AQotWF Reviews and your other WW1 films

[harrytheheid]

WARNING
Both reviews include spoilers.

Short one.


Long one.

 

[Nap]

Hi Harry

I watched this and really enjoyed it , very graphic and very hard hitting IMO , good viewing ...with incredible effects .......

....I will watch again

Not fully like the book by Erich Maria Remarque .......I reread that before the film

Nap

 

[Martin64]

IMHO the film falls short in each of the following aspects: Plausible Action, historical correctness and transcription of the story of the novel.
Compared to the likewise historical incorrect drama of "The saving of Private Ryan" it is much harder to connect to the personality of the main character and his comrades and share their combat stress when every action can mean becoming a casualty to them. Where ever the scenes are set - at the frontline or in the rear area - the meticously researched uniforms and gear are covered with mud and blood... the German Infantry always attacks as a human wave without any artillery support - even till 15 minutes before the ceasefire on November 11th 1918 - utter BS - not to speak about just French and Germans negotiating the surrender of Germany at Compiegne and when the main character ist deployed 1917 to the front in Flanders he faces always till 1918 just Frenchies.... Last but not least the scenes of the novel that made it into the plot lack completely the atmosphere of the book or the previous films - the "reworked" end of Paul Bäumer at the moment of the ceasefire reminds me somewhat of the frog king dying in Shrek. In fact the title of this film is misleading - it just uses the names of some characters of the novel for the major part of the plot - "Western Front 1917/18" might have been a better title.
I nearly fully concur with the long critique shared by Harry above. The problem of this film is the story and not (that much) the action. Beside the naive view that war is pointless the film depicts the military leaders as mere brutal warmongers and the politicians of the social democrats as their victims that now have to bear the consequences of the military blunders and negotiate the surrender.
Whatever - some single scenes of the film might be an inspiration for modelling and worth a second look - but I will not spend another time watching the full length of this fantasy production.
My two cents
Cheers, Martin

 

[harrytheheid]

IMHO the film falls short in each of the following aspects: Plausible Action, historical correctness and transcription of the story of the novel.
Compared to the likewise historical incorrect drama of "The saving of Private Ryan" it is much harder to connect to the personality of the main character and his comrades and share their combat stress when every action can mean becoming a casualty to them. Where ever the scenes are set - at the frontline or in the rear area - the meticously researched uniforms and gear are covered with mud and blood... the German Infantry always attacks as a human wave without any artillery support - even till 15 minutes before the ceasefire on November 11th 1918 - utter BS - not to speak about just French and Germans negotiating the surrender of Germany at Compiegne and when the main character ist deployed 1917 to the front in Flanders he faces always till 1918 just Frenchies.... Last but not least the scenes of the novel that made it into the plot lack completely the atmosphere of the book or the previous films - the "reworked" end of Paul Bäumer at the moment of the ceasefire reminds me somewhat of the frog king dying in Shrek. In fact the title of this film is misleading - it just uses the names of some characters of the novel for the major part of the plot - "Western Front 1917/18" might have been a better title.
I nearly fully concur with the long critique shared by Harry above. The problem of this film is the story and not (that much) the action. Beside the naive view that war is pointless the film depicts the military leaders as mere brutal warmongers and the politicians of the social democrats as their victims that now have to bear the consequences of the military blunders and negotiate the surrender.
Whatever - some single scenes of the film might be an inspiration for modelling and worth a second look - but I will not spend another time watching the full length of this fantasy production.
My two cents
Cheers, Martin

I fully agree with every point you highlight Martin.
This movie is nothing like the book.
Although I don't expect book adaptations to 100% reflect the source material, this one simply makes too many changes to the original story and this results in most of the impact being lost.
Both previous movie releases are much better IMO.

EDIT
Yes, this latest version is certainly graphic and hard-hitting, but this doesn't make up for the flaws in the screenplay.
The original movie is the best, but John Boy Walton's effort isn't far behind.
Both bear repeated viewing -- but I think once will be enough for the new one.
As always of course, it's each to their own.

 

[Mirofsoft]

Not an adaptation of the book, but of the spirit of the books

Nobodies thrown in a war bonded by false sense of partriotism, honor and heroism, distilled in their mind by politicians ...
A jump from 1917 ( recruit ) to 1918 ( the end ) in a jump " Nothing New ..." but just the realisation that all have been trapped by their leaders in a stupid, non sense war just as bovine to slaughtershouse . The perfect quintescence of Remarque's book, just the same story story could be told with French, English, Africans, .....

 

[Larsen E. Whipsnade]

I haven't seen the Neflix AQotWF yet (I will this weekend) but I've seen the other three. I still think the original 1930 film is the best of the lot. Also if you haven't seen it, try watching The Trench "starring" Daniel Craig b4 he became Bond. It's the story of a group of British soldiers in the 48 hours leading up to the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Ir's not the (original) AQotWF but it's very good and well worth the time.
Rick

 

[Martin64]

I haven't seen the Neflix AQotWF yet (I will this weekend) but I've seen the other three. I still think the original 1930 film is the best of the lot. Also if you haven't seen it, try watching The Trench "starring" Daniel Craig b4 he became Bond. It's the story of a group of British soldiers in the 48 hours leading up to the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Ir's not the (original) AQotWF but it's very good and well worth the time.
Rick

The same goes for "Paths of glory" ...

 

[harrytheheid]

I haven't seen the Neflix AQotWF yet (I will this weekend) but I've seen the other three. I still think the original 1930 film is the best of the lot. Also if you haven't seen it, try watching The Trench "starring" Daniel Craig b4 he became Bond. It's the story of a group of British soldiers in the 48 hours leading up to the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Ir's not the (original) AQotWF but it's very good and well worth the time.
Rick

Yes, "The Trench" is a good movie.
Funny you mention Daniel Craig as I just finished watching "Defiance" for the very first time around 30-minutes ago.
Another good one albeit set in WW2.

The same goes for "Paths of glory" ...

A truly classic WW1 movie. One of Kirk Douglas' very best.

 

[harrytheheid]

Anyone who hasn't seen the new movie yet is in for a brutal glimpse into the almost unbelievable horror of WW1.
My reservations are nothing to do with the film itself, which is very well done, but more the blatant marketing and the overall script which bears only a passing resemblance to Enrique Remarque's book, or the 1930 and 1979 films. Someone decided to use both the title and familiar character names in order to "sell" the new film. I feel this was unnecessary as it's good enough to stand on its own merits.
As Martin suggests, I also think it would have been better to simply call it "The Western Front 1917/18"...and more honest
Am I being way to pedantic, indeed "picky"? Yes, undoubtedly so, but it probably reflects my personal disdain for the vast majority of the drivel churned out by Hollywood these days. Which is why I'll be re-watching "The Trench" from 1999 tonight, (with thanks to Rick for reminding me about that great little film).

On the topic of WW1 movies, a body could do worse than the often overlooked "Passchendaele" from 2008.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092082/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

The combat scenes are visceral - and they even find time to include a nod toward the legend of "The Crucified Canadian Soldier"; albeit actor Paul Gross' actions are somewhat unrealistically depicted, and it has to be said the imagery is obvious.


To me, this story has the unmistakable whiff of propaganda, or even just latrine myth, and I reckon the "Passchendaele" movie deserves credit for at least trying to handle it in a way that doesn't point fingers at the opposing German troops.

 

[Wayneb]

Interesting ..........I guess everyone likes a bit of attention.......even if they do like fantasy.

 

[harrytheheid]

Another gritty WW1 movie; from 1976 this time...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075627/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

 

[oldtrousers]

I'll second 'Aces High'. That is a fantastic WWI movie with great performances from Malcom McDowell and Christopher Plummer.

Scott

 

[harrytheheid]

I'll second 'Aces High'. That is a fantastic WWI movie with great performances from Malcom McDowell and Christopher Plummer.
Scott

Yes, it's a brilliant adaptation of "Journey's End"; and the entire cast did a good job.

WW1 isn't as well served as WW2 in Hollywood, but when one from The Great War does get released, it's usually well worth watching - and I include those made in the 1920's/1930's.

 

[harrytheheid]

Hmm, I wonder if this thread ought to be about WW1 movies in general?
Looks like its drifting in that direction anyway - which is fine by me.
Pretty interesting the way these discussions develop.

 

[Chrisr]

Personally I wouldn't waste one's time watching the latest version AQontWF. Little resemblance to Enrique Remarque's book. No plot, jumps all over the place, and a few messages rammed home - war is horrific, generals are arrogant fools. The battle scenes are horrific but in reality much of it in November 1918 is unrealistic - still stuck in the muddy trenches when in fact the fighting was in open green countryside. One can be stabbed repeatedly through the hearty ( a Frenchman) and still live for another ten minutes or bayonetted through the heart (won't spoil who it is) but still walk out of a dugout and down a trench. Overdone in its messages. Overall boring and one out of ten stars.

 

[Nap]

Hmm, I wonder if this thread ought to be about WW1 movies in general?
Looks like its drifting in that direction anyway - which is fine by me.
Pretty interesting the way these discussions develop.

Happy to do so if you wish...it's your thread !

Loved Paths of Glory ...and the original AQOWF

Thanks for adding the videos

Happy viewing ...don't forget the popcorn !

Nap

 

[Tecumsea]

It is interesting to read the differing views but as a pragmatist l view films of any genre as entertainment only. For me the truth is more revealing in the amazing original footage which has been painstakingly coloured over time and reveals the true horror of war.

My weakness since childhood has been Westerns but of course there is barely a grain of truth in any of it.

I think it is important to separate entertainment from the documentary but even then the bias of the author can distort the truth.

Keith

 

[harrytheheid]

It is interesting to read the differing views but as a pragmatist l view films of any genre as entertainment only. For me the truth is more revealing in the amazing original footage which has been painstakingly coloured over time and reveals the true horror of war.
My weakness since childhood has been Westerns but of course there is barely a grain of truth in any of it.
I think it is important to separate entertainment from the documentary but even then the bias of the author can distort the truth.
Keith

All too true.
There's so many examples - John Wayne's "The Alamo" for example.
And then there's my favourite expired equine that I never tire of beating up...
Wee Mel's "Bravephart". Thing is, just like Wayne's "Alamo", while also playing fast & loose with what we think we know with respect to the actual events, it's a pretty entertaining movie.
(Hmm, despite the almost unbearable cringe factor).

 

[harrytheheid]

Happy to do so if you wish...it's your thread !
Loved Paths of Glory ...and the original AQOWF
Thanks for adding the videos
Happy viewing ...don't forget the popcorn !
Nap

Naah, the thread is fine. If anything, it's come up with several really interesting points of view and comments.
Talking of video clips, here's another WW1 classic.

 

[Dr Bison]

I take this a getting the green light for WW1 films in general. So, here are some of my favourites:

First and foremost is, of course, Sir Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old (2018).
I was - and still am - very impressed by this one: Johnny Got His Gun from 1971.
I also likes James Bond in The Trench (1999)...
...and then there's this one: Stoßtrupp 1917 (1934)