All Quiet on the Western Front, Netflix version

[TullochArd]

Watched it this afternoon. 

Besides being incredibly long and drawn out it is, in my view, far too over-worked in order to suit today's Netflix audience. I was particularly struck by the (german/english dubbed) hard-bitten Kat character using the infantile expletive "flipping" as one obvious example. 

To start the inevitable critical analysis ball rolling I'll offer:

• Saluting without hats - very American and not very European.
• RN representatives at the pre-Armistice negotiations already wearing their 14-18 War Medal ribbons - a little premature.

........in the very unlikely event you havn't read the book - read it rather than watching this - the film adds nothing to the impact and substance of the original text.

Edited 28 October , 2022 by TullochArd

[doyle3]

after recent dire WW1 and WW2 films I really enjoyed watching this. Definitely plan to watch it again.

[egbert]

Pretty good film, except the ordered attack 15 minutes before armistice. Ordered by the general (brigade?) - Bn/Co/Platoon/soldiers would have opposed to be the last assured dead.

@TullochArd the saluting w/o hats happened a lot. I did when on tacsite  or barrack grounds where hats are not required to wear. I guess the lines were fluent in the 4th year of war

[AOK4]

I watched it with some relatives (interested in WWI but not die-hards as I). We all agreed the movie lacked very much in comparison with the previous versions: There is absolutely no emotional connection with any of the characters and there are plenty of absurd plot lines.

 

[DuncanBro]

The French farmer taking potshots at German soldiers seemed unrealistic to me. Surely any occupied French areas would be under German military control and any civilians shooting at German soldiers would have been arrested and executed? Also, wouldn't their food have been confiscated by the occupying Germans?

Bit that annoyed me was the guy reading the names, date of birth and home town off the dead soldiers dogtags. German dogtags weren't named that way. They had the soldiers regiment and a serial number; the number cross-referencing to the log of recruits kept at the Regiment's depot back in Germany. There's a really interesting YouTube video just on that subject.

[AOK4]

11 minutes ago, DuncanBro said:

The French farmer taking potshots at German soldiers seemed unrealistic to me. Surely any occupied French areas would be under German military control and any civilians shooting at German soldiers would have been arrested and executed? Also, wouldn't their food have been confiscated by the occupying Germans?

Bit that annoyed me was the guy reading the names, date of birth and home town off the dead soldiers dogtags. German dogtags weren't named that way. They had the soldiers regiment and a serial number; the number cross-referencing to the log of recruits kept at the Regiment's depot back in Germany. There's a really interesting YouTube video just on that subject.

The collecting of dog tags and making lists of casualties in this movie is portrayed ridiculously unrealistic. All civilians were already forced to hand in any firearms in 1914. Possession of firearms was subject to serious punishments (years of imprisonment).

[charlie2]

13 minutes ago, DuncanBro said:

Bit that annoyed me was the guy reading the names, date of birth and home town off the dead soldiers dogtags. German dogtags weren't named that way. They had the soldiers regiment and a serial number; the number cross-referencing to the log of recruits kept at the Regiment's depot back in Germany. There's a really interesting YouTube video just on that subject.

I think you are getting WW1 and WW2 dogtags mixed up.

 

[AOK4]

Anyway, the dogtag scenes were a bad copy-paste from "Saving Private Ryan".

[DuncanBro]

2 hours ago, charlie2 said:

I think you are getting WW1 and WW2 dogtags mixed up.

 

Ohh, OK 👍 

[knittinganddeath]

It's been great to read your reviews, please keep them coming! Despite having eagerly counted down the days since making the first post in this thread, I haven't seen it yet. I might give it a go in the spring; right now it is way too dark here to voluntarily plunge myself into that kind of cinematography and story.

[AOK4]

I was able to watch it on a big screen (my nephew has a beamer and large white screen). Technically it was enjoyable, but as I said, the content is way below the standard of the other two movies of this epic book.

[DuncanBro]

I seem to be in the minority in not liking the book, gave up half way through. May be I got an old translation which didn't do it justice.  Best books in my opinion are Storm of Steel, Her Privates We, Undertones of War, and Siegfried Sassoon's trilogy. 

[GWF1967]

 One minute it’s certain death to show your head above the parapet; everybody runs into a shelter to escape from a barrage, the shelter collapses, then men freely walk upright along both the parapet and parados as the casualties are dug out. 
2 hours of fromage. 
 

[TullochArd]

3 hours ago, GWF1967 said:

2 hours of fromage. 

Yes........ actually 2 hours 27 minutes of fromage.  I found the repetitive "pigeon eye"vertically shot drone scenes, with their carefully placed bodies and dubious detritus, detached and lacking in perspective and therefore personal engagement........but they saved the Netflix budget the cost of any expensive wide angle ground level shots at eye level.

Edited 30 October , 2022 by TullochArd

[GWF1967]

6 hours ago, TullochArd said:

Yes........ actually 2 hours 27 minutes of fromage.  

2 hours of fromage with a particularly thick 27 minute rind. 

Edited 30 October , 2022 by GWF1967

[Steven Broomfield]

The fanboys on FB have been positively orgasmic about this, but Mrs Broomfield has commented that she's read a few less-than-complimentary reviews. We're aiming to give it a go this evening: at least it can't be as bad as 1917 ... can it? Or as bad as the dross Netflix usually serves up; four-square aimed at the lowest common denominator.

[egbert]

anyway, better than 1917

[FROGSMILE]

The battle scenes were good in some parts, but the film was summed up for me by the latrine scene, where ‘Kat’ sprang up from doing his business, immediately hauled up his trousers, and stalked off without any attempt to clean himself.  In short, a load of 💩

I don’t wish to be unkind to a film that made great efforts to bring a classic WW1 story to a modern generation, but I agree with earlier comments that it doesn’t come close to matching the earlier versions, most especially the original. 

Edited 31 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[knittinganddeath]

On 29/10/2022 at 14:19, AOK4 said:

There is absolutely no emotional connection with any of the characters

This seems to be something of a theme among the reviews in this thread, and now that you've mentioned it, I think there are hints of this even in the trailers. Perhaps this is why I've been putting it off.

[FROGSMILE]

28 minutes ago, knittinganddeath said:

This seems to be something of a theme among the reviews in this thread, and now that you've mentioned it, I think there are hints of this even in the trailers. Perhaps this is why I've been putting it off.

It’s not helped by the fact that the screenplay doesn’t show any background to the characters beyond the early scenes portraying them at gymnasium/high school.  Nothing about parents, siblings, social class, characters/personalities, it just launches straight into enlistment, and so you never get the chance to engage and feel a connection with any of them.  Late in the dialogue there’s an attempt to explain Kat’s family background (he has a comely wife and lost their child to disease), but by then it’s far too late. 

Edited 31 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[AOK4]

9 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

It’s not helped by the fact that the screenplay doesn’t show any background to the characters beyond the early scenes portraying them at gymnasium/high school.  Nothing about parents, siblings, social class, characters/personalities, it just launches straight into enlistment, and so you never get the chance to engage and feel a connection with any of them.  Late in the dialogue there’s an attempt to explain Kat’s family background (he has a comely wife and lost their child to disease), but by then it’s far too late. 

My idea as well, FROGSMILE.

And some of the scens from the book/previous movies just seem thrown in to justify the title. The field kitchen scene has no use at all in the new version, as well as the discussion about the war or the stupid woman's scarf that is passed on (why on earth would any soldier want that rag? Good boots on the other hand).

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, AOK4 said:

My idea as well, FROGSMILE.

And some of the scens from the book/previous movies just seem thrown in to justify the title. The field kitchen scene has no use at all in the new version, as well as the discussion about the war or the stupid woman's scarf that is passed on (why on earth would any soldier want that rag? Good boots on the other hand).

Yes I totally agree, far too much superfluous ‘padding’ in an attempt to create something new and remarkable from a classic old screenplay that needed no alteration.  Conversely, even now if I watch the original film, despite its black and white, I am every time deeply moved by its pathos.

Edited 31 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[AOK4]

4 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes I totally agree, far too much superfluous ‘padding’ in an attempt to create something new and remarkable from a classic old screenplay that needed no alteration.  Conversely, even now if I watch the original film, despite its black and white, I am every time deeply moved by its pathos.

The black and white version remains the best indeed.

[DuncanBro]

With regards to previous comments on the no man's land scenes, the frontline barbed wire looked too flimsy to me. Thought by that stage of the war there were vast hedges of the stuff, not just a few strands here and there. Never seen a film where no man's land looks particularly authentic though.

[AOK4]

18 minutes ago, DuncanBro said:

With regards to previous comments on the no man's land scenes, the frontline barbed wire looked too flimsy to me. Thought by that stage of the war there were vast hedges of the stuff, not just a few strands here and there. Never seen a film where no man's land looks particularly authentic though.

I guess it wouldn't be "dramatic" or "sensational" enough to show a real no man's land or even a real attack (and not the huge bunch of soldiers just running like headless chickens towards the other side and then engaging in the ever present bayonet stabbing).