WW1. They succeeded in at least not glorifying war and death. Cast member went above and beyond in invoking terror and hopelessness by their verbal and physical acting talents. Had this been made apart from All Quiet on the Western Front, comparisons would be unnecessary and I would have far less qualms with it. But it was not and I just cannot place this above two far superior films and the book itself. - cknorton-82131 - 17 March 2024
A man is born alone, he lives alone, and dies alone.
Overall: 8.93
A beautiful looking, visually captivating, and dreadfully enthralling war movie. The film makes a point from the opening of depicting the cyclical nature of life and war. It also lets you know you are in for a tough watch. Everything is top notch from the battlefield design, costumes, prosthetics, visual effects, editing and the unique deeply unnerving and effecting score. This is cinema and World War I storytelling at some of its finest. What takes the film a step further is the setups for brutal twists, the excellent behind the scenes look at politics during that time, the constant reconnecting of thematic elements, scenes that make you relate to humanity in war, and all to a finale which does stamp itself as one of the better anti-war movies made. Hard to watch, but it should be, and masterfully done.
Top Genres - War, History, Action, Drama Fiction/Nonfiction - Fiction Runtime - 2:28
Genre(s) rating -War: 9 -History: 9 -Action: -Drama: 9
Genre Average Score: 9 Directing: 9 Cinematography/lighting: 9 Story/Narrative: 9 Structure: 8 Dialogue: 9 Score(music): 9 Editing: 9 Acting: 8 Characterization: 9 Mise en Scène/Visual Design: 9 Visual Effects: 10 Costumes/Makeup: 10 Lasting Impact: 9 Originality: 8
Overall: 8.93
Setting, Conflict, Character, Dialogue, Theme, Plot, and Climax: A
Audience Engagement (do you feel runtime): No. - ElMaruecan82 - 10 January 2024
A Gritty Examination of Sacrifice and Futility
The 2022 adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" (or remake of the 1930 Best Picture Winner) seamlessly aligns itself with the illustrious tradition of German war movies that eschew patriotic zeal in favor of unfiltered realism. Much like its predecessors, such as "Das Boot" and "Der Untergang," Edward Berger's film dives headfirst into the stark reality of war, focusing on the intimate struggles of soldiers ensnared in the grim trenches during the twilight of World War I.
Told from the perspective of a once-idealistic young soldier named Paul (Felix Kammerer) the narrative unfolds as his whole promotion gets decimated against the backdrop of the war's waning days, where every passing minute is both a hard-fought victory over impending fate and a poignant reminder that survival hangs by the thinnest thread. The film adeptly captures the visceral horror not just in the act of death itself but in the constant, gnawing anticipation of it. As long as the war persists, the specter of mortality looms, rendering any momentary reprieve temporary at best.
The element of time becomes a palpable and terrifying presence, echoing the sentiments of "Das Boot." Every tick of the clock serves as a grim countdown, underscoring the film's central theme - that until the war concludes, the true end is elusive. This emphasis on time, and the relentless march toward an uncertain future, adds a chilling layer to the narrative, amplifying the fear that saturates the lives of a generation sacrificed to the old-school ambitions of Europe. A standout scene featuring an old general (David Striesow) harks back to Erich von Stroheim's role in "Grand Illusion," aptly encapsulating the demise of a system blinded by nationalistic and military ideals that shaped the WW1 massacres, in fact, the title "Grand Illusion" could be a fitting alternative although it didn't take long for the young soldiers to lose their idealism.
The film boasts a cast of young, relatively unknown German actors who, born a century after their wartime counterparts, embody the tragic legacy of those who fought under atrocious conditions. In particular, Kammerer's ability to convey the emotional toll of war through subtle expressions and powerful moments elevates the viewing experience. The contrast between his intense blue gaze and the bleak, muddy landscape serves as a visual metaphor for the internal and external struggles faced by the character torn between his youthful naivety and the reality of war, while the cooler, more experienced and confident brother-in-arm Kat (Albert Schuch) serves as a stark contrast with his practical nature, resourcefulness and ability to scavenge for supplies in the midst of conflict. Ultimately, Paul, Kat and the others navigate the psychological torture of war, from youthful idealism to the harsh realities of the trenches - a poignant portrayal of a generation caught in the crossfire of history.
And against the backdrop of the ceasefire's imminent signing, the film masterfully captures the agony of the last four days of a war that witnessed relentless death. The trench warfare, portrayed with unflinching detail, symbolizes the pointlessness of life in the face of a conflict where gaining a few centimeters meant the sacrifice of thousands, as a stark reminder of the futility of World War I, a conflict orchestrated by old-school imperialists who failed to grasp the changing times.
James Friend's cinematography contributes significantly to its narrative impact. The visuals, much like its German war film predecessors, craft an immersive and visceral experience. The trench sequences are hauntingly authentic, capturing the grim reality faced by soldiers and underlining the film's overarching themes of sacrifice and the relentless passage of time,, succeeds in elevating the film from a historical drama to a visceral and emotionally charged exploration of the human cost of war. And a skillful use of silence after the battles enables the audience to grasp the profound impact of war on the characters, making the silent moments a powerful tool for conveying the horrors of the Western Front. The absence of background music during moments of death and agony intensifies the gravity of the depicted scenes, allowing the audience to feel the weight of the characters' experiences.
I guess In a world where the memory of historical events can fade, "All Quiet on the Western Front" (2022) serves as a crucial cinematic vessel, delivering a timeless message about the importance of peace and the human toll of armed conflict. It stands out as a great film experience that resonates with its audience on both emotional and intellectual levels. - crihancosmin - 8 January 2023
One of the best anti war movie ever made
Some call it generic. Some call it not faithful to the book. Some says it's missing the point. This is one of the best antiwar movie that was ever made. All the bad reviews here speaks about the book or the film from 1930. All those reviews are missing the point. The reviewers in question are nothing but stupid americans who only like films about war heroes. I am so angry with the bag reviews. How can this movie have only this rating? Just plain stupid. Just stupid!
From the beginning to the end it's an enjoyable piece of cinema who really puts you in our character's shoes. You feel the ugly You feel the horror You fell the pain!
Just disappointed with all the bad reviews. Stupid ...just stupid. - benpulford-82589 - 5 January 2023
A bit of a hollow tale
I know the original of this film, etc. But - it's a strange tale because all the way through this film and the original, I didn't care at all for any of the characters or their plight. It's a tale from start to finish of ... well if you don't like it, then why did you start it ... ? This is the only 'message' I get from this story. I don't even agree with the sentiment that innocent youngsters are/were 'suckered' into taking part in warfare and are/were innocent victims. No they aren't/weren't. Everyone has a brain and free will and no one has to do evil because their state says they must. There are always more of the 'people' than there ever is of the state. I believe this status is what youngsters call today 'simps' - and this for me, is ultimately what this story is about. Sorry. - themightykazoo-30763 - 1 January 2023
Pretty good
I didn't understand why the main character wasn't a disabled trans black woman. I liked the movie but where were the trans black lesbians that should have been there.
I know from my history class that all major battles have been fought and won by strong black trans disabled heroes yet the movies that depict them seem few and far between. A lot of people forget that the only reason WW1 went on so long was not because of things like trenches and machine guns but because of the black soldiers used by both sides.
Machine gun fire would bounce off these heroes unless the machine gun was manned by a woman.
This movie is great. Just wish it had paid a little bit attention to historical accuracy and depicted these strong fierce trans disabled non cis non hetero nonwhite lords of humanity.
You should watch this. - nasrhmzh - 28 December 2022
Hamza
This is not strictly-speaking an adaption of Erich Maria Remarque's classic. A few minor incidents from the novel are included, but Remarque's biggest contribution to this film is the title. Given the ending of the film (as opposed to the book) the title is somewhat misleading, but it's such a classic that the film-makers' decision is quite understandable.
This is a brutal and uncompromising study of the realities of war. The fact the the war depicted took place more than a hundred years ago doesn't make it any less relevant. It could be shown in Ukraine today, and soldiers on both sides would understand.
Nor is the film's anti-war message terribly new. It is, however, a message that needs to be repeated over and over again, until (maybe) enough people take it seriously.
The battle scenes are appallingly visceral - possibly the best of their type since the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
The history of any war is written by the winners, but that doesn't stop them being a tragedy for the poor grunts on the losing side as well.
364 out of 416 found this helpful. - gettyeisrael - 25 December 2022
Best I've Ever Seen
The most fascinating and believable war film I have ever seen, and the first to cause me to thoroughly study the political origins and implications of WW1. It's amazing how many people have died for the sake of white men's desire to own the Earth. Yet, they have not learned. In 2022, the US government passed a $858 billion defense bill to remain the top bully in the world. And what have we sacrificed to carry the biggest most lethal arm forces in the world. The US refuses to provide universal healthcare, maternity leave, increase minimum wage, and pay off student debt, an only a few major policies that would move this nation forward. - thivai-1 - 19 December 2022
Disappointing
I read the novel over 20 years ago as a teenager and don't remember much. I was afraid of watching the film because I remember it was gruesome and deeply depressing. I have become more sensitive and while I'm very interested in good anti-war-movies, the depiction of the emotional trauma and senseless deaths of soldiers has become more difficult to bear as I get older.
So I was hesitant to watch this, as I still remember that the book was hard to stomach. I was very impressed with "Bands of brothers" and was expecting something similar. It would have been a much better anti-war-movie had it been so, but despite the amount of gore, it was not (maybe lucky for me, but also disappointing).
Many have already mentioned many points of critique that I share. I didn't really feel for the soldiers because I had no grasp of who they were and what they wanted, thought, felt.
I have to give it 5 stars because the actors were great and the cinematography was flawless.
I want to add a bit of nit-picking that I have not seen anywhere else (spoilers ahead):
First, Kat's ending. I get that many soldiers in this situation don't care much whether they live or die. But Kat and Paul wanted to live, they made plans of what to do after the war. They knew the French farmer had a gun and would shoot at them if they try to steal from him. On the last day of war, why take such a risk for a bit of better food? Then they sit down for a rest close to the farm, where the homicidal farmer could still see/reach/find them, as if they were students on a field trip. They are so stupid that I don't even care that Kat get's shot.
Also these men sit next to each other while they defecate, but for taking a leak, Kat walks miles into the wood for some privacy? That was only for his demise to be even possible the way it came, which was stupid on top of stupid.
Now I was already angry at the movie for making me feel bad for their stupid, reckless decisions. Then comes the unlikely finale (I think historically totally fiction) with the last ditch attack on the French. I get that Paul is in shock because his friend died so senselessly (even more senseless than dying in combat).
But remember the scene with Duvet in the shell crater? I was made to believe that Paul realized that the other side's soldiers are just as much poor devils as the German soldiers are, who don't want to be there and kill boys that are just as young and afraid as themselves. Ok that was a bit rushed and frantic, but I got that Paul does not believe that murdering French is a worthy goal any more.
Now he becomes a mindless killing machine and wants to kill everyone who he encounters, no matter that the war will be over in 5 minutes? At that point, I was rooting for the French to take Paul out, which luckily they did.
It was a nice idea to have the new kid collect the dog-tags from dead bodies, so that Paul has come a full circle (sort of), but then the kid takes the scarf from Paul's body and forgets the dog-tag (maybe I saw it wrong). If I saw it right, that was just lazy.
One more thing that bothered me was the scene where a whole group of new soldiers died due to gas because they foolishly took off their masks too early. I find it hard to believe that not one single one saw that the others were dying/ suffering from the gas and decided to hang on to their masks just a little longer, just in case.
Also I would have expected that there would be some scenes with gas attacks and the effects of that. I feel like I remember that was a big theme in the book.
Also spoiler: The suicide with the fork scene also was way over the top and not believable to me. I get that many soldiers would be traumatized and think about suicide, but right in front of their comrades, in such a painful, disgusting way, I think that's very unrealistic.
I still could have liked it more, only I couldn't suspend my disbelief so much as to believe some of the senseless deaths. - jcxc - 12 December 2022
The modern WW1 movie we needed
As someone who didnt read the book or watch the original movie, I cant really do any sort of analysis on this film v previous works. But as a fan of war films overall, my thirst for a movie that captures the grittiness, dirtiness, and hopelessness of World War 1 has at last been quenched.
Notably - quenched in a way that 1917 did not satisfy.
While 1917 was a story that happened to take place in WW1, I never felt it was a "WW1 Story", or even a war story. It felt like a work of art first and a war movie second.
This movie on the other hand is a WW1 story first and foremost. The entire existence of these characters and their fate is bound in the circumstances that WW1; the decisions of just a few prideful monarchs and leaders, has brought upon them. There is no escape for these characters. The only victory is on an individual level, in surviving the fight until the final bell dings.
The common trope in war movies is to play with the good-guy bad-guy idea and just flip it on its head - "oh you thought America was the good guy but surprise look what these soldiers are doing to so and so, see everyone is bad, war is bad," etc etc.
What I like about this film is how the premise itself subverts that troupe, and we dont even have to put any thought into it from the get-go. We follow Germans after all, the aggressors, the typical "bad guys". We learn immedietly they are humans fighting humans. This of course is true of any historical war - but this wasn't just an aspect of WW1, it was the very nature of thing.
The "good guys" in this movie is not any one side, it is just the characters we know. We know them because they were chosen to be the subjects, there is no other reason, nothing else miraculous about them. They are interesting because we learn about them. And there is something kind of remarkable about that.
The movie falls short of spectacular for me on a couple points - the main one was the ending feeling a little "cheap" in how it was done. Wont elaborate any further to stay spoiler free. I know it needed to happen, just the cheap nature of it was not of my liking.
Secondly at times I felt maybe they leaned too heavily into the "Art" of the film: slow pans, framing, characters dramatically standing still for long periods- idk this one is harder to put my finger on, but there were times where I was just like "ok alright I get it".
Overall, I think this is a must see for any war fan film, no-brainer if you have seen the original.
